does evolution exsist
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
- Status
what are you saying now?Complete twaddle.This tells me you don't even understand how sexual reproduction works, let alone evolution.
that macro evolution is not about one lifeform changing into a different lifeform?
regardless of it taking 1 year or 50 billion there comes a time when the conditions in my post MUST BE SATISFIED.
Leopold99.
I saw recently that after 170 years of pollution from a nearby copper mine, there were earthworms living in arsenic-polluted soil which normally kills them. A certain deficiency actually helped some worms survive and eventually create a new species.
http://www.suite101.com/content/medical-and-technological-advances-challenge-evolution-a354969
What are you thoughts on this?
I saw recently that after 170 years of pollution from a nearby copper mine, there were earthworms living in arsenic-polluted soil which normally kills them. A certain deficiency actually helped some worms survive and eventually create a new species.
http://www.suite101.com/content/medical-and-technological-advances-challenge-evolution-a354969
What are you thoughts on this?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Leopold,
the division of lifeforms into species is somewhat arbitrary. The concept of species is a convenience of classification. Most classifications are artificial.
There is a continuous gradation between the homo sapiens of today through the homo sapiens of yesterday to whichever species preceded it. You can look at two members of that continuum that are separated by a sufficient number of generations and say, 'yes, these are truly different'. However, where you decide to put the dividing line is arbitrary.
Consider the analogy of the spectrum: exactly where we change from red to yellow is subjective, until and unless science comes along and specifies what wavelenths apply - but those are arbitrary specifactions. Useful, but not important.
If you understand that, then you understand that your first requirement for macroevolution is wholly irrelevant. If you do not understand that then I shall make a better effort to explain it until you do. I'm not going to stand for willfull ignorance from you twice in one lifetime.
the division of lifeforms into species is somewhat arbitrary. The concept of species is a convenience of classification. Most classifications are artificial.
There is a continuous gradation between the homo sapiens of today through the homo sapiens of yesterday to whichever species preceded it. You can look at two members of that continuum that are separated by a sufficient number of generations and say, 'yes, these are truly different'. However, where you decide to put the dividing line is arbitrary.
Consider the analogy of the spectrum: exactly where we change from red to yellow is subjective, until and unless science comes along and specifies what wavelenths apply - but those are arbitrary specifactions. Useful, but not important.
If you understand that, then you understand that your first requirement for macroevolution is wholly irrelevant. If you do not understand that then I shall make a better effort to explain it until you do. I'm not going to stand for willfull ignorance from you twice in one lifetime.
leopold99:
Ok. Let me give you an analogy. Here's an imaginary creature made of letters:
1. XXXAXXBYXBXC
Biologists classify this letter-creature as being of the "X" species, because the creature consists mostly of the letter X.
Here are several generations of offspring of our X creature. From each generation, I am displaying only one of the offspring. Then, in the next generation, I display one of the offspring of that creature, and so on.
2. XYXAXXBYXBXC
3. XYXCYXBYXBXC
4. XYXCYXBYXXXC
5. XYXCYXBYXXXY
6. XYXCYXBYYXXY
7. XYXCYABYYXXY
8. XYXCYYBYYXXY
9. BYYCYYBYYXXY
10. BYYCYYBYYXXY
Notice that microevolution has occurred at each generation. In other words, one or two letters have mutated in each generation.
Biologists call generation 10 the "Y" species, because letter-creatures of this species consist mostly of the letter Y.
Now, here are a few questions for you.
* At which generation number, did the X-species parents produce a Y-species offspring? Did that ever happen?
* What species is generation 6?
* Did any "macroevolution" occur here between generations 1 and 10, according to you?
* Did microevolutionary steps here add up to a macroevolutionary step at some point in the process? If not, why not?
Ok. Let me give you an analogy. Here's an imaginary creature made of letters:
1. XXXAXXBYXBXC
Biologists classify this letter-creature as being of the "X" species, because the creature consists mostly of the letter X.
Here are several generations of offspring of our X creature. From each generation, I am displaying only one of the offspring. Then, in the next generation, I display one of the offspring of that creature, and so on.
2. XYXAXXBYXBXC
3. XYXCYXBYXBXC
4. XYXCYXBYXXXC
5. XYXCYXBYXXXY
6. XYXCYXBYYXXY
7. XYXCYABYYXXY
8. XYXCYYBYYXXY
9. BYYCYYBYYXXY
10. BYYCYYBYYXXY
Notice that microevolution has occurred at each generation. In other words, one or two letters have mutated in each generation.
Biologists call generation 10 the "Y" species, because letter-creatures of this species consist mostly of the letter Y.
Now, here are a few questions for you.
* At which generation number, did the X-species parents produce a Y-species offspring? Did that ever happen?
* What species is generation 6?
* Did any "macroevolution" occur here between generations 1 and 10, according to you?
* Did microevolutionary steps here add up to a macroevolutionary step at some point in the process? If not, why not?
O.M.G. Are you actually trying to be dense?
Have a look at this and tell me your answers to the stated questions: 1)What was the first purple word, and 2) What is the first blue word?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7536666/
okay, maybe i am not making myself clear.
i understand what evolution says, and it makes sense.
but on the other hand a fruitfly is a fruitfly from birth til death.
this implies 2 fruitflies MUST have an offspring that isn't a fruitfly OR the offspring MUST be mutated into something different.
i understand perfectly well what evolution says, it's the demonstrated realities that are missing. a fruitfly changing by bits and pieces MUST eventually be a different lifeform. this lifeform must appear in one generation. in other words there comes a time when the fruitfly is no longer a fruitfly. i can think of only 2 ways this can happen and i posted them.
since i was told my first option is irrelevant then i must assume that macro evolution is driven by offsprings that have been mutated by the environment. in other words a fruitfly mutates into something else during its lifetime.
about drumbeats link:
the adaptation of sherpas is not evolution.
to say they are implies a sub species of humanity and verges on racism.
i understand what evolution says, and it makes sense.
but on the other hand a fruitfly is a fruitfly from birth til death.
this implies 2 fruitflies MUST have an offspring that isn't a fruitfly OR the offspring MUST be mutated into something different.
i understand perfectly well what evolution says, it's the demonstrated realities that are missing. a fruitfly changing by bits and pieces MUST eventually be a different lifeform. this lifeform must appear in one generation. in other words there comes a time when the fruitfly is no longer a fruitfly. i can think of only 2 ways this can happen and i posted them.
since i was told my first option is irrelevant then i must assume that macro evolution is driven by offsprings that have been mutated by the environment. in other words a fruitfly mutates into something else during its lifetime.
about drumbeats link:
the adaptation of sherpas is not evolution.
to say they are implies a sub species of humanity and verges on racism.
There are 7 billion different individual humans alive. Different DNA, different faces, different talents.
Fruit-flies are all different too, but they are all still fruit-flies.
Offspring are slightly different from their parents. Over many generations this can show large changes that aid survival if the environment requires.
And as said before, these long-term differences between similar animals will be more like a spectrum than a swift jump from one species to another.
I never mentioned the Sherpas, but anyway...
1) It is evolution.
2) Racism? You're just being obtuse now. How old are you?
No, you clearly do not. Case in point:
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
Have a look at this and tell me your answers to the stated questions: 1)What was the first purple word, and 2) What is the first blue word?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7536666/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/fossil-record.htm
the fossil record doesn't agree with you.
and this:
Darwin envisioned an incremental graduation in descent with modification to new forms for which most frames of movie are non existent in the fossil record.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
this is exactly what i am talking about. plenty of "mind experiments", no demonstrated results.
Last edited:
leopold99:
I notice you ignored my previous post. Why?
Look at my previous post #225.
We have species X evolving into species Y there, right?
At which generation did a member of species X have offspring that weren't species X? At which generation did species Y have offspring that weren't species Y?
Please identify that generation in post #225 for my species X and Y example. When was species X no longer species X?
I notice you ignored my previous post. Why?
Look at my previous post #225.
We have species X evolving into species Y there, right?
At which generation did a member of species X have offspring that weren't species X? At which generation did species Y have offspring that weren't species Y?
Please identify that generation in post #225 for my species X and Y example. When was species X no longer species X?
old enough to read the link you posted. didn't you read it?
because it was essentially the same as HR's
the fossil record doesn't jive with your mind experiment james.
there is essentially no evidence of transitional fossils. read the links i posted in response to HR.
i'm beginning to have serious doubts about that mans critical thinking skills.
You just killed your own credibility completely by citing answersingenesis. That's a creationist anti-science site that deliberately lies and misleads about evolution to suit its fundamentalist Christian agenda. You shouldn't be sucked in by anything written there.
For extensive debunking of answersingenesis, try a real site instead: www.talkorigins.org.
Maybe reading a real science site will get you on the right track. At the moment, it seems you've been brainwashed by liars.
Humor me then, by answering the questions I posed to you in post #225. They should be easy for an expert such as yourself to answer.
Nonsense. Surely other people here have already pointed out at least 10 transitional fossils to you. Hell, a simple google search for "transitional fossils" will find you many reliable pages on the subject.
Don't even bother reading that answersingenesis shit. It's worthless. Pure drivel meant to deceive the uneducated. You owe yourself more than that. Do a little research. You're not an idiot, are you?
Taking a slightly different tack, suppose you're right and there really ARE no transitional fossils to be found. How could you possibly avoid concluding that microevolution still must lead to macroevolution, just from simple arguments like post #225? It's common sense. You'd have to be a fool not to see it.
the material agreed with the other two links i posted. are they liars too?
i don't have an agenda so i wouldn't know.
i do know this much though evolution holds great promise on the outside but when you start to do some thinking about it it becomes logically unsound, even to the point of going against established natural laws.
i am not interested in debunking creationism or evolution.
don't patronize me james.
all i want is answers that are scientifically verified.
science has never witnessed the 2 conditions i mentioned.
then why does the museum link i posted say different?
i have been, too much maybe.
hell, why not?
i've been called everything except the kitchen sink in this thread.
the mind experiment works, and i agree that micro evolution leads to macro evolution but when you start digging for answers you find gaps right where the information is the most important.
and let's not forget the various frauds that have been associated with the fossil record.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I insist your respond to my post 224 or James post 225 and certify that you understand it. The alternative is that I shall report each post you make henceforth as being a serious trolling exercise.
I repeat that I shall no longer tolerate your indulgent self delusion. It is wholly unacceptable. Nor will I accept an accusation of patronising you. I assure you I have no wish to be any relation of yours until and unless you begin to use your brain in a systematic manner. I regret that we even share a common ancestor.
If you do not wish further emotive attacks respond to the frigging points when they are raised, or leave the forum permanently.
No. What you claim is clear, just stupid and false.
Herc's reference illustrates well that a progression of barely detectable difference if continued long enough makes an entirely new creature or color class.
Read this and answer its questions. http://www.christianforums.com/t7536666/
To repeat your claim, made bold in quote of your above, but with color:
This new color must appear in one step. That is a false claim.
Your false "logic" is: Each letter in the sequence differs from the prior one by imperceptible change. Thus there cannot be a new color class formed by these imperceptible changes. If a new color class appears it had to happen in one step, with a very perceptible change, to form a new color class.
This is just as false as your idea /claim:
Each generation of fruitfly differs from the prior one by imperceptible change. Thus, there cannot be a new creature (not a fruitfly) formed by these imperceptible changes. If there is a new creature formed, it had to happen in one generation, with a very perceptible change, in which the fruitfly class changes dramatically into new (no longer fruitfly) creature.
Last edited by a moderator:
science has done that with its biological classification system.
you afford me the same advantage e.g. tell me the "color classification" and i will point you to where the color changes EXACTLY, AND within ONE step.
- Status