Team Work

[skinner]

Wolves, foxes, and domestic dogs are all different species. In fact, I think not all wolves and foxes are of the same species.

I believe the standard creationist belief these days is that kind does not equal species.
Dogs and wolves can breed and produce off-spring.
So can dogs and coyotes.
There are several different varietys of foxes, red, gray, kit, etc and so on, but they are all canines.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I totally agree.
BTW, on the arguement about the animal all fitting, you don't need two of every animal, only two of every species. In other words, you need two canines, not two wolves and two foxes and two dogs and so on.

It still doesn't explain how aquatic life would survive....some need salt water and some need fresh water...which kind did god use?????

...either way, half of the aquatic life would've been wiped out.

 

[Cleany]

hasnt this got a bit off topic?

 

[Nymphalidae]

I believe the standard creationist belief these days is that kind does not equal species.
Dogs and wolves can breed and produce off-spring.
So can dogs and coyotes.
There are several different varietys of foxes, red, gray, kit, etc and so on, but they are all canines.

The term kind is meaningless.

 

[Seeking...]

interesting. have you decided that there is no possibility that god has revealed himself to mankind, or have you ome to this answer by experience - e.g. you have sought god and he has not answered?

im glad that you question your belief system, so do i

Let me rephrase - I do believe that God is evident in creation (nature). I do believe that many feel the presence of God in their lives - though I don't believe he is babysitting us. I do not believe that God has revealed himself in the way that most religions seem to put forth that he has. I have felt God present in my life & I have been religious and not. I have felt both those things that I consider of God and the things I don't in every religion I have encountered. Basically I think that no matter how God has revealed himself to individuals - the very nature of religion will leave his vision contaminated by men and their desires.

 

[Seeking...]

I have questions about my belief system, too. Doubt is one of the greatest motivations to drive us to more understanding, IMO.
I'm curious, tho' as to why you don't think that God has revealed himself. If you mean that he has not totally revealed every aspect of his nature, I would agree. But, I doubt if it is possible for us to comprehend any but the smallest fraction of who God is.
Even just looking at nature, I find it impossible to disbelieve that God is revealing something of himself.

I think I kind of answer this in my recent posting to cleany - let me know if I'm not clear.

 

[Moros]

The only way we, as a human family, are going to make any progress in finding the truth, is if we work together

Altruism will get you nowhere.

 

[""]

I believe the standard creationist belief these days is that kind does not equal species.
Dogs and wolves can breed and produce off-spring.
So can dogs and coyotes.
There are several different varietys of foxes, red, gray, kit, etc and so on, but they are all canines.

Foxes, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are all canidae and most can be traced to the genus Canis, including some long since passed generation of foxes. Also, though there is some debate about it, foxes are also in the genus vulpes, which is basically suggests carnivorous instinct and behavior, resembling wild animals of a time long ago.. or it was likely some where in their past. I'll get to that in a sec.

If you want to know something even more interesting about Foxes though (I noted you and Nym were discussing foxes) it is possible that they are related to cats as well. Now, some creationists will balk at this, but I'm not one of them, because while I do believe in Creation, I also believe in some forms of evolution (ie: creatures evolving over time). Don't take that to mean that I think we come from primates though, because I deny that wholeheartedly.

So back to the evolution which brought us the fox. I actually believe that foxes probably are related to cats. See, the carnivora is believed to have origins from a weasel type of animal called a myacid, and if you want to get technical, the carnivora supposedly split into the caniformia and the feliformia. The feliformia resembled an animal called a civet, which if you look it up, you'll find that it was a big ferocious cat type of animal. Foxes are so much more cat like than they are dog like, so I think they're more feliformia than caniformia. Foxes have excellent night vision like cats, and their glands resemble those of a cat. Btw, sabre toothed cats were in the felifornia group as well. So I think foxes used to be quite ferocious, but now resemble house cats, in comparison to wolves and coyotes. Foxes are just so completely different from wolves and coyotes. Anyway, it's early in the a.m. here, and I don't know if what I said sounds like a bunch of gobbledy-goo to you but my main point was that I think (my personal opinion) that foxes resemble cats, and have some cat like traits because they both came from the same place.

 

[""]

I checked back and saw that I had overlooked your comments to me Nym. So sorry about that. It wasn't my intention.

Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda, which is in Kingdom Animalia.

You don't say?

Also, many insects creep along the ground, which is why you can catch them in pitfall traps. Just for your information, all bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs.

Yes, I'm familiar with that! Still, I thank you for the kind reminder.
My point was, and has always been, that I do not believe that Noah was instructed to gather bugs. I don't believe he actually had to gather anything. I believe that God brought the animals to him. Now granted, some animal species (including reptiles) are insect eaters, but almost any kind of protein could have been substituted for the bugs. Also, it said that the animals were to be brought on in groups of two, male and female. So it makes no sense that 2 of each kind of insect, and bug were brought aboard. What for? Infestation purposes? Clearly your line of argument has no merit. Now, this is no offense toward you. It's merely a comment on your statement that Noah had to bring insects (and yes bugs). I don't buy it.

You do not believe in a God or in Noah's Ark in the first place so what is the point of your arguing that Noah would have brought bugs?

Some insects, such as the Grylloblattaria, have a limited ability to survive freezing. Some insects are aquatic. Since I put insects in the freezer to kill them on a regular basis, you're full of it.

You'll note that I did not say that ALL bugs or insects could be frozen. I did say that some can. If you are as familiar with this topic as you say you are, then you know full well that many can be frozen and survive, and some simply have a tolerance for freezing temperatures (and below), such as the larvae of the chironomid (type of fly, midge)

Btw, why use "Grylloblattaria", when you're basically talking about something as common as a cricket or cockroach. Grylloblattaria just little rock crawlers. Oh, and why are all of your answers on this subject matter typed out as if they're going into a book? (ie: Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda ) If you want to be specific about it, Arthropoda include the Class Crustacea, the Class Uiramia, the Class Trilobita, and the Class Cheliceramorpha.... more as they are more commonly known, Crustaceans, Insects, millipedes, centipedes, horshoe crabs and arachnids. The Trilobita are extinct. That concludes todays lesson.

Being that you are presently studying this subject matter (and good for you... mean that sincerely), unless you just freeze insects for no reason but your own entertainment, you might find the following study interesting... perhaps even helpful.

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~awolfe/class/Biogeography/Readings/Peschke.pdf

That's a link to the "Climatic variability and the evolution of insect freeze tolerance". The primary author's are from the Spatial, Physiological and Conservation Ecology Research Group, Department of Zoology, at the University of Stellenbosch, in South Africa. It's an interesting read.

Also, as for those of you who continue to argue that there wasn't enough room for all of the animals to fit on the Ark, consider this:

You're proponents of the evolution theory, so why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept that many of the animals we have today, have actually evolved from some of the same superfamilies?

 

[Nymphalidae]

Yes, I'm familiar with that! Still, I thank you for the kind reminder.
My point was, and has always been, that I do not believe that Noah was instructed to gather bugs. I don't believe he actually had to gather anything. I believe that God brought the animals to him. Now granted, some animal species (including reptiles) are insect eaters, but almost any kind of protein could have been substituted for the bugs. Also, it said that the animals were to be brought on in groups of two, male and female. So it makes no sense that 2 of each kind of insect, and bug were brought aboard. What for? Infestation purposes? Clearly your line of argument has no merit. Now, this is no offense toward you. It's merely a comment on your statement that Noah had to bring insects (and yes bugs). I don't buy it.

You do not believe in a God or in Noah's Ark in the first place so what is the point of your arguing that Noah would have brought bugs?



You'll note that I did not say that ALL bugs or insects could be frozen. I did say that some can. If you are as familiar with this topic as you say you are, then you know full well that many can be frozen and survive, and some simply have a tolerance for freezing temperatures (and below), such as the larvae of the chironomid (type of fly, midge)

Btw, why use "Grylloblattaria", when you're basically talking about something as common as a cricket or cockroach. Grylloblattaria just little rock crawlers. Oh, and why are all of your answers on this subject matter typed out as if they're going into a book? (ie: Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda ) If you want to be specific about it, Arthropoda include the Class Crustacea, the Class Uiramia, the Class Trilobita, and the Class Cheliceramorpha.... more as they are more commonly known, Crustaceans, Insects, millipedes, centipedes, horshoe crabs and arachnids. The Trilobita are extinct. That concludes todays lesson.

Being that you are presently studying this subject matter (and good for you... mean that sincerely), unless you just freeze insects for no reason but your own entertainment, you might find the following study interesting... perhaps even helpful.

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~awolfe/class/Biogeography/Readings/Peschke.pdf

That's a link to the "Climatic variability and the evolution of insect freeze tolerance". The primary author's are from the Spatial, Physiological and Conservation Ecology Research Group, Department of Zoology, at the University of Stellenbosch, in South Africa. It's an interesting read.

Also, as for those of you who continue to argue that there wasn't enough room for all of the animals to fit on the Ark, consider this:

You're proponents of the evolution theory, so why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept that many of the animals we have today, have actually evolved from some of the same superfamilies?

If Noah didn't bring insects they would have died. Terrestrial insects drown. Actually, aquatic insects can drown also, if they don't have gills.

Grylloblattodea is a separate order from Orthoptera (which contains Family Gryllidae, the crickets) and Blattodea. While certain insects do have the ability to withstand freezing, the length of time, the threshold temperatures, and the life stages at which they can tolerate cold vary. I am, however, at a loss as to why cold tolerance is relevant to the Ark story.

Also, your classifications are wrong. Insects are in Class Insecta (Hexapoda), which falls under Subphylum Atelocerata. Trilobita, Chelicerata, and Crustacea are all subphyla, not classes. I'm not entirely certain you understand how classification works.

The problem is that the majority of insect families were fixed in the Cretaceous, 128 to 62 million years ago. Do we know with absolute certainty our current phylogenies are correct? No. But it is far better to be uncertain about empirically collected evidence than confident in a fairy tale.

 

[""]

If Noah didn't bring insects they would have died.

Prove it. Remember the rules of this board. If you wish to make such statements, you must have proof. Proof please.

Grylloblattodea is a separate order from Orthoptera (which contains Family Gryllidae, the crickets) and Blattodea. While certain insects do have the ability to withstand freezing, the length of time, the threshold temperatures, and the life stages at which they can tolerate cold vary. I am, however, at a loss as to why cold tolerance is relevant to the Ark story.

Good Lord girl. Stop giving me lectures here. What you're doing is akin to me going to an English professor and saying "A verb is the part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languages." No kidding. If you're doing this for my benefit, it's a waste of time, as it is knowledge which is already retained. If you're doing it for others, to show what you know, then I suppose you can continue on, but why not address the posts to "hey everyone" instead of me?

Also, your classifications are wrong. Insects are in Class Insecta (Hexapoda), which falls under Subphylum Atelocerata. Trilobita, Chelicerata, and Crustacea are all subphyla, not classes. I'm not entirely certain you understand how classification works.

Well let's start with what I said in my last post, shall we?

Grylloblattaria just little rock crawlers. Oh, and why are all of your answers on this subject matter typed out as if they're going into a book? (ie: Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda ) If you want to be specific about it, Arthropoda include the Class Crustacea, the Class Uniramia, the Class Trilobita, and the Class Cheliceramorpha.... more as they are more commonly known, Crustaceans, Insects, millipedes, centipedes, horshoe crabs and arachnids. The Trilobita are extinct. That concludes todays lesson.

Now Nym, clearly I know what class insects are in. I wasn't speaking of which class insects are in here. I was repeating what you had said in post #17 dear Nym.

Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda,which is in Kingdom Animalia.

So why credit me with an inability to understand how classification works, when you're the one who made the original statement my dear? I was merely repeating your words, and stating that your comments were "bookish".

Now if you are referring to the rest of my post, regarding Arthropods, here you go... proof:

Phylum Arthropoda includes the following classes:

• Class Crustacea (The crustaceans)
• Class Uniramia, also known as Insecta (The insects, millipedes, and centipedes)
• Class Trilobita (extinct)
• Class Cheliceramorpha (The horseshoe crabs and arachnids)

link

For future information:
Athrophods are the largest animal phylum, and include insects, spiders, crustaceans, and others.

Here's a berkeley link for you.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/arthropoda.html

 

[""]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests) Adiya, Nymphalidae



Perhaps we could just attempt to be civil here hmm? It is clear that you do not care for my point of view, but all of this needless attacking on my person, on my intellect, on my education, etc., is silly. I feel badly that I had to point out that it was you who originally made the statement: "Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda" and I'm sorry if that embarrassed you. It's not a big deal to me though, and I don't think you are any less intelligent. I think you probably just didn't remember having said it.

We don't have to be buddies, but let's try not to personalize things on here so much.

We're not enemies. We're just different. Differences aren't always bad. I admire your strength and I'm sure you're a lovely person.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Prove it. Remember the rules of this board. If you wish to make such statements, you must have proof. Proof please.

Okay, prove your point of view with some non-biblical facts....

Although this thread was about everyone uniting, I knew this would happen. Apparently global harmony is a false hope.....

Some people's idea of uniting means everyone has to convert to their way of thinking....

It would be really cool if everyone could just realize that everybody is going to be different....if everyone could not only realize that, but be cool with it, then the goal I spoke of in the OP could be realized.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Prove it. Remember the rules of this board. If you wish to make such statements, you must have proof. Proof please.



Good Lord girl. Stop giving me lectures here. What you're doing is akin to me going to an English professor and saying "A verb is the part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languages." No kidding. If you're doing this for my benefit, it's a waste of time, as it is knowledge which is already retained. If you're doing it for others, to show what you know, then I suppose you can continue on, but why not address the posts to "hey everyone" instead of me?



Well let's start with what I said in my last post, shall we?



Now Nym, clearly I know what class insects are in. I wasn't speaking of which class insects are in here. I was repeating what you had said in post #17 dear Nym.




So why credit me with an inability to understand how classification works, when you're the one who made the original statement my dear? I was merely repeating you, and stating that your comments were "bookish".

Now if you are referring to the rest of my post, regarding Arthropods, here you go... proof:

link

For future information:
Athrophods are the largest animal phylum, and include insects, spiders, crustaceans, and others.

Here's a berkeley link for you.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/arthropoda.html

I write the way I do because it helps me review the information from my notes for the test in systematic entomology I have on Monday. Your original website is wrong, by the way. Uniramia is not a class, and Insecta does not include the millipedes and centipedes. Please see:

C.A. Triplehorn and N.F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong's Introduction to the Study of Insects. 7th ed. Thompson, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 864p.

Hickman, C.P.; Roberts, L.S. and Larson, A. 2000. Animal Diversity. 2nd ed. McGraw/Hill, St. Louis, MO.

When did I dispute that insects are arthropods? What I disagree with are where you have placed and named insects within Athropoda. Even according to the Berkley website you linked to, Uniramia is not a class. I have, however, seen it listed as a subphylum.

Furthermore, you might want to keep in mind that the website you got your original information from is the website of Sidwell Friends School, which is a grade school. Now might be a good time to point out that not every source is created equal.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests) Adiya, Nymphalidae



Perhaps we could just attempt to be civil here hmm? It is clear that you do not care for my point of view, but all of this needless attacking on my person, on my intellect, on my education, etc., is silly. I feel badly that I had to point out that it was you who originally made the statement: "Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda" and I'm sorry if that embarrassed you. It's not a big deal to me though, and I don't think you are any less intelligent. I think you probably just didn't remember having said it.

We don't have to be buddies, but let's try not to personalize things on here so much.

We're not enemies. We're just different. Differences aren't always bad. I admire your strength and I'm sure you're a lovely person.

I'm not embarrassed by the fact that I said Insects are in Phylum Arthropoda. It is a statement of the obvious, yes. But besides that, I can't see anything wrong with it.

 

[""]

I write the way I do because it helps me review the information from my notes for the test in systematic entomology I have on Monday. Your original website is wrong, by the way. Uniramia is not a class, and Insecta does not include the millipedes and centipedes.

When did I dispute that insects are arthropods? What I disagree with are where you have placed and named insects within Athropoda. Even according to the Berkley website you linked to, Uniramia is not a class. I have, however, seen it listed as a subphylum.

Furthermore, you might want to keep in mind that the website you got your original information from is the website of Sidwell Friends School, which is a grade school. Now might be a good time to point out that not every source is created equal.

Actually, this was your argument:

Also, your classifications are wrong. Insects are in Class Insecta (Hexapoda), which falls under Subphylum Atelocerata.

Trilobita, Chelicerata, and Crustacea are all subphyla, not classes. I'm not entirely certain you understand how classification works.

It is only now that you attempt to claim that your argument all along was about Uniramia not being a class. There was no mention of it in your argument.


From the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley

link

[size=+1]A[/size]rthropods have traditionally been divided into four classes: Trilobita, Chelicerata, Crustacea, and Uniramia. Most living and post-Cambrian fossil arthropods fall into one of these four classes. However, a number of arthropod fossils from the Cambrian Period have been described which do not obviously belong in any of these classes. Many of these arthropods have been found in the famous Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale, in the Canadian Rocky Mountains of British Columbia. Other "weird wonder" arthropods have been found in China, Australia, Russia, Poland, and the USA. (See Gould, 1989, for an overview.) Recent work (Wills et al. 1994) has shown that these arthropods are mostly in "stem clades"- that is, they are extinct relatives of living arthropods that lack some of the characters that typify groups with living members. The cladogram we present here is thus something of an oversimplification.

And again, from the University of California, Berekley

The largest major group of arthropods is a clade that includes insects, millipedes, centipedes, and their relatives. This group, the Uniramia, was formerly defined to include the Onychophora, which are now considered a separate clade. It is restricted here to include only "true" arthropods with exoskeletons and jointed appendages.

From Eastern Illionois University

Phylum Arthropoda

Our most diverse phylum with more than 1,000,000 insect species alone!

Have hard exoskeleton made of chitin.

Breathe with gills, lungs or trachae (air tubes). Contains four classes: Trilobita, Chelicerata, Crustaceae and Uniramia.

Class Uniramia

Centipedes, millipedes and insects.

Named for their unbranched appendages.

Centipedes vs. Millipedes:

Centipedes have only one pair of legs per segment, millipedes have two.

Centipedes are predators and have poisonous bites; Millipedes are scavengers and detritivores and may exude a noxious substance from glands along their body.

Insects were the first animals to fly and remain the dominant animal group in most habitats.



Now... in closing, I wanted to say the following:

On the assumption that your instructor/teacher/professor hasn't told you about this yet, I'd like you to know that arthropod systematics (science of systematic classification) are currently undertaking a flurry of development, and there are continual disagreements. While there is definitely dedication on all sides to learn, and understand, it will be a very long time before a widespread agreement on most issues concerning arthropods is reached.

I could have addressed this at the beginning of my post to you, but you'd likely have brushed it off, so I offer proof along with it. If you have further questions, talk to your instructor. You mentioned that you're taking a class on the subject, and I'm sure that your instructor would be very happy to explain to you why there is such a disagreement among scientists on this "class" issue.

 

[""]

The point here is Nym, that we can always learn something from others. I can learn. You can learn. We can all add our own facts, based on our studies, our education, our experience, our life, our chosen path, etc. We don't have to approach one another as enemies. I'm not your enemy. While it's true, that at the beginning of our debate on this issue, (several days ago) I could have pointed out to you that arthropod systematics is a debatable issue among professionals in the field of study, and that there is no widespread agreement on classes, I didn't want to do so. You'd have taken it as instruction from me, and probably would have felt offended. It's not my mission to offend, nor is it my mission to instruct. It is my mission, however, to prove that science doesn't have all of the answers, and that's why many things related to science are still up in the air. You'll find debatable topics that run the gamit of all things science , because there are relatively few absolutes.

Keeping this in mind, it isn't difficult to approach the beginning of all living things with a broader scope of vision. If science doesn't have all of the answers.... what does? Who does? What if it's a creator?

Anything is possible when you keep an open mind and an open heart.
Closing one's mind to possibilities limits us from gaining a true understanding of the subject matter.

Again, we are not enemies, and you might even find that we have a lot in common, if you thought to examine the possibilities.

Go with love.
Go with peace.

 

[skinner]

Foxes, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are all canidae and most can be traced to the genus Canis, including some long since passed generation of foxes. Also, though there is some debate about it, foxes are also in the genus vulpes, which is basically suggests carnivorous instinct and behavior, resembling wild animals of a time long ago.. or it was likely some where in their past. I'll get to that in a sec.

If you want to know something even more interesting about Foxes though (I noted you and Nym were discussing foxes) it is possible that they are related to cats as well. Now, some creationists will balk at this, but I'm not one of them, because while I do believe in Creation, I also believe in some forms of evolution (ie: creatures evolving over time). Don't take that to mean that I think we come from primates though, because I deny that wholeheartedly.

So back to the evolution which brought us the fox. I actually believe that foxes probably are related to cats. See, the carnivora is believed to have origins from a weasel type of animal called a myacid, and if you want to get technical, the carnivora supposedly split into the caniformia and the feliformia. The feliformia resembled an animal called a civet, which if you look it up, you'll find that it was a big ferocious cat type of animal. Foxes are so much more cat like than they are dog like, so I think they're more feliformia than caniformia. Foxes have excellent night vision like cats, and their glands resemble those of a cat. Btw, sabre toothed cats were in the felifornia group as well. So I think foxes used to be quite ferocious, but now resemble house cats, in comparison to wolves and coyotes. Foxes are just so completely different from wolves and coyotes. Anyway, it's early in the a.m. here, and I don't know if what I said sounds like a bunch of gobbledy-goo to you but my main point was that I think (my personal opinion) that foxes resemble cats, and have some cat like traits because they both came from the same place.

Interesting post. A couple of questions:
Civets as we know them today are basically spotted skunks. Are we talking about a different type of civet?

As far as foxes being cat-like, yes and no in my experiance. I find grey fox to be very cat-like. Their feet even closely resemble those of a house cat, and they have the claws to climb trees if they wish.
Red fox, while more cat-like in their habits than say, coyote, still remind me a lot of dogs. And if you want to know why I'm studying foxes, well, I'll give you a hint, it has to do with their fur.

 

[""]

Interesting post. A couple of questions:
Civets as we know them today are basically spotted skunks. Are we talking about a different type of civet?

Civet
Any of various carnivorous catlike mammals of the family Viverridae of Africa and Asia, having anal scent glands that secrete a fluid with a musky odor. Also called civet cat.

I was saying in the post that you pasted, that the carnivora supposedly split into the caniformia and the feliformia, and that at that time of the split, the feliformia resembled a civet type of cat, but a more ferocious variety... and bigger.

As far as foxes being cat-like, yes and no in my experiance. I find grey fox to be very cat-like. Their feet even closely resemble those of a house cat, and they have the claws to climb trees if they wish.
Red fox, while more cat-like in their habits than say, coyote, still remind me a lot of dogs. And if you want to know why I'm studying foxes, well, I'll give you a hint, it has to do with their fur.

I agree with you on this. Some foxes do bear a greater resemblance to cats, and others do not. Actually there are a host of sites on the web that talk about that. They break it down and discuss a separation of the fox line, some where back in time, that caused them to look and act different from one another, though they are all still called foxes. Foxes are fascinating creatures.

Coyotes on the other hand I could do without. When I was visiting a family friend a year ago, she let her little dog outside and the coyotes got it. They batted it around like a toy. So sad. I don't care for coyotes, though I'm sure they are just as fascinating to some people.

 

[Nymphalidae]

The point here is Nym, that we can always learn something from others. I can learn. You can learn. We can all add our own facts, based on our studies, our education, our experience, our life, our chosen path, etc. We don't have to approach one another as enemies. I'm not your enemy. While it's true, that at the beginning of our debate on this issue, (several days ago) I could have pointed out to you that arthropod systematics is a debatable issue among professionals in the field of study, and that there is no widespread agreement on classes, I didn't want to do so. You'd have taken it as instruction from me, and probably would have felt offended. It's not my mission to offend, nor is it my mission to instruct. It is my mission, however, to prove that science doesn't have all of the answers, and that's why many things related to science are still up in the air. You'll find debatable topics that run the gamit of all things science , because there are relatively few absolutes.

Keeping this in mind, it isn't difficult to approach the beginning of all living things with a broader scope of vision. If science doesn't have all of the answers.... what does? Who does? What if it's a creator?

Anything is possible when you keep an open mind and an open heart.
Closing one's mind to possibilities limits us from gaining a true understanding of the subject matter.

Again, we are not enemies, and you might even find that we have a lot in common, if you thought to examine the possibilities.

Go with love.
Go with peace.

You think that because you can google a few websites that you're an expert and are entitled to treat me like an idiot child. Do you really believe me to be ignorant of the things you are posting? Do you really believe that because you have done 15 minutes of research on the internet that you are capable of instructing anyone on this subject?