Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Many cancers are caused by viruses (cervical cancer, for instance). And viruses do, in fact, evolve by the exact same processes that all life evolves. Many other cancers are caused by genetic mutations, which is part of the basis for evolution. So to declare that common ancestry doesn't play a role is a meaningless statement.
For your hypothesis to be valid cancer cells would have to become another species like a tapeworm. LOL
The article doesn't support what you are claiming.
Indicating that you not only don't understand cancer, you don't understand the theory of evolution. Care to try again?
To answer his question, we still have monkeys and apes because their present existence doesn't depend on whether or not we evolved from a common ancestor. But stay tuned, I suspect that many will be extinct at our hands in the near future.
So are you admitting that the theory of evolution has holes in it?
WTF?
Just because a new species evolves doesn't mean that the one(s) before it automatically disappears. Get as clue.
The fat man and little boy were also best guesses, and they ended WWII.
That's the best comparison you have to attempt to lend credit to the theory of evolution? That the theory of relativity is sound? I'm not arguing the theory of relativity. Are you saying the theory of relativity ended WWII? The conflict would have ended anyway. The theory of relativity enabled man to build a weapon that hastened the end of that conflict. Not sure how this supports the theory of evolution, but thanks for trying.
The point, Mr. retired GI, is that scientific theories are not in the same category of "theory" that the average retired schumck understands (such as when a retired GI might say "I had a theory that corporal Kelly was a moron". Scientific theories are backed by extensive evidence collected by hundreds to thousands of scientists during many decades (in the case of evolution, by over 150 years) of research, experimentation, and verification. If I have to explain this to you, perhaps you aren't qualified to be in this discussion. Being a retired military guy, you, of all people should know not to get into a gun fight unarmed. But thanks for trying.
And you have a right to be as stupid as you like. Congratulations.
And you have the right to continue to be a fertilizer spreader.
Obviously, your only point in coming to this thread is to disrupt it. So my only recourse is to put you on my ignore list. Congratulations, schmuck.
Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.
Thus why they are called theories.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."
You seem to believe that somewhere in the past an ape suddenly became a human being via magic. That is probably a result of your biblical upbringing, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolution works on populations via natural selection. The big bang theory is irrelevant to the theory of evolution - you bringing it up is notrhing but creationist misdirection. The conversation, in case you have forgotten, is about how cancer evolves, and how knowledge of that evolution will likely lead to cures. Not only that, but this research demonstrates macroevolution. Do you have anything to add to that discussion?
so if we evolved from apes, which are all brown eyed, how did humans come to have blue, hazel, green eyes? mutation does not equate to evolution.
It is if it is passed down to offspring. What surprises me is that you even asked that question at all. You really do need a primer on the subject.
For your hypothesis to be valid cancer cells would have to become another species like a tapeworm. LOL
The article doesn't support what you are claiming.
Indicating that you not only don't understand cancer, you don't understand the theory of evolution. Care to try again?
You are attempting to shoe horn macro evolution into the research science into the article that you provided a link to. The article doesn't support what you are saying.
Your rebuttal is essentially "nuh uh" to my previous post. Please explain yourself better.
And you have the right to continue to be a fertilizer spreader.
Obviously, your only point in coming to this thread is to disrupt it. So my only recourse is to put you on my ignore list. Congratulations, schmuck.
Once again displaying how weak your argument and mind is that you cannot not withstand a dissenting opinion.
Indicating that you not only don't understand cancer, you don't understand the theory of evolution. Care to try again?
You are attempting to shoe horn macro evolution into the research science into the article that you provided a link to. The article doesn't support what you are saying.
Your rebuttal is essentially "nuh uh" to my previous post. Please explain yourself better.
Nonsense. You were claiming that for evolution to work on cancer cells, they would have to become another species. That is a ridiculous claim since evolution doesn't work that way, and neither do cancer cells. Hence my suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about. As I've already pointed out, many cancers are caused by viruses, while many others have genetic causes, both of which involve evolution (i.e., natural selection).
LTCArmyRet's posts are Blindingly Ignorant.so if we evolved from apes, which are all brown eyed, how did humans come to have blue, hazel, green eyes? mutation does not equate to evolution.
It is if it is passed down to offspring. What surprises me is that you even asked that question at all. You really do need a primer on the subject.
What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
so if we evolved from apes, which are all brown eyed, how did humans come to have blue, hazel, green eyes? mutation does not equate to evolution.
It is if it is passed down to offspring. What surprises me is that you even asked that question at all. You really do need a primer on the subject.
What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
LTCArmyRet's posts are Blindingly Ignorant.It is if it is passed down to offspring. What surprises me is that you even asked that question at all. You really do need a primer on the subject.
What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
And not only Ignorant in knowledge but Logic-challenged/an idiot.
It's already been explained to you that we have Common Ancestors as other primates, didn't turn into humans from monkeys/apes.
As to Blue Eyes?
So Flukking what?
Humans/proto-humans did start with only Brown eyes I imagine. Look at Africa where it started .. still.
But different environmental factors for different migrations selected for different eye, skin, and Hair color.
That would be CONSISTENT with evolution.
What an idiot 'deduction' you tried to drool up.
but even allowing for
Lemurs can also have Blue Eyes.[/b]
If you had half a brain you could look up the truth. But that would Pork your god/dog.
https://www.google.com/search?q=blu...4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
What an idiot you are.
Every post a 70 IQ Goofy non sequitur
(you didn't/couldn't answer my last above either)
It is if it is passed down to offspring. What surprises me is that you even asked that question at all. You really do need a primer on the subject.
What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes | LiveScience
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
More at the link.
Any other questions you care to ask? Do you have any questions about the research referenced in the OP? Any at all?
You are attempting to shoe horn macro evolution into the research science into the article that you provided a link to. The article doesn't support what you are saying.
Your rebuttal is essentially "nuh uh" to my previous post. Please explain yourself better.
Nonsense. You were claiming that for evolution to work on cancer cells, they would have to become another species. That is a ridiculous claim since evolution doesn't work that way, and neither do cancer cells. Hence my suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about. As I've already pointed out, many cancers are caused by viruses, while many others have genetic causes, both of which involve evolution (i.e., natural selection).
Evolution doesn't work that way?
ev·o·lu·tion
[ èvvə lsh'n ]
1.theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life
I won't just suggest, I will assert that I'm certain you don't know what you are talking about.
No you 60 IQ DOPE.LTCArmyRet's posts are Blindingly Ignorant.What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
And not only Ignorant in knowledge but Logic-challenged/an idiot.
It's already been explained to you that we have Common Ancestors as other primates, didn't turn into humans from monkeys/apes.
As to Blue Eyes?
So Flukking what?
Humans/proto-humans did start with only Brown eyes I imagine. Look at Africa where it started .. still.
But different environmental factors for different migrations selected for different eye, skin, and Hair color.
That would be CONSISTENT with evolution.
What an idiot 'deduction' you tried to drool up.
but even allowing for
Lemurs can also have Blue Eyes.
If you had half a brain you could look up the truth. But that would Pork your god/dog.
https://www.google.com/search?q=blu...4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
What an idiot you are.
Every post a 70 IQ Goofy non sequitur
(you didn't/couldn't answer my last above either)
And you can show proof where it all started in Africa? So now we evolved from lemurs, not apes? Make up your mind.
LTCArmyRet's posts are Blindingly Ignorant.What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
And not only Ignorant in knowledge but Logic-challenged/an idiot.
It's already been explained to you that we have Common Ancestors as other primates, didn't turn into humans from monkeys/apes.
As to Blue Eyes?
So Flukking what?
Humans/proto-humans did start with only Brown eyes I imagine. Look at Africa where it started .. still.
But different environmental factors for different migrations selected for different eye, skin, and Hair color.
That would be CONSISTENT with evolution.
What an idiot 'deduction' you tried to drool up.
but even allowing for
Lemurs can also have Blue Eyes.[/b]
If you had half a brain you could look up the truth. But that would Pork your god/dog.
https://www.google.com/search?q=blu...4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
What an idiot you are.
Every post a 70 IQ Goofy non sequitur
(you didn't/couldn't answer my last above either)
And you can show proof where it all started in Africa? So now we evolved from lemurs, not apes? Make up your mind.
What surprises me is your feeble arguments. If we descended from apes, and ALL apes are brown eyed (ie. no recessive gene), how did humans come to have blue eyes? or hazel eyes?
Cmon, for someone pretending to be so much more intellectually advanced, you must be able to explain how this supports the theory of evolution?
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes | LiveScience
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
More at the link.
Any other questions you care to ask? Do you have any questions about the research referenced in the OP? Any at all?
Yeah, have you found the fossils that explain the transformation from ape to man?
I was there when it happened, but wasn't able to take notes at the time.
Stupid fuck.
Ad hominem. You lose.
Fuckest thou.
Nonsense. You were claiming that for evolution to work on cancer cells, they would have to become another species. That is a ridiculous claim since evolution doesn't work that way, and neither do cancer cells. Hence my suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about. As I've already pointed out, many cancers are caused by viruses, while many others have genetic causes, both of which involve evolution (i.e., natural selection).
Evolution doesn't work that way?
ev·o·lu·tion
[ èvvə lsh'n ]
1.theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life
I won't just suggest, I will assert that I'm certain you don't know what you are talking about.
Let me guess. You were homeschooled. You have my sympathy.
No, evolution doesn't work that way. In the same way that evolution does NOT produce a dog from a cat, cancer cannot produce a friggin worm. Cancer-causing viruses can evolve, however, as can the human beings that get cancer via genetic mutation. Clue, Einstein. Cancer is not a species of anything. It is a disease of the reproductive system of cells. As such, it can only change into some other form of cancer, or into a more virulent form, not a worm, or a dog, or even Miss Piggy.
