Edited 5/22/2020 19:16:48

@Luqudrist

Nobody said genes dictate your life, but they do influence you a lot

Also, a stupid religion created by a pedophile, Muhamad, dictates your life more than anything

Honestly if I were your neighbor I would purposely make you smell bacon and cook out in front of you, and put a fan so it hits your home

The fact that a significant population of your people are inbred is not surprising, the fact your people react violently when someone draws a muhamad is not surprising

You do not belong in Europe, you just can't make your countries shitty and then try to move elsewhere, that's where you belong

@Ludeqrist

Are you the famous arabian semantics guy? If so, can you teach me?

Edited 5/22/2020 19:14:24

Islam is an ideology, ideologies can be stupid
Mohamad was a person, persons can be stupid

you must question things that people tell you not to question

I never said I was sophisticated
But I will make tea just to look sophisticated, hibiscus + green tea

Ludeqrist,
Humans did not evolve 3mil years ago from a single cell. They gradually evolved from apes (multicellular) over the course of millions of years. When that process exactly started is unknown, and extremely hard to determine. But we know that it keeps going. Its called Evolution.
Regarding the aging, yes its counterintuitive. Why would an organism program itself to eventually die? To lose all regenerating abilities? It does not make any sense from the individual standpoint, however from the collective standpoint it very well makes sense. Its the best way to prevent overcrowding, since every individuum is garunteed to cease living eventually. This in turn feeds genetic inovation, as bad genes can be sorted out (if the bad dies before reproducing). This is called "Natural Selection". Statistically nature selects the best gens for the situation. A dog with a brown fur is more likely to survive, than say, a pink fur dog (due to lower visibility). Hence why you don't see pink dogs, unless unnatural circumstances (like human "civilisation") intervene.
So all in all, aging makes sense actually. A system (like a planet) where life is immortal, has no genetic innovation and no natural overpopupulation inhibitor. Hence it won't work.
This all gets thrown out of the window once precise in vivo gene editing (like gene therapy) is added, but we are not at that point (yet). And life does not possess the ability to greatly (and willingly) alter its genetic code after a certain point (see totipotency, plutipotency, multipotency, olipotency, unipotency of cells).

Humans did not evolve from apes.
































Apes and humans have a common ancestor though.

A Muslim is arguing about science when his own prophet says gender is decided by which parent "comes" first: https://sunnah.com/urn/1002010

Why does Al-Lah punish people for the sins he forces them to commit?
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/82/20
https://sunnah.com/muslim/46/32

Cata Cauda has to take the bait. He knows it's bait but he can't stop himself from posting a long-winded textbook answer of several paragraphs.

Squiggles takes the bait that no even offered, but inadvertently baits others with his responses.

Hey Fissel!

Special airplane man is back!!!!

inshallah brother, how are your big biceps doing

We will retake Constantinople! Deus Vult

What is a Constantinople?

I must say though, Cata was wrong on several points, one of which the VS dude with the weird name pointed out; another is that aging does not come from "organisms programming themselves to die", from a collective standpoint or not. Aging, according to atheistic evolution (which, by the way, I don't necessarily agree with, but that's a whole different discussion) is a result of the tendency of a system to increase in entropy (decrease the level of order) which, to put things simply, means chemical reaction stuff up your DNA over time till your body can't cope with it anymore. Aging is NOT a result of natural selection selecting in favour of death because it benefits the collective.
Basically my point is there is no gene for death, therefore it can't be selected for through natural selection, like Cata said.

Edited 5/23/2020 12:38:15

True, but one has to wonder. Why is such a fragile thing like DNA and RNA used for the genes? It is neither heat-resisitent, nor chemicallly resistant, nor radiation resisitant. If not properly taken care of, it falls apart very quickly. Why is that?

This whole thread is racist

@Cata Cauda because if DNA was too solid it wouldn't evolve.

Maybe racism isn't really a thing. Maybe it's actually tribalism, natural in-group preferences that all races have for their own people.

Cata I would reply to that by agreeing, and then raising the question of how the heck did DNA and RNA arise randomly in the first place, much less happen to fall together with all the other myriad of proteins and enzymes that are required to the transcription and translation of that DNA in even the simplest organisms?

There is no natural selection where there are no genes and phenotypes to act upon, so natural selection couldn't have brought about the first organism (or it's genetic information)