Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[logical4u]

Seems to me that the existence of so many highly similar species is the evidence for this theory

What sort of evidence would one need to satisfy you?

How about leaving animals on an island and watching them for several hundred years to see if they change into a new species?...

madegascar, anyone? the first part of arguing evolution is the acknowledgment of the age of the planet and the time frames proposed by the theorists in the first place. you're not talking about evolution here with your 'few hundred years'; you're talking about a miracle. indeed, as you said, one would have to be quite faithful to believe that the bizarre creatures on madegascar, for example, diverged to their state in a few hundred or even thousand years. what requires less faith, is the recognition that during the time these populations were isolated from the mainland of africa, they evolved. as much is evidenced by their uniqueness to the island, genetic roots to mainland creatures, and convenient adaptation to the habitat they live.

funny you mention islands, that's where the argument for evolution speaks loudest. try 150,000,000 years of isolation in madegascar's case.

Are these 'new' species or the remnants of species that were killed off on the continent?

Evolutionists always want to scoff when asked for evidence, and try to blow fluff about how they don't know how long it would take or saying that creationalists are being extreme for asking for examples of species changing into other species. Then they turn right around and teach impressionable children that they originally crawled out of some primordial 'soup' and evolved into vertebrae animals, and then mammals, and then ape-like creatures to neanderthals and eventually 'evolved' into men.
Surely if 'evolution' is as common to life as you came, there would be some evidence. Instead, all you can demonstrate is 'selective breeding' (geographics or men choose the survivors, so that some traits change) has changed a 'few' animals. According to the 'beliefs' of evolutionists, we should be continually evolving, and should see a difference. Instead, amoebas are still amoebas, and apes are still apes. They have not changed in the thousands of years we have watched them.
Just admit that 'evolution' is a religion (a bigoted religion), that believes that all doubters must be converted to the faith.

 

[logical4u]

Since man has been documenting animals, there have been no such changes: domesticated dogs have not turned into domesticated bovines, equines or felines. This has never been documented.

And if it were, the theory of evolution would go out the window.

Do you people put forth an effort to be this stupid and ignorant or are you just simple?

If it is a fact, it should be simple to prove.

 

[logical4u]

So your designer is a fuck-up who can't get anything right?

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Joking I hope? LIke we have a choice what genetics we get, like kids born with horrible defects have a choice? Like people killed and living with pain and agony by god's supposed creation, microorganisms that kill us. Or like we have a choice when natural disasters kill and destroy people's lives. It's amazing the bullshit excuses people will make to give god a free pass on all the shit in the world.

It is amazing that people with reason (free wll) use it to 'hate' G*d, instead of use the gifts he gave that make each of us unique.

 

[logical4u]

So your designer is a fuck-up who can't get anything right?

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did, but they wanted to do things 'their way', and He let them, we are the result.

 

[logical4u]

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did!

You keep saying "he". Does God have a penis and a nutsack? Just curious.

"He" sent His only begotten Son. Use some of that 'reason' He gave you.

 

[logical4u]

So you're backtracking on evolution being God's work? Are we back to man being magically conjured in his current form?

I never claimed that God made things evolve from rocks. God only designed things to adapt to their surroundings and to be able to change so that we don't live in a world of robots where everyone looks exactly the same.

Can a computer programer code a program such that it can adapt to the user's input? Yes. Will that program ever evolve into being something other than a program? No.

what then do you say about adaptations in a population of the same species isolated and in a different environment than another population, or which have adapted to different elements of a mutual environment over time? when these populations fail to interbreed, and instead further isolate themselves socially or physically, and by extension genetically, doesn't that give rise to different species over time?

what in your paradigm whereby God has 'designed things to adapt' prevents divergence like i've described above, and which can be witnessed in nature? by accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and natural adaptation, aren't you accepting evolution after all?

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

 

[antagon]

I never claimed that God made things evolve from rocks. God only designed things to adapt to their surroundings and to be able to change so that we don't live in a world of robots where everyone looks exactly the same.

Can a computer programer code a program such that it can adapt to the user's input? Yes. Will that program ever evolve into being something other than a program? No.

what then do you say about adaptations in a population of the same species isolated and in a different environment than another population, or which have adapted to different elements of a mutual environment over time? when these populations fail to interbreed, and instead further isolate themselves socially or physically, and by extension genetically, doesn't that give rise to different species over time?

what in your paradigm whereby God has 'designed things to adapt' prevents divergence like i've described above, and which can be witnessed in nature? by accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and natural adaptation, aren't you accepting evolution after all?

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

firstly, taxonomy can be a bit lacking when it comes to describing everything the biological world throws at us. still 'family' is not subset of 'species', rather 'species' is a subset of 'genus', a subset of 'family'.

that makes your point a bit obscured, but selective breeding affecting the expression of genes for genetic adaptations through heredity could, by the exact same mechanism, affect physical and genetic barricades to breeding between different populations. these are the roots of an argument for another species.

what prevents the logic from playing out to this extent? what bars the potential for speciation, if you acknowledge the same mechanics that its based on?

 

[logical4u]

what then do you say about adaptations in a population of the same species isolated and in a different environment than another population, or which have adapted to different elements of a mutual environment over time? when these populations fail to interbreed, and instead further isolate themselves socially or physically, and by extension genetically, doesn't that give rise to different species over time?

what in your paradigm whereby God has 'designed things to adapt' prevents divergence like i've described above, and which can be witnessed in nature? by accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and natural adaptation, aren't you accepting evolution after all?

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

firstly, taxonomy can be a bit lacking when it comes to describing everything the biological world throws at us. still 'family' is not subset of 'species', rather 'species' is a subset of 'genus', a subset of 'family'.

that makes your point a bit obscured, but selective breeding affecting the expression of genes for genetic adaptations through heredity could, by the exact same mechanism, affect physical and genetic barricades to breeding between different populations. these are the roots of an argument for another species.

what prevents the logic from playing out to this extent? what bars the potential for speciation, if you acknowledge the same mechanics that its based on?

Thanks for the correction in terminology.
It is fine to speculate. Just do not state, teach evolution as fact without proof. Do not discount any other theory, based on a relatively small group of people (scientists that support evolution). I love sci-fi. It is a blast to pretend that people are smart enough to figure out the world's mysteries. Some ideas based on fantasy improve the world (not all of them, but some). Until there is proof, leave room for other ideas, and other theories, it is possible that the theory of evolution is not correct, and if it is, how will all the people that were taught it is fact, feel? How will they look at other things scientists say are 'fact'?

Truth is everything. Don't eliminate other ideas, until you can prove yours correct.

 

[antagon]

How about leaving animals on an island and watching them for several hundred years to see if they change into a new species?...

madegascar, anyone? the first part of arguing evolution is the acknowledgment of the age of the planet and the time frames proposed by the theorists in the first place. you're not talking about evolution here with your 'few hundred years'; you're talking about a miracle. indeed, as you said, one would have to be quite faithful to believe that the bizarre creatures on madegascar, for example, diverged to their state in a few hundred or even thousand years. what requires less faith, is the recognition that during the time these populations were isolated from the mainland of africa, they evolved. as much is evidenced by their uniqueness to the island, genetic roots to mainland creatures, and convenient adaptation to the habitat they live.

funny you mention islands, that's where the argument for evolution speaks loudest. try 150,000,000 years of isolation in madegascar's case.

Are these 'new' species or the remnants of species that were killed off on the continent?

Evolutionists always want to scoff when asked for evidence, and try to blow fluff about how they don't know how long it would take or saying that creationalists are being extreme for asking for examples of species changing into other species. Then they turn right around and teach impressionable children that they originally crawled out of some primordial 'soup' and evolved into vertebrae animals, and then mammals, and then ape-like creatures to neanderthals and eventually 'evolved' into men.
Surely if 'evolution' is as common to life as you came, there would be some evidence. Instead, all you can demonstrate is 'selective breeding' (geographics or men choose the survivors, so that some traits change) has changed a 'few' animals. According to the 'beliefs' of evolutionists, we should be continually evolving, and should see a difference. Instead, amoebas are still amoebas, and apes are still apes. They have not changed in the thousands of years we have watched them.
Just admit that 'evolution' is a religion (a bigoted religion), that believes that all doubters must be converted to the faith.

the religious nature of science is clear as day. atheism cant even escape that. that's a whole separate point.

if you're implying that biodiversity has never expanded, or branched out, there are some fundamental flaws in what presumptions you bring to the table. of course, if you believe there never to have been a time before evidence existed of man walking the earth, evolution would seem like a redundant fantasy. there is evidence, however, that there's a progression of creatures of increasing complexity and intelligence culminating, at the moment, with man.

while you say animals are the same as they've been, evolutionary theory doesn't bar that. it sets forward that populations can be coerced by environmental factors to change from their origin. you seem to have selective breeding down. that is one such factor. what evolution puts forward is that this mechanism can increase biodiversity. fossil evidence abides. it puts forth that it could shift biodiversity (and mass) in deference to specific types of creatures or environments. fossil evidence substantiates that.

funny, again, you mention amoebas. looking into microbial evolution (or for non-'believers': non-supernatural expansions in biodiversity, microbial) you'd find the fossil and living observations of these creatures to present an even more convincing argument for evolution than the island one you tried first. they challenge your conjecture that these critters have stayed the same, and put forth that the 600-some billion pair genome accommodates diversity within the species, rather than through speciation alone.

or is amoeba a genus? it has been a long time since ive heard any of this from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

 

[Father Time]

How about leaving animals on an island and watching them for several hundred years to see if they change into a new species?...

madegascar, anyone? the first part of arguing evolution is the acknowledgment of the age of the planet and the time frames proposed by the theorists in the first place. you're not talking about evolution here with your 'few hundred years'; you're talking about a miracle. indeed, as you said, one would have to be quite faithful to believe that the bizarre creatures on madegascar, for example, diverged to their state in a few hundred or even thousand years. what requires less faith, is the recognition that during the time these populations were isolated from the mainland of africa, they evolved. as much is evidenced by their uniqueness to the island, genetic roots to mainland creatures, and convenient adaptation to the habitat they live.

funny you mention islands, that's where the argument for evolution speaks loudest. try 150,000,000 years of isolation in madegascar's case.

Are these 'new' species or the remnants of species that were killed off on the continent?

Evolutionists always want to scoff when asked for evidence, and try to blow fluff about how they don't know how long it would take or saying that creationalists are being extreme for asking for examples of species changing into other species.

Yeha you refuse to accept it when pointed out to you, I've posted links to transitional fossils which all the creationists seem to ignore. Although if you do believe creationism is science then post some evidence that it's true.

Just admit that 'evolution' is a religion (a bigoted religion), that believes that all doubters must be converted to the faith.

It's based on evidence you refuse to look at such as the transitional fossils linked to earlier

[youtube]O4GdZOlPrX8[/youtube]

Also:
[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]

For starters

 

[code1211]

So you're backtracking on evolution being God's work? Are we back to man being magically conjured in his current form?

I never claimed that God made things evolve from rocks. God only designed things to adapt to their surroundings and to be able to change so that we don't live in a world of robots where everyone looks exactly the same.

Can a computer programer code a program such that it can adapt to the user's input? Yes. Will that program ever evolve into being something other than a program? No.

It might adapt into being a better or changed version of the original program. A little like the way a beagle changed from being a wolf in just several thousand years.

Will this program ever become a television? Probably not. It hasn't the access to the right parts. Evolving animals do have access to the right parts through developement.

Will an animal ever become a television? Probably not. It could become a different animal, though.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

to neanderthals and eventually 'evolved' into men

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know what evolutionary theory actually says.

Surely if 'evolution' is as common to life as you came, there would be some evidence

link

According to the 'beliefs' of evolutionists, we should be continually evolving,

Like mutations that lead to resistance to malaria or HIV?

and should see a difference.

Like this?

Instead, amoebas are still amoebas, and apes are still apes.

Congrats, you took 181 posts to realize a=a.

You have passed kindergarten.

They have not changed in the thousands of years we have watched them.

Do you like bananas?

When was nylon invented?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Since man has been documenting animals, there have been no such changes: domesticated dogs have not turned into domesticated bovines, equines or felines. This has never been documented.

And if it were, the theory of evolution would go out the window.

Do you people put forth an effort to be this stupid and ignorant or are you just simple?

If it is a fact, it should be simple to prove.

Let me google that for you

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No, he is just dealing with a bunch of people on this earth that he gave a choice and THEY just can't seem to get it right.

Then he should have made them right the first time.

He did, but they wanted to do things 'their way', and He let them, we are the result.

So the changes from ancient AMH to homo sapiens sapiens weren't God's work- we evolved without him?


Make up your mind.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

He did!

You keep saying "he". Does God have a penis and a nutsack? Just curious.

"He" sent His only begotten Son. Use some of that 'reason' He gave you.

Methinks that if a bunch of zombies were walking around after an earthquake (Matthew 27:51-53), people would've mentioned it- and not just in a single novel written some time after the events occur in-world.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I never claimed that God made things evolve from rocks. God only designed things to adapt to their surroundings and to be able to change so that we don't live in a world of robots where everyone looks exactly the same.

Can a computer programer code a program such that it can adapt to the user's input? Yes. Will that program ever evolve into being something other than a program? No.

what then do you say about adaptations in a population of the same species isolated and in a different environment than another population, or which have adapted to different elements of a mutual environment over time? when these populations fail to interbreed, and instead further isolate themselves socially or physically, and by extension genetically, doesn't that give rise to different species over time?

what in your paradigm whereby God has 'designed things to adapt' prevents divergence like i've described above, and which can be witnessed in nature? by accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and natural adaptation, aren't you accepting evolution after all?

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

You seem to fail to understand how complex the world is.

Let me google that for you

 

[nraforlife]

There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal.

Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts should be the case.

When a dog gives birth to a whale that grows legs and becomes a human being, you will have disproven evolutionary theory.

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

You are being hit with their old bait and switch use of microevolution which is true but irrelevant to 'prove' macroevolution which is a hoax.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species.

No, it doesn't. Thanks for playing.

 

[logical4u]

You keep saying "he". Does God have a penis and a nutsack? Just curious.

"He" sent His only begotten Son. Use some of that 'reason' He gave you.

Methinks that if a bunch of zombies were walking around after an earthquake (Matthew 27:51-53), people would've mentioned it- and not just in a single novel written some time after the events occur in-world.

They were "saints" (not prone to physical corruption or rotting for you). They were not zombies.

 

[edthecynic]

Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning.
Plato