According to science, how does a new species develop?

[james bond]

Neil Tyson Bill Nye are dumb AF.

Haha...wow. You would get laughed out of a middle school science class. And you are calling Tyson dumb? You really are a special little retard.

Degrasse and Billy boy are both tards, but smarter than you. Anyone here is. Recently, Tyson was called out for his boring science takes by Merriam- Webster two days ago and by Netflix today. I think Neil means boring and Degrasse means dumb AF. Tyson probably means a-hole atheist. Boring dumb af a-hole atheist.

 

[Syriusly]

Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.

>>s: Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<

Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS. Changes over long time are found only in fossils. However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed. We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer. Possibly by a global flood.

>>s: Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<

The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory. Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils. There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.

I read people being killed by other people every day. This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that

Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people. Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago. People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable. Why else would a science book sell out in one day? Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans

The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family. The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands. There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.

LOL- 'creation scientists'.

So was Noah's family black or white?
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.

 

[james bond]

Neil Tyson has become Grandpa Simpson. He's a grumpy, ornery old coot.

"People Have Had Enough Of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Grumpiness On Twitter
by Penn Collins
April 13, 2018 at 17:20

The worlds of science and pop culture don’t often collide (at least in our nonfictional realm), but that hasn’t kept noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson from achieving bona fide celebrity thanks to his witty approaches to science and its practical applications.

But recently, deGrasse Tyson’s online musings have veered from the fascinating to the somewhat ornery, likely costing him a bit amount of public goodwill in the process.

As with so many public figures, deGrasse Tyson uses social media to convey his various opinions, witticisms, and thoughtful takes on global issues. However, a recent “get off my lawn” type tweet about the evolution of language has even his fans wondering if he’s devolving in regard to the insight he provides.

Here it is, lamenting the dilution of the word “awesome,” which has likely been occurring since deGrasse Tyson was a young boy. He nonetheless felt that 2018 was a good time to broach the subject."

People Have Had Enough Of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Grumpiness On Twitter

Not only that, he's known to ruin and spoil movies.

Netflix Roasts Neil deGrasse Tyson for ‘Ruining’ Movies Like ‘Armageddon’ on Twitter

 

[Syriusly]

. Moreover, the creation scientists are correct in explaining how the population grew so fast and it matches the number we have in the world population today. It's impossible to have today's population if humans existed for a longer time than 6,000 years such as 200,000 years.

Billions of People in Thousands of Years?

Fascinating that you think a Chemist is an expert on how human populations exist today.

The 'article' such as it is- is laughable- of course humans can multiply theoretically doubling the human population every 150 years. But of course- human population can also diminish- due to wars and plague and famine.

 

[Syriusly]

Neil Tyson Bill Nye are dumb AF.

Haha...wow. You would get laughed out of a middle school science class. And you are calling Tyson dumb? You really are a special little retard.

Degrasse and Billy boy are both tards, but smarter than you. Anyone here is. Recently, Tyson was called out for his boring science takes by Merriam- Webster two days ago and by Netflix today. I think Neil means boring and Degrasse means dumb AF. Tyson probably means a-hole atheist. Boring dumb af a-hole atheist.

Christians do despise real scientists.

 

[Syriusly]

Isn't it fascinating that James wants to talk about anything but evolution? Or the Christian theories on how the diversity of life on earth came to be?

Tell us how those damn koala's got from Mt. Ararat to Australia before the continents started hurtling away from each other at over a mile a year. (and all of the other marsupials- but nowhere else)

How did the Galapagos Tortoises end up there- and nowhere else?

Was there some sort of Bible Bus that drove them all around to their new homes?

 

[james bond]

>>s: Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<

Which means you just admitted that Darwin's changes over long time is BS. Changes over long time are found only in fossils. However, that would only be true if the fossil layers are undisturbed. We are finding more and more of these layers have been disturbed like the 300 million years old layer. Possibly by a global flood.

>>s: Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime.<<

The evolution of the ground finch and medium finch are new species and happened rapidly to discredit Darwin's and your theory. Furthermore, evo doesn't happen as such with living fossils. There are no species change and very little change over millions of years.

I read people being killed by other people every day. This is evolution, but it isn't happening slowly.

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that

Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people. Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago. People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable. Why else would a science book sell out in one day? Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans

The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family. The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands. There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.

LOL- 'creation scientists'.

So was Noah's family black or white?
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.

Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin. Neither can you explain the size of today's population if we've been around 200,000 years.

OTOH, I already explained how whites came from Noah's Aramaean or Gentile family through migration patterns on the supercontinents and how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size. I knew it went over your head.

I would think Noah's family was of the following color, listed as "natural," but it could be that some were darker while some were lighter skinned:

Now, listen to the racism of Darwin's hypothesis. If Alfred Russel Wallace who opposed eugenics prevailed over Darwin, then we probably would've had less racism today.

"Indigenous Australians have been referred to as "black people" in Australia since the early days of European settlement.[72] While originally related to skin colour, the term is used to today to indicate Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry in general and can refer to people of any skin pigmentation.[73]

Being identified as either "black" or "white" in Australia during the 19th and early 20th centuries was critical in one's employment and social prospects. Various state-based Aboriginal Protection Boards were established which had virtually complete control over the lives of Indigenous Australians – where they lived, their employment, marriage, education and included the power to separate children from their parents.[74][75][76] Aborigines were not allowed to vote and were often confined to reserves and forced into low paid or effectively slave labour.[77][78] The social position of mixed-race or "half-caste" individuals varied over time. A 1913 report by Sir Baldwin Spencer states that:

the half-castes belong neither to the aboriginal nor to the whites, yet, on the whole, they have more leaning towards the former; … One thing is certain and that is that the white population as a whole will never mix with half-castes... the best and kindest thing is to place them on reserves along with the natives, train them in the same schools and encourage them to marry amongst themselves.[79]

After the First World War, however, it became apparent that the number of mixed-race people was growing at a faster rate than the white population, and by 1930 fear of the "half-caste menace" undermining the White Australia ideal from within was being taken as a serious concern.[80] Dr. Cecil Cook, the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, noted that:

generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.[81]

The official policy became one of biological and cultural assimilation: "Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white".[82] This led to different treatment for "black" and "half-caste" individuals, with lighter-skinned individuals targeted for removal from their families to be raised as "white" people, restricted from speaking their native language and practising traditional customs, a process now known as the Stolen Generation.[83]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#cite_note-83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Moreover, the creation scientists are correct in explaining how the population grew so fast and it matches the number we have in the world population today.

Haha, no they aren't...their hilarious bullshit is demonstrably false, using mitochondrial DNA. Seriously man, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that

Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people. Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago. People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable. Why else would a science book sell out in one day? Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans

The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family. The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands. There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.

LOL- 'creation scientists'.

So was Noah's family black or white?
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.

Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin.

Why would I answer your question about Darwin which has nothing to do with Evolution

You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin- rather than the theory of Evolution versus the Bible.

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution and the Bible.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that

Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people. Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago. People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable. Why else would a science book sell out in one day? Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans

The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family. The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands. There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.

LOL- 'creation scientists'.

So was Noah's family black or white?
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.

Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin. Neither can you explain the size of today's population if we've been around 200,000 years.

OTOH, I already explained how whites came from Noah's Aramaean or Gentile family through migration patterns on the supercontinents and how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size. I knew it went over your head.

I would think Noah's family was of the following color, listed as "natural," but it could be that some were darker while some were lighter skinned:

So you think Noah's family included Asians- and blonds and blacks- all descended from Noah and his wife.

I presume you know a thing or two about genetics- and how genetic traits are carried on- exactly how did that all come to be?

 

[Syriusly]

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that

Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people. Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago. People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable. Why else would a science book sell out in one day? Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans

The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family. The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands. There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.

LOL- 'creation scientists'.

So was Noah's family black or white?
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.

Again, you have no answer to how whites came from blacks according to racist Darwin. Neither can you explain the size of today's population if we've been around 200,000 years.

OTOH, I already explained how whites came from Noah's Aramaean or Gentile family through migration patterns on the supercontinents and how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size. I knew it went over your head.

I would think Noah's family was of the following color, listed as "natural," but it could be that some were darker while some were lighter skinned:

Now, listen to the racism of Darwin's hypothesis. If Alfred Russel Wallace who opposed eugenics prevailed over Darwin, then we probably would've had less racism today.

"Indigenous Australians have been referred to as "black people" in Australia since the early days of European settlement.[72] While originally related to skin colour, the term is used to today to indicate Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry in general and can refer to people of any skin pigmentation.[73]

Being identified as either "black" or "white" in Australia during the 19th and early 20th centuries was critical in one's employment and social prospects. Various state-based Aboriginal Protection Boards were established which had virtually complete control over the lives of Indigenous Australians – where they lived, their employment, marriage, education and included the power to separate children from their parents.[74][75][76] Aborigines were not allowed to vote and were often confined to reserves and forced into low paid or effectively slave labour.[77][78] The social position of mixed-race or "half-caste" individuals varied over time. A 1913 report by Sir Baldwin Spencer states that:

the half-castes belong neither to the aboriginal nor to the whites, yet, on the whole, they have more leaning towards the former; … One thing is certain and that is that the white population as a whole will never mix with half-castes... the best and kindest thing is to place them on reserves along with the natives, train them in the same schools and encourage them to marry amongst themselves.[79]

After the First World War, however, it became apparent that the number of mixed-race people was growing at a faster rate than the white population, and by 1930 fear of the "half-caste menace" undermining the White Australia ideal from within was being taken as a serious concern.[80] Dr. Cecil Cook, the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, noted that:

generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.[81]

The official policy became one of biological and cultural assimilation: "Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white".[82] This led to different treatment for "black" and "half-caste" individuals, with lighter-skinned individuals targeted for removal from their families to be raised as "white" people, restricted from speaking their native language and practising traditional customs, a process now known as the Stolen Generation.[83]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

And now you go off on a completely different tangent- on Australian aborigines.

Still waiting to hear how all of the marsupials got to Australia and virtually nowhere else.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow. That’s deep. Let me digest that

Darwin was wrong in thinking apes turned into Africans and then Africans migrated to become white people. Remember this happened with ardipithecus ramidus in Ethiopia 4.4 M years ago. People accepted Darwin's racism when he made it scientifically acceptable. Why else would a science book sell out in one day? Part of it was religion vs evolution and the other part of it was racism.

"Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism?
Religion and evolution get the attention most of the time when Darwin is publicly debated, but his racial views are also getting a little attention as well. They should get much more attention. To his credit, Charles Darwin was opposed to slavery, and this got him into trouble a few times, but he shared many of the anti-equality racist views of his day. In The Independent Marek Kohn notes the shift in thinking during Darwin’s life about the monogenetic origin of humanity:

"When Charles Darwin entered the world 200 years ago, there was one clear and simple answer to the slave’s question. All men were men and brothers, because all were descended from Adam. By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

Evolutionary thinking enabled [Darwin] to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation. . . . [However, as he aged and] As attitudes to race became harsher, sympathies for black people in the Americas more scant, and the fate of “savages” a matter of indifference, Darwin’s own sympathies were blunted by the prevailing fatalism.

As he got older, especially in his famous, The Descent of Man, Darwin fell in line with much of the racist thinking of his day and even developed an early version the perspective later called “social Darwinism”."

Charles Darwin: Did He Help Create Scientific Racism? -

Evolution facts aren’t racist you’re making them racist.

We all came from a creature if you saw it today you’d say it was a monkey. It’s not a human yet.

The first humans were black. Asians and whites came from these first humans

The creation scientists think that blacks came from Middle Eastern people of Noah's family. The same with whites who were descendants of Noah's family, too, but emigrated to other lands. There is no way that I know of how a black person can become a white person genetically unless it's skin bleaching.

LOL- 'creation scientists'.

So was Noah's family black or white?
If Noah's family was white- how did a portion of their descendants become black?
If Noah's family was black- how did a portion of their descendants become white?

Tell us how the 'creation scientists' explained how Noah's family became both black and white- please do.

OTOH, I already explained how .... how 6,000 years of humans line up with today's population size.

LOL you provided an opinion by a chemist as to how the human population came to be today's population size- absolutely no proof that actually happened just an opinion post in a Christian website.

Still waiting for how the marsupials all ended up in Australia and nowhere else.

 

[james bond]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

You won't because when I explain an answer using evolution you do not understand. You do not understand evolution such as Wallace line and plate tectonics. There's no point in discussing ToE with you further if you claim to understand science and then when I discuss it with you like an adult who understands evolution, i.e. an educated atheist and not an internet atheist like Fort Fun Indiana, the answer goes over your head. If you do not understand evolution or have questions about evolution, then go to the website that I use -- evolution.berkeley.edu. You do not even understand polyploidy, so you have to look it up for yourself.

You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin

We have to realize that Darwin was wrong about changes over long time and tree of life (bushes of life). Rapid evolution by natural selection is what happens. Not slow evolution by natural selection over millions of years. Racist Darwin needs to be destroyed. Today's scientists know where to look, so they'll be able to track and find rapid evolution. Richard Dawkins is allowing until 2050 for tree of life. I think we'll have the answer to tree of life vs bushes of life around 2020. Thus, patience is required.

Finally, atheist scientists will have to find that common ancestors for macroevolution is wrong and that macroevolution does not happen. I'm not sure if this will happen. The world will end before then. One estimate for the end of the world is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, a creation scientist. However, all of these end of world predictions (the prophecy is that it will happen, we will know who the antichrist is and wisdom is necessary because if we believe in an untruth, then we can be deceived) may not be accurate. It may be way off. Only God knows when it will happen and he'll keep it a secret until it starts to happen. Then everyone will know.

Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science. I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution. They are evolved.

 

[Syriusly]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

You won't because when I explain an answer using evolution you do not understand. You do not understand evolution such as Wallace line and plate tectonics. There's no point in discussing ToE with you further if you claim to understand science and then when I discuss it with you like an adult who understands evolution,.

I won't go down your rabbit hole of claims of what scientists thought in 1880 or 1920.

You want to talk 'plate tectonics'- fine- your 'Creation Scientists'- the ones you quoted- stated that it would take millions of years- they contradict the Christian 'theories'.

If you want to use 'plate tectonics' to either
a) dispute evolution or
b) 'prove the Bible creation stories are fact

Then provide evidence that supports either of those- not authors who directly disagree with you.

If you want to use the "Wallace line" to either
a) dispute evolution or
b) 'prove the Bible creation stories are fact'

Then do so without some discussion about how Wallace was a racist or blah blah blah or some other irrelevant discussion

 

[Syriusly]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin

We have to realize that Darwin was wrong about changes over long time and tree of life (bushes of life). Rapid evolution by natural selection is what happens. Not slow evolution by natural selection over millions of years. Racist Darwin needs to be destroyed. Today's scientists know where to look, so they'll be able to track and find rapid evolution. Richard Dawkins is allowing until 2050 for tree of life. I think we'll have the answer to tree of life vs bushes of life around 2020. Thus, patience is required..

Certainly Darwin was incorrect about many things- after all he was an early theorist and had far, far less scientific data to work with than what we have now.

And so what? I am not arguing for Darwin- though he was the genius who got the world thinking in the right direction- I am arguing for Evolution- and you are attempting to argue against Evolution- though you keep mashing it all up together.

Today's scientists are pretty much in consensus evolution is a fact- the mechanisms are still being explored- and the evidence now supports both rapid evolution- and evolution over time.

The 'tree of life' and the 'bush of life' are as I pointed out earlier- and provided a citation for- are metaphors- there is no real 'tree of life' they are merely graphic representations of how we have best mapped the evolution of species.

Remember though- citing someone's elses latest theory on evolution doesn't disprove evolution or support the Bible- it just shows that the details of the theory of evolution are 'evolving'

 

[Syriusly]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science. I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution. They are evolved.

I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.

You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again

The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.

How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?

If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.

 

[james bond]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science. I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution. They are evolved.

I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.

You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again

The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.

How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?

If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.

>>S: The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<

Way too much fodder in your posts to respond. Ho hum. Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu. Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia. Look over the link, does it answer your question? Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?

Wallace line
"Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."

Plate tectonics
"The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."

...

"Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener

 

[Syriusly]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science. I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution. They are evolved.

I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.

You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again

The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.

How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?

If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.

>>S: The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<

Way too much fodder in your posts to respond. Ho hum. Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu. Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia. Look over the link, does it answer your question? Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?

Wallace line
"Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."

Plate tectonics
"The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."

...

"Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener

Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.

You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.

Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.

You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.

Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.

Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.

Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.

How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.

Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.

 

[james bond]

I will keep coming back to the Theory of Evolution

Until you can find the answers to your own questions using evolution, then there isn't much point discussing ToE vs creation science. I rather discuss with others who already understand evolution. They are evolved.

I will keep challenging you- and you will keep dancing away- I can only assume by now you won't answer direct questions because you recognize the futility of the Biblical response.

You mentioned the Wallace line- lets start there- again

The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.

How did those kangaroos and wallabies and wombats and koalas and Tasmanian devils- end up there- but not in North Dakota?

If you can't answer such a simple question- then you pretty much admit that the Biblical story of creation is just a fairy tale.

>>S: The Bible says all animals got off the ark at Mt. Ararat.

Virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- and nowhere else.<<

Way too much fodder in your posts to respond. Ho hum. Let look over Wallace line and Wegener again by using evolution.berkeley.edu. Another source you could use is atheist wikipedia. Look over the link, does it answer your question? Do you remember my stating biogeography by Wegener and posting the link more than once?

Wallace line
"Wallace pushed the study of biogeography to grander scales than Darwin. As he traveled through Indonesia, for example, he was struck by the sharp distinction between the northwestern part of the archipelago and the southeastern, despite their similar climate and terrain. Sumatra and Java were ecologically more like the Asian mainland, while New Guinea was more like Australia. He traced a remarkably clear boundary that snaked among the islands, which later became known as "Wallace's Line." He later recognized six great biogeographical regions on Earth, and Wallace's Line divided the Oriental and the Australian regions."

Plate tectonics
"The biogeographic regions of the world that Wallace recognized roughly coincide with the continents themselves. But in the twentieth century, scientists have recognized that biogeography has been far more dynamic over the course of life's history. In 1915 the German geologist Alfred Wegener (left) was struck by the fact that identical fossil plants and animals had been discovered on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Since the ocean was too far for them to have traversed on their own, Wegener proposed that the continents had once been connected. Only in the 1960s, as scientists carefully mapped the ocean floor, were they able to demonstrate the mechanism that made continental drift possible — plate tectonics."

...

"Biogeographers now recognize that as continents collide, their species can mingle, and when the continents separate, they take their new species with them. Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, for example, were all once joined into a supercontinent called Gondwanaland. The continents split off one by one, first Africa, then New Zealand, and then finally Australia and South America. The evolutionary tree of some groups of species — such as tiny insects known as midges — show the same pattern. South American and Australian midges, for example, are more closely related to one another than they are to New Zealand species, and the midges of all three land masses are more closely related to one another than they are to African species. In other words, an insect that may live only a few weeks can tell biogeographers about the wanderings of continents tens of millions of years ago."

Biogeography: Wallace and Wegener

Wow- all of that- and not one answer to my question.

You mention the Wallace line- which I have no issue with- since it is at the heart of my question- essentially the Wallace line is also the marsupial line.

Then you mention 'plate tectonics'- again no problem since all scientists are in agreement as to the general principles of plate tectonics and how it takes millions of years for the plates to move from the super continent to our current situation.

You keep insisting you are answering my question- and keep providing citations which show that the earth is millions of years old.

Let us agree that the Wallace line is generally correct.
Let us agree that Plate tectonics theory is generally correct.

Both work with evolution to explain why marsupials are found in Australia and virtually nowhere else.

Neither work with a 6,000 year old Earth, and a flood 4,400 years ago, that left Koala's and Kangaroos on Mt. Ararat and then they all left there and went to Australia.

How about explaining the Christian theory of how the earth is 6,000 years old- AND marsupials ended up in Australia.

Not providing me with more evidence that the world is millions of years old.

Ha ha ha ha. You should have gotten this when I explained it multiple pages back.

I also have already discussed the layers of the earth and chronology associated to it by Charles Lyell. It was based on undisturbed layers. Disturbed layers could not be trusted. All of the layers on earth are disturbed layers. Moreover, the layers of the earth are named after location and not time. Thus, the fossils that are found just means the location of where the animal died. If the earth was millions of years old, then the chances of it being disturbed layers go higher due to catastrophism. Now, please explain how Lyell describes his layering occurs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You keep wanting to make this a debate about Darwin-

Yep! "The atheist scientist"...as if that has any bearing on the quality of the science. Somebody tell that dumbass that plenty of theist scientists both believe and research evolutionary theory ...