It's so fucking common sense you don't even need to look at genetics, but it's there to look at. Can an elephant impregnate a mouse? No, because they're not a compatible size and shape.
So obviously when things started to have different forms they're not going to even be compatibly shaped with most other creatures, so no sharing of genes back and forth, so more differences accumulating.
Yes lol, an elephant cannot impregnate a mouse. Things just started to have different forms. Presto!
But I do agree with you that it's funny watching people who formerly were totally on board with evolution v religion now saying "but there's only 30 million genetic differences between races!" when even a single base pair change can mean life or death.
Basically this, Dawkins' recent musings on Christianity, the Atheism+ civil war, and the rise of homos and trannies put the lie to the abiogenesis account of earth's history as a viable ontological principle. Once the last bastions of evangelical resistance in education were slain, the Christian cultural presence on the internet put to flight, the victors proceeded to enact mindboggling violations of humanity without precedent in recorded history... in only 10 years.
Yes lol, an elephant cannot impregnate a mouse. Things just started to have different forms. Presto!
Like I said, common sense. Patently obvious. 5th-graders understand it.
You say there's a "problem" with life starting with single cells, but what is the problem with that? There is no problem with that. In fact every human life starts with a single cell, and every animal life.
Basically this, Dawkins' recent musings on Christianity, the Atheism+ civil war, and the rise of homos and trannies put the lie to the abiogenesis account of earth's history as a viable ontological principle for liberals.
FTFY. They can't accept reality, evolution, because then everybody wouldn't be a blank slate oppressed by society and gays would be a byproduct of when a delicate single to multi-cell growth process baked into our DNA 500 million years ago goes wrong.
I'd wager it's basically the same reason for you, the reality is too harsh for your ideology. You even bring up strawman "problems" you already know the science explanation for hoping nobody will mention the reality, and when they do say 'sure well the real problem is somewhere else'. Clearly you're having a problem accepting what you know.
You say there's a "problem" with life starting with single cells, but what is the problem with that? There is no problem with that. In fact every human life starts with a single cell, and every animal life.
You did not just conflate ontogeny with phylogeny. Lol. Is your family name Haeckel by any chance?
FTFY. They can't accept reality, evolution, because then everybody wouldn't be a blank slate oppressed by society and gays would be a byproduct of when a delicate single to multi-cell growth process baked into our DNA 500 million years ago goes wrong.
In terms of scientific implications I agree, but I would actually say they're more responsive to reality than you in terms of metaphysics. When you are inculcated with existential materialism from birth, in a society where that is the dominant academic outlook, you realize on some level that existence itself is amoral and that meaning is purely constructed. From there it is a hop, skip, and a jump to reshape language, a human construction, in the way you see fit... among other things.
I can't speculate on why you in particular haven't succumbed to the solipsism of materialism, but it's clear you're an endangered species. For every one of you, there's five demented atheist liberals and maybe one or two that are going back to the right as they begin to accept the order impressed by God.
On the contrary, I've been precise, and if you think I wrote "ontogeny" and "phylogeny" to play semantics... not my problem those words appear esoteric to you.
You're focusing on a so-called reality that would never be observable in the projected civilizational history of a species even if it existed, let alone our lifetimes. Meanwhile, the account of human nature in the Bible is proven more truthful by the day. New Atheism said it was a vestigial barbarism that was actually inimical to humanity. Instead, our society is in freefall without it. That's my point in looking at metaphysics. If the Bible is right about people, then what else is it right about? And why?
Yes lol, an elephant cannot impregnate a mouse. Things just started to have different forms. Presto!
Basically this, Dawkins' recent musings on Christianity, the Atheism+ civil war, and the rise of homos and trannies put the lie to the abiogenesis account of earth's history as a viable ontological principle. Once the last bastions of evangelical resistance in education were slain, the Christian cultural presence on the internet put to flight, the victors proceeded to enact mindboggling violations of humanity without precedent in recorded history... in only 10 years.
Like I said, common sense. Patently obvious. 5th-graders understand it.
You say there's a "problem" with life starting with single cells, but what is the problem with that? There is no problem with that. In fact every human life starts with a single cell, and every animal life.
FTFY. They can't accept reality, evolution, because then everybody wouldn't be a blank slate oppressed by society and gays would be a byproduct of when a delicate single to multi-cell growth process baked into our DNA 500 million years ago goes wrong.
I'd wager it's basically the same reason for you, the reality is too harsh for your ideology. You even bring up strawman "problems" you already know the science explanation for hoping nobody will mention the reality, and when they do say 'sure well the real problem is somewhere else'. Clearly you're having a problem accepting what you know.
You did not just conflate ontogeny with phylogeny. Lol. Is your family name Haeckel by any chance?
In terms of scientific implications I agree, but I would actually say they're more responsive to reality than you in terms of metaphysics. When you are inculcated with existential materialism from birth, in a society where that is the dominant academic outlook, you realize on some level that existence itself is amoral and that meaning is purely constructed. From there it is a hop, skip, and a jump to reshape language, a human construction, in the way you see fit... among other things.
I can't speculate on why you in particular haven't succumbed to the solipsism of materialism, but it's clear you're an endangered species. For every one of you, there's five demented atheist liberals and maybe one or two that are going back to the right as they begin to accept the order impressed by God.
You're just channeling Sam Harris; make the debate about language and meaning of esoteric words instead of actually confronting the simple reality.
All life today came from single-cell organisms. Every raising of the proof bar in the past by religious nuts has been met.
Still don't believe it? Make your argument against it, but keep in mind that "well because I just refuse to believe it" only works for you.
On the contrary, I've been precise, and if you think I wrote "ontogeny" and "phylogeny" to play semantics... not my problem those words appear esoteric to you.
You're focusing on a so-called reality that would never be observable in the projected civilizational history of a species even if it existed, let alone our lifetimes. Meanwhile, the account of human nature in the Bible is proven more truthful by the day. New Atheism said it was a vestigial barbarism that was actually inimical to humanity. Instead, our society is in freefall without it. That's my point in looking at metaphysics. If the Bible is right about people, then what else is it right about? And why?