According to science, how does a new species develop?

[james bond]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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.

 

[sealybobo]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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

 

[Syriusly]

I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..

No- you just made that claim in post #402.

Nothing was ever debunked.

• They are not sterile
• They reproduce with their own kind
• Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.

AKA a species.

Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce. It's common in the plant kingdom. I can't help it if you do not know what it is.

So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.

What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.

No what they want to see is the Second Coming.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Gotta give James dancing cred- he can twist with the best of them.

He both proclaims that evolution proves Darwin wrong- and also that evolution doesn't exist.

He both claims that the world is 6,000 years old- and that it is millions of years old.

Still waiting to hear how those Koala's sprinted from Iraq to Australia......

 

[sealybobo]

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..

Gotta give James dancing cred- he can twist with the best of them.

He both proclaims that evolution proves Darwin wrong- and also that evolution doesn't exist.

He both claims that the world is 6,000 years old- and that it is millions of years old.

Still waiting to hear how those Koala's sprinted from Iraq to Australia......

I'm not taking James seriously. Others have done a much better job twisting. Boss & Ding were/are better.

 

[LittleNipper]

First, evos and you did not explain how the earth has so much water? Water is one of the fine tuning parameters. The reason why earth has so much water is that it had oceans of water underneath. Thus, when Noah's flood happened, it came up from the deep. There were rocks which came up and formed mountain ranges we have today. The Grand Canyon was formed from a local flood. Furthermore, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. There was a canopy of water above the earth and that rained down. This is catastrophism. Otherwise, there is no logical explanation for the earth having so much water. Moreover, some outer space disturbance occurred and human longevity changed. Life was cut short to around 120 years. Most of the discoveries that scientists made about prehistoric man are from post flood. I think sealybobo mentioned Titan as the other planet on our solar system with water on its surface. How's that coming along?

You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?

P.S. Did you ever answer our question? What came first adult human or baby humans?

Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?

Adult Adam and Eve. All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.

Where’s the evidence?

Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.

So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.

So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance

What do you have against an all omnipotent LORD GOD creating a fully developed and perfect specimen?

 

[LittleNipper]

Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact

Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact. Pay attention!

And Creation can be a scientific study and fact. Reciprocate!

Creation could be a scientific theory- except there is no science to back up the story of the Bible.

Why are Christians so coy about calling it Creation- rather than the story of the Bible?

What is so scientific about fabricating a story that attempts to answer the reason we exist exclusive of a Creator? I believe that Christians are demonstrating that what the Bible has to say isn't of their invention.And I would have to believe most people calling themselves "Christian" believe that the Bible is of GOD's revelation.

 

[sealybobo]

You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?

P.S. Did you ever answer our question? What came first adult human or baby humans?

Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?

Adult Adam and Eve. All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.

Where’s the evidence?

Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.

So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.

So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance

What do you have against an all omnipotent LORD GOD creating a fully developed and perfect specimen?

Ridiculous

 

[james bond]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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? -

 

[james bond]

Your argument for goatsbeards was debunked as polyploidy in post #402 on page 21..

No- you just made that claim in post #402.

Nothing was ever debunked.

• They are not sterile
• They reproduce with their own kind
• Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.

AKA a species.

Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce. It's common in the plant kingdom. I can't help it if you do not know what it is.

So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.

What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.

No what they want to see is the Second Coming.

We're ALL going to see the second coming. Some will be spiritually alive while others will be spiritually dead.

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:1-10

 

[Syriusly]

You don't think comets of ice could have supplied the earth with water?

P.S. Did you ever answer our question? What came first adult human or baby humans?

Where's the evidence for comets strikes and it providing water?

Adult Adam and Eve. All creatures created by God were adult except Baby Jesus.

Where’s the evidence?

Chickens can lay eggs. Eggs never lay chickens.

So either evolution is real or you believe god poofed fully grown chicken into existence.

So you can’t believe the poof hypothesis and say you are a scientist unless you have cognitive dissonance

What do you have against an all omnipotent LORD GOD creating a fully developed and perfect specimen?

You show me evidence of that omnipotent Lord God doing that- and explain why that Omnipotent God allows babies to be tortured- and we can talk.

 

[Syriusly]

Now, the fossil record, the age of the earth, age of the earliest life, etc. is a THEORY when you claimed it was fact

Again, it can be both a scientific theory, and a fact. Pay attention!

And Creation can be a scientific study and fact. Reciprocate!

Creation could be a scientific theory- except there is no science to back up the story of the Bible.

Why are Christians so coy about calling it Creation- rather than the story of the Bible?

What is so scientific about fabricating a story that attempts to answer the reason we exist exclusive of a Creator? I believe that Christians are demonstrating that what the Bible has to say isn't of their invention.And I would have to believe most people calling themselves "Christian" believe that the Bible is of GOD's revelation.

What is scientific is following the evidence- not a book written 2,000 years ago.

But great way to miss my point- why do Christians call themselves Creationists when they just mean Christians?

 

[Syriusly]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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

"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.-

Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.

The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers. They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.

 

[Syriusly]

No- you just made that claim in post #402.

Nothing was ever debunked.

• They are not sterile
• They reproduce with their own kind
• Cannot reproduce with any of their ancestral species.

AKA a species.

Polyploidy can form a new species in plants and they can reproduce. It's common in the plant kingdom. I can't help it if you do not know what it is.

So great- we are in agreement that the Christianist claims that no new species have been observed are total bunk.

What they want to see is a fish turn into a mammal or a reptile turn into a mammal.

No what they want to see is the Second Coming.

We're ALL going to see the second coming. Some will be spiritually alive while others will be spiritually dead.

See I have no problem with you believing that- if that is what you believe it doesn't affect me in any way.

But I am very curious as to how Christians explain how Koala's got from Mount Ararat to Australia.

Right before the continents started to be flung violently around the earth.

 

[james bond]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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

"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.-

Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.

The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers. They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.

Your argument is to change the subject and use racist falsity. We are discussing racist white man Darwin and the affect he had on social Darwinists, eugenics, Hitler and other racist organizations such a Planned Parenthood.

"Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?
His anniversary has thrown a fresh spotlight on ideas about race that still excite his friends and foes. Marek Kohn looks at a troublesome legacy

Among the family heirlooms that Charles Darwin inherited, symbolically speaking, was a china cameo depicting a black slave in chains, asking "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image had been mass-produced as a campaigning device, some 20 years before Charles's birth, by his grandfather, the potter Josiah Wedgwood. An impassioned and active opposition to slavery was at the heart of the Darwin-Wedgwood family's values.

The cameo's question has long since been answered once and for all in the affirmative, but the questions about race that led on from it seemingly refuse to accept that they have been settled. Religion may have monopolised Darwinian controversy lately, but race remains a source of unease and suspicion. The fault-lines Adrian Desmond and James Moore have been treading in their new book Darwin's Sacred Cause: race, slavery and the quest for human origins (Allen Lane, £25) are still active.

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.

By the mid-19th-century, many influential voices denied that the enslaved African was a brother, and it was broadly taken for granted that as a man, he was of an inferior sort to his white master. Darwin stepped into the centre of the stage just when such ideas were helping to tear the northern and southern states of America apart."

...

"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. Starkly displaying his own readiness to apply his ideas to society, he observed in The Descent of Man that "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"."

Let us admit that Darwin's attitudes on race were ugly.

Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?

++++++++

Curse of Ham BS by Syriusly
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html

 

[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

"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.-

Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.

The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers. They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.

Your argument is to change the subject and use racist falsity. We are discussing racist white man Darwin and the affect he had on social Darwinists, eugenics, Hitler and other racist organizations such a Planned Parenthood.l

LOL you are the one who has changed the subject to Darwin's racism- not me.

None of which has anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.

I was just pointing out another fallacy you posted.

As I said before- you dance, dance, dance away from the topic.

Tell us again how you believe the world is only 6,000 years old and then cite 'Creation Scientists' who said the world is millions of years old.

Better yet- 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.

 

[sealybobo]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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

 

[sealybobo]

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

"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.-

Really? Charles Darwin- born 1809.

The Christian slaver's didn't think that all men were men and brothers. They rationalized that Africans were descended from Ham and were cursed.

Curse of Ham - Wikipedia

Unlike the Christian slaver's- Darwin proposed the novel idea that all men were descended from a common ancestor- and didn't propose that African's were cursed by some fairy in the sky.

Your argument is to change the subject and use racist falsity. We are discussing racist white man Darwin and the affect he had on social Darwinists, eugenics, Hitler and other racist organizations such a Planned Parenthood.

"Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?
His anniversary has thrown a fresh spotlight on ideas about race that still excite his friends and foes. Marek Kohn looks at a troublesome legacy

Among the family heirlooms that Charles Darwin inherited, symbolically speaking, was a china cameo depicting a black slave in chains, asking "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image had been mass-produced as a campaigning device, some 20 years before Charles's birth, by his grandfather, the potter Josiah Wedgwood. An impassioned and active opposition to slavery was at the heart of the Darwin-Wedgwood family's values.

The cameo's question has long since been answered once and for all in the affirmative, but the questions about race that led on from it seemingly refuse to accept that they have been settled. Religion may have monopolised Darwinian controversy lately, but race remains a source of unease and suspicion. The fault-lines Adrian Desmond and James Moore have been treading in their new book Darwin's Sacred Cause: race, slavery and the quest for human origins (Allen Lane, £25) are still active.

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.

By the mid-19th-century, many influential voices denied that the enslaved African was a brother, and it was broadly taken for granted that as a man, he was of an inferior sort to his white master. Darwin stepped into the centre of the stage just when such ideas were helping to tear the northern and southern states of America apart."

...

"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. Starkly displaying his own readiness to apply his ideas to society, he observed in The Descent of Man that "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"."

Let us admit that Darwin's attitudes on race were ugly.

Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?

++++++++

Curse of Ham BS by Syriusly
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html

We aren’t talking about social Darwinism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[james bond]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

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

I'm not making them racist as I wasn't there. However, I can figure out how a science book becomes a best seller overnight. One is the creation vs atheist science aspect. The other is the racist aspect of how apes became blacks and then whites. 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. Syriusly is still stuck on his polyploidy plant ha ha. 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?