Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

baddog1 wrote:

Here we go again - same ole stuff:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

How does a species 'start' with MANY members, going from 0 members to many (since it has been asserted by several members that it NEVER starts with one)?

THIS question has been addressed several times.

Dodgeball.

real life wrote:

If a critter can interbreed with his contemporaries of the old species, then he is not a 'new species', is he?

maporsche wrote:
No he is not based on our defination of species.

Who's definition? Who is "our"?

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

If one member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with to perpetuate the line?

New species do not happen in single generations.

Dodgeball.

Speciation Explained

Explained Again

And Again

Again

Another Time

AGAIN

AND AGAIN

ANOTHER TIME

Another Time Again

One More Time

And On And On And On

Again Today

0 Replies

I am so happy to see wandel's thread enjoying this sort of popularity.

Wandel is simply glowing with pride and I, frankly, could not be happier for him.

Good show, wandel. I love you.

Wait! I didn't mean that **** about loving you! I respect you. Love is pretty harsh.

Ok....carry on.

0 Replies

Thank you, Gus! This means a lot to me. You have been more loyal to me than spendius!

0 Replies

Spendius was bad-mouthing you last week and I gave him a good bitch-slap. He reeled and fell backwards, tried to maintain his balance, and then lost and fell to the ground with a resounding thud. He stared up at me as I menacingly circled my fist in the air, and then decided he had better stay put until I walked away.

He hasn't bad-mouthed you since.

At least not in my presence.

0 Replies

There goes the neighborhood. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Here we go again - same ole stuff:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

How does a species 'start' with MANY members, going from 0 members to many (since it has been asserted by several members that it NEVER starts with one)?

THIS question has been addressed several times.

Dodgeball.

It is not a dodgeball. Evolution by means of natual selection is the answer. What EBMONS means has been addressed several times. Please see wandel's post for more details.

Quote:

real life wrote:

If a critter can interbreed with his contemporaries of the old species, then he is not a 'new species', is he?

maporsche wrote:
No he is not based on our defination of species.

Who's definition? Who is "our"?

The dictionary definition. What a species is defined as can be found in the dictionary if you have any further questions.

Quote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

If one member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with to perpetuate the line?

New species do not happen in single generations.

Dodgeball.

[/quote]

Again, not a dodge. The question is not valid. It's like asking what red smells like. It is impossible for one member of a new species to suddenly be born. The Theory of Evolution and it's current line of thinking does not allow for single generation species to be developed.

I guess if I were to try to answer this invalid question then the answer would be "no one"....but the TOE does not state that this is how speciation occurs, so I'm not sure what the point of the question was/is?

Baddog1, do you think humans walked with dinosaurs?

0 Replies

I now know that RL is just one jump away from understanding evolution, even though he tries really hard to blither..

He has accepted that there is variation among domestic animals of the same species

Hes not said so but hed be incorrect to not agree with the fact that some (or all) of these variations are heritable

And finally,
with enough time and enough selection by human hands the species can generate entirely new varieties.(This, at least hes acceeded to)

How far away from evolution is he? , I really dont give a **** if he do0esnt buy it. If he understands it, thats good enough for me.

Right now hes just playing spendi and being a fake contrarian to make believe that hes successfully pulling back the foreskin of some unknown, heretofore incorrectly applied definition. What I find funny is that hes running out of places to dodge. I think hes been successfully corneered by all you guys because his "argument" has badly worn edges

0 Replies

I believe it's a bit more than "his argument has badly worn edges," but that it's been penetrated. The big question is when he will he admit it - if ever.

0 Replies

well, if your dog was really ugly would you admit it? . One o my dogs is really ugly (but he cleans up nice) and I get all full of fight when somebody starts laughin at him.

If, say, gus would come up and say my dog is ugly, why I wouldnt be responsible for the pain and suffering Id cause him (gus that is) , not my dog. Only I can say my dogs ugly.

0 Replies

Your dog is ugly.

You can't blame the dog though because it's well known that dogs grow to look like their owner.

0 Replies

I thought it was the other way around. LOL

0 Replies

That would explain one of his problems with the ladies.

Spendius wrote:

The ladies are getting worse by the minute though. Too much materialism I think.

If, on a date, you would take them to a place a little more upscale than McDonald's you may have better luck.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I now know that RL is just one jump away from understanding evolution.....

He has accepted that there is variation among domestic animals of the same species

Mankind has known this for thousands of years. It is hilarious for you to pretend that evolutionary theory has 'shined this light' on man's understanding. Laughing

farmerman wrote:

Hes not said so but hed be incorrect to not agree with the fact that some (or all) of these variations are heritable

Mankind has also known this for thousands of years. Cool

farmerman wrote:

And finally,
with enough time and enough selection by human hands the species can generate entirely new varieties.(This, at least hes acceeded to)

Again, mankind has known this for thousands of years. Razz

farmerman wrote:

How far away from evolution is he? , I really dont give a **** if he do0esnt buy it. If he understands it, thats good enough for me.

Right now hes just playing spendi and being a fake contrarian to make believe that hes successfully pulling back the foreskin of some unknown, heretofore incorrectly applied definition. What I find funny is that hes running out of places to dodge. I think hes been successfully corneered by all you guys because his "argument" has badly worn edges

So then, if you are trying to conflate the idea of simple variety within[/b] a species (those that can breed together) with the ability to cross the line into a new species that now cannot breed with the old (not to mention wholesale production of complete new organs, biological systems, limbs , and new body plans which would require massive amounts of NEW genetic information, not just reshuffling of the old)[/u], then you're being more than a little disingenuous.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:
I now know that RL is just one jump away from understanding evolution.....

He has accepted that there is variation among domestic animals of the same species

real wrote:
Mankind has known this for thousands of years. It is hilarious for you to pretend that evolutionary theory has 'shined this light' on man's understanding.

That's the reason why the bible made so many errors and omissions about planet earth, because "mankind has known this for thousands of years.."

0 Replies

not helpin yourself there RL. There were a lot of things that man knew about "what happened" , but only recently began to understand "how".

Quote:

then you're being more than a little disingenuous.

No, you are actually the one whose trying to be disingenuous. Im not attempting any guile, all Ive been speaking about can be found in the scientific literature. How bout you? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Do you guys understand what modern science and modern pholosophy understands by "know", "knew" and "knowledge"? You seem to be using these words in some sort of religious sense.

Can you explain what happens inside the brain when it receives a perception through the senses and sends an internal memo to another part of the brain which activates a motor response and how the brain selects which of the myriad sense perceptions it chooses to initiate the process from. After all, a materialist has to say that only physics can explain such a thing. It doesn't go any faster than light I don't think and scientists are used to studying that. There is a chain of events from a happening to a perception to a transmission to the brain to a transmission within the brain to a transmission to the action resulting if the brain has selected that happening to make itself look good on the preferred pathways principle searching for pleasure or pain decrease like rabbits carve out habitual pathways. Say.

And that's the easy bit.

Hey fm- that dog of your's is one ugly dog man.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

not helpin yourself there RL. There were a lot of things that man knew about "what happened" , but only recently began to understand "how".
Quote:
then you're being more than a little disingenuous.

No, you are actually the one whose trying to be disingenuous. Im not attempting any guile, all Ive been speaking about can be found in the scientific literature. How bout you?

No guile? Perhaps, but lots of pretense.

'Parents pass their traits to their offspring' is not an observation that is original with the evolutionary crowd.

Mankind has known for thousands of years that crumb crunchers often grow up to look like mama and papa.

Penciling in 'Parents pass their traits to their offspring' in among Darwin's 'Four Postulates' is an exercise in pretension and desperation.

You want to make science seem[/i] to depend on evolution for knowledge of even the most basic concepts, when in fact these things were well known LLLLLLoooooonnnnnngggggg before Chuck Darwin ever got his sea legs.

Ros tried this a while back when he claimed Darwinism 'predicted' that parents pass on their traits to their offspring. This verbal sleight-of-hand is not even worthy of a teenager who wants to sneak in after curfew.

Ditto for:

'individuals within a species may exhibit traits which vary'

Please don't ask us to believe that mankind had to wait until the 19th century to know this to be true.

C'mon. Laughing

But this is necessary for evolutionists, because they want to label simple variation within a species as 'microevolution', as a way to softsell the evolutionary concept.

This type of bait and switch is old as the hills, and just as easy to spot.

Evolution requires a critter to produce a critter that cannot interbreed with his contemporaries (i.e. members of the 'old species').

If he is the first of a 'new species' , what is he gonna breed with?

And if he can still breed with the 'old species', then he is not a 'new species', is he? Hummmm?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Do you guys understand what modern science and modern pholosophy understands by "know", "knew" and "knowledge"? You seem to be using these words in some sort of religious sense.

Can you explain what happens inside the brain when it receives a perception through the senses and sends an internal memo to another part of the brain which activates a motor response and how the brain selects which of the myriad sense perceptions it chooses to initiate the process from. After all, a materialist has to say that only physics can explain such a thing. It doesn't go any faster than light I don't think and scientists are used to studying that. There is a chain of events from a happening to a perception to a transmission to the brain to a transmission within the brain to a transmission to the action resulting if the brain has selected that happening to make itself look good on the preferred pathways principle searching for pleasure or pain decrease like rabbits carve out habitual pathways. Say.

And that's the easy bit.

Hey fm- that dog of your's is one ugly dog man.

Even if I couldn't explain, does that mean that no scientific explanation exists? Or is it a statement of my limited knowledge about the interworkings of the human mind. Ask a brain surgeon, he'll tell you better than I. The problem is that ID people don't understnad the universe, and so they retreat to mythology and superstition as opposed to challenging themselves to understand the universe, or hell even help figure it out.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Evolution requires a critter to produce a critter that cannot interbreed with his contemporaries (i.e. members of the 'old species').

If he is the first of a 'new species' , what is he gonna breed with?

And if he can still breed with the 'old species', then he is not a 'new species', is he? Hummmm?

Again, you're being dishonest here.

I hope your god will understand why you're choosing to sin over and over.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
Evolution requires a critter to produce a critter that cannot interbreed with his contemporaries (i.e. members of the 'old species').

If he is the first of a 'new species' , what is he gonna breed with?

And if he can still breed with the 'old species', then he is not a 'new species', is he? Hummmm?

Again, you're being dishonest here.

I hope your god will understand why you're choosing to sin over and over.

real's repeated sins will earn him a place in hell - unless he goes to church to confess his sins and asks for absolution.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know