i was hoping for a definitive commitment from pericules

*
sadly it isnt forthcomming..[re specificlly naming this 'first life'
along with its evidences as to the science method that names it]

of late there have been near ten...programs[propaganda]..
as to how life began/where we came from ...etc

it would be great if these named names..
not a theory on he process[evolution]

[see how thats how some
got* to have faith..in a theory* of science
taking credit..*from god who done it..to science saying..it was alians/chance/evolution]lol

see saying its so..isnt science
and thats what is being done to you..!

decieved away from the living loving life/giver/sustainer..[god/good]
[sustaining*..all living]

its been compounded..of course by believers
of religious messengers mess-ages..
[mess-agress..from mess-angers]
believing in the wrong version[per-version]..
of god...as wrathfull/judgmental/omnipotant

by potantates of 'him' selectivly..granting miracles [lol]..
while missing..their own key descriptive/words

[love/mercy/grace...omnipresant..;]
as in emmanuel..[god with us..[all]!]

thing is
science dont know what came first
[the egg..cause chicken's..come from eggs]

science dont know*..who laid the egg
to hatched what first *chicken
[let alone declare*..what was
*this 'first' life]

dear pericules
see how this..reveals...
even those claiming 'evolution'
are having faith*..in the faulse/god of science..!

just as war mongers kill
thinking god..[the life giver]
is pleased..with any death..to be in anyway 'pleasing'..

..to the one true good...
[its all wrong...:ANY faith..is just being lazy]

and here is..the fact..*beyond the definition]

athiest thinks ...where did i...[life]..come from
his end reply..is evolution..[cause..its ""authoritive"" 'science']

now..the thiest...[where life/i come from?]
from god..[BOTH come to an unthinking conclusion..!]..

[to wit FAITH]

cause..THEY ARE BOTH..TOO LAZEY to get to the reality
but*..ONLY one claims/to be based on evidences

my question to you
is PRESENT IT...!

[then lets/continue till
we have taklked about it a bit]

[how is the living loving good [god]
served by any death?

god..[good]..is'nt..!

now wait
for facts..
from*..*percules

OUG, you frequently raise questions of evolution, genus, etc… Answering is difficult because you misconstrue what science can do and has claimed to have done. Though this extract is semi-anonymous it is a clear explanation re kinds:

*From a poster nicknamed "Bad" (10:20pm 11 April 2008) on Radiolab's comments re the episode (So-called) Life*

"So talking about a "half-ape/half-human" is really more like saying that something is a "half-bird/half-chicken" or a "half-mammal/half-dog."
The reason all of this is so confusing is that the basic system of taxonomy, which was set up prior to evolution, is static and primarily built to classify existing, modern species. But the history of life is much bigger than just the present day, and the classifications have a branching unity that simple static names cannot capture.

But consider for a second a human being. We are not only still apes, 100% ape, but we are also "still" 100% primate. And 100% mammal. And 100% amniote. And 100% tetrapod. And 100% eukaryote! This can sound crazy to anyone who thinks of evolution as one thing changing into another, but the key is that all of these categories are not simply larger and larger categories: they are our history as well.

This is why, when creationists insist that we never see fruit flies or dogs becoming something "else" they don't know how right they are. All the descendants of fruit flies will be fruit flies. All the descendants of dogs will be dogs. Not because they won't change into new species as well, but because they will still group together under those terms against all other living things. The unique history that was the lineage of fruit flies will ALWAYS be their lineage. "Fruit fly" will still describe what they are, how they are all like each other and unlike anything else.

…it's a weird concept for some people to grasp. Our taxonomic way of naming things is like only being able to see 2d in a 3d world."

Trust this is helpful… I'll get back to you about first life, eventually, since the science is still evolving.

Poirot and Yuyutsu,

From your quote, Poirot:
"..It is derived from primitive identification instead of mature social integration; it entails the partial surrender of personal responsibility and produces the quasi-hypnotic phenomena of group-psychology. The egotism of the social holon feeds on the altruism of its members...."

My response is included in my following to WmTrevor; I would contend that "altruism" in some contexts is "regression" and surrender to the "Id" rather than to the "Ego".

WmTrevor, That's a great way of describing the tree of life, and the inherited history of current species including ourselves. Indeed we are constituted of every single individual step on the evolutionary path leading to our present representation. I wish everyone could acknowledge this fact, and the fact that humanity is not so highly evolved as so many tend to think.

In so many ways "man" is still a primitive, and, in my view, the psychological "transcendence" demonstrated in "group think" and in "war" and in all manner of "altruistic" collaboration to justify unspeakable abomination is not altruistic or transcendence at all, but is rather a retreat to the primitive, a "group delusion". We see clear evidence of this reversion to the primitive each and every day.

"Man" has a very long way to go to be worthy of standing at the right hand of God; and individual pilgrimage on the "right" path falls far short of the universal "evolution" necessary to transcend the enormous fallibility of current "mankind".

"Enlightened"? We are yet to scratch the surface.

dear wn...it cant be that hard
to simply name the first life
[clearly notnaming such..means science dont know]

this dont stop many..HAVING FAITH..in science
from calling it game over..when officially science dosnt know
[thus cant provide the reply so many died in the wool athiests need]

but lets oignore ape/man...as being speculative
[opinion based on faith...rather than fact]

but lets egsamin your words

""The unique history
that was the lineage of fruit flies
will ALWAYS be their lineage.""

thats clever spin wn
but think of it as more like this
a fruit fly came from something else
thus could only come..*from the 'somethingelse' lineage

"""Fruit fly" will still describe what they are,""
ie fruitflies..breeding other fruitflies
that by sheer weight of possability...has allways grown/made fruitflies..[till someone has DEFINITIVE proof..ie FACT]

even then it would be fact
but not science..unless it could be replicated
AND SCIENCE HAS NEVER replicated even one single evolution..!

""how they are all like each other
and unlike anything else.""

is nought to backup
those deluding science..or evolution

""…it's a weird concept for some people to grasp.""

not really...cats bred cats
cats dont bred rats

""Our taxonomic way of naming things
is like only being able to see 2d in a 3d world.""

love the gibberish
but that dosnt prove anything
except preaching to the allready decieved

i done 3 mths jail
based on taxonomy;liars..!

[if its good enough to prove a plant is a drug
it good enough to reveal genus..is a fixed barrier
that evolution HAS NEVER crossed...[according to your science...faulse godheads]

the spin is in the lie
taught as fact..to kids
who are divided into ever more narrow..[fields of specialisation]..

before they realise
the evolving into new genus/thing..is pure spin

IF YOU GOT PROOF
present it...!

""I'll get back to you about first life""

yeah thats some proof[lol]
NOT..!

""eventually,..since the science is still evolving.""

science cant 'evolve' its own blindness
an evolving theory..means science dont even got the theory fixed

[which makes those decieved
into believing science has proof..ARE...all the more..in error..!

little wonder its taught to us as kids
just like satan clause/easter bunies and tooth fairies

evolution..[out of genus]
is a fraud...but even that..certainly dont refute god doing it

think of the good of god
[nurture..inherant even in nature*]

natural selection..
isnt science selection

the whole field is barren
but yet im having to face know-nothings each time
who think..(*they got 'science'..]

but they all go silent
once they realise they got nuthin
evolution was simply a god free theory..

that is grossly in error
[made worse because scientists
who should have spoken up..remain mute]

much like climate change lies/ommisions
peer revieuw...and destractions...[lest we forget out/out fossil/media fraud]

really
if you cant recite science facts
its simple..dont quote/claim science can

it cant

I apologize, I must have missed the question, one under god.

>>i was hoping for a definitive commitment from pericules* sadly it isnt forthcomming..[re specificlly naming this 'first life' along with its evidences as to the science method that names it]<<

Our last interaction focussed on my question to you, if "the theory of evolution" is a theory, where does that place God?

What I was driving at was that your incessant carping about "evolution is only a theory, therefore cannot be the truth" leaves a gaping logical hole when it comes to your alternative: it was God wot dunnit.

Because there is far less evidence to support the theory that there is a God, than there is that evolution has occurred on this planet.

But you cover that nicely with

>>and thats a matter of faith...believing its god..that made each beast after its own kind needs those claiming it wasnt..god..to prove an alternative<<

Which is where I thought the discussion needed to end. Against a faith in something that requires no evidence, presenting any real live factual observable evidence is going to be a waste of time.

It's like when you were a kid playing soldiers. Pointing a stick at someone and going "bang, you're dead" required them to fall down and leave the game. No amount of protest, "but it isn't a real gun with real bullets", will make any progress against the magic of the imagination.

I'm not sure what else by way of a "definitive commitment" I can offer. If you consistently reject the factual evidence presented to you, in favour of a theory that has no evidence at all - because it doesn't need it, because it is "a matter of faith" - then that's where the discussion necessarily ends.

If you're still puzzled, by all means have another go at explaining yourself.