While I agree with his assertion, he is too intellectually lazy to substantiate his claims as per usual so I will just say that the reason men of science, learning and empiricism like VH and I ascribe to evolutionary theory is because of the cumulative weight of the evidence that supports its claims.
Like any other hypothesis, one must approach it on the basis of the credibility, the veracity and the factual support for whatever it happens to rely upon by weigh of argument. Darwin posited a process of natural selection and biological adaptation which was able to account for the sea shells that had hitherto been inexplicably observed in certain rock formations. The genetic relationships between evolutionarily similar organisms that derived from a common ancestor have since been confirmed as have the degree to which such animals are divergent both on the basis of the fossil record as well as similarities in the genome. Competing hypotheses are insufficiently corroborated or rely upon spurious assumptions and/or contrived interpretations of fact.
None of that proves that all life came from a single living thing.
Well I don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology and as such, I am a very poor representative of the field here. If you sat down with an actual research scientist who did have the proper academic training and bona fides I am sure that he would be able to articulate this concept better then I. The fact is that there is no room for intelligent and properly informed people to be subscribing to nonsensical conjectures that are completely untethered from modern scientific understanding of the world. And what I can tell you is that if you wind the clock back far enough (billions of years), all life on earth does have a common point of origin and thus a common ancestor in the single celled ameba's that resided in the primordial soup which comprised much of the surface of early earth.
Captain, Commanding Officer and Founding Father of the Incel Movement
While I agree with his assertion, he is too intellectually lazy to substantiate his claims as per usual so I will just say that the reason men of science, learning and empiricism like VH and I ascribe to evolutionary theory is because of the cumulative weight of the evidence that supports its claims.
Like any other hypothesis, one must approach it on the basis of the credibility, the veracity and the factual support for whatever it happens to rely upon by weigh of argument. Darwin posited a process of natural selection and biological adaptation which was able to account for the sea shells that had hitherto been inexplicably observed in certain rock formations. The genetic relationships between evolutionarily similar organisms that derived from a common ancestor have since been confirmed as have the degree to which such animals are divergent both on the basis of the fossil record as well as similarities in the genome. Competing hypotheses are insufficiently corroborated or rely upon spurious assumptions and/or contrived interpretations of fact.
None of that proves that all life came from a single living thing.
Well I don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology and as such, I am a very poor representative of the field here. If you sat down with an actual research scientist who did have the proper academic training and bona fides I am sure that he would be able to articulate this concept better then I. The fact is that there is no room for intelligent and properly informed people to be subscribing to nonsensical conjectures that are completely untethered from modern scientific understanding of the world. And what I can tell you is that if you wind the clock back far enough (billions of years), all life on earth does have a common point of origin and thus a common ancestor in the single celled ameba's that resided in the primordial soup which comprised much of the surface of early earth.
None of that proves that all life came from a single living thing.
Well I don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology and as such, I am a very poor representative of the field here. If you sat down with an actual research scientist who did have the proper academic training and bona fides I am sure that he would be able to articulate this concept better then I. The fact is that there is no room for intelligent and properly informed people to be subscribing to nonsensical conjectures that are completely untethered from modern scientific understanding of the world. And what I can tell you is that if you wind the clock back far enough (billions of years), all life on earth does have a common point of origin and thus a common ancestor in the single celled ameba's that resided in the primordial soup which comprised much of the surface of early earth.
Of course you can find some idiots who will espouse unscientific and mostly conspiratorial nonsense which flies in the face of a generation of empirical, biological, anthropological and paleontological evidence just as some fools will propound the flat earth theory or assert that Atlantis actually exists but the burden of proof is on their side. If you want to rebut and refute a proven theory then you need to adduce evidence that is at least as compelling and convincing as that which the prevailing theory was predicated on. This is the same principle for legal findings in a court of law and to do anything less is idiotic and extremely low iq, worthy of the likes of the average .is user whom you so adroitly discussed in an earlier thread.
And again, I am NOT a scientist, I am a lawyer but I happen to know something about evolutionary biology and likewise a great deal about the peer review process which yields scientific findings susceptible to collective scrutiny in the interests of ensuring accuracy and veracity.
Captain, Commanding Officer and Founding Father of the Incel Movement
