Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83729 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Where can you show that has happened as factual in human population?
Humans have not diverged enough yet to cause speciation. However their genetic variance *is* observed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83730 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So how would the information from the outside world, such as leaves on a tree in relation to a giraffe growing a longer neck to reach a food source come about to mutate the genes?
It's been nearly two years and you fundies still argue against goal-directed evolution.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83731 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
the implication was that a giraffe grows a longer neck by evolutionary means over a period of time to reach a food source.
I asked how the information is transferred from the physical world to the biological construct of giraffe.
do you know or not?
Yes, we know that intended goals are not what drives evolution. Giraffe developed longer necks. If they didn't they simply wouldn't be eating that food at the top of the tree.(shrug)

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83732 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually what he claimed was correct. Here it is for the hundredth time (or so):
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
I like that. Thanks.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83733 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>One would expect that if that hypothesis were correct, even 4 million years should have certainly produced a tangible proof in the human genetic evolution. If the scenario of birds you offer as example of geological separation, and producing(causing) the inability to procreate due to genetic deformation of evolution, then the very same scenario should have produced like results in humans as well, especially over even longer periods of time and history...and yet it (in fact) has not.
Why not?
4 million years? Well the lineages of humans and chimps diverged around 6-7 million years ago we DO have that evidence. As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83734 Mar 29, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeap! No matter how many generations down, the first generation will be the same biological species as the millionth generation down. This is what I mean by fixed.
The fossil record and genetics does not support your position.

Oh wait - I forgot you proposed alien UFO's coming down once every 1 million years to drop off new species. Or something.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83735 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so in other words you don't know.
Yes, we know that your question itself betrays a misunderstanding of the concepts involved. You may as well have been asking why are there still monkeys.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83736 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>If not by the inference of genetic information being passed as mutative cellular action within spermiation or zygote, then how and why would one neck of a giraffe grow to different lengths than another in the same environment?
IOW- there had to have been a transfer of genetic information for the mutation to even have happened....
OR- it never happened.
Let me point out where your entire premise falls apart utterly:
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
IOW- there had to have been a transfer of genetic information for the mutation to even have happened
Mutations are NEW information. If you transfer EXISTING information that is NOT new information. Organism 1 does not "transfer" mutations to its offspring organism 2. Organism 1 transfers its existing genetic material to organism 2 and organism 2 undergoes mutations during development, thereby ending up with a small amount of genetic material which is NOT shared by either parent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83737 Mar 29, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So Giraffes with longer necks eat better because they can reach higher for their food source.
And this is by no way implies any kind of information that was transferred from the physical world to the Giraffe.
Right.lol
Correct. They could have simply stayed short and competed with other short mammals. You continually claim that evolution claims that there was an intended goal, despite the fact that we have argued the opposite from the beginning.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83738 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What are these places in history...please be specific..
There are several. One would be Gobekli tepe.
!2'000 years ago, hunter gatherers built a 30 or more acre complex with elaborate carvings in stones weighing tons..then 1000 or so yrs later they carefully fill it all back in with sand and stone and completely disappear...
What were these "apemen" who were not considered far from treehangers with primitive spears etc. possibly thinking of? Fooling the world into thinking they possessed intelligence and abilities thousands of years beyond their capability and social structure?
How dare they screw with the future anthropologists like that!..knowing full well they were totally out of place in history and all.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83739 Mar 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the logic of evolution, yes. your theory mentioned favoring animals with light colored fur...(evolution) and ones that can molt or change their color s the seasons change would also support the fittest for survival passing on their genes...(evolution)
any questions?
Nope. I agree.
Any questions?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83740 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Fail.
With the thousands of years of (supposed)continental separation of humanoid species, there surely should have been differences in physical abilities and biological differences that your "circle species" argument infers.
I have yet to see you produce an example of that as the case ...therefore that argument is BS as it is presented.
Your argument concerning earlier species is purely hypothetical also...as you have NO tangible proof that any of it is valid and actuality.
Show us any skeletal and genetic matches for any humanoid mutation that can in any way "prove" the evolution of the humanoid line as it is proposed, and the reasons for the occurrences of change and/or mutation. The earliest known ancestor of man was 4.4 million years ago...so don't hand me that BS either.
Here it is again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

And:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

Not sure what you mean by the "reasons" for mutation. They simply happen. That's why you are born with around 125 to 175 mutations which are not shared by either of your parents. This is a normal part of human reproduction. So to me it sounds like you are thinking that evolution involves some kind of goal-direction. This is a common mistake made by creationists, which probably stems from their assumption that humans were always the intended goal since God made them that way.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83741 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
Imagine in the not-distant future, if humanity sends a colony to Mars. They live there, gradually expanding their numbers as the years go by. And gradually, babies are born with longer, lighter limbs as natural selection favors thinner bodies in the lower gravity of Mars.

Say also that they begin to gradually have lung changes as they begin to acclimate to the different Martian atmosphere- say the way we know that some fish on earth developed into lungfish/mudskippers and then transitioned into full air-breathing land creatures.

After a long time, say some of these "Martians" come back to visit the earth, looking very different and having different lung setups -- perhaps they would need breathing tanks to walk around on earth.

Would earth people want to "breed" with them? Would offspring be sterile, or even possible?

Or would they be too different, because of the changes brought about by their situation of reproductive isolation?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83742 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>"mysterious transfer"?
hahahahahahah!
Is that what you call "science"?
Sounds more like the new developing "myth" to me.
So, again, I must ask ---why are there no humanoid species difference that can no longer interbreed??
Or is that another "mysterious" scientific process?
hahahahahah!
Hello?
Why there are PLENTY of humanoid species which can no longer interbreed.

They're called the great apes.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83743 Mar 29, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of crap.
What fundie site do you get your crappy error ridden data from??
You seem to be quite good at picking accusing points...so why don't you just pick one...one that suits your fancy of course there lightning.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83744 Mar 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Black Thunder's first fail was such a train wreck that I missed his second massive fail in his post.
Once again, the reason that there are no other hominids that can interbreed with man is that they went extinct. They all died off. They could not handle the pressure. Many animal species go extinct every year. Did you think that our relatives were immune to extinction?
Well if he's talking hominids, sure. That's why neanderthals aren't around anymore. But since humans are apes and there's plenty of other apes which we can't breed with then I don't understand why he thinks there's no evidence of other species similar to humans which we can't breed with anymore.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83745 Mar 29, 2013
Gillette wrote:
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.
The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
LOL!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83746 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "you" fail to prove your case is actuality, "I" fail?
You are a joke.
Provide me with an instance of the inability of the several lines of human existence that were separated for thousands of years to procreate, as this "circle species" of lower forms of life is supposed to relate to modern or even ancient humans...last you [FAIL]
What scientific alternative to evolution do you propose that does a better job of explaining the evidence? Thanks in advance.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83747 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> There are several. One would be Gobekli tepe.
!2'000 years ago, hunter gatherers built a 30 or more acre complex with elaborate carvings in stones weighing tons..then 1000 or so yrs later they carefully fill it all back in with sand and stone and completely disappear...
What were these "apemen" who were not considered far from treehangers with primitive spears etc. possibly thinking of? Fooling the world into thinking they possessed intelligence and abilities thousands of years beyond their capability and social structure?
How dare they screw with the future anthropologists like that!..knowing full well they were totally out of place in history and all.
well this is not one of those "several"..

Why did they build stonehenge?

this archeological site in no way shows what you purported it shows..

I'm beginning to think you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83748 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Read what better?
Where is your "living" proof of the evolution of man from any origin?
Scientific proof requires the step by step testing and confirmed connection of any previous fossils or remains from the first to the last product of that human evolution.
Anything less is purely conjecture and hypothesis by any scientific standard of proof or discovery.
The failure to discover or validate any connecting "pieces" in any number only serves to make any hypothesis even weaker and more questionable.
So I ask for that proof, and my request for evidence and explanation regarding your conjecture is deemed a [FAIL]?
That is indeed, poor science...
Or you are a poor representative.
Actually it does not need to directly connect the fossils. All the theory of evolution is required to do is make successful scientific predictions. And it did. Observed genetics matches the nested hierarchies observed in the fossil record. This is not necessary if evolution is incorrect.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr kenedy njoroge 884
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr One way or another 178,080
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 17,900
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web