The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

I'm afraid all the screeching you do to promote your gods is a poor substitute for facts.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[sealybobo]

My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"

No, your theory is from 1859 and Charles Darwin.

Science is not a pissing contest where I have to present a "better" theory or else your theory is true. That's not how Science works.. it's not it's thing. You see... I don't have to have a theory. You are obligated to prove your theory through testing, observation and analyzing data. If your theory fails those tests, it fails... it has nothing to do with any other theory.

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

 

[sealybobo]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

I'm afraid all the screeching you do to promote your gods is a poor substitute for facts.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

And he won't tell us his theory because it'll expose his nonsensical magical reasons why macro evolution makes him uncomfortable.

Let me guess, the he won't feel special if he's related to a frog.

He told me earlier he doesn't believe whales walked on land at one time.

He cherry picks the science he likes. Throws away mountains of facts.

 

[rightwinger]

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant? These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.

In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.

However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.

You got a Looong way to go to recreate evolution

Why not just admit that evolution has occurred over the last 500 million years. Just look at the complexity of creatures that existed 500 million years ago compared to today and tell me evolution hasn't occurred

 

[sealybobo]

My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"

No, your theory is from 1859 and Charles Darwin.

Science is not a pissing contest where I have to present a "better" theory or else your theory is true. That's not how Science works.. it's not it's thing. You see... I don't have to have a theory. You are obligated to prove your theory through testing, observation and analyzing data. If your theory fails those tests, it fails... it has nothing to do with any other theory.

The theory of evolution today is not the same as it was in 1900 or even 1999. We know a lot more now.

 

[Boss]

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

 

[sealybobo]

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.

 

[Boss]

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant? These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.

In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.

However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.

You got a Looong way to go to recreate evolution

Why not just admit that evolution has occurred over the last 500 million years. Just look at the complexity of creatures that existed 500 million years ago compared to today and tell me evolution hasn't occurred

Well I have already said that MICRO-evolution happens... we need look no further than the silver fox or polar bear for an example. It's MACRO-evolution that has no basis in science. It's a speculative theory piggybacking on MICRO-evolution and arguing that it's just time... but it's not just time. Certain things must happen for a new genus of life to emerge, they don't just happen over time.... not thousands of years, not billions of years.

Since 1859, we have discovered DNA and mitochondria. We understand how these things work now... we didn't know that in 1859. Now, DNA and mitochondria don't just up and decide to change one day... that would be akin to "magic" happening. What must happen is the amino acids and enzymes for a new strand of DNA have to be produced by the mitochondria somehow. We theorized this may happen through mutations over many generations but the fruit flies dispelled that theory. Billions of generations, not one single new amino acid or enzyme produced... and that HAS to happen for the DNA to become something else. Without explaining how this happens, you cannot support a theory of MACRO-evolution... MICRO-evolution is a fact... it happens all the time. DNA is versatile enough to adapt and change, creating new species of life. It does not ever create new genera of life... it simply can't.

 

[Boss]

Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.

Yes... people do believe in a lot of things. That's simply NOT Science. Sorry!

 

[rightwinger]

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant? These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.

In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.

However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.

You got a Looong way to go to recreate evolution

Why not just admit that evolution has occurred over the last 500 million years. Just look at the complexity of creatures that existed 500 million years ago compared to today and tell me evolution hasn't occurred

Well I have already said that MICRO-evolution happens... we need look no further than the silver fox or polar bear for an example. It's MACRO-evolution that has no basis in science. It's a speculative theory piggybacking on MICRO-evolution and arguing that it's just time... but it's not just time. Certain things must happen for a new genus of life to emerge, they don't just happen over time.... not thousands of years, not billions of years.

Since 1859, we have discovered DNA and mitochondria. We understand how these things work now... we didn't know that in 1859. Now, DNA and mitochondria don't just up and decide to change one day... that would be akin to "magic" happening. What must happen is the amino acids and enzymes for a new strand of DNA have to be produced by the mitochondria somehow. We theorized this may happen through mutations over many generations but the fruit flies dispelled that theory. Billions of generations, not one single new amino acid or enzyme produced... and that HAS to happen for the DNA to become something else. Without explaining how this happens, you cannot support a theory of MACRO-evolution... MICRO-evolution is a fact... it happens all the time. DNA is versatile enough to adapt and change, creating new species of life. It does not ever create new genera of life... it simply can't.

Swing and a miss on your part

Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution

 

[Hollie]

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.

 

[sealybobo]

Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.

Yes... people do believe in a lot of things. That's simply NOT Science. Sorry!

What about a duck billed platipus?

 

[sealybobo]

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.

What created spiritual nature?

Classic line from boss"this is not science, this is what I believe"

 

[Boss]

Swing and a miss on your part

Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution

Again.... You are not supporting your theory.... you are asking ME for a counter theory. That is simply not how Science works. There is nothing in the Scientific Method about pulling shit like this.

Over and over and over again, throughout history... mankind has looked around at the universe and made speculations based on how things appeared to be. When Chris Columbus was trying to get funding to sail around the globe, he was laughed at by people who said... you're going to sail off the edge of the Earth! He said... No, I believe the Earth is round... they laughed again.... Impossible! They said... if the Earth was round the water would all run off! You see... people justified what they believed to be true because it seemed to be the way things were.

And this is exactly WHY we invented Science.... so that we can objectively ask questions and evaluate testing of hypothesis through experiments and with mathematics and such. With the Enlightenment, we began to LEARN that things aren't always as they appear to be. Just because it makes sense in your mind that everything had to evolve from some single cell of life doesn't mean a thing... it's your belief, that's all. It's you speculating based on how things appear to be.... but that's NOT SCIENCE!

So you continue to point to your speculation and charge that if I can't formulate some better explanation, that MUST be true! It's no different than when people believed the Earth was flat.

 

[Boss]

What created spiritual nature?

Explain what you mean by that?

 

[Boss]

Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.

You're going on Ignore because every thread you engage in, you repeat the same tired old lines. I'm extremely bored with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Sort of like I tell you with your God theory. It sucks worse than evolution or the big bang but that doesn't stop you.

Yes you do need a counter theory. Otherwise you're just an ignorant skeptic embarrassed to tell us what you believe because it'll leave you with zero credibility

No, you really DON'T need a counter theory... sorry you think that... you're ignorant of science.

Find me anything from any reputable science source that states theories become valid in absence of a better theory?

Now... for the record, what I believe happened is this... Spiritual Nature created physical nature (because it cannot create itself) and it did so with such precision it enabled the creation of carbon and the basis for all organic life. The same as physical nature was created, Spiritual Nature also created life. I believe it created thousands of forms of life which were interdependent and interconnected. Of those forms of life, other species of life were spawned and some forms became extinct.

This is not a scientific theory, it is what I believe. It doesn't refute your theory or invalidate it. Your theory still has to stand on it's own merit, regardless of my beliefs. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support your theory, it is of no value to your theory to denigrate my beliefs. Lack of evidence to support your theory means that what you and I have are essentially the same thing... beliefs in faith.

The thing about Science is, it doesn't deal with beliefs in faith.

Your appeals to magic, supernaturalism and alleged spirit realms are a poor substitute for the discipline of science.

What created spiritual nature?

Classic line from boss"this is not science, this is what I believe"

I made a thread once, it was, if the universe was created by God, because you believe the universe is so complex it HAD to have been created by higher being, then who created God?

And basically it came down to the same fob offs that are being presented here.

 

[Boss]

What about a duck billed platipus?

What about him?

 

[rightwinger]

Swing and a miss on your part

Explain how only simple creatures existed 500 million years ago and how we got to where we are today without the use of evolution

Again.... You are not supporting your theory.... you are asking ME for a counter theory. That is simply not how Science works. There is nothing in the Scientific Method about pulling shit like this.

Over and over and over again, throughout history... mankind has looked around at the universe and made speculations based on how things appeared to be. When Chris Columbus was trying to get funding to sail around the globe, he was laughed at by people who said... you're going to sail off the edge of the Earth! He said... No, I believe the Earth is round... they laughed again.... Impossible! They said... if the Earth was round the water would all run off! You see... people justified what they believed to be true because it seemed to be the way things were.

And this is exactly WHY we invented Science.... so that we can objectively ask questions and evaluate testing of hypothesis through experiments and with mathematics and such. With the Enlightenment, we began to LEARN that things aren't always as they appear to be. Just because it makes sense in your mind that everything had to evolve from some single cell of life doesn't mean a thing... it's your belief, that's all. It's you speculating based on how things appear to be.... but that's NOT SCIENCE!

So you continue to point to your speculation and charge that if I can't formulate some better explanation, that MUST be true! It's no different than when people believed the Earth was flat.

Ah yes...the classic dodge
Don't hold me to standards I demand of you

There is no other explanation for moving progressively from simple creatures to more and more complex creatures without evolution

Evolution occurred ...that is an irrefutable fact

 

[sealybobo]

Scientists who study paleontology evolutionary developmental biology comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy believe in macro evolution. You can say the scientists are wrong because their evidence conflicts with your belief.

Yes... people do believe in a lot of things. That's simply NOT Science. Sorry!

Those are the sciences behind macro evolution. So glad you poo poo those sciences without studying them all in depth.

Now neither have I but I have no bias or reason to doubt. Macro evolution doesn't contradict or offend my belief. I had no prior belief. I certainly won't hear arguments from people who believe in magic spiritual supernatural non physical gods who put us here for some special reason.

Eventually you'll drop this dumb argument and fall back on God planted the initial seed that created all life. That fits your generic God theory but points out you're no better than a whale, who used to walk on land. Everyone knows that.