OMFG... I Am Kin To Obama!!!!!

ib1yysguy said:
By the way, Dixie, you're kin with everyone in the world. Maternal lineage can be traced back to a very, very minute population of people in Africa. They call the woman to whom everyone is related "Eve" as a joke. The idea is that the human population was at some point devastated by some natural event like disease or an asteroid and our population dwindled to near extinction before recovering. That's why all of our lineages trace back to the exact same place and same very small population of people.

It shouldn't surprise you that if you go back far enough you'll relate to someone not as retarded as yourself. I am a direct descendant of Robert Bruce. That fact doesn't surprise me enough to go and make a thread about it on a message board.
Click to expand...

Actually, the archeologists named her Lucy.
 
Notice we don't get the name of this critter that is somewhere between plant and animal life. That really seems odd, since this is "practically scientifically concluded fact!" Seems like there would be all kinds of documentation on this amazing creature, if it ever existed.

We don't even get an example of one species which evolved into another, of ANY kind! Everything we have that is living, has been studied to death, and we haven't observed anything to suggest any of it ever "evolved" from something different. Sure, we have certain living things which advanced and changed and a new species of the same genus emerged, but one thing has never become another thing. This simply doesn't happen in biology, as best we can tell.

Yet, at some point in the past, at some juncture, all the various different kinds of life, were the same thing, then they started moving in different directions to form all the assorted life on the planet. It would be a fascinating story, if it were possible, but it hasn't ever been observed, nothing has been discovered to suggest it, there are no fossil remains of it, and it obviously isn't happening now. Not to mention, the concept defies everything we know and understand about life.

I am just trying to fathom the remote possibility... I keep running into a breakdown in logic... you all claim there is no "intelligent designer" no "divine power" or anything of reason or purpose to our universe... but imagine for a moment, we are in this mythical time period before corn and humans, and there are these two microbes.... does one microbe say to the other... ya know, I think I will evolve into a human or mammal or something... and the other microbe says... I think I prefer being a plant of some kind? Is that how it happened? Or maybe the microbes flipped a coin? Hmmm?

Maybe one microbe lived down near the ocean, and it said... Hmm, I can't be a plant, because it's too hot here... and I can't be a mammal, because there is no plants to eat... so I think I shall be a fish! Or maybe, when the microbes emerged from the primordial puddle, they were given a voucher to use for whichever life form they wanted to be?

Another question arises... We look around the world, and we see there is a pretty fair balance of different forms of life. Did the microbes have focus group meetings to determine they were maintaining a fair balance in deciding what life forms to be? It seems like, if it were just left up to the microbe to decide at random, we would have ended up with a huge imbalance of people and mammals, since that would probably be the most popular life form for a microbe.
 
Whack-a-mole, whack-a-mole.

Evolution isn't random. It's guided by natural selection. The balance of life you see is what's left over after 99.9 percent of all living species that ever existed have gone extinct. Competition in the wild determines the natural order, not god and not a microbe focus group.

Retard, we know what the common ancestor was. They were single-celled eukaryotes. They existed about 2 billion years ago and are the common ancestor between humans, plants, and fungi. Like I said, they'd look nothing like animals or plants. Sure doesn't look like corn does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_and_evolution

Here's a visual map to point them out to you and to represent the fact that "descended from" and "common ancestry" are not the same arguments. It can't even be argued they are similar arguments.

derrick-zwickl-tree.jpg


I tried to post the entire thing but I crashed imgur.com's server. The tree of life is too big for the server to handle, apparently. You'll have to settle for the downsized version.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
Whack-a-mole, whack-a-mole.

Evolution isn't random. It's guided by natural selection. The balance of life you see is what's left over after 99.9 percent of all living species that ever existed have gone extinct. Competition in the wild determines the natural order, not god and not a microbe focus group.

Retard, we know what the common ancestor was. They were single-celled eukaryotes. They existed about 2 billion years ago and are the common ancestor between humans, plants, and fungi. Like I said, they'd look nothing like animals or plants. Sure doesn't look like corn does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_and_evolution

Here's a visual map to point them out to you and to represent the fact that "descended from" and "common ancestry" are not the same arguments. It can't even be argued they are similar arguments.

derrick-zwickl-tree.jpg


I tried to post the entire thing but I crashed imgur.com's server. The tree of life is too big for the server to handle, apparently. You'll have to settle for the downsized version.
Click to expand...


"Eukaryotes appear to be monophyletic, and so make up one of the three domains of life. The two other domains, bacteria and archaea, are prokaryotes, and have none of the above features."

:BKick:
 
Dixie said:

"Eukaryotes appear to be monophyletic, and so make up one of the three domains of life. The two other domains, bacteria and archaea, are prokaryotes, and have none of the above features."

:BKick:
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you can quote Wikipedia. The problem is you don't know what you're reading.

The passage you cited SAYS EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU. We are not bacteria or archaea. Eukaryotes make one of the three domains of life. Plants and animals are in the Eukaryote domain. The other two are bacteria and archaea.

I can't believe you even pointed that out. My guess is it confused you and you were hoping nobody else would understand it either.

Epic pwnage.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:

"Eukaryotes appear to be monophyletic, and so make up one of the three domains of life. The two other domains, bacteria and archaea, are prokaryotes, and have none of the above features."
Click to expand...

MMmm. Good southern Cornpwn.

corn.jpg
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
Congratulations, you can quote Wikipedia. The problem is you don't know what you're reading.

The passage you cited SAYS EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU. We are not bacteria or archaea. Eukaryotes make one of the three domains of life. Plants and animals are in the Eukaryote domain. The other two are bacteria and archaea.

I can't believe you even pointed that out. My guess is it confused you and you were hoping nobody else would understand it either.

Epic pwnage.
Click to expand...

You claimed the Eukaryotes were the common ancestor to all living things, and that isn't the case, there are three according to your source. Now, excuse me for interjecting logic here, but isn't 3 more than 1? If we all emerged from an original organism, shouldn't these three things have come from two and eventually one?

And where are the fossils of all these 'transitional' species? I saw a really neat looking tree, but all of those little lines were blank, they didn't show me all of these amazing microbes which somehow determined they would be all various forms of life on the planet. What it looks like, is some twerp pinhead like yourself, sat down with a pencil and paper one night, and drew this amazing "tree of life" to "prove" all of this stuff to us non-believers!
 
Dixie said:
You claimed the Eukaryotes were the common ancestor to all living things, and that isn't the case, there are three according to your source. Now, excuse me for interjecting logic here, but isn't 3 more than 1? If we all emerged from an original organism, shouldn't these three things have come from two and eventually one?

And where are the fossils of all these 'transitional' species? I saw a really neat looking tree, but all of those little lines were blank, they didn't show me all of these amazing microbes which somehow determined they would be all various forms of life on the planet. What it looks like, is some twerp pinhead like yourself, sat down with a pencil and paper one night, and drew this amazing "tree of life" to "prove" all of this stuff to us non-believers!
Click to expand...

Okay, and now you're clearly lying, which I will accept as tacit admission of error on your part. You stand corrected, sir.

I did not say that eukaryotes were the antecedent to all living things. You know it too. I said eukaryotes are the antecedent to plants and animals. And they are.

Go ahead and read the wiki article. It talks about the fossils.
 
Speculation is a beautiful thing, ib1! What you and Wiki have, is a theory. It has not been proven conclusive by any means, and it probably never will be. It is just an idea of what you think may have happened, but honestly, it has no basis in what we know and understand about biology and life. Things don't become something else... it just doesn't happen. In order for your little illustration to work, things would have to, at some point, make the transition from one type of living system to another, and we don't see evidence of that in nature or in the fossil record.

Now, it is possible, that several various life forms are responsible for evolving into what we have today, but that takes us back to the question of origin. If several life forms existed, then origin already happened. We have to go further back, but your source says, the three major forms of life do not share commonality, so how did they come to be? And how did they manage to "evolve" as they did, to form even more various forms? None of these questions have been answered, many idiots like you, have pondered them, and drawn neat looking maps, made interesting theories... it just hasn't been concluded.
 
ib1yysguy said:
This is a lie to distort the evolutionary theory, which you continually betray your ignorance of.

Humans never descended from corn. No evolutionary biologist would say we did either.
Click to expand...

Yea including me but let Dixie have his strawman and his laugh. I'm not up to playing wack-o-mole.
 
Watermark said:
We do have common ancestry with plants. That doesn't mean corn was our ancestor. Some microbe was our ancestor, which was also the ancestor of corn.
Click to expand...

You're right of course Water but don't waste your time on the willfully ignorant like Dixie. He's just a rebel with out a clue.
 
ib1yysguy said:
"Common ancestry" ≠ "descended from"

We do have a common ancestor with corn, but corn is not our ancestor. Okay, get the hamster running real fast and think about it for a second.
Click to expand...

and you better get your mallet ready cause you're gonna have some moles to wack! LOL
 
Wow... seven more posts to add to your total! Mott, you're going to be the first pinhead to post 5,000 times without making a single intelligent point! Bravo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top