why DID we evolve into humans?

Hey All,
I was just wondering.... How do you all feel about the fact that mutations have not been proven to be beneficial. Information (such as DNA, etc.) can't be added through a natural mutation. Information can be shuffled around, and more often information is lost at the hands of a mutation... But never is information added. It seems that we are the opposite of evolution if anything. I mean, if we can't gain info, we can only lose, then our ancestors were probably much healthier and smarter and physically/mentally stronger. This would explain, to me anyway, why disease, obesity, and everything else is so much larger today than ever. Not to mention that life expectency was really bad a few generations back, but only modern science has caused it to rise to it's current levels. I mean, all of that stuff about health, etc. is just my thought that just came to me now, so try not to judge that too harshly, just popped into my head.... But I believe the mutation information to be true, and I'm sure you'll have something to say about it, but note that many evolution experts have even voiced those same points, but somehow still holding to the ToE.-------------------
Just coming back to add a couple things..... How do you explain how the very first form of life started? The life that started it all, every plant and animal on the planet.... How did life start from non-life?Also, a little side thing.... If Earth wasn't created, but was the result of a big bang, or whatever... Then where did the Universe come from... If that was from a really big bang..... Then where did the material that caused it come from. With there being nothing in existence, how does a big bang occur? Something had to be created somehow at some point, even if it was 100 Trillion years ago, NOTHING doesn't begat SOMETHING.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

Leon,
"What in the world would an UN-natural mutation be?" you ask?Come on now? Are you serious? Well being that natural would be something without outside influence, that would probably mean that Un-natural would include outside influence. Steroids, hormones, etc.... Hope that explains what I mean by natural.... but I don't really understand how that really matters to the issue posed?Also... I just went back and read your quote from my post.... And you know what, un-related to why you say it doesn't make sense, the quote really doesn't make sense. BUT MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE YOU MIS-QUOTED AND LEFT OUT A BIG PORTION, AND COMBINED PIECES FROM 2 SENTENCES! Everyone note Leon's mis-construing before taking him seriously.Everyone note
[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003][This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

Well Mark,
I will grant you the case you mention, as with a handful at best of other cases appear to have benefited by a random natural mutation. But you still avoided the scientific side... The fact that new information still isn't added during the mutation. That is simply not possible and doesn't happen. Just think logically, there is no way for information to naturally appear out of nowhere. Think about the deformed and mentally handicapped, etc.... They are missing information... But our extremely smart people don't have anything magically added. Here's a quick analogy I heard: You know when you see a computer that someone created. It clearly didn't evolve. Yet a computer we are still trillions of times more complex than the most advanced of computers. And just as we are unable to create anything more advanced than ourselves, so is the case for everything throughout history. Greater things don't ever come from lesser things.... Especially not naturally, because I again say, nothing is gained from natural mutations.... And more often then not there is a loss.------------
Oh, and Mark, I just went back and re-read your post again.... And I noticed that you imply that because of the penicillin the E. Coli mutated. This means one of two things. Either one, and this one I don't really buy and I'm sure you don't either, it may have benefited somehow from the penicillin. Again, I don't think that's it... The other option is that it adapted to avoid death from the penicillan, which shows adaptation and not natural selection mutation/evolution. Your theory is that these mutation were all totally random, and a non-adaptive thing. The reason you insist this is because creationists point out that if when we were just fish, or apes or whereever we came from, we would have just stayed that way because we were fine. But evolutionists say that's right, but we didn't mutate on purpose or to adapt to anything, it was just all random and by chance. So again I say, one of those 2 things I mentioned above probably happened to the E. Coli, probably the second one (adaptation.) But regardles.... You are still adding outside influence with the penicillin. This isn't natural.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

For starters Crash, I wasn't referring in particular to DNA, I was just listing that as an easy way to explain information that is contained in us. Which I still stand by that no new information can be added as a result of a natural mutation.Now, haha, as for you NY Times comment? It seems that you're implying that you're missing information if you don't read the Times? The Times (as we saw this year), adds new (and untrue) information (just like your ToE). Unless I'm just mis-understanding what you're saying..... Anyway... Yes, I'm aware of Down's Sydrome, and I was hoping someone would bring that up, because as you say yourself, the ADDITIONAL or EXTRA thing they have is a COPY. A copy of information already there. Not brand new formed out of thin air. I think you get my point there....Number one I haven't seen any proof that it was new protiens that the bacterium mutated... Even your friend who brought up the study didn't mention the protiens... But the bottom line is, whatever your personal belief about adaptation, all your friends here don't believe that the ToE is based on any adaptation. You are going against what they say by saying that, because they say it is all random/natural. Everyone, even creationists know that there are slight adaptive things that species do, but the theory of evolution isn't based on adaptation what so ever. It is natural selection as you call it, and isn't because a species was trying to survive, but it just got lucky and did. Again let me point out, that a species (by ToE) survives by an impossible way of evolving by mutation which would need new information to be added in the mutation, which, again is not possible. And by the way, I wasn't implying that the bacterium adapted to the Penicillin... if you read what I said IN CONTEXT, I was listing to Mark what the two possibilities must have been based on the study, based on his implications.(as I read through your post again) I keep noticing you trying to tell me that the mutations where random, and you call for me to show that a species had a mechanism for directing their own mutation. I think my points are clear, and I don't believe that these mutations took place. MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT THESE MUTATIONS COULDN'T TAKE PLACE BECAUSE THEY WOULD TAKE NEW INFORMATION BEING ADDED NATURALLY WHICH ISN'T POSSIBLE. So for you to refute OUT OF CONTEXT quotes, is ridiculous. But I guess that is your easy way out. If you notice I was talking about Mark's example of the bacterium and the way he portrays it.... I can't even explain this because you are so out of the realm of .... anything... Just read my post(s) and see where you went wrong in quoting and responding. You might want to think it out next time instead of just picking out a sentence you don't like. I'm not trying to be a jerk though, I really want you to read them, and you'll see that you're trying to correct certain quotes that don't need correcting when they are taken in context. It's just annoying to have to respond to something that wasn't even needing to be pointed out.Again, I'm glad you pointed something out though.... That Penicillin is natural. I never implied that it wasn't... But I left that so because I knew as a last resort one of you would try to jump at that, however you ignore one thing. That is a very controlled environment, and you even admit it was in greater concentrations than usual. Then you are so bold as to say "..and whether it's a natural environement or not has nothing to do do with..." Again, yes it does. There weren't smoke stacks and polution and disease and everything we have today during the time of your ToE. And that poplulation adaptation is a cop out... I'll point out AGAIN (and again, and again), that your ToE, isn't evolution by adaptation. It's a random chance natural mutation. (Which again beneficial natural mutation, isn't a beneficial thing, information can only be moved, etc. and mostly info is just lost.) So anyway, again, based on your ToE, we would have never evolved from the very first form of life (had it not been by chance)... because we were just fine (again this is your theory) we didn't need to adapt because we were surviving fine in our environment... It is your contention that we just mutated naturally by chance.... I don't know if I'm getting through, but I gotta go for now.....[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

Okay, I think you guys are actually taking the word "information" to literally, for lack of a word that is inclusive for everything contained in a life. So just set that aside... It's really not that relevent to the point. The point is as I've stated before SOMETHING can't come from NOTHING. It just doesn't happen. So the whole beginning is ridiculous first of all. Life starting from non-life. That is just so ridiculous. But again I point to the fact that nothing more advanced than something has ever been made by it. Like my example of a computer.... We're still like trillions of times more advanced than the most advanced computer. Naturally or un-naturally it's just not possible to create something that excedes the creator. I know that's not the most relevent, but I think it illistrates a good point.Anyway, back to it. Beneficial things haven't been shown to come from any natural mutations and nothing is gained... nor have you shown this with the E. Coli example. You haven't shown that it actually gained anything naturally. Not to mention, isn't it a HUGE coincidence that those E. Coli "mutated" before being introduced to the Penicillin.... Isn't that just a little convenient. I mean, without the bacterium knowing that it needed to adapt to penicillin, which you say it didn't decide to do anyway.... It just got lucky enough to mutate right before gettin in there? Come on. Again, I point out... You say these "mutations" don't occur with intent so it's totally random and lucky that these bacterium mutated something that allowed them to survive Penicillin... The very thing they were going to be placed with!? Whew, good thing that random mutation came along just in time to save them from the one thing they were being introduced to.Now, I'll give you this, I re-read what I've written, and I see how it came off that I didn't understand that the "mutation" was random, and that "natural selection" was not. I get what you're saying.... (in reference to that second post Crash) But again, I still point to the "SOMETHING can't come from NOTHING" statement I made. That is just common sense.Also, as you can tell I really don't buy that E. Coli study.... Especially because it was a study used to prove what it thinks it did prove. And as outlined above, highly un-likely that it just happened to mutate something that would allow it to survive the one thing it was going to be introduced to. Anyway, show me where this happens in humans, or mice or something. IT DOESN'T! Because again, you can't have new things added to something that didn't previously exist. It just doesn't happen. I like to use the "chance" analogy about the tornado going through a junk yard and assebling a jet... But this random (beneficial) mutation business isn't even left up to huge chance... It just can't happen.

Hey, sorry, I submitted the same post twice somehow, so I'm just editing this to remove the duplicate....[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-07-2003]

Okay Okay, I'll concede that I used a wrong term. I used the word "beneficial".... Aparantly these E. Coli, benefited from a mutation. But You still keep avoiding the main issue. Nothing was added to them, and you haven't show any evidence of anything beeing added. Here it is: Compare these E. Coli to us (humans).... Now, if we were that E. Coli, pretend that the reason we die from the Penicillin is the way it smells (just an analogy). So because everytime we smell it it kills us. So there might be a random mutation out of those billions of individuals, that may be born lacking a nose and would be able to survive in the presence of Penicillin. Again, the nose and everything is just an analogy, so don't try to argue that, you get what I mean... I'm just trying to make it simple. So, because there were billions of individuals, and they all should have died from the Penicillin, one survived because he couldn't smell it because his mutation caused him to not have a nose. Great.... But he didn't gain something... He lost it. That's my whole point. To evolve into greater things from, amoeba to present day human, we would have had to gain something... Just based on size even.... on going from something microscopic to having some of us that are 8 feet tall. Anyway, back to the point... Again I will say, although one may benefit from a mutation, it certainly DIDN'T gain anything. Nothing was there that wasn't before, and more than likely there was less. You have not even attempted to argue that, you've cleverly dodged it everytime. I see I was letting you get away with it by using the word "beneficial" before, because clearly it isn't impossible to "benefit" from a mutation... But it isn't the result of gaining anything. It is your own science that shows no gaining of anything new out of mid-air. Simple as that.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-07-2003][This message has been edited by rabair, 09-07-2003]

I'll start off by saying, I'm not going to lie, this new Coragyps guy is way over my head and I don't even have a clue what he's talking about... So I'm not even going to bother addressing it. But as for John and Mark...First, John... Nice spin on my example of the nose thing... Don't try debating the science of that or whatever, I think I made it pretty clear it was just an example to paint a simple picture. But I guess it's easier to say there's a "fatal flaw" because I "present only one alternative." That's irrelevant, and an excellent way to avoid the issue. And I won't acknowledge your example of the protein thing, unless you concede that it was a loss of something, because again, we simply can't gain something from absolute nothing. You like to say "New proteins show up all the time.", however you've yet to show an example of this. All you guys have done is shown that somehow some of these bacterium survived (benefited), and clearly speculated that it was generating brand new proteins that allowed it. See I put forth a possibility, because mutations can only cause things to change or usually lose stuff, so I put forth that maybe the bacterium survived because of a loss of something, that allowed them to not be affected by the Penicillin. The difference is, you clearly try to pass your guess as fact, yet you are clearly guessing. Just read your sentence that starts with "Say, instead of...." You're putting forth a guess, so don't pass that off as proof to me of anything. Because as I said, it could be a loss of something that allowed the bacterium to survive. That is un-deniable. Obviously my example isn't the true case here, but it breaks it down to childrens terms so you can get it.John, could you completely ignore everything any worse.... You go on to say:"A bacteria that is born with a protein to digest nylon didn't gain something? None of its ancestors can eat nylon. Seems pretty damned obvious that it gained something."Again, like the nose thing, I'll say, how do you know the bacteria didn't lose something that allowed it to digest the nylon. Maybe it lost some stomach acid neutralizers, therefore the stomach acid was able to easily tear through the nylon. I don't know if that's even possible, but the point is, you've totally overlooked to point made with the nose thing. I mean, there's a million things it could have lost that would allow it to do that. Not that nylon is really a beneficial thing.... But if it was beneficial, again just because one benefits from a mutation, doesn't mean it gains anything.... And then you ask - why does science suggest something comes out of mid-air. But this is exactly what you suggest when you say that a mutation occured adding something totally new from no where. Hopefully you'll just stay away, because you refuse to address the issue. I acknowledge that the bacterium may have benefited from the mutation, but I don't believe it gained anything, I believe the benefit came from a loss.... But you insist it came from a gain, when that is absolutely just your guess, and you aren't backing it up with ANY evidence. Just saying it happened doesn't make it true. I'm done with you.now to mark... you say:
"A phenotype that never previously existed was added. A function that never previously existed was added. The E.coli lost nothing, & gained something, geddit? "like John, you don't address the real issue or show evidence of your claim. You guys keep changing terms... It started out with a guy citing this study, but not even talking about protiens or phenotypes..... But all you guys' explanation is the only thing to "evolve" on this site. You can say "The E. coli lost nothing, & gained something...".... But what proof do you have? I already clearly stated (in simple form) a type of mutation where something is lost that could actually benefit. But you have yet to show any evidence of anything being added. Again, you saying it doesn't make it true......

Alright Mark... please read before you respond. Almost all of what you responded to from my last post was stuff directed at John. Then I go on toward the end to address you. So when you tell me to "stay focussed" it's a nice space filler and to try to make it look as if I'm dodging.. But infact, that whole thing was brought up by your buddy John. Not me. I was REPLYING to it, and it was pretty obvious I was talking to him, not you. Go back and read the posts. As was the statement "I'm done with you".... Because he didn't prove that anything happened, he clearly acknowledges that my nose example was possible but says that I needed to point to more possibilities... .Which is irrelevent. My point was, yes mutations can be beneficial, neither of you have shown where anything was gained. Benefit and Gain (added to) are 2 different things. So he comes up with a "what if instead" of my nose example. And tried using that as proof. Well, the bottom line is, he didn't prove that his guess is what happened or even could happen by saying he thinks it's a possibility. That is a ridiculous claim. Much like my nose thing was an example... I wouldn't say that proves that something was lost just because that is a simple example I used, to show that benefits can happen from losses. And I know you guys don't refute that, because that is obvious. Then he brought up some nylon thing, and insisted that because some bacteria could digest nylon, that means it gained something in mutation. How ignorant can a person get. NO EVIDENCE and just saying that it gained something because it benefited by being able to digest nylon, doesn't make it true. So I said, it's the same as the other example you guys have been using... Maybe he lost stomach acid neutralizers that allowed the acid digest the nylon, or any number of little losses could cause this. By the way, you quote yourself in your last post, but it was something John said about the Nylon.... Then later you condemn me for not staying focussed.... Nice..... This leads me to why I don't reply to one particular post at a time... Number one, I don't care if you can't keep track easily, two it's because there are always more than one of you, and you spend the majority of your post dodging and going off on other things instead of staying on point, that I don't have time to sit here and reply to every little thing. So I try to lump it into one. Again, go back and read my post, and read all of your replies.... again most of what you are replying to totally has nothing to do with you, but it's a good way for you to dodge the real issue once again. You can't insist that because the bacterium benefitted, that something was added. It's simply irresponsible. Now, you can believe that it's possible, but you can't pass it off as fact that something was added, without evidence. You've proven only that there was a benefit. And I've shown that benefits can come from losses. But you haven't shown that anything can be added. Does that spell it out now?!?! Let me address another thing you say.... First you quote where I said "I'm done with you." Which again if you ACTUALLY READ the post was clearly directed at John, so stop with the dodging and trying to argue about other things than the issue. This again is why I can't respond in separate posts, because it's like most of what you want to debate is not even the topic. It's ridiculous. Anyway, you go on to say:
"You never began, rabair, you made unsupported claims that nothing can be added without loss."
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. When have I said anything like that? Point to it. Even if you replace the word "added" with "benefitted" in your sentence, it's still a lie. I said that things can't just be added that come from no where when a natural mutation takes place. You say things can. I said that just because something benefits doesn't mean it gained something. You haven't argued that because it's obvious. But I didn't say nothing can be added without loss, nor did I say nothing can benefit without a loss. I've asked you to prove that what benefitted the E. Coli was a gain. And you haven't shown that. Go back and read your own posts. You have not once shown that anything was gained. Thus not shown that it's possible.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-09-2003]

Okay, I'm tired of wasting my time Mark... It's as simple as this. In my original post, said nothing can be benefitted. I admitted that was a mis-characterizaiton. I have since not changed my point... Maybe alternating words such as "gain" and "add"... But the point remains... You have just spent most of another post avoiding the point... Let me spell out my point so you can stop lying and mis-representing it.Nothing new can be naturally added to something that wasn't already present. I AGREE for like the 50th time, benefits can be had from mutations... But that isn't the same as something being added or gained. That is why I made the analogy of the nose thing... Then responded with the nylon analogy to the thing John said. And you clearly don't disagree that it's possible to benefit by loss. (ie, losing a nose, causes one not to die from something that would normally kill them if they smelled it. BENIFIT, not gain/adding).... I have made this very clear over, and over. I know you can benefit, but new things don't come from no where. The "A" on my keyboard didn't just appear, and allow me to then have a complete keyboard. But taking away the box the keyboard came in benefits me because I was unable to type on it until it was out of the box. Don't try to argue that, I'm aware it is un-related, but I can't seem to get the simple point through to you. Although I know you will spend your next post arguing about my keyboard, because that's your way of avoiding.Again, my point is that I have shown that benefit doesn't always mean gains/additions.... Obviously you agree that you can benefit from a loss. But you want me to believe that it is irrefutable that it wasn't a loss that benefitted the E. Coli... You keep saying it was a gain/addition but you haven't shown that. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Again, I didn't say it lost something to cause this beneficial mutation, I'm just saying it's a possibility. I don't believe it could have gained something out of no where... You need to show that is what happened to prove that it's possible. Because otherwise you've never shown any evidence that it can happen. I still feel that it's so obvious my point, but you choose to just avoid that and go off about every other stupid little thing and avoid proving what you claim as fact. You haven't even attempted to prove that it's possible to gain from natural mutation.... Whatever, please just actually stay on the topic instead of spinning out of control so I have to spend this whole time clearing things up for anyone who might read just the latest posts. You just want to argue about every stupid little thing instead of showing evidence of your claims.

Hey, Mark, I was just curious.... What is that picture of that shows up under your name?

Mark,
Again you've avoided my point. I'll break this into baby terms one last time. But I am done here because I can't spend all this time rehashing this same thing.You gave an example (the E. Coli thing)... You basically said, it benefited by a natural mutation because it was able to survive in the presence of Penicillin. I acknowledge that this was a benefit. But I submitted that while it benefitted, it doesn't mean it gained any type of information or DNA or whatever you want to use. I stated that well say it was that when a species smells something it is normally killed, but there could be a natural mutation that caused it to lose a nose, then it would be able to survive. So I said, while obviously "the nose" wasn't the case with the E. Coli, you get my point. And I think you do, I get the impression you acknowledge something can be lost from a mutation and possibly cause a benefit. My point is that new "information" if you will, can't come from nowhere. You can have duplications and stuff, and while that changes things... It doesn't introduce NEW things. It modifies (duplicates) something already there. My whole point has been that you insist that something was added to the E. Coli, but haven't shown that. Again, you show that it benefited, and I don't dis-agree. I know it benefited, but it could have been from a loss of some kind. I'm not sure where you get this something can be added when something is lost, because again, that has nothing to do with anything I've said. I don't think things are added period... Also, that defies mutation. Mutations are changes of things already there, not brand new things appearing from no where. I think you recognize this in your last stuff about DNA, but I'm not versed in that, so I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll pull my dumb card and say I won't even argue it. Again, this is my final post... But let me just say again how I feel nothing can just come from no where. It isn't possible for my computer monitor to just be here. Someone had to put it together. It pieces can fall off, but new pieces don't just appear at random. The bottom line of like all of our last posts I will point to one more time... I said maybe the E. Coli's benefit could have come from a loss... You state as fact that it came from a gain/something new added. But you haven't shown proof of it. You've just continously stated it, but not said how you know it and why it is a fact. I still haven't seen where something BRAND NEW has been added... Duplications and loses happen, but I've never known of a person randomly growing a stinger like a bee, or tusks like a walrus... I know those are extreme, but you get what I'm saying... Again, this is my last post. Respond however you want... But I have no plan on replying, at least not in this category, so to post anything probing for a response won't be time well spent. But feel free to do what you like... Interesting debate when on topic.... Later

You know what, I feel compelled to reply because of your ridiculous condescending tone. You know Mark, you basically agree with me then. You have just been avoiding answering what I say directly. You are the one who uses these net gain terms, etc... not me, and you always talk about how when something is lost something is gained, causing net gain... blah blah blah... That is irrelevent to anything. You say I keep changing terms... I've had to do so to try to make you answer me with what I'm asking and I haven't felt that you have. I made it clear when I say "added" and "gained" I mean the same thing, I separate benefit from that completely... Why do you spend most of your argument going over that? The point is, what you call a net gain, as I understand it now, isn't impossible... Maybe you're the only one here who understands that things can change from their current state, but BRAND NEW things can't come from no where. I think that's what you're not getting. Most of your people, must just not know what you do, insist that things just appear from thin air in mutation... They say that totally new, unrelated traits/info/characteristics, just come from absolutely no where. You seem to have finally pointed out that you don't say that... But you say that with mutations, your "net gain" is a change... And while it may be more of something, implying a gain to you. What I mean when I say there is no gain, is something BRAND NEW. It's very obvious, but maybe now you get it. And the point is that originally life started from non-life... Which isn't possible. You can't have something BRAND NEW that wasn't there before. To believe that is extremely wishful thinking. And for something microscopic to have changes to eventually add things like feet, legs, all the extremeties, etc.... Is just ridiculous. The point is at least you made your point clear in your last paragraph. But let me say one thing... You've said things about "That's how evolution works" and similar... The point is I obviously don't believe evolution, so to make that statement to assist your assertions is pointless. Anyway, let me react to your last paragraph, then I'm done... here's your paragraph:
"Of course you don't, that would mean dealing with the awful truth that a net gain can occur via mutation. You will of course claim it came from sequence A in the first place, but that's how evolution works, new things apppear out of old ones, & when duplications occur, there are net gains, despite your claims otherwise.. "Wrong wrong wrong, I have never said "net gains" didn't occur. I explained this above, but I'm gonna say it again. This "net gain" stuff is your business. I just say BRAND NEW things don't come from thin air... Science and common sense no that. Things can be changed via duplications and losses, but BRAND NEW things aren't added by magic chance. It is obvious this is what I've been saying all along... You can go back and read the posts... Avoid the one where I said "things can't benefit" because I've said I made that mistake like a million times now, but you feel the need to waste your post addressing things like that. Knock yourself out.

Okay Mark, you can think my point has changed all along... I've explained that while I was wrong in using "beneficial" my point has remained the same... And it is so obvious I was talking about brand new before just now... Infact I even used the words... So stop the spin... I'm not even going to go back to double check because I know for a fact that I had used "brand new" and "out of no where" points multiple times. And you obviously agree with that. And I'm sick of you lying and saying that "but you claimed that when things are added things are lost at the same time"..... Do I have to keep telling you I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I never implied anything remotely close to that. I said A BENEFIT, can come from a LOSS. I never said because a species loses a nose, it gains something. IT BENEFITS BUT DOESN'T GAIN. I never said because it loses that it also gains. I don't even know where you keep getting and... just it's so frustrating... You know what... Go ahead... Feel like you won. I've pointed out that brand new things can't be added, you have confirmed it... But you believe that we could have come from a microscopic being to every living thing today, mutations that changed, including "net gains" by duplication... But I don't. That angers you for some reason. I believe it is because you feel that evolution is fact, when we all know it is not. That is why it is called "The Theory of." Whatever, I'm out.... Stop trying to be such a jack-ass and condescending so that I will come back and argue with you. You can go think you're right and I can think I'm right... The theory of evolution is after all, "a theory." So there's no reason to get pissed that I don't believe that we can come from non-life.

juset to be clear crash... there isn't such thing as "more true" or "less true", but I also never claimed anything as fact.......