does evolution exsist

[synthesizer-patel]

why the mods chastise me and let you get away with your type of horseshit is a mystery.

while I can't account for the mods, I have a pretty good idea why your actions are getting you into trouble.

I explained it here:

The problem with your point here leo is that you do not understand the real scientific definition of macroevolution, so you apply your own definition which allows you to reject out of hand all of the real examples of macroevolution that exist and have been provided to you - however when asked (on multiple occasions) to provide us with your own definition of macroevolution so that we may see if there is evidence of it taking place according to your own criteria, you refuse to do so, because (presumably) by doing so you leave yourself open to being proved wrong.

This is clear proof that you have no interest in entering into a discussion in any honest or meaningful way - this is why you are deeply dishonest - this is why you are a troll - this is why you deserve to be banned.

in case you missed the point, what I'm saying here is that an intellectually honest person would say:

"if you can show me X Y and Z, I will agree to the proposition"

But what you are doing is saying "show me X" but deliberately hiding the further criteria of Y and Z that you also really want - or rather you don't want, but need in order for the evidence you request to meet your requirements.

so that when only X is shown - even though that is what you pretended to ask for - you can reject it because it misses your hidden criteria and leaves your fanatical predjudices unscathed.

You are too terrified to mention Y and Z - to the extent that you would rather be banned than mention them - because you are all too aware that by clearly nailing your colours to the flag you run the risk that someone who knows their stuff on biology might come along give it to you, and you would then be put in a position where no fanatical fundie ever wants to be, and - horror of horrors - this means they might have to admit they were mistaken and be forced to accept what they argue so vehemently against - so when pushed you resort to either trying to change the subject, post nonsense, lie, or ..... what you are doing right now; play the victim supposedly unfairly under threat of the banhammer - but you know as well as I do - if you are honest with yourself - that this is a corner that you and you alone have painted yourself into.

I've seen it a million times from fundie muslims just like you - I know the playbook better than you do

 

[leopold]

no wonder i have you on ignore.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

no wonder i have you on ignore.

pussy!

 

[leopold]

say what? huh? i can't hear you.
maybe if you shouted it, scream it even.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

say what? huh? i can't hear you.
maybe if you shouted it, scream it even.

no need

you are screaming it for me

 

[chimpkin]

Actually, Leo, I gave you a proven example of microevolution, you discounted it as irrelevant.

Since macroevolution only happens, at it's fastest, at maybe thousands of years, we haven't had writing long enough to record macroevolution in progress.

Quite frankly, WE have only been wearing clothes for about
100,000 years-when the body louse diverged from the head louse genetically and physiologically, to enable it to cling better to clothing and not hair: :http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/health/08iht-lice.4842725.html )

This is a definition of evolution:

Evolution is a process that results in inheritable changes in a population over time.

This is a definition of species:

A species is a taxonomic group that mates and produce fertile offspring.

I want a yes or no answer as to whether you agree with those two definitions, Leo.

You see, I've pretty much 95% convinced you are trolling, because I don't believe you are as dumb as you are pretending to be.

Were I mod here I'd have dropped the banhammer...as it is I'll just put you on ignore if I don't get a straight answer. Someone who refuses to look at someone else's solid data is pointless to argue with.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

no wonder i have you on ignore.

And there we have it

Ladies and Gentlemen, behold the foolproof strategy of the typical anti-evolutionist when in danger of encountering real evidence of evolution. That's right ........ drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrum rrrrrrrrrrroll ....... they buy Ignore!(tm)

Believe anything you like with this foolproof strategy. just buy Ignore!(tm)

Afraid to engage in debate for fear you'll be made to look foolish? - never fear: 9 out of 10 fundies recomend Ignore!(tm)


Anti-evolutionists, - ignoring for ignorance with Ignore!(tm) since 1859!

 

[420Joey]

I dont get one thing though.....I get macro-evolution were descended from early single-celled creatures. But to get macro-evolution dont you need micro-evolution ( genetic remnant variations) whcih implies a design? Or is it explained by chance?

Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I dont get one thing though.....I get macro-evolution were descended from early single-celled creatures. But to get macro-evolution dont you need micro-evolution ( genetic remnant variations) whcih implies a design? Or is it explained by chance?

Hmmmmmmmmmm

how is design implied in microevolution?

perhaps some explanations are in order.

microevolution describes evolution within a species - so for example the loss of skin pigmentation in european humans from our african ancestors or the later mutation that gave rise to the "A" blood group - put even more simply it means small changes.

macroevolution describes evolution at the species level or above so, for example, our ancestor species Homo erectus branching off into the two separate species Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalenis would represent a macroevolutionary event (i'm not certain if this represent the exact sequence of our evolution but hopefully you take the point)

I don't see where design comes into either

 

[James R]

leopold99:

i have reviewed #225 yet again thinking i might have missed something.
i have revised my answer: "I DON'T GOD DAMNED FUCKING KNOW SO STOP FUCKING ASKING ME"

Ok. I'll walk you through it. you can tell me whether you disagree or agree with my answers.

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.

1. At which generation number, did the X-species parents produce a Y-species offspring? Did that ever happen?
2. What species is generation 6?
3. Did any "macroevolution" occur here between generations 1 and 10, according to you?
4. Did microevolutionary steps here add up to a macroevolutionary step at some point in the process? If not, why not?

My answers:

1. Generation 5 appears to be the last of the X species representatives in the table, because after that point in the fossil record there is no predominance of X genes. But Generation 6 is not a member of the Y species, because there is not a predominance of Y genes in the genes of Generation 6. My answer the question, therefore, is that the X-species parents NEVER produced a Y-species offspring.

2. Generation 6 appears to be a "transitional form" between species X and species Y. There are as many X genes as there are Y genes in Generation 6. But who knows? Generation 6 may also be a transitional form from species X to species A or species B, down lines of descent that is not shown in this particular table. Note also that ALL of the Generations 2 through 9 are "transitional forms" between generations 1 and 10.

3. Clearly, the answer here is "yes". Generation 1 is clearly species X. Generation 10 is clearly species Y. So we have seen the evolution of a new species in these 10 generations. We have seen one species change into another.

4. Again, quite clearly the series of microevolutionary changes that took place between generations 2 and 10 added up over time to a macroevolutionary change from species X to species Y. Therefore, I have shown that accumulated microevolution can amount, over time, to macroevolution.

It is important to note that only one line of descent is shown here. In every generation, there may have been other offspring, each with individual genomes. By generation 10, there may well have been, existing at the same time, existing members of species X as well as the "new" species Y, which quite possibly could no longer interbreed any more to create viable offspring. In addition, perhaps there could be other new species - species A or B, perhaps.

-----

Now, leo, I have done all the hard work for you. I have given you the answers to your homework. Your task now is to review these answers and tell me whether you disagree on any point. And if you do disagree, you will of course explain why. To do anything else would be to be less than honest, and you want an honest conversation, don't you?

So, leo, in light of the above, do you GOD DAMNED FUCKING KNOW now, or is everything still a mystery to you? Please do let me know.

 

[James R]

On other matters:

well, i wonder how the new proposed forum rule will fare now.

Which new proposed forum rule?

How did the sherpas adapt? Please explain your understanding of that to me.

apparently by living at high altitudes.

You have given no mechanism for adaptation. I know the sherpas live at high altitude. How does that lead to adaptation?

Please answer the question I asked you.

good question. the universe is a big place, it would be insane for someone to say "we know everything there is to know" even when it comes to a "natural origin" for life. life IS nature, it's the alien in the grand scheme of things.

How do you think life began?

And if your answer is "I don't know", then you'll agree that life might have developed from non-life by natural processes. Right?

What you're telling me, in effect, is that you believe in a mega-conspiracy of most of the world's working biologists and medical researchers. Is that what you believe? That the vast majority of working biologists are deliberate liars?

spoon fed guppies would be a better phrase.

Unlike yourself, spoon-fed with creationist nonsense that you swallow hook, line and sinker.

swallowing the creationist line? what have i posted in here that leads you to believe i'm a creationist?

Because you appear to accept everything creationists say without question.

where have i said "god did it"?

Easy to clear up. Do you think god did it, leopold? Yes or no.

 

[James R]

One other matter:

they are all goatsbeards. what's the significance of that?
you would prove something if one of them was, say, a tulip.

You're fixating on the name.

Calling something a "goatsbeard" is just giving it a name. What is important in the example given to you is that there were two separate species that could not interbreed.

Call the original species "goatsbeard" and the new one "fandledunkysibelius" if you like. What you call these things won't change the fact that they are two separate species.

What happened here, leo, was that you asked for real-world examples of one species evolving into two separate species. You were given a real-world example, but you're apparently incapable of seeing that for what it is because somebody chose not to call the new species by a new name.

They could have called the original "goatsbeard" and the new one "modified goatsbeard" or "new goatsbeard" or "goatsbeard 2" or, like I said, "fandledunkysibelius". The name is not important.

There is, of course, a reason why a completely different name wasn't used, and it's a perfectly sensible reason. Compare my example with species X and Y above. If generation 1 is called "Species X", would you demand that generation 2 be called "Species a-little-bit-different-from-X"? And you'd want a new name for generations 3 and 4 and 5, as well, I suppose. Carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion, and you have to name every individual creature by a separate name. You'd be the "leopold99 creature" and I'd be the "James R creature". You couldn't call us both "human beings", because obviously our genomes are not the same.

Do you understand this point? Do you begin see why the name "goatsbeard" was used for the later species?

 

[Ophiolite]

why the mods chastise me and let you get away with your type of horseshit is a mystery.

Because you are a self deluded, snide little bastard with a mind so closed it could withstand 12 million psi external pressure. You are beyond redemption. You lie Leo. You lie to others, but worse than that you lie to yourself. I'm done with you.

 

[matthew809]

I think now may be a good time for me to interject with a new train of thought.

Consider this scenario:

There's this swamp. In this swamp there are about 1000 frogs, living well off enough on a steady diet of flies. One day, a hole opens up in the sky and a frog is exposed to some weird cosmic rays. Can you guess what happens next? Yes, that's right- the frog ends up having a mutated baby. This baby frog is no retard though; it turns out to be some sort of super frog. It sprouts razor sharp teeth, eyes of a hawk, night vision with a terminator-like interactive real-time heads-up display, steel skin, super jumping ability, retractable glider wings, an appetite and ability to eat and assimilate anything, and a pretty sweet mo-hawk.

Questions for evolutionists:

1) With this frog's super powers, please explain how this frog would be more likely to survive and reproduce better off than any of his normal frog friends.

2) Please explain how this frog's super powers somehow makes the other frogs less likely to survive and reproduce.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think someone just redefined dumb...

 

[matthew809]

I think someone just redefined dumb...

I think you just redefined changing the subject.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think you just redefined changing the subject.

Really?

This baby frog is no retard though; it turns out to be some sort of super frog. It sprouts razor sharp teeth

Better able to fight off competition/ take down prey.

eyes of a hawk, night vision with a terminator-like interactive real-time heads-up display

Able to see prey and/ or predators more easily than others.

steel skin

Considerably less vulnerable.

super jumping ability, retractable glider wings

Able to attack prey from a greater distance/ escape predators more easily.

an appetite and ability to eat and assimilate anything

Far less likely to run into food shortages.

1) With this frog's super powers, please explain how this frog would be more likely to survive and reproduce better off than any of his normal frog friends.

Done?

 

[matthew809]

Have you ever seen a starving frog in the middle of a fly-ridden swamp? Please explain how the mere presence of this super frog would cause the other frogs to stop eating the flies.

Again, please explain how this super frog would be more able to survive and reproduce any better than his other well-adapted friends.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Again, please explain how this super frog would be more able to survive and reproduce any better than his other well-adapted friends.

Did you miss the entire post?

Have you ever seen a starving frog in the middle of a fly-ridden swamp? Please explain how the mere presence of this super frog would cause the other frogs to stop eating the flies.

It wouldn't. But since you declared that "super frog" had an appetite and ability to eat and assimilate anything then wouldn't a nearby ready-built supply of frogs be on the menu?
And they can't defend themselves...

Plus, of course, what happens if a frog's environment dies out? During droughts etc?

 

[matthew809]

... But since you declared that "super frog" had an appetite and ability to eat and assimilate anything then wouldn't a nearby ready-built supply of frogs be on the menu?
And they can't defend themselves...

No, they're all friends.

Plus, of course, what happens if a frog's environment dies out? During droughts etc?

I was waiting for you to invoke an environmental change. That's what I actually wanted to get at. Now of course I understand that the environment does change all the time.

But lets hold off on assuming an environmental change for now. I want to exhaust all other possibilities first. Lets work with a stable environment.

So, given a stable environment, how would this super frog be more likely to reproduce than any of his friends, who are already perfectly suited to get the job done?