non religious opposition to darwinism
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#82 Mar 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
i can't believe you are saying that mainstream evolution is completely right. WE DONT KNOW ANYTHING.
Here's what we know:

Genes code for different things in the body.
If you change the genes, you change the outcome.
Mutations occur, they are changes in genes.
Genes are passed down from parent to child.
If a new change in a gene occurs and it kills the individual before they can reproduce, that gene will not get passed down.
If a new change in a gene occurs and it allows the individual to live long enough to reproduce, that gene will get passed down.
Over time, genes which are successful spread to more and more of the population.

That's evolution.

Can you point to a single part of that argument which is not correct?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#86 Mar 10, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>wrong, that is not evolution, it is called mutating an that is how mutants are formed, Mutants remain within the same species. Gosh, you all are desperate. Next you will be calling the appearance of recessive genes evolution.
You should read the entire post before you comment.

A mutation occurs is one of the top items.

After that, I discuss how mutations which are successful will spread across a population while ones that are unsuccessful will die out.

THAT is evolution.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#87 Mar 10, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Your entire argumwnt is wrong. Mutation is simply mutation and has nothing to dow ith evolution. Mutation happens within the same organism, not from species to species. Mutation is a defect, a disease of sorts within an organism. If you go through a village and chop off all the arms, you ding-a-lings will arrive and call the people a new species. Cross breeding also is not evolution, but you have no evolution of that happening from species to species. The plain truth is this, if evolution happened then humans and apes would be able to breed.
You got everything wrong.

First, my argument is correct.

Second, mutation has a great deal to do with evolution. It provides the variability.

Third, mutations don't happen "within the same organism". I may have one mutation, you may have a different one. And by "may" I mean, you and I ABSOLUTELY DO have different mutations.

Fourth, the statement "mutations do not from species to species" is abstractly bizarre that it indicates that you don't understand even the basic terms being used.

Fifth, mutation is a change, not a deficit. You could have a mutation which it detrimental (down syndrome) or you could have a mutation which is neutral (a duplicated gene) or you could have a mutation which is successful (lactose tolerance). All three are possible.

Sixth, you shouldn't go through a village chopping off people's arms. You should see a professional about these fantasies.

Seventh, a group of people without arms are not a new species. Someone's arms being chopped off has nothing to do with their DNA. I can successfully reproduce with someone who has lost their arms and our children will have their arms.

Eighth, the claim that there is no evolution from "species to species" (we assume you mean speciation, the divergence into new species) is on its face wrong. We've witnessed speciation a number of times. The most OBVIOUS of which is nylonese, the bacteria which can only eat nylon (a utterly synthetic compound that has only existed for a few decades).

Ninth, both humans and monkey are able to breed. That's how we get baby humans and baby monkeys. What they can't do is breed with each other because... they are different species.

So, literally EVERY sentence you stated was wrong. Congrats.

Clearly the biggest problem here is that you have NO IDEA what the word "species" means.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#88 Mar 10, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>wrong, that is not evolution, it is called mutating an that is how mutants are formed, Mutants remain within the same species. Gosh, you all are desperate. Next you will be calling the appearance of recessive genes evolution.
Uhuh, we're so desperate that you've been going around saying "evolution iz rong cuz Big Bang!"

Oh, and you got great science creds too. What were they again?

And you still can't grasp the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of claiming evolution is scientifically false when your alternative is Goddidit with magic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

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
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 7 min Critical Eye 120
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 25 min kenedy 143,901
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr NoahLovesU 173,405
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 82
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 8 hr Zog Has-fallen 97
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Fri Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... Fri Chimney1 134
More from around the web