"Or, Chulthu, would you want to argue that these mechanisms don't change the genetic characteristics of a species."

There is no change from one species into a new one incapable of breeding and having offspring with only themselves. Evolution would require such.

Now stop talking crap Devere. You are better than that. I have explained a position well considered and yet throughly IGNORED currently, people prefering that science knows best, or the God did it all route, neither of which I have suggested.

Read up on more outside your square or don't, see if I care but please stop pointing your finger at me and mistaking your finger for who I am.

Species are NOT defined by an inability to interbreed. Some can, some can't. For example, a gold fish and a house cat can't (though they might intersect). But a lion and a tiger can: liger.

But I really don't understand what your position is, Cthulhu. How did the various (and always varying) species get here, if not by God or evolution?

All popular theories on the subject of origins have withered. I don't know where "everything" or even "living things" came from. I do know that life is a continuum that has its roots in time immemorial. The inability to admit that you simply do not currently possess knowledge of all things leads one to propose an awful lot of ridiculous ideas. I know the "truth" because I am "taking a spiritual walk with Christ", for example. Or, we "evolved from a lightning strike on some benzine in a petri dish", would be another. An honest skeptic can see all these religious notions for what they are - fantasy meets inability to deal with human intellectual limits.

Though I admit I do not know from whence sprang all life, I DO have one far-fetched theory of my own. Long ago some planet or place was covered with trillions upon trillions of a simple bacteria like cell of one sort or another. Now comes some ray of energy from deep space that causes the genetic material within these cells to mutate without causing any damage. (Note: No such energy is known to exist in the real world.) Somehow, this bacteriological soup develops into earthly biodiversity over the course of of a few hundreds of thousands of years. Somehow, (mechanism not defined) these life forms find their way to earth at different times throughout history.

My own silly theory is based on the fact that we living things do appear to share some common origin. The universal paired sensory organs and limbs, for example. Evolutionists say that this is because we all "evolved" from the same cell. But if evolution can do this, why can't it give us - any of us - more than two eyes?

I "pray" that Devere can eventually evolve beyond the foolishness of evolution and see it for the farce that it is.

I've tried to think about the dice rolling-universe creation-evolution which runs into a continuation of figure 8, or chicken n the egg theory. One must inhale-exhale when all things are set and done, its time to eat!

Devere, who cares about the Liger? What I said evolution claims is so and yet no mechanism is provided for the creation of a new unique species that can only reproduce amongst itself, which evolution REQUIRES to have happened. See your error.

As for what else could produce the changes if not mechanic evolution or some divine entity I've pointed out where the ideas can be traced to, get going if you want to learn a different take on the world. The whole of 17th - 19th European thought lies open for you to taste from. Schopenhauer makes for the most excellent of meals, but others also await with forgotten wisdom.

It just shows how low we have fallen that it must either be some boogey man in the sky or some chance mechanical action. Republicans or Democrats. This or that.

All popular theories on the subject of origins have withered.

The theory of evolution hasn't withered. It's gotten stronger and stronger with time (200 years) because every new discovery and forward scientific step supports it, rather than refutes it.

I don't know where "everything" or even "living things" came from. I do know that life is a continuum that has its roots in time immemorial.

Why isn't this continuum evolution -- since life has changed over time in genetically related ways and apparently related ancestral forms have died off?

The inability to admit that you simply do not currently possess knowledge of all things leads one to propose an awful lot of ridiculous ideas. I know the "truth" because I am "taking a spiritual walk with Christ", for example. Or, we "evolved from a lightning strike on some benzine in a petri dish", would be another. An honest skeptic can see all these religious notions for what they are - fantasy meets inability to deal with human intellectual limits.

Do you really not understand that science was specifically developed by White men, like Aristotle, to avoid "an awful lot of ridiculous ideas" and try to build an architecture of true knowledge founded on objective observations? Science is the OPPOSITE of religion. Religion starts with its assumed truths and creates laws of behavior for humans based on those "truths." Science tries to determine what the truth is. Then society can be founded on proven truths, on reality. The result of this approach is in many ways the highest civilization ever achieved -- ancient Greece. And it was achieved BECAUSE Christian mystecism or any controlling mystecism was absent -- had left intellectuals in charge and free to purse unbiased apolitical areligious knowledge.

Though I admit I do not know from whence sprang all life, I DO have one far-fetched theory of my own. Long ago some planet or place was covered with trillions upon trillions of a simple bacteria like cell of one sort or another. Now comes some ray of energy from deep space that causes the genetic material within these cells to mutate without causing any damage. (Note: No such energy is known to exist in the real world.)

Mutation is a mechanism for ONE thing: evolution (genetic change over time). You are describing a half-assed kind of evolution.

Somehow, this bacteriological soup develops into earthly biodiversity over the course of of a few hundreds of thousands of years. Somehow, (mechanism not defined) these life forms find their way to earth at different times throughout history.

If you have no travel mechanism, then you must reject your theory in favor of a theory that doesn't need a travel mechanism. Why not START this biological soup on Earth? Simplest is best.

In a very general way, your theory is actually not that far off from the theory of evolution regarding first life.

My own silly theory is based on the fact that we living things do appear to share some common origin.

Common ANCESTRAL origin is evolution. You are proposing, as I've said, a half-assed theory of evolution of life on earth.

The universal paired sensory organs and limbs, for example. Evolutionists say that this is because we all "evolved" from the same cell. But if evolution can do this, why can't it give us - any of us - more than two eyes?

It probably can and has, but nature has rejected it for survival and sexually attractive reasons. Two eyes enhance survival -- so that a shark or leopard doesn't blind-side you. If the two eyes are close enough together, they give you three-dimentional vision -- a huge advantage in judging distance from you, with obvious survival advantages. As for more than two eyes, it has given insects more than two eyes. Perhaps, if there were some survival or sexually attractive advantage to have three or four or eight eyes, humans will evolve them. Don't know on that one. Imadrifter says no. He seems to know a lot about biology and evolution.

Let me just point out a general difference between your theory of evolution and The Theory of Evolution. The latter is bolstered by huge amounts of objectively observed evidence in all scientific fields: biology, genetics, anthropology, geology, physics, etc. In addition, it has proven mechanisms and it is predictive (it is usable to explain the past, present, AND future in real life experience). Your theory is bolstered by no evidence whatsoever, offers no mechanism, and is non-predictive (non-useful). Hence, your theory is mere speculation. This is the difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory, between a lifetime of devoted study and a fireside chat.

Tell me, Joseph -- you incurable unconscious evolutionist you -- do you believe there is such a thing as legitimate science?

Devere, who cares about the Liger? What I said evolution claims is so and yet no mechanism is provided for the creation of a new unique species that can only reproduce amongst itself, which evolution REQUIRES to have happened. See your error.

As for what else could produce the changes if not mechanic evolution or some divine entity I've pointed out where the ideas can be traced to, get going if you want to learn a different take on the world. The whole of 17th - 19th European thought lies open for you to taste from. Schopenhauer makes for the most excellent of meals, but others also await with forgotten wisdom.

It just shows how low we have fallen that it must either be some boogey man in the sky or some chance mechanical action. Republicans or Democrats. This or that.

Give us a brief summary of this alternative to either religion or evolution as an explanation on the origin of species.

I don't think you get it yet Devere. Science is based on objective observation. OBJECT - SUBJECT. There lies the great conumdrum which Kant poked a big stick at. Science CANNOT supply all the answers. All WHITE thought comes down to this point and seeks to discover what objective observation implies. Eventually science can only end up chasing its own tail. What was Einstein's great 'breakthrough'? That the force of gravity = inertial force, and thus was caused by some space-time curvature. But what causes space-time curvature? Gravity apparently, so gravity causes gravity.

The German and British philosophers grappled with these things for an age and in the end discovered limits across which science, objective observation, could not pass. Just look at the great German scientist Heisenberg's statement:
"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."

Or Godel's (another German) incompleteness theory.

In the end you come to unresovable forces that are occult, unknowable, whose effects can be known but what it is in itself and its cause, remain forever unknowable because objective observations can tell you nothing as they themselves ARE the basis for objective observations. That without which nothing, the mysterious...

As for me giving you a short break down on what the alternative maybe, can't be done, in the same way you can't give me a short breakdown on advanced quatum mechanics. You are going to have to start at the bottom and work your way up. That is the only way knowledge can have a secure foundation. No easy answers I'm afraid.

Do you really not understand that science was specifically developed by White men, like Aristotle, to avoid "an awful lot of ridiculous ideas" and try to build an architecture of true knowledge founded on objective observations? Science is the OPPOSITE of religion. Religion starts with its assumed truths and creates laws of behavior for humans based on those "truths." Science tries to determine what the truth is. Then society can be founded on proven truths, on reality. The result of this approach is in many ways the highest civilization ever achieved -- ancient Greece. And it was achieved BECAUSE Christian mystecism or any controlling mystecism was absent -- had left intellectuals in charge and free to purse unbiased apolitical areligious knowledge.

You're right. But don't you understand that evolution proves that the great spaghetti monster created all things? Attaching your long disproven theory to the very concept of real science in an attempt to make it seem similarly legitimate is just retarded. Nothing you say here adds anything to the shattered remnants of Darwin's theory. I can equally say that the twin towers collapsed because of fires and that the structural engineering field was developed by the Aryan race to prevent such things and that's why it is important that we understand what went wrong structurally and allowed the buildings to collapse into themselves.

Devere, where are the bones? What is your theory for why there are no human remains that date older than about 100,000 yrs?

Devere, who cares about the Liger? What I said evolution claims is so and yet no mechanism is provided for the creation of a new unique species that can only reproduce amongst itself, which evolution REQUIRES to have happened. See your error.

There are certainly mechanisms described and proven that explain how new species have been and are being evolved. That is exactly what the theory of evolution does. It's a complicated subject. And I'm somewhat reluctant to describe it from scratch. I'll give it a quick stab.

There is variability within species. You'll agree with that, right? Each individual is a little different (genetic variability). So there is already genetic variability within each species. Moreover, every once in a while, an individual has a completely new trait (mutation). If, for either survival selection reasons or sexual selection reasons, a group of individuals within the species begins to develop with a different set or combination of traits -- and then becomes geographically separated from the rest of the species (an island separates from the mainland for instance), the separated group will continue to diverge, simply due to genetic drift (the accumulation of small individual genetic differences) and due to continued natural selection (increasingly superior adaption to its specific isolated geographic location) and due to sexual selection (female preferences) and due to its own set of mutational genetic changes. After, say, thousands of years, this sub-group of this species will become a bonafied divergent variety or race, but still be recognized as a part of the main species. There are now two different varieties or races within one species.

There are other non-geographical ways that a new variety may form. Given the variability of traits within each species, if a new disease comes along and kills nearly all of the species, but sparing those who, because of their genetic differences, happen to be immune to the disease. The survivors will multiply again and repopulate the species, but they will be immune to the killing disease. Malaria is such an example for niggers. The reason niggers have a high incidence of sickle cell anemia is that the same trait that gives them immunity to malaria causes in them proneness to sickle cell anemia. Thus, sickle cell anemia is a marker genetic disease for niggers caused by their diffentiated evolution. Whites rarely have this disease, because Whites haven't had to deal much with malaria.

If the separation continues over a much longer period, say ten or twenty thousand years or more, the differences between the diverging variety and the ancestral species will be great enough that the newer variety/race can be called a different species. In this case, the new species and the ancestral species will continue to exist side by side in terms of time at least. This naming of a new and separate species is an arbitrary call by biologists/naturalists. Species is not a determination made by God, but by man -- and the species itself through its own evolutionary process. Thus, chimpanzees and bonobos (a smaller chimp) are called separate species, but Whites and niggers (far more different from each other than the two chimps) are called separate varieties or races, not separate species. This is a euphemism in furtherance of the jew agenda of exterminating modern man (the White and mongolian races).

There is no requirement that these two species not be able to interbreed. However, if the separate evolution continues for a much longer time, the species may well reach the point where they will not or cannot interbreed. My lion and tiger example is a good one. These are clearly two separate species, but they can still interbreed. In another 100,000 years of separation, they may not be able to interbreed. Likewise, unfortunately, niggers and modern White humans (clearly separate species in my opinion), can still interbreed.

You're right. But don't you understand that evolution proves that the great spaghetti monster created all things? Attaching your long disproven theory to the very concept of real science in an attempt to make it seem similarly legitimate is just retarded. Nothing you say here adds anything to the shattered remnants of Darwin's theory. I can equally say that the twin towers collapsed because of fires and that the structural engineering field was developed by the Aryan race to prevent such things and that's why it is important that we understand what went wrong structurally and allowed the buildings to collapse into themselves.

Devere, where are the bones? What is your theory for why there are no human remains that date older than about 100,000 yrs?

There are bones of human ancestral forms older than 100,000 years.

Stroll around in here and look at some of them. Look around this website. Explore various links. Search Google:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

Devere, you are wasting your time.

"sexual selection reasons" And what causes that? See rather than geographical seperation, deciding who and who not to mate with would seem more likely. And why a sudden grouping of the same mutation? What are these occult forces at work?

See what I mean? Already the strange is introducing itself into your theory, the unknowable. Look at yourself and the decisions you make. Know thyself.

"Libet asked his experimental subjects to move one hand at an arbitrary moment decided by them, and to report when they made the decision (they timed the decision by noticing the position of a dot circling a clock face). At the same time the electrical activity of their brain was monitored. Now it had already been established by much earlier research that consciously-chosen actions are preceded by a pattern of activity known as a Readiness Potential (or RP). The surprising result was that the reported time of each decision was consistently a short period (some tenths of a second)after the RP appeared. This seems to prove that the supposedly conscious decisions had actually been determined unconsciously beforehand. This seems to lend strong experimental support both to the idea that free will is an illusion (at most, it would seem, there is scope for a last-minute veto by the conscious mind - a possibility which has been much debated since) and to a form of epiphenomenalism."
http://www.consciousentities.com/experiments.htm

There are bones of human ancestral forms older than 100,000 years.

Stroll around in here and look at some of them. Look around this website. Explore various links. Search Google:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

Nice try, but please answer the question. Why are there no human remains greater than 100,000 years old? Did all this morphing of so-called Neanderthals and there accompanying extinction occur so recently?

Nice try, but please answer the question. Why are there no human remains greater than 100,000 years old? Did all this morphing of so-called Neanderthals and there accompanying extinction occur so recently?

Here is the link Devere provided which supplies the answer to your question.

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern