Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
I see this as incorrect and not needed

You could easily be right, it is just an opinion after all...

but it seems to be a recurring point from a couple of people here as some main reason that evolution can not happen. Do you believe that humans today could not mate with humans in a million years due to Genetic drift?

No clue, a geneticist might be able to provide a better guess, but my guess is yes, they possibly could, but their offspring may be more like mules (the offspring of horses and donkeys), incapable of reproducing.

So you can't get something like a frog evolving into a wombat as both branched off a very long time ago into totally different paths.

Yet the entire fundamental precept of the theory of evolution is that everything - EVERYTHING - evolved from some kind of primordial ooze, or more specifically, some single source of - what, amino acids, bacteria, or something...

So, in this sense, yes, they both came from a single source.

I keep reading versions of what you wrote above as another form of proof, and it is incorrect as it is applied.

It isn't offered as PROOF (at least not by me), it is proffered as a question... how. How could it happen?

They are talking points pulled from people who are bias to evolution and 99% of those who use these talking point have no clue to what they are talking about other than to propagate the points over and over, but we have 1000s of people who do know what it all means and have zero issues that evolution can happen and did, and is still going on.

Ok, so, I'll restate my question again, and try to be more precise...

Assuming (if any of these are incorrect, by all means, correct me):

a) the argument for evolution is a series of random mutations, and

b) these mutations occur over a period of millions of years

Explain how an ape can mutate into a human being, without

a) each (RANDOM) mutation that changes a single aspect of the ape toward that of a human having to occur in thousands if not millions of individual apes AT THE SAME TIME (SO THEY CAN THEN MATE AND REPRODUCE, resulting in said mutation becoming a permanent new feature, as opposed to just a mutation, and

b) this same process occurring COUNTLESS times over and over said period of millions of years, before resulting in the changing of the ape into a new species, a human being.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
I see this as incorrect and not needed

You could easily be right, it is just an opinion after all...

but it seems to be a recurring point from a couple of people here as some main reason that evolution can not happen. Do you believe that humans today could not mate with humans in a million years due to Genetic drift?

No clue, a geneticist might be able to provide a better guess, but my guess is yes, they possibly could, but their offspring may be more like mules (the offspring of horses and donkeys), incapable of reproducing.

So you can't get something like a frog evolving into a wombat as both branched off a very long time ago into totally different paths.

Yet the entire fundamental precept of the theory of evolution is that everything - EVERYTHING - evolved from some kind of primordial ooze, or more specifically, some single source of - what, amino acids, bacteria, or something...

So, in this sense, yes, they both came from a single source.

I keep reading versions of what you wrote above as another form of proof, and it is incorrect as it is applied.

It isn't offered as PROOF (at least not by me), it is proffered as a question... how. How could it happen?

They are talking points pulled from people who are bias to evolution and 99% of those who use these talking point have no clue to what they are talking about other than to propagate the points over and over, but we have 1000s of people who do know what it all means and have zero issues that evolution can happen and did, and is still going on.

Ok, so, I'll restate my question again, and try to be more precise...

Assuming (if any of these are incorrect, by all means, correct me):

a) the argument for evolution is a series of random mutations, and

b) these mutations occur over a period of millions of years

Explain how an ape can mutate into a human being, without

a) each (RANDOM) mutation that changes a single aspect of the ape toward that of a human having to occur in thousands if not millions of individual apes AT THE SAME TIME (SO THEY CAN THEN MATE AND REPRODUCE, resulting in said mutation becoming a permanent new feature, as opposed to just a mutation, and

b) this same process occurring COUNTLESS times over and over said period of millions of years, before resulting in the changing of the ape into a new species, a human being.

You still havent sourced or explained why you think mutations would have to happen simultaneously across multiple apes.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

You still havent sourced or explained why you think mutations would have to happen simultaneously across multiple apes.

You haven't explained how organisms can survive without ATP synthase. If all organisms would die without ATP synthase that makes it an irreducibly complex component.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

'Evolutionists' ignore irreducible complexity

Yeah because evolutionists think they can take both their eyes out and still see. They'd go that far to ignore the obvious fact of irreducible complexity in our body. Supposing you can see, but actually being blind. Perfect metaphor.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Why wouldn't a self-styled skeptic be skeptical about for example the claim that because of DNA similarity we can say that "the Chimp is like 99,6% us"?

Notice how they never actually respond to the science, they dance around it, resort to insults, and evade admitting the obvious answer that shows the errancy in evolution. I rarely see such faith among Christians, the evolutionist dogma is strong, they'll ignore empirical evidence to maintain their faith.

"We use God's mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. "

a reply to: cooperton


The eye is completely consistent with evolution.

www.newscientist.com...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You still havent sourced or explained why you think mutations would have to happen simultaneously across multiple apes.

Actually, I have, multiple times, you simply pretend that I haven't, because I haven't provided some mystical impossible magical 'source' that you would acknowledge.

But yet again...

The only way traits get propagated - handed down from generation to generation - is through the act of procreation, and said traits must exist in at least one of the two parent animals that are mating in order for said trait to have a chance at being reproduced. This goes for minor variations like eye color, and even more for mutations - traits that had never existed before. also, the chances are greatest if said trait exists in both parents.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You still havent sourced or explained why you think mutations would have to happen simultaneously across multiple apes.

Actually, I have, multiple times, you simply pretend that I haven't, because I haven't provided some mystical impossible magical 'source' that you would acknowledge.

But yet again...

The only way traits get propagated - handed down from generation to generation - is through the act of procreation, and said traits must exist in at least one of the two parent animals that are mating in order for said trait to have a chance at being reproduced. This goes for minor variations like eye color, and even more for mutations - traits that had never existed before. also, the chances are greatest if said trait exists in both parents.

At least 1.

Not thousands/millions simultaneously.

A mutation can be handed down from a single parent.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton


The eye is completely consistent with evolution.

www.newscientist.com...

What? ...My point was that if you take out the eyes that you can't see. That's irreducible complexity. The same would be if you removed the optic nerve, or parts of the visual cortex. These components necessarily need each other to generate the function of vision.

It is on par that you link a paywall article... clearly not even reading it yourself. From the few sentences I can read, it is funny they claim with certainty that the eye formed 541 million years ago. As if they knew it is that date so specifically. This is laughable. How do they know with certainty that it is 541 million years old instead of 540 million years old? What is the observable evidence that this is the case? Don't be a blind believer, tell me specifically how they could know that. This is what is wrong with sci-fi blogs on the internet... They make gullible people believe such absurd numbers without a thimble of empirical evidence to support their assertion. Essentially, their evidence is "evolution must be true, so therefore the eye must have evolved, therefor evolution is true"

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Actually, I have, multiple times, you simply pretend that I haven't, because I haven't provided some mystical impossible magical 'source' that you would acknowledge.

Scot is a bot, don't let him get to you.

originally posted by: cooperton
Notice how they never actually respond to the science, they dance around it, resort to insults, and evade admitting the obvious answer that shows the errancy in evolution. I rarely see such faith among Christians, the evolutionist dogma is strong, they'll ignore empirical evidence to maintain their faith.

"We use God's mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. "

You ignore all chemical and biological evidence put to you. If you know what ATP is you'll know it's not homo-specific - it's BILLIONS of years old. All lifeforms have it because it developed very early in cellular biology. Your argument using it demonstrates its futility as an argument.

Why are you arguing this topic on a conspiracy forum? I simply don't understand this. Get yourself on a biology forum and put your case forward. If you have solved abiogenesis you'll be celebrated the world over!

Oh, what's that you say? You're using the evidence of one religion out of thousands? The only evidence is a collection of ancient unnamed scrolls? There is no physical proof of anything stated in those scrolls? Some of your colleagues that do present evidence are known to be fraudulent? OK sir. How about you go back to your shack and we go back to our labs. Have a great day.

a reply to: cooperton

How boring is biology, we have genetic engineering now, besides evolution is antiquated, I mean it has its place like a footnote at best.

Richard has to remain relevant somehow. I wonder if he will donate his savings to charity before he's gone?

I mean 1 child who was taken away from him and placed in Catholic school... we don't have to worry about his genes propagating.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You ignore all chemical and biological evidence put to you.

What evidence did I ignore? Be specific. Not just baseless claims, I mean true observable, repeatable evidence.

All lifeforms have it because it developed very early in cellular biology. Your argument using it demonstrates its futility as an argument.

I was using it as an example to show that if it is removed the organism cannot survive any longer due to a broken electron transport chain. It is an example of irreducible complexity.

Why are you arguing this topic on a conspiracy forum? I simply don't understand this. Get yourself on a biology forum and put your case forward. If you have solved abiogenesis you'll be celebrated the world over!

That'd be equivalent to going to a church and saying Jesus doesn't exist. The faith is strong among the evolutionists, no amount of data or empirical evidence could change their minds. Whereas here there are many people with open minds that are curious about these things.

Oh, what's that you say? You're using the evidence of one religion out of thousands? The only evidence is a collection of ancient unnamed scrolls? There is no physical proof of anything stated in those scrolls? Some of your colleagues that do present evidence are known to be fraudulent? OK sir. How about you go back to your shack and we go back to our labs. Have a great day.

That was me showing a verse to whereislogic, I always play in your guys court when I am debating evolution. I don't use appeals to authority. Learn to actually defend your beliefs in evolution, which is the subject of this thread.

We're not debating Jesus - who may or may not have existed - we are debating the beginning of life.

What would be a simile is if I went into a church saying creation didn't happen. 98%+ of religious people would agree with me.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
we are debating the beginning of life.

BZZZT! wrong answer...

We are debating the "diversity" of life not biogenesis.

Evolution is too narrow in scope, it is very limited.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
We're not debating Jesus - who may or may not have existed - we are debating the beginning of life.

What would be a simile is if I went into a church saying creation didn't happen. 98%+ of religious people would agree with me.

belief in evolution among religious groups

Despite being constantly bombarded from our childhood onward about evolutionist nonsense, there are still many people who don't believe the theory.

But yet again you missed my point. a vast majority of Christians believe in Christ. A vast majority of atheists believe in evolution. So yes telling an atheist that evolution doesn't exist would be the equivalent of saying Jesus doesn't exist to a Christian

But ignore all that and tell me what empirical evidence that you said I ignored. I take my objectivity very seriously. If there is verifiable evidence that I am missing I want to know

a reply to: cooperton

A vast majority of atheists...

Comprising of about 2% of planet (+/-)

They sure are an aggressive lot no?

Just think of all the billions of years it took Richard to get here and now he's almost gone.

Evolution took him out, one heir which was a female because the female he chose to breed with had stronger chromosomes than his.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out Dick.

It's cool sometimes to think like an elitist.

a reply to: whereislogic


Do you find it odd that everything has a relationship with each other? The closer lifeforms are to each other the more there is a relationship like the chimp is to man.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess if we wait around long enough that rock outside my window will magically come to life.

We witness this abiogenesis everyday, it's happening all around us, we can't see it but I promise it just is.

trust me... I'm very scientific

REMINDER

Go after the ball not the player.
Be the Change You Wish to See. Redux.






You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Yet the entire fundamental precept of the theory of evolution is that everything - EVERYTHING - evolved from some kind of primordial ooze, or more specifically, some single source of - what, amino acids, bacteria, or something...

So, in this sense, yes, they both came from a single source.

There are a lot of speculations where life came from, but evolution isn't really about the start of life, it is more about where life goes after it is started. As to the start of life you can say God, and that is fine, but I say he did it 4 billion years ago. In any case I think it is safe to assume you need correct temperature range, water, energy to get it started.

No clue, a geneticist might be able to provide a better guess, but my guess is yes, they possibly could, but their offspring may be more like mules (the offspring of horses and donkeys), incapable of reproducing.

There you go. This is a smart rational thought. They come from the same family but genic divergence has pushed them to being two totally different species. They are right on the edge of being so different they can not even mate anymore, but in this case they still can, but the offspring are unable to breed.

The Horse has 64 chromosomes, and the donkey has 62, and the mule ends up with 63 chromosomes. Because of this odd number of chromosomes, a mule cannot have children. Mules get 32 chromosomes from Horse and 31 from donkeys, and they can neither be male nor female because their body is not able to produce sperm or eggs.

Not much different than Humans and Chimps, but we are talking about a much longer period in the genic divergence here with them. If one accepts there is such a thing as genic divergence then one can trace back at lease as a start only mammals.

Explain how an ape can mutate into a human being, .

It doesn't and can't. You and others keep looking at this like it is all linear as in if we were going to stick just to mammals at first it would look like rodent like creature to monkey like creature, to apes, to chimps to man. As if that all happens one step at a time and and then say that is impossible and I agree, because that isn't what anyone in the world is talking about.

Think of more along the lines of millions of branches of genic divergence happening all the time. Some continue and some end while this process just keeps going and going. As the branch get farther a part from each other those new branches continue to branch off in some never ending event that is a fundamental part of life. There has been a good number of homo species, but they all died off except for us. Chimp are our closest cousin, but they are still 8 million years removed while the horse and donkey is a million or so apart.

The mistake that people make when they argue against evolution is they see just one line from lets say rat like mammal to man and say it is 10 -50 chance for that to happen, or they say you can not evolve from rat to man in one line. What you need to do is not look from humans to the past that would look more like one line, and instead look from that rat like creature forward and when you do that you see an endless number of genic divergence lines branching off in many directions with most ending, but some continue as you start to get groups that look like Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species over 20 to 30 million years.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Yet the entire fundamental precept of the theory of evolution is that everything - EVERYTHING - evolved from some kind of primordial ooze, or more specifically, some single source of - what, amino acids, bacteria, or something...

So, in this sense, yes, they both came from a single source.

There are a lot of speculations where life came from, but evolution isn't really about the start of life, it is more about where life goes after it is started

All I know is that Physics is much more interesting.

I mean how many collisions have we had total in one year from the LHC let alone total collisions since it began operation?

We still haven't had a Cromag man walk out the tunnel yet, heck not even a Neanderthal, nothing... ziltch

Maybe if we accelerated a carbon molecule and a water molecule by themselves for a year we can atleast get a homo-erectus to walk out of that damned thing!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

It doesn't and can't. You and others keep looking at this like it is all linear as in if we were going to stick just to mammals at first it would look like rodent like creature to monkey like creature, to apes, to chimps to man. As if that all happens one step at a time and and then say that is impossible and I agree, because that isn't what anyone in the world is talking about.

Think of more along the lines of millions of branches of genic divergence happening all the time. Some continue and some end while this process just keeps going and going. As the branch get farther a part from each other those new branches continue to branch off in some never ending event that is a fundamental part of life. There has been a good number of homo species, but they all died off except for us. Chimp are our closest cousin, but they are still 8 million years removed while the horse and donkey is a million or so apart.

The mistake that people make when they argue against evolution is they see just one line from lets say rat like mammal to man and say it is 10 -50 chance for that to happen, or they say you can not evolve from rat to man in one line. What you need to do is not look from humans to the past that would look more like one line, and instead look from that rat like creature forward and when you do that you see an endless number of genic divergence lines branching off in many directions with most ending, but some continue as you start to get groups that look like Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species over 20 to 30 million years.

According to the theory if you go back enough generations your great great greatest grandfather was a microbe swimming around in some pond goo. At one point your ancestors were fish. The irony is that these speculations require more miracles than the entire Bible. "God did it", is replaced by "random chance and time did it", without empirical proof to show it could happen.