RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 10:36:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 The argument about birds doesn't hold. All a . . . yada yada quote: . . . very common in C. Africa populations. Yet interestingly, everybody remains human. ;-) Astoundingly, or not, you managed to totally miss the point of every argument you quoted. Is it because you don't really read English well, or is it your preconceived notions make for a Teflon mind when it comes to any concept you don't already believe in? No need answering, I recognize it's a clear instance of "The Gods themselves struggle in vain. . ." Edit: Lest this seem just another insult, the Problem with your 'points' and rejoinders to careful explanations is in Every case, your are arguing not against past or present concepts of evolution theories, but against your misunderstandings of widely observed natural events or basic principles of Evolution. And refractory to all attempts to clear those misconceptions. At least go study what Evolution actually says and the basic processes of Biology that it explains or deals with (cellular processes and sexual reproduction), not what you think someone said about it? PLEASE? And you guys! This thread had died a natural and deserved death. It's stinking up the place as it is. Yep, typical Evolutionist rebuttal, "the evidence is all there but you are too stupid to understand it". Perhaps Evolutionists are too stupid to explain it in a way that actually fits reality. ;-)

Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 10:38:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 The argument about birds doesn't hold. All a . . . yada yada quote: . . . very common in C. Africa populations. Yet interestingly, everybody remains human. ;-) Astoundingly, or not, you managed to totally miss the point of every argument you quoted. Is it because you don't really read English well, or is it your preconceived notions make for a Teflon mind when it comes to any concept you don't already believe in? No need answering, I recognize it's a clear instance of "The Gods themselves struggle in vain. . ." Edit: Lest this seem just another insult, the Problem with your 'points' and rejoinders to careful explanations is in Every case, your are arguing not against past or present concepts of evolution theories, but against your misunderstandings of widely observed natural events or basic principles of Evolution. And refractory to all attempts to clear those misconceptions. At least go study what Evolution actually says and the basic processes of Biology that it explains or deals with (cellular processes and sexual reproduction), not what you think someone said about it? PLEASE? And you guys! This thread had died a natural and deserved death. It's stinking up the place as it is. Yep, typical Evolutionist rebuttal, "the evidence is all there but you are too stupid to understand it". Perhaps Evolutionists are too stupid to explain it in a way that actually fits reality. ;-) Perhaps their explanation does reflect reality and you are too closed minded (I don't like the term stupid) to understand it.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 10:41:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thursdays quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Call it what you will, so far it is a choice between an "electrified mud puddle" and "some sky fairy", I'm going with the "sky fairy", because as I said, we both know that all the combined intelligence of science has not figured out how an "electrified mud puddle" could have done it. That covers it. Let's set aside the vast, vast body of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to god. No, instead, let's take a closer look at the vast, vast lack of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to God. ;-)

Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 10:44:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: thursdays quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Call it what you will, so far it is a choice between an "electrified mud puddle" and "some sky fairy", I'm going with the "sky fairy", because as I said, we both know that all the combined intelligence of science has not figured out how an "electrified mud puddle" could have done it. That covers it. Let's set aside the vast, vast body of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to god. No, instead, let's take a closer look at the vast, vast lack of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to God. ;-) Prove he exists first outside the confines of your cranium.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:02:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Prove he exists first outside the confines of your cranium. He can't Hilly. [:D] Men (general sense) have been trying to do that for over 2 millenia and not a single person has ever succeeded (yet). Miles would rather believe in creationist theory that has absolutely no evidence whatsover, backed up by strange faerie storied badly translated by bad writers bound up in a book of untruths. His mind is too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] You might find it easier to convince him that the sun goes round the earth. [sm=banghead.gif]

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:05:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles What about bisexual reproduction? With asexual reproduction Evolution would seem reasonable but with bisexual reproduction that means every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other. Again scientifically it could happen but realistically, fat chance Ever heard of inbreeding? You should be quite familiar with it. Thanks for the barely veiled insult and I return the compliment. quote: I mean you throw all these biological terms around. Do you not realize that siblings born with the same trait will likely pass that trait on if they breed? Animals and plants aren't nearly as fastidious as we about such things. Back to the subject at hand, what do you think happened? What happened every time the tree of Evolution branched? Did suddenly hundreds of the new branch appear? Because as GotSteel was so kind in pointing out; "while the minimum number to make a species viable does vary, 2 is ridulously low." So how did that happen? Personally, it seems to strain credulity to believe that there was a male and a female born every time the tree of Evolution branched but GotSteel says it would take more than that. I tried not to "throw all these biological terms around" for you. ;-)

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:08:33 AM)
Well after god decided to do the creation thing, and before the catholic church decided it was a slick way to raise more money, there was no marraiges among fish, fowl or humans and you can take it as scriptural that they coveted their neigbors wife and their neibors wife did some asynchronous coveting of her own.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:14:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles "That's what I like about Evolutionists, their vivid imaginations. That's what I like about creationists, their vivid imaginations. The earth, the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago and we have this book that's a bad translation of several other bad translations to prove it.[8\|] Well then, I guess that even though I believe in creation, it's a good thing I'm not a Creationist, because it would be a pretty silly thing to believe that; "The earth, the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago." Although I have pointed out, philosophically speaking, God could have made the Universe last night while we slept but I don't think he works that way, so I believe the universe is probably billions of years old. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:24:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Why are we arguing Evolution with people who call it bisexual reproduction and obviously have no actual understanding of sexual reproduction, gene donation by each parent and DNA/messengerRNA/RNA cellular biology? Why, what do you want to call it? And where did I indicate there isn't gene donation by both parents? ;-) The proper term is "Sexual Reproduction" as opposed to "Asexual reproduction". The habitual use of incorrect terms implies ignorance of the subject matter. Thanks, I appreciate that. I was using the term to emphasize the need for two, a male and a female for reproduction each time Evolution came up with a new "branch" but I will discontinue the practice, if as you have said, it "implies ignorance of the subject matter." ;-)

Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:28:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles What about bisexual reproduction? With asexual reproduction Evolution would seem reasonable but with bisexual reproduction that means every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other. Again scientifically it could happen but realistically, fat chance Ever heard of inbreeding? You should be quite familiar with it. Thanks for the barely veiled insult and I return the compliment. quote: I mean you throw all these biological terms around. Do you not realize that siblings born with the same trait will likely pass that trait on if they breed? Animals and plants aren't nearly as fastidious as we about such things. Back to the subject at hand, what do you think happened? What happened every time the tree of Evolution branched? Did suddenly hundreds of the new branch appear? Because as GotSteel was so kind in pointing out; "while the minimum number to make a species viable does vary, 2 is ridulously low." So how did that happen? Personally, it seems to strain credulity to believe that there was a male and a female born every time the tree of Evolution branched but GotSteel says it would take more than that. I tried not to "throw all these biological terms around" for you. ;-) Don't worry about throwing biological terms around me. It's what my undergraduate work and graduate work were both in.[;)] I'll try to simplify it so you can understand it. The advantage doesn't have to happen in the first generation, nor does it need to be a dominant trait. This gives a new allele time to disperse through a species. (remember, were playing with tens of millions of years here, not 60 centuries). Let's have a population of animals all of whom who can digest 1 type of tree leaf (A1) and a few of them can digest 2 kinds because of a slightly different enzyme in their stomach (A2). Tree species 1 dies out due to pests, drought or disease in this area. Only the few will survive. There is a good chance they will also be morphologically different as well as genetic changes rarely only have a single effect. We have a permanent change in the species. If tree species 1 persists in other areas, you now have 2 genetically and morphologically different subspecies of the herbivore. This is especially common on islands where intense inbreeding among small populations will heighten any genetic differences from the parent species. Remember, change is typically slow. This seems to be one of the problems that Biblical Literalists have with the theory. It typically takes more than 6000 years and a lot of them cannot comprehend numbers as large as a Million. By the way, your comment earlier on asexually reproducing higher animals was dead wrong. Some species of lizards reproduce via parthenogenesis (no males involved). Due to the fact that there is no mixing of the gametes (think of mixing a bag of scrabble letters to make new words) they must live in ultra stable environments or they won't last long. Parthenogenesis is an advantage only in an ultra stable environment with high predation pressures as it is a way to double potential reproductive activity without doubling the population and pushing the organism past the carrying capacity of said environment.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:40:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 The argument about birds doesn't hold. All a . . . yada yada quote: . . . very common in C. Africa populations. Yet interestingly, everybody remains human. ;-) Astoundingly, or not, you managed to totally miss the point of every argument you quoted. Is it because you don't really read English well, or is it your preconceived notions make for a Teflon mind when it comes to any concept you don't already believe in? No need answering, I recognize it's a clear instance of "The Gods themselves struggle in vain. . ." Edit: Lest this seem just another insult, the Problem with your 'points' and rejoinders to careful explanations is in Every case, your are arguing not against past or present concepts of evolution theories, but against your misunderstandings of widely observed natural events or basic principles of Evolution. And refractory to all attempts to clear those misconceptions. At least go study what Evolution actually says and the basic processes of Biology that it explains or deals with (cellular processes and sexual reproduction), not what you think someone said about it? PLEASE? And you guys! This thread had died a natural and deserved death. It's stinking up the place as it is. Yep, typical Evolutionist rebuttal, "the evidence is all there but you are too stupid to understand it". Perhaps Evolutionists are too stupid to explain it in a way that actually fits reality. ;-) Perhaps their explanation does reflect reality and you are too closed minded (I don't like the term stupid) to understand it. Thanks again, for your sake I will discontinue my use of it the thread as well. As for close minded, how so? I have read everything that has been posted, thought about it and have tried to visualize how it would fit with reality and have responded with questions and thoughts about it and yet my question about sexual reproduction has not been answered. Other than the circuitous, we are here so it must have happened, what is the answer to my question, how does Evolution account for the fact that a male and a female must be born at the same place and time to continue the newly evolved each time the tree of Evolution branched? ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:45:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: thursdays quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Call it what you will, so far it is a choice between an "electrified mud puddle" and "some sky fairy", I'm going with the "sky fairy", because as I said, we both know that all the combined intelligence of science has not figured out how an "electrified mud puddle" could have done it. That covers it. Let's set aside the vast, vast body of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to god. No, instead, let's take a closer look at the vast, vast lack of evidence that supports evolution and just hand it over to God. ;-) Prove he exists first outside the confines of your cranium. Why? I don't need to prove God's existence, to show that Evolution is a flawed model of the world around us. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:51:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Prove he exists first outside the confines of your cranium. He can't Hilly. [:D] Men (general sense) have been trying to do that for over 2 millenia and not a single person has ever succeeded (yet). Miles would rather believe in creationist theory that has absolutely no evidence whatsover, backed up by strange faerie storied badly translated by bad writers bound up in a book of untruths. His mind is too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] You might find it easier to convince him that the sun goes round the earth. [sm=banghead.gif] Actually, for thousands of years many have had the existence of God proven to them, perhaps it is your mind that is "too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there"? ;-)

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 11:53:21 AM)
Not as flawed as creationism. Hey, might interest you to know that the theory of relativity is flawed, but it works good enough for the girls we go out with, and there are many theories like that that haven't worked out every last kink, and we know are not ultramicroscopicially correct in every miniscule detail. Big bang, and the list is endless, like the But you really haven't said anything other than obtuse non-sequiturs about how the theory of evolution is wrong, you simply take it on faith.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 12:03:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Actually, for thousands of years many have had the existence of God proven to them, perhaps it is your mind that is "too closed to acknowledge any real evidence out there"? ;-) Where?? I don't know of any proof of god anywhere. Without spouting from the book of lies and deceit, where is your proof??? Can you provide any sort of evidence at all?? A reputable source for a link? Anything????

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 12:31:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Do I believe organs got complicated over night? Quite frankly, yes I do. Why? How did this happen? What evidence is there? And if God did it in the past, why doesn't he still do it now? God is not Evolution. Once God is satisfied with his work he rests from his labors. He does not, like evolution, have a need to keep making changes to what is already finished. ;-)

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 12:58:15 PM)
So, there is no reason to keep flogging this pastiche, he can bring armegeddon, or could have brought it centuries ago, and we could have this in the can.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 1:05:29 PM)
[/quote] . . . how does Evolution account for the fact that a male and a female must be born at the same place and time to continue the newly evolved each time the tree of Evolution branched? ;-) [/quote] "Evolution" doesn't have to account for this as it is a principle and requirement that only exists in your mind. Biology and 'evolution' work differently. A single gene mutation in either parent is passed to an offspring if that half of the particular gene ends up part of the descendent's genes (50/50 chance, one from male, one from female parent, thus SEXUAL reproduction). That generation passes the altered gene to it's descendents (again 50/50 chance) and so on. If the new coding alters individual chances of reproduction and viable offspring who reproduce (+ or -) it affects the chance it increases or decreases in the population. MOST mutations don't offer advantages, in fact most result in still births. Of the very few that convey a phenotype advantage, random death before reproduction probably 'disappears' most. The few that survive long enough to be tested for competitive advantage (Multiple offspring who, in the case of recessives, breed with similar gene partners) are selected FOR and their descendents have a better chance of survival to reproduction. NO male and female at the same generation required, only that the gene stay in the game and multiple descendents eventuate to compete against the previous coding of the species without the mutation. Conventional theory points out that in most cases small populations geographically or otherwise reproductively isolated from larger numbers of the species select for novel genetic advantages faster. Large groups interbreeding may suppress new recessive mutations which then have little chance of either being expressed and thus conveying reproductive advantage. Or the species genetic variation increases with out a new species emerging. (But with potential for doing so if small numbers find themself isolated in different environments that select for it.) And altered environments offer altered chances a novel phenotype may be more competitive. Better adaptions do better, poorer ones are selected OUT, independently of which variation arose most recently. What do YOU call it when accounting for ALL genetic populations displaying drift (Change in gene frequency and exact genes in the group) over time? Every single trial or longitudinal study (such as examination of historical population remains compared to later populations) of either asexual (Bacteria undergoing Mitosis or budding higher organisms) or sexual reproduction (Meiosis I and II) shows random drift, much from mutation. Evolution just takes that fact and looks at it's consequences of competition for resources, predator avoidance, mate selection, successful parenting and everything else affecting individual survival through it's reproductive success to the next generation. If you maintain populations Don't drift, we are done here, you aren't conversant with observed reality.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 2:42:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles That's what I like about Evolutionists, their vivid imaginations. It's a fossil of an animal that once existed, nothing more. All this starting to fly, is only in your mind. If it had been a ostrich or an emu fossil you had found, you would say the same thing about it, except we would know it wouldn't be true. Archaeopteryx is undeniably a dinosaur with numerous uniquely bird characters including adaptations for flight. What do you think it was? quote: Do I believe organs got complicated over night? Quite frankly, yes I do. Again it's one of the reasons I see Evolution as bogus. Have you looked at Evolution's simple cell that started all this lately? Science has found that it's not so simple any more, in fact I could ask, do you think those simple cells got terribly complicated overnight? Then you have no idea of the broad range of sexual organs getting progressively more complicated as time goes on. quote: Call it what you will, so far it is a choice between an "electrified mud puddle" and "some sky fairy", I'm going with the "sky fairy", because as I said, we both know that all the combined intelligence of science has not figured out how an "electrified mud puddle" could have done it. That's called the argument from ignorance. In short just because you don't know how something happened doesn't mean it couldn't have. Your stuff is right out of the standard creationist playbook. I guess that puts the lie to those denials of yours.

GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/17/2014 2:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: First of all it's not like the changes actual evolution is talking about are so different that an animal can't mate with the species that gave them birth. According to Evolution, at some point they can't mate with the species that gave them birth or else every living thing now in existence would be able to hybridize with every other thing and they can't. Nope, that's not from evolution. That's a strawman of evolution which only shows up in the dumbest forms of creationism known to man. quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: Evolution doesn't involve crocodiles giving birth to ducks, it just plain doesn't and never has. In a way it does, according to Evolution every living thing in existence evolved from a series of other living forerunners going all the way back to "simple celled originators", at some point in that chain there were ""crocodiles" giving birth to "ducks"" or else every living thing now in existence would be able to hybridize with every other thing and they can't. Nope, you're wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: Second if two crocodiles were to somehow give birth to two ducks those ducks still wouldn't be able to give birth to a viable species. While the minimum number to make a species viable does vary, 2 is ridulously low. So Evolution doesn't work. Thanks for proving that. What I'm pointing out is that you're severely ignorant when it comes to evolution.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875