CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[FA_Q2]

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

What is "happening right now?" Dogs have been intensively bred for 5,000 years, yet they are all still dogs. The causes of your alleged Beagle/Setter reproductive anomaly are not known, so this example has no direct relevance to genetic evolution. More relevant is that a Great Dane and a Chihauhua have remained genetically compatible despite the fact that dogs represent the greatest variation in size and appearance of any animal that ever existed on Earth.

As to your word games about "species," it seems that you want to eat your cake and have it, too. Since this term doesn't always suit your purposes, why don't YOU come up with an alternative term that addresses genetic incompatibility or whatever else YOU mean by Evolution?

The causes are essentially irrelevant. The entire point is that YOU still call them dogs but by what line do you delineate that? You call them dogs because there is no amount of differences that would make you call them otherwise. The fact that they cannot breed seems irrelevant in that they are still dogs yet the fact that tigers and lions can breed shows that they are MORE SIMILAR THAN IRISH SETTERS AND BEAGLES. Essentially, you have demanded that ANYTHING that comes from breeding dogs is a dog - period. Then demand that I need to supply you with a species that has produced another species through drift.

Do you not see how nonsensical that is. Your starting presumption makes such evidence impossible because it is already rejected before it is even presented.

 

[Syriusly]

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

Choose a different example or modify your argument. Bengal and Siberian tigers are different subspecies, not different species. They are capable of interbreeding and producing offspring that can reproduce no matter what one has to say or thinks about the meaning of the word "species."

• Siberian Tiger: Panthera tigris altaica
• Bengal Tiger: Panthera tigris tigris

On a different note, the situation above illustrates part of the problem with the debate between evolution and creationism: a great many folks who participate in the debate

1. don't know enough to do so, and
2. even professing to "give a damn" about the topic while not knowing enough, rely on the own perception of their knowledgeableness on the topic, and
3. don't/won't research enough to confirm whether what they believe to be so is so.

LOL- I am busted- yes- I did that off the top of my head- and yes I was wrong.

Unfortunately you chose to castigate me for my vast ignorance rather than address my point in a substantive fashion.

Yes- the term 'species' still is relevant. As is the term 'sub-species' and for the same reason as I pointed out- even though I mistakenly used as an example sub-species and species.

The term species- and sub-species are still used and much as I described above

Defining a species

Evolution 101: Speciation

Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[Syriusly]

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

There are genetic differences between Mongoloid and Negroid people, yet they can interbreed. Did the fact that they can interbreed remotely trigger in your mind that perhaps there isn't a species level difference between the two types of cat you mentioned? Did it cross your mind to confirm whether the different tigers you noted might not be different species and instead be different races within a species?.

As noted before- I was speaking of subspecies- not species in error.

My mistake.

 

[Syriusly]

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

And yet nothing on WHY or HOW they are useful. They are layman terms.

Why they are useful? Because they are short hand for identifying populations that share significant characteristics.

They are terms used by science professionals in professional journals

Geisler, J.H., Godfrey, S.J., and O. Lambert. 2012. A new genus and species of late Miocene inioid (Cetacea, Odontoceti) from the Meherrin River, North Carolina, U.S.A. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32(1):198-211.

 

[FA_Q2]

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

And yet nothing on WHY or HOW they are useful. They are layman terms.

Why they are useful? Because they are short hand for identifying populations that share significant characteristics.

They are terms used by science professionals in professional journals

Geisler, J.H., Godfrey, S.J., and O. Lambert. 2012. A new genus and species of late Miocene inioid (Cetacea, Odontoceti) from the Meherrin River, North Carolina, U.S.A. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32(1):198-211.

I don't really care where they are used - they are not specific in any manner of form and do nothing to convey accuracy. "Short hand" certainly is not going to help study or even explain evolution.

Then relate that to an argument with evolution. We are still at an impasse considering that there really is no rule when it comes to what makes one species different from another. As asked earlier - why are the dog breeds mentioned the same species yet tigers and lions are not? There really is no good definition of species. It is filled with sometimes, maybes and exceptions. If we were to try and classify reactions in physics with maybes and exceptions they would throw your explanations in the garbage bin.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

Choose a different example or modify your argument. Bengal and Siberian tigers are different subspecies, not different species. They are capable of interbreeding and producing offspring that can reproduce no matter what one has to say or thinks about the meaning of the word "species."

• Siberian Tiger: Panthera tigris altaica
• Bengal Tiger: Panthera tigris tigris

On a different note, the situation above illustrates part of the problem with the debate between evolution and creationism: a great many folks who participate in the debate

1. don't know enough to do so, and
2. even professing to "give a damn" about the topic while not knowing enough, rely on the own perception of their knowledgeableness on the topic, and
3. don't/won't research enough to confirm whether what they believe to be so is so.

LOL- I am busted- yes- I did that off the top of my head- and yes I was wrong.

Unfortunately you chose to castigate me for my vast ignorance rather than address my point in a substantive fashion.

Yes- the term 'species' still is relevant. As is the term 'sub-species' and for the same reason as I pointed out- even though I mistakenly used as an example sub-species and species.

The term species- and sub-species are still used and much as I described above

Defining a species

Evolution 101: Speciation

Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

That's largely because your reliance on your "vast ignorance" prohibited you from providing an accurate example, and that in turn prevented you from having a credible assertion/premise to support your conclusion.

BTW, I don't need links regarding what "species" means or doesn't mean. You'll recall that I'm the one who provided this: Species (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) . The content at that link is extremely comprehensive on the matter of species. Why have you not referred to it in attempting to refute me? Easily among the best and surely most effectively made refutations of someone's points is to, in context, use one's opponent's own best sources of information to do so.

 

[320 Years of History]

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

There are genetic differences between Mongoloid and Negroid people, yet they can interbreed. Did the fact that they can interbreed remotely trigger in your mind that perhaps there isn't a species level difference between the two types of cat you mentioned? Did it cross your mind to confirm whether the different tigers you noted might not be different species and instead be different races within a species?.

As noted before- I was speaking of subspecies- not species in error.

My mistake.

Fair enough.

I realize I posted twice before you replied to my initial remarks about Siberian and Bengal tiger subspecies. Timing had its chance to figure into the post above's being made....that it did certainly let something of a "piling on" effect happen.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

 

[Indeependent]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

 

[sealybobo]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

And what is your theory on how the first giraffes got here?

If your theory isn't as good as evolution then I'm going to reply REALLY REALLY?

 

[Indeependent]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

 

[Indeependent]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

And what is your theory on how the first giraffes got here?

If your theory isn't as good as evolution then I'm going to reply REALLY REALLY?

I believe in creationism but I don't force it on anyone politically or economically.

 

[sealybobo]

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

So what?

 

[sealybobo]

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

And what is your theory on how the first giraffes got here?

If your theory isn't as good as evolution then I'm going to reply REALLY REALLY?

I believe in creationism but I don't force it on anyone politically or economically.

REALLY? REALLY?

 

[Indeependent]

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

So what?

Even with creationism, I would not exclude the possibility of evolution but I'm not convinced.
The Adaption for survival aspect is a big zero to me.

 

[sealybobo]

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

I think more species have gone extinct than exist today.

65 million years separate us and the dinosaurs. Our recorded human history is 40,000 years.

Anyways, the creation hypothesis is not a scientific theory. All evidence points to you being related to an eggplant

 

[sealybobo]

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

So what?

Even with creationism, I would not exclude the possibility of evolution but I'm not convinced.
The Adaption for survival aspect is a big zero to me.

Well until you have a better theory but until then.

What's your problem with adaptation to survive?

 

[Indeependent]

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.

That's bullshit. That's not debate.

Evolution to me is simple when you think what came first? The mama and daddy giraffes? How did they get here? They must have evolved from something that wasnt born from two giraffes. If you put the God hypothesis out of your head evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Let's compare evolution to your theory.

A. You say God plopped down adult giraffes who then started having babies. That's your theory.

B. Evolution. Need I say more?

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

I think more species have gone extinct than exist today.

65 million years separate us and the dinosaurs. Our recorded human history is 40,000 years.

Anyways, the creation hypothesis is not a scientific theory. All evidence points to you being related to an eggplant

You are stating that a Thread meant to discuss Evolution vs Creationism should not have Creationism postings?

 

[Indeependent]

"Evolution. Need I say more?"
Yes, you need say more.
From what did the giraffe evolve from?
I know, it was dying out and whatever was threatening it's existence gave it 5 billion years of evolution to catch up.
REALLY? REALLY?

I don't know what you just said. Just Google evolution in 40 seconds. It'll explain it in a video.

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

So what?

Even with creationism, I would not exclude the possibility of evolution but I'm not convinced.
The Adaption for survival aspect is a big zero to me.

Well until you have a better theory but until then.

What's your problem with adaptation to survive?

There is no way to survive for billions of years.