The debating skills of evolutionists

[Carico]

Here are the kind of answers that I get here that most of you think are intelligent;

Carico: "Humans breed humans and apes breed apes."
Evolutionist: "That's total nonsense. Your ramblings are incoherent."
Carico: "Mating and breeding is what produces descendants."
Evolutiuonist: "You're not supposed to talk about religion in the category of biology."
Carico: "Bacterial cells don't mutate into healthy cells."
Evolutionist: "You are one stupid M*F*"
Carico: "Cows don't breed horses."
Evolutionist: "You know nothing about biology because you're an ignorant moron."
Carico: "Hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile."
Evolutionist: "You don't know how evolution works."

Needless to say, not only are those evasions, they show that what evolutionists think is intelligent is nothing more than schoolyard banter and 4 letter words. In fact, the less one is able to construct a sentence, stay on topic, defend his position and keep personal attacks out of a discussion, the more intelligent he is considered to be on this forum.

So not only have most of you shown that you have no clue what the difference is between humans & animals or what each animal can breed and why, you can't even carry on a conversation which in any way resembles intelligence. That only proves that you don't know what intelligence is.

So I'll continue to live in reality where humans breed humans and apes breed apes, and tell the truth about what animals breed. But I don't expect people who think the above tactics are rational and intelligent to understand much about biology which their responses demonstrate.

 

[spidergoat]

We grow frustrated because you don't understand anything. Evolution happens even though animals appear to have decendents that look like them. But pull back your narrow viewpoint and you will see something different. Species appear and disappear throughout history and evolution is the only way to explain that. Elementary school notions of animal breeding are not adequate to refute the greatest theory in all of biology if not science. Of course, none of this would make sense if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[Carico]

animals appear to have decendents that lo.ok like them

"Appear" is the key word. If a lion looks like a larger form of domestic cat, that does not mean that a domestic cat can breed a lion. This again, is a perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation. And an even more erroneous conclusion is that if apes resemble man more than others animal do, that means that an ape can breed human descendants. That's no different than seeing someone who likes like your brother then claiming that he has the same mom as you do.

So if humans were carrying ape DNA, then occasionally we would breed baby apes and if apes were carrying human DNA, then they would not go thousands of years without breeding a human baby. Only animals who are capable of mating and breeding together can produce offspring that are like both parents. But one animal cannot mutate into another which people who cross-breed animals know. The hybrid of a cross-breed has received the DNA of both parents and that's why it's a result of both parents. It didn't just evolve into another animal on its own.

 

[spidergoat]

"Appear" is the key word. If a lion looks like a larger form of domestic cat, that does not mean that a domestic cat can breed a lion. This again, is a perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation.

No one says that. Looking at the DNA, we can see the connection between different species (not breeds) of cat. This points to both cats and lions as having a common ancestor.

And an even more erroneous conclusion is that if apes resemble man more than others animal do, that means that an ape can breed human descendants.

Resemblance isn't the evidence scientists use. They look at DNA. Human DNA is something like 90% similar to the great apes. Again, common ancestor.

That's no different than seeing someone who likes like your brother then claiming that he has the same mom as you do.

That can be a good indication that you are indeed related in the distant past.

So if humans were carrying ape DNA, then occasionally we would breed baby apes

False. Human carry modified ape DNA, which only creates variations on the human theme.

and if apes were carrying human DNA, then they would not go thousands of years without breeding a human baby.

Apes don't carry all the genes that humans do, indeed they have been evolving too ever since the separation from a common ancestor.

Only animals who are capable of mating and breeding together can produce offspring that are like both parents. But one animal cannot mutate into another which people who cross-breed animals know.

This is where your knowledge breaks down. Evolution is not the product of cross breeding. Species are not fixed in time, the entire interbreeding population constitutes the species, and it's characteristics change, which I said like 5 times now. The changes are small and fairly unnoticeable, but they add up. The entire gene pool evolves together, unless a population becomes separated like on an island. Why do we find such strange species on islands?

The hybrid of a cross-breed has received the DNA of both parents and that's why it's a result of both parents. It didn't just evolve into another animal on its own.

I don't know why you are talking about hybrids. Humans are just variations on the ape theme. Bipedalism was one variation, large brains another. The fossil record shows that brains got larger over millions of years, so a small brained mother never gave birth to a large brained child, only a slightly larger brained child.

By the way, you have very poor debating skills. You don't know the argument that you think you are refuting, that is called a "strawman argument", a logical fallacy. You mistake animal husbandry for evolution, I don't think your understanding of biology is much above an 4th grade level. In fact, ask an 8 year old where birds come from and I'll bet they say "dinosaurs".

 

[mynameisDan]

Carrico, you waste your time. Evolutionists do not use reason and evidence, they simply "hurl elephants" and rely upon the popular opinion fallacy. They tell just so stories and then declare them to be true, "because they are", forgetting that they and others just made them up! How do you argue against such crisp logic?

 

[Carico]

No one says that. Looking at the DNA, we can see the connection between different species (not breeds) of cat. This points to both cats and lions as having a common ancestor.

Again similar DNA does not mean that one animal can breed another. It means that in order to survive in the environment called earth, animals all have to have;

1) A brain
20 A heart
3) A stomach
4) Lungs
5) Limbs
6) A circulatory system
7) A respiratory system
8) A reproductive system

And on and on and on. So once again, our DNA is going to be much more similar than not! So why don't scientists look at that? Why instead, do they leap to the erroneous conclusion that that means one animal can breed another? The answer is simple; to dupe the public into believing that God didn't create humans Himself but that we came from the wombs of wild beasts which doesn't happen in reality. Inf act, the definition of a species is; "A category in the system of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." That means that only one species can breed itself, not another species. That makes it crystal clear that one species cannot breed another which reality shows.

I get just as frustrated with you when you draw conclusions that have never been witnessed nor passed along by anyone in history. . Once again, the rest of your post is all speculation and it's speculation that doesn't happen in reality. So it's no different than looking at a forest and claiming that the earth was once covered with trees. The imagination is not evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

In fact, the definition of a species is; "A category in the system of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." That means that only one species can breed itself, not another species. That makes it crystal clear that one species cannot breed another which reality shows.

That is the definition of species. When one animal changes enough so that it can no longer breed with it's original population, we say that it's a different species. In other words, the definition of species cannot be used as evidence that new species don't appear.

New species do appear on the planet. Why is that?

 

[spidergoat]

Carrico, you waste your time. Evolutionists do not use reason and evidence, they simply "hurl elephants" and rely upon the popular opinion fallacy. They tell just so stories and then declare them to be true, "because they are", forgetting that they and others just made them up! How do you argue against such crisp logic?

I am wasting my time. You guys don't know the theory you refute. I am using evidence and reason, you come back with religious idiocy. Grow the fuck up, read a few books, snort some bleach, maybe one day you will realize how stupid you were. Here is a website suitable for your level of intellect:
http://www.leekspin.com/

 

[iceaura]

Again similar DNA does not mean that one animal can breed another. It means that in order to survive in the environment called earth, animals all have to have;

1) A brain
20 A heart
3) A stomach
4) Lungs
5) Limbs
6) A circulatory system
7) A respiratory system
8) A reproductive system

No they don't.

And the ones that do, vary considerably in their genetic similarity.

Which animal, argued from your above, should have the most genetic similarity to a hyrax (http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/images/desert/rock_hyrax_7042.jpg) : a marmot, or an elephant ?

Which should have more genetic similarity to a penguin: an albatross, or this flightless waterbird http://www.arthurgrosset.com/sabirds/photos/tacpte16295.jpg ?

 

[Carico]

Carrico, you waste your time. Evolutionists do not use reason and evidence, they simply "hurl elephants" and rely upon the popular opinion fallacy. They tell just so stories and then declare them to be true, "because they are", forgetting that they and others just made them up! How do you argue against such crisp logic?

Absolutely. You really can't argue against that illogic because if they were logical to begin with, they would see how impossible and ridiculous this theory is. But I also know they are being deceived and need as much time hearing the truth as they heard the lies of evolution. So I don't expect them to say "I was wrong." I only know that some of them will begin to wonder why they adopted the theory to begin with and hopefully in the future, will not put blind faith in people just because they have letters after their names.

 

[(Q)]

The answer is simple; to dupe the public into believing that God didn't create humans Himself but that we came from the wombs of wild beasts

The Evolution of the Laughataraus



------>------>

 

[NGM]

Absolutely. You really can't argue against that illogic because if they were logical to begin with, they would see how impossible and ridiculous this theory is. But I also know they are being deceived and need as much time hearing the truth as they heard the lies of evolution. So I don't expect them to say "I was wrong." I only know that some of them will begin to wonder why they adopted the theory to begin with and hopefully in the future, will not put blind faith in people just because they have letters after their names.

Hello Carico. I'd like to discuss some of the parts of this difference of belief that is evident between you and those who are arguing with you.

Please be patient with me. I promise not to get angry with you or use any cursing. I know that you'll do the same.

First, we have to come to a common understanding of what the word "evolution" means in the context of this discussion.

When I say "Evolve", I mean that some part, perhaps incredibly tiny, of the characteristics of a particular creature has changed in some way through a bunch of generations. Perhaps it's hair has become longer or shorter over many hundreds of documented years of observation. There are many, many examples of this throughout history.

An interesting, modern day example of obvious evolution of a creature is the Italian wall lizard study only 37 years ago. It's well documented by living people, with photos that show the actual changes that took place in the lizards. Please read the following with an open mind and realize that this is only one example of how evolution takes place in living things. After discussing this example, we can move on to more complex examples of evolution.

Here's the information I'd like you to read:

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”

Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

“These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Change in diet also affected the population density and social structure of the Pod Mrcaru population. Because plants provide a larger and more predictable food supply, there were more lizards in a given area on Pod Mrcaru. Food was obtained through browsing rather than the active pursuit of prey, and the lizards had given up defending territories.

“What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.

Results of the study were published March 25 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Fund for Scientific Research in Flanders. Additional members of the research team include Anthony Herrel of Harvard University and the University of Antwerp, Kathleen Huyghe, Bieke Vanhooydonck, Thierry Backeljau and Raoul Van Damme of the University of Antwerp, Karin Breugelmans of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Irena Grbac of the Croatian Natural History Museum.

****
Do you agree that these lizards have changed from what they were, into what they are now?

 

[James R]

Again similar DNA does not mean that one animal can breed another. It means that in order to survive in the environment called earth, animals all have to have;

1) A brain
20 A heart
3) A stomach
4) Lungs
5) Limbs
6) A circulatory system
7) A respiratory system
8) A reproductive system

I already addressed this point in detail in another thread.

Did you not bother reading it, or can't you remember back two or three days?

 

[Gustav]

So if humans were carrying ape DNA, then occasionally we would breed baby apes and if apes were carrying human DNA, then they would not go thousands of years without breeding a human baby.

The Evolution of the Laughataraus



------>------>

/cackle

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1) A brain
20 A heart
3) A stomach
4) Lungs
5) Limbs
6) A circulatory system
7) A respiratory system
8) A reproductive system

Jellyfish have no heart or lungs, circulatory system, repository system or even brain.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Religious people trying to find science in the Bible are tiresome, and wilfully self deceiving.
Science is science and religion is religion.
They are separate disciplines.

I see no contradiction between being a scientific evolutionist and a religious creationist.
Here I mean the word Creationist in a religious sense, not a scientific one.


A surgeon operates on a person's heart during the day, and then plays snap with his 4-year old at home that evening. At the weekend he plays golf and goes for a drink. On Sunday, he goes to Church and thanks God for his good job, and his family. Is he being contradictory in thinking in these different ways, or just being a complete human being?

 

[Carico]

I already addressed this point in detail in another thread.

Did you not bother reading it, or can't you remember back two or three days?

Actually I'm so used to wading through off-topic posts and irrational responses that I either dismissed your response as the same or missed it in the fray. Either way, if your post was worth reading, you can post it again. If not, then I'll consider my post unrefuted.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Here are the kind of answers that I get here that most of you think are intelligent;

Carico: "Humans breed humans and apes breed apes."
Evolutionist: "That's total nonsense. Your ramblings are incoherent."
Carico: "Mating and breeding is what produces descendants."
Evolutiuonist: "You're not supposed to talk about religion in the category of biology."
Carico: "Bacterial cells don't mutate into healthy cells."
Evolutionist: "You are one stupid M*F*"
Carico: "Cows don't breed horses."
Evolutionist: "You know nothing about biology because you're an ignorant moron."
Carico: "Hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile."
Evolutionist: "You don't know how evolution works."

You've been corrected multiple times in multiple threads by different posters(James R, Spidergoat, AlphaNumeric for example) and insist on this nonsense.
You DON'T understand biology or evolution in the least and show it in every post. Particularly this one if you think any of it is relevant to evolution. Go research it.
You refuse to listen to anyone correcting you and ignore anything that proves you wrong and that which you cannot answer.
All you have succeeded in doing is making yourself look foolish to anyone with a degree of knowledge.
I hope for your sake you are but a mere troll or you will be ridiculed for life because you are a joke.



For anyone who made the effort to correct him or even just posed him questions he failed to answer you have my respect and admiration, especially as I do feel you're wasting your time.

 

[Steve100]

I made the effort, and then gave up quickly because it seems he doesn't want to know.

No doubt he'll say the same of me, which would be true if he weren't spouting nonsense.

 

[NGM]

Actually I'm so used to wading through off-topic posts and irrational responses that I either dismissed your response as the same or missed it in the fray.

Hello Carico. I've posted a question and argument directly to you below in post number 12. Perhaps you missed it. My display of information and questions are on topic and surely aren't irrational, so you shouldn't mind replying to my post.

Please respond. I'll repeat that I will not curse or attack you in any way. I want to discuss your difference in belief in relation to my own in relation to evolution.

Thank you,

Nat.