132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  4  
Sat 9 Apr, 2016 07:06 pm
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:
I am not claiming that they must be fully formed, they just have to formed enough to do the job at all.

They are always formed enough to do the job.

Every single ancestor of every organism alive today, and every organism that has ever lived, was successful at reproduction. They were all formed "enough to do the job".
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 9 Apr, 2016 09:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I question whether that was a multicellular organism. The only 'cooperative' thing that some of the cells in the cluster did was die. I see no evidence that they made any effort to see just why they did. Could be for any number of reasons. They just declared it 'altruistic' and yelled 'Evolution!". And isn't evolution supposedly incapable of goal directed results? What could possibly explain why one cell decided to die based on the fact that it would serve the well being of the cluster.

I call bullshit.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sat 9 Apr, 2016 09:21 pm
@Leadfoot,
If it's bullshit to you, maybe, you can provide us with some facts that negates the claims made by my previous post.
Just "bullshit" doesn't cut it.

I agree with
Quote:
Every single ancestor of every organism alive today, and every organism that has ever lived, was successful at reproduction. They were all formed "enough to do the job".
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 06:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They were all formed "enough to do the job".

By whom?
rosborne979
 
  2  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:23 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
They were all formed "enough to do the job".

By whom?

If it has to be a whom, then I'm going with Mary Poppins. That woman could fly around with a talking parrot-headed umbrella and still take herself completely seriously. With magic like that you could do anything.
parados
 
  2  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:39 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I am not claiming that they must be fully formed, they just have to formed enough to do the job at all. There are a lot of different organs that have to form in the male, and they have to be complete enough to work.

You keep repeating the same idiotic statement over and over and over. Are you a complete idiot?

Fact - unless the organs work there is no way to produce offspring.
Fact - they did produce offspring so your assumption is false.

Fact - your statement is a lie because you base it on an assumption that is false, that you have been told is false and any reasonable person would understand to be false after being told.


Quote:
I would like to learn what these people know, and how confident they are
Then stop spending time here asking the same stupid question over and over without learning anything from the answers. Their papers are available to read. One only has to be willing to want to learn. Something you show no evidence of doing.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:42 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
"You" have told me it was untrue. I am just asking you to back up that statement by answering a few questions. Thank you for your answers. You are helping me think this through. So, did the males change back and forth as they evolved from simple asexual organisms to complex sexual organisms?


You don't seem to want to listen to anything.

Look up temperature dependent sex determination. The ZW chromosome combination can have no relationship to which sex organs appear. We see lots of different ways they are expressed throughout the biosphere. Those ways of being expressed provide lots of clues that show your assumption that male organs have to be fully formed before they can reproduce is a completely bogus assumption.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
They were all formed "enough to do the job".

By whom?


The same supernatural being that gave you **** for brains. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 10:50 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:


Quote:
They were all formed "enough to do the job".

By whom?

If it has to be a whom, then I'm going with Mary Poppins.
Can't blame you for thinking she was more likely than random chance. That IS your alternative that you take seriously.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 01:57 pm
@Leadfoot,
EVOLUTION. Try to remember that.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 02:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

EVOLUTION. Try to remember that.
EVOLUTION is absolutely dependent on random chance.

Never forget that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 02:17 pm
@Leadfoot,
I like "natural selection" better.
parados
 
  2  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 02:27 pm
@Leadfoot,
Mutation may be dependent on random chance but evolution is not since it selects for what is viable.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 02:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I like "natural selection" better
You might like it better but Without random chance there would be no possibility of 'natural selection'.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 03:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Natural selection is random chance.

Quote:
nat·u·ral se·lec·tion
nounBIOLOGY
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 03:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

Someone recently cautioned me against confusing beliefs with facts.

Don't ya just hate it when your own arguments bite you in the ass?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 04:49 pm
@Leadfoot,
It's 'FACTS' to me until the definition is improved. Belief is very subjective.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 05:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So you know better than the leading experts in biology.

Good to know..
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 05:45 pm
@Leadfoot,
You really don't understand English. I'll try again: Belief is very subjective.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 10 Apr, 2016 08:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not according to the atheists around here. For them belief = self deception and delusion. And you have agreed with that.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 06:02:26