Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[logical4u]

If they can't breed as a 'new' species..... evolution has not happened

You're an idiot. Evolution doesn't predict that two creatures are ever born that suddenly reproduce as a new species.

Why do you antievolutionst religious idiots refuse to gain any comprehension of the subject before making fools of yourselves?

While you are calling us 'fools', you are not providing conclusive, absolute evidence that evolution ever happened.

Oh?


I give you mutation and genetic drift

Are you trying to tell me that an offspring will have characteristics from 'both' parents .... WOW, I didn't know that was the 'new' definition of 'evolution'.
So that whole be fruitful and multiply things was actual 'evolution'?

So what is it called when 'scientists' tell you that your species started as a one-celled animal in some ancient swamp, and eventually became a primate (because we are similar to them), and then became neanderthals (with no full adult skeleton on record), and then finally became men as we know 'ourselves'? What is the 'new' word for that?

 

[JBeukema]

that whole be fruitful and multiply things

What're you babbling about?

What does math have to do with this?

So what is it called when 'scientists' tell you that your species started as a one-celled animal in some ancient swamp

Christian science? Isn't that what you people call yourselves, so you don't have to learn about the real deal?

eventually became a primate (because we are similar to them),

We're 'similar to' primates?

then became neanderthals (with no full adult skeleton on record), and then finally became men

There were no male neanderthals?

What is the 'new' word for that?

Same as it's always been: scientific illiteracy-- your specialty, it seems.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Show me ANY scientist that refutes the theory of evolution on anything other than their religous beliefs.

...basically anyone without the religious belief in evolutionism.

 

[JBeukema]

Show me ANY scientist that refutes the theory of evolution on anything other than their religous beliefs.

...basically anyone without the religious belief in evolutionism.

I call Poe's Law

 

[THE LIGHT]

Show me ANY scientist that refutes the theory of evolution on anything other than their religous beliefs.

...basically anyone without the religious belief in evolutionism.

I call Poe's Law

Poe's law (poetry) — There is a maximum desirable length for poems: "The unit of poetry must be fixed by the reader's capacity of attention, and ... the limits of a poem must accord with the limits of a single movement of intellectual apprehension and emotional exaltation," named for Edgar Allan Poe.[3][4] See "The Philosophy of Composition".

Well, if you think my poems are too long just don't read the whole thing... SHEESH...

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If they can't breed as a 'new' species..... evolution has not happened. Because, rarely, one can breed back with the 'parent' species, implies that they cannot breed with an animal the same as them (another liger or mule, etc).

See this is you making up your own rules of evolution. Your mistake is continuing to believe that one species suddenly pops out a new species in the next generation. This doesn't happen. This NEVER happens. That's not evolution. Evolution can be observed due to a slow but definite acquisition of differences that over time distinguishes animals as different species.

In other words, Ligers and mules and pluots are not evolution in action. They are the proof that evolution (drift and mutation and such) has already occurred, and that their parents are still evolutionarily close enough to one another to produce offspring.

I have often asked creationists how animals can be in existence if their god did not create them. Were ligers and mules on the ark if 2 of EVERY animal was there? If so, why? I have yet to get any form of response.

you are calling us 'fools'

and now you know why....

So that whole be fruitful and multiply things was actual 'evolution'?

well, YES.

So what is it called when 'scientists' tell you that your species started as a one-celled animal in some ancient swamp, and eventually became a primate (because we are similar to them), and then became neanderthals (with no full adult skeleton on record), and then finally became men as we know 'ourselves'? What is the 'new' word for that?

the word is called BULLSHIT. It's the thing you just made up because no credible scientist has ever stated that a one-celled organisms became primates. No primate has ever become a neanderthal. No neanderthal has ever become a human being.

The fact that you believe that illustrates your ignorance. We can identify our closest primate relatives, but we did not come from them. Perhaps you should learn and understand evolution before making ridiculously inaccurate claims as to why it's wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

...basically anyone without the religious belief in evolutionism.

I call Poe's Law

Poe's law (poetry) — There is a maximum desirable length for poems: "The unit of poetry must be fixed by the reader's capacity of attention, and ... the limits of a poem must accord with the limits of a single movement of intellectual apprehension and emotional exaltation," named for Edgar Allan Poe.[3][4] See "The Philosophy of Composition".

Well, if you think my poems are too long just don't read the whole thing... SHEESH...

Not too long, just no fucking good.

Crap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

No primate has ever become a neanderthal.

....


Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. neanderthalensis

Neanderthals were primates, just like us.

You just said that no potato ever became a russet and no apple a granny smith.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I call Poe's Law

Poe's law (poetry) — There is a maximum desirable length for poems: "The unit of poetry must be fixed by the reader's capacity of attention, and ... the limits of a poem must accord with the limits of a single movement of intellectual apprehension and emotional exaltation," named for Edgar Allan Poe.[3][4] See "The Philosophy of Composition".

Well, if you think my poems are too long just don't read the whole thing... SHEESH...

Not too long, just no fucking good.

Crap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what you meant, but Wiki lists two so I couldn't help it...

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Neanderthals were primates, just like us.

You just said that no potato ever became a russet and no apple a granny smith.

So you're saying it makes no sense?! TomG! ah JBeukema, with this latest post I have finally confirmed that you are "that guy" who isn't quite smart enough to argue or explain science, and so just waits in the shadows to nip at the heels of those who can when the most useless nitpicky wording is used to create over-exaggerated posts of "ha you're wrong!" despite it having nothing to do with the actual point of the topic being discussed.

ok, i'll entertain your immaturity one last time: It is a common tactic for creationists to claim one species turns into another species. This is false, as I hope you realize. So it's important to directly contradict that reasoning by stating the exact opposite, as I have. Now you're all girl-school-giddy about the part where the creationist claimed a primate became a neanderthal, and I said that wasn't true. Now this again this goes back to the above point about you only attempting to "correct" people you are intellectually threatened by, for you replied to me, not him. As it should be obvious that one species does not become another, nor does one order become a species. Do you disagree? If so, please show me an animal kingdom order that BECAME a species. It may INCLUDE certain species, but these are not congruent.

In simplistic terms for you: primates did not become neanderthals, contrary to what he stated. Neanderthals are primates as you stated. The two are neither synonymous nor contradictory. Similarly, we don't say insects became lady bugs. Insects are comprised of lady bugs, among millions of other animals. And none of this nit-picky semantics word play has a lick to do with evolution or the point. Let me know when you'd like to stop being useless.

 

[JBeukema]

As it should be obvious that one species does not become another[/QUOTE]

So you're joining the 'no such thing as macroevolution' camp?

 

[logical4u]

If they can't breed as a 'new' species..... evolution has not happened. Because, rarely, one can breed back with the 'parent' species, implies that they cannot breed with an animal the same as them (another liger or mule, etc).

See this is you making up your own rules of evolution. Your mistake is continuing to believe that one species suddenly pops out a new species in the next generation. This doesn't happen. This NEVER happens. That's not evolution. Evolution can be observed due to a slow but definite acquisition of differences that over time distinguishes animals as different species.

In other words, Ligers and mules and pluots are not evolution in action. They are the proof that evolution (drift and mutation and such) has already occurred, and that their parents are still evolutionarily close enough to one another to produce offspring.

I have often asked creationists how animals can be in existence if their god did not create them. Were ligers and mules on the ark if 2 of EVERY animal was there? If so, why? I have yet to get any form of response.

you are calling us 'fools'

and now you know why....

So that whole be fruitful and multiply things was actual 'evolution'?

well, YES.

So what is it called when 'scientists' tell you that your species started as a one-celled animal in some ancient swamp, and eventually became a primate (because we are similar to them), and then became neanderthals (with no full adult skeleton on record), and then finally became men as we know 'ourselves'? What is the 'new' word for that?

the word is called BULLSHIT. It's the thing you just made up because no credible scientist has ever stated that a one-celled organisms became primates. No primate has ever become a neanderthal. No neanderthal has ever become a human being.

The fact that you believe that illustrates your ignorance. We can identify our closest primate relatives, but we did not come from them. Perhaps you should learn and understand evolution before making ridiculously inaccurate claims as to why it's wrong.

There are no 'species' of ligers, mules, etc (it is breeding two similar species, not a new species), they are statistically speaking (for evolutionists), a rarity.

My 'ignorance' in evolution IS the evolution that is taught in school: the origin of life started in some hot, humid swampy place; one celled animals evolved into other 'lifeforms', and eventually became mammals...... It is the evolution theory that is taught to millions of school children every day.
So please, make me understand 'evolution', because 'believers' in evolution want to 'say' it is about selective breeding (geographical, climate base, etc), or 'mutations', but when they 'slip' they go right back to the 'common ancestor' story. INMHO, why don't you just call it 'selective breeding' or 'mutation'?
If it IS about selective breeding and mutation, then explain how life came here, and why 'believers' in 'evolution' aren't trying to change the "evolution is changing into other species" routine that is currently being taught.
TIA

 

[JBeukema]

My 'ignorance' in evolution IS the evolution that is taught in school: the origin of life started in some hot, humid swampy place

Then our school systems are failing, as what you just calimed is impossible by definition.

S: (n) swamp, swampland (low land that is seasonally flooded; has more woody plants than a marsh and better drainage than a bog)

Moron.

So please, make me understand 'evolution', because 'believers' in evolution want to 'say' it is about selective breeding (geographical, climate base, etc), or 'mutations', but when they 'slip' they go right back to the 'common ancestor' story.

INMHO, why don't you just call it 'selective breeding' or 'mutation'?
If it IS about selective breeding and mutation, then explain how life came here,

evolution =/= abiogenesis

 

[logical4u]

My 'ignorance' in evolution IS the evolution that is taught in school: the origin of life started in some hot, humid swampy place

Then our school systems are failing, as what you just calimed is impossible by definition.

S: (n) swamp, swampland (low land that is seasonally flooded; has more woody plants than a marsh and better drainage than a bog)

Moron.

So please, make me understand 'evolution', because 'believers' in evolution want to 'say' it is about selective breeding (geographical, climate base, etc), or 'mutations', but when they 'slip' they go right back to the 'common ancestor' story.

INMHO, why don't you just call it 'selective breeding' or 'mutation'?
If it IS about selective breeding and mutation, then explain how life came here,

evolution =/= abiogenesis

Does that mean: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION IS, or, don't you know either?

 

[JBeukema]

wow...

Evolution For Dummies:Book Information - For Dummies

 

[logical4u]

wow...

Evolution For Dummies:Book Information - For Dummies

Great explanation!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So you're joining the 'no such thing as macroevolution' camp?

Well, no, but that's because 'microevolutuion' and 'macroevolution' was an arbitrary separation of evolution made by creationists to distinguish between the parts of evolution which absolutely could not be denied (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and the parts which could be denied for no reason, even though it's all the same thing.

But it appears that you're still missing one of the underlying principles of evolution, whereas no species BECOMES another species. Instead, there is genetic divergence. So even though you can point to a common ancestor, the ancestor did not BECOME the species in question. Similarly, we did not come from other present day primates. We share ancestry. One did not become the other.

My 'ignorance' in evolution IS the evolution that is taught in school: the origin of life started in some hot, humid swampy place; one celled animals evolved into other 'lifeforms', and eventually became mammals...... It is the evolution theory that is taught to millions of school children every day.
So please, make me understand 'evolution', because 'believers' in evolution want to 'say' it is about selective breeding (geographical, climate base, etc), or 'mutations', but when they 'slip' they go right back to the 'common ancestor' story. INMHO, why don't you just call it 'selective breeding' or 'mutation'?
If it IS about selective breeding and mutation, then explain how life came here, and why 'believers' in 'evolution' aren't trying to change the "evolution is changing into other species" routine that is currently being taught.
TIA

I am always happy to explain evolution for those who ask. First we need to correct a misconception. The theory of evolution is not about how life first began in this world. I am often asked "well how does evolution prove the big bang?!" It doesn't. It has nothing to do with the origins or the universe or life. You can believe that a deity or magical unicorn created the world and made the first organisms, and evolution remains in tact.

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say when people "slip" we go back to "common ancestor". Could you clarify so I might correct any misunderstanding?

But here's a commonly misunderstood run through of evolution at its fundamentals. Say we have a bacteria that divides very rapidly. Even if mutations occur every 1000 divisions, there could be millions of bacteria that pop up pretty quickly, so mutations are quite common. Now if the mutation hit something in a gene critical for that bacteria to survive, it just dies. But if the gene gives that bacteria some survival advantage over the other bacteria, it will "take over" by surviving better or reproducing faster and out-compete the others.

Let's stop there. I'll take questions.

 

[pans trogladyta]

Well, no, but that's because 'microevolutuion' and 'macroevolution' was an arbitrary separation of evolution made by creationists to distinguish between the parts of evolution which absolutely could not be denied (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and the parts which could be denied for no reason, even though it's all the same thing.

But it appears that you're still missing one of the underlying principles of evolution, whereas no species BECOMES another species. Instead, there is genetic divergence. So even though you can point to a common ancestor, the ancestor did not BECOME the species in question. Similarly, we did not come from other present day primates. We share ancestry. One did not become the other.


I am always happy to explain evolution for those who ask. First we need to correct a misconception. The theory of evolution is not about how life first began in this world. I am often asked "well how does evolution prove the big bang?!" It doesn't. It has nothing to do with the origins or the universe or life. You can believe that a deity or magical unicorn created the world and made the first organisms, and evolution remains in tact.

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say when people "slip" we go back to "common ancestor". Could you clarify so I might correct any misunderstanding?

But here's a commonly misunderstood run through of evolution at its fundamentals. Say we have a bacteria that divides very rapidly. Even if mutations occur every 1000 divisions, there could be millions of bacteria that pop up pretty quickly, so mutations are quite common. Now if the mutation hit something in a gene critical for that bacteria to survive, it just dies. But if the gene gives that bacteria some survival advantage over the other bacteria, it will "take over" by surviving better or reproducing faster and out-compete the others.

Let's stop there. I'll take questions.

The bad part about putting things in a nutshell, is that the nuts still can't shell it.

 

[JBeukema]

wow...

Evolution For Dummies:Book Information - For Dummies

Great explanation!

It looked to be about your reading level,

Glad I could help.

 

[antagon]

Genisis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Sounds like those critters were complete to me. The Lord did not say be fruitful and multiply and when these blobs of life become something, then rule over whatever it becomes.

you presume that evolution will result in incomplete creatures. what makes you think that? what do you mean by 'complete'?

Genisis 3:17-19
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." It sounded like they were well defined to Adam and Eve before leaving the garden. Those plants don't sound like they are evolving.

have you realized, too, that humans were among the last creatures on the planet? both the creation story and the fossil record maintain this. you seem to presume that adam and eve would be around to literally see changes in plants and animals. you've misunderstood biblical and scientific propositions on creation and evolution with with that.

Do you have any other 'proof' of where the Lord did not 'finish' his creation, but left it on its own?

proof wont come from the Bible, whatsoever. it might be fitting you'd put proof in quotes.

you've ignored the fact that God has created everything in all time, and that whatever could be observed of that is more definitive proof than what the Bible is meant to provide. it is simply not a journal of science.

"eryops megacephalus", thanks, I needed a laugh. You are going to tell me (with absolute) confidence that a lizard like animal proves evolution. They are still discovering 'new' species of reptiles.

this is a solid indication of evolution. that you think it is a joke only indicates you only seriously hope to embrace your pastor's invitation to ignorance, rather than looking to understand what fossils indicate about the variety of life. today's discoveries are able to further support evolution theory, as we could extrapolate their relationship to other animals on the basis of their genes. have you considered that with eryops, and many other fossilized remains, that there is a distinct period to which they existed, with specific predecessors and ancestors?

At least I admit that my belief is because there is a lack of scientific proof, and because I believe in the Biblical Lord. Your 'belief' is because scientist use descriptive terms, like "transitional" LOL.

The other big words you use, I don't really pay much attention. The eras of time don't seem that important to me either. If evolution was absolutely true, there would be fossils of animals and plant life changing, and totally new species appearing at the same time, while many of the old stopped living (not by a meteor strike to the earth, not by a world flood), because the food source (plants) would have evolved at the same time. It wouldn't take long scientific words to explain it, there would be a 'clear' fossil record to demonstrate the event over a range of species. This 'record' is being refuted with most fossil finds. The animals are not evolving, they are the same species now as they were before men walked the earth. Tomorrow is mother's day, you should see your mom, maybe she will tell you that she thinks you are smart.

but can you admit you've neither educated yourself about the details of the physical world sufficient to trust your doubts nor considered that the bible doesn't provide any such detail itself?