Questions For Evolutionists.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am surprised you are not a fan of experiments.

And I am not surprised you are trolling your own thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are numerous options but you've chosen only one of them as if it's gospel.

False.

There is only one option that represents overwhelming scientific consensus and the most robust scientific theory in history.

These lies won't fly, my man.

 

[SaxonJackson]

False.

There is only one option that represents overwhelming scientific consensus and the most robust scientific theory in history.

These lies won't fly, my man.

There is zero "overwhelming scientific" facts. There's a ton of conjecture and hypothesis. Zero humans on earth can adequately explain why life exists in the first place and exactly how it came to be. Lots of fantastic and imaginative theories, though.

You and many brainwashed earthlings would have us believe that an asexual organism evolved sex organs over billions of years. Supposedly, half of these asexual beings began to develop male organs, while the other half decided to develop female organs. But before the organs were fully developed, they continued to reproduce via "fission" or "mitosis." Then, one day, ** poof ** male organs became functional at the same time that female organs became functional and everyone started having sex orgies and were able to carry little youngsters in their wombs until birth.

The makings of the perfect SciFi movie.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Again, fission didn't 'give way', new organisms evolved to take advantage of new ecological niches and their increasing complexity required new methods of reproduction. There was NEVER a time where the organs were not functional or didn't give the organism a competitive advantage.

Faith is the wrong term, I'm convinced by the overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact.

There was "never a time when organs were not functional?" Really? Are you saying that sexual organs were functional prior to becoming functional? If they weren't used for reproduction or urination, then what function did they fill?

I wish you folks would just listen to yourselves. You can deny beyond the shadow of a doubt that intelligent designs were intelligently designed, but you have no problem telling the world ideas that simply cannot be demonstrated in a lab setting.

Evolution is a faith-based religion. Just admit it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is zero "overwhelming scientific" facts.

Sure, it's just a big conspiracy.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Sure, it's just a big conspiracy.

Got nuthin' huh? I already knew you didn't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Got nuthin' huh? I already knew you didn't.

I don't think this trolling is going to get you anywhere.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I don't think this trolling is going to get you anywhere.

It certainly didn't get you anywhere. All you had from beginning to end were empty talking points that, if repeated often enough, become YOUR truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It certainly didn't get you anywhere. All you had from beginning to end were empty talking points that, if repeated often enough, become YOUR truth.

I'm not motivated to do much else but mock your dishonest thread and posts. Sorry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A dumb thing to say. The global scientific community is aware of that.

Are they really? How long would it take for Windows OS to evolve "randomly" if a computer type out a new line of code 10 times a second?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are they really? How long would it take for Windows OS to evolve "randomly" if a computer type out a new line of code 10 times a second?

Yes, they are.

And that's a stupid question, because you forgot to add any selective pressures.

 

[alang1216]

There was "never a time when organs were not functional?" Really? Are you saying that sexual organs were functional prior to becoming functional? If they weren't used for reproduction or urination, then what function did they fill?

'Sex' evolved in the earliest one-celled organisms as the simple act of exchanging of genetic material because it gave the new organisms a greater genetic diversity. How do we know? It is still a common practice in one-celled organisms today. As organisms become multi-cellular better methods evolved to enable the continuing of genetic exchanges.

I wish you folks would just listen to yourselves. You can deny beyond the shadow of a doubt that intelligent designs were intelligently designed, but you have no problem telling the world ideas that simply cannot be demonstrated in a lab setting.

While you on the other hand have no problem telling the world ideas about intelligent designs that simply cannot be demonstrated in a lab setting.

Evolution is a faith-based religion. Just admit it.

You may shut your eyes to the evidence but that doesn't make it go away.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, they are.

And that's a stupid question, because you forgot to add any selective pressures.

What “selective pressures”?? It’s all randommmm

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What “selective pressures”?? It’s all randommmm

No. Selection is the opposite of random.


Mutations and other changes create new physiology somewhat randomly. But the pressures acting on the individuals are not random.

The selective pressures are just the physical laws. Gravity pulls down. Colder temps select for more blubber. Etc etc

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No. Selection is the opposite of random.


Mutations and other changes create new physiology somewhat randomly. But the pressures acting on the individuals are not random.

The selective pressures are just the physical laws. Gravity pulls down. Colder temps select for more blubber. Etc etc

now you are saying there’s an intelligent force guiding the random interactions???

Which is it??

Why haven’t alligators and sharks invented rocket launchers? They’ve been here 200 million years longer than your monkey ancestors. Did the imaginary “selective Pressures” bypass them????

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

now you are saying there’s an intelligent force guiding the random interactions???

Not at all.

Selection isn't random. Else rabbits would come in random colors. No, they are white in the north, and brown in the south. That's selection at work.

While the very first mutation for white rabbits may have been random, the forces that select for it are not. Some brown rabbits are probably born in the north. They get picked off.

That isn't random.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

'Sex' evolved in the earliest one-celled organisms as the simple act of exchanging of genetic material because it gave the new organisms a greater genetic diversity. How do we know? It is still a common practice in one-celled organisms today. As organisms become multi-cellular better methods evolved to enable the continuing of genetic exchanges.


While you on the other hand have no problem telling the world ideas about intelligent designs that simply cannot be demonstrated in a lab setting.


You may shut your eyes to the evidence but that doesn't make it go away.

demonstrate evolution where one species becomes 2 or more different species in a lab setting.

 

[ReinyDays]

There are numerous options but you've chosen only one of them as if it's gospel.

Please tell us about these other options ... and start by explaining these alternatives with Mendel's work with pea plants and the Biblical prohibition against brother/sister sex ... or do you not believe children inherit physical traits from their parents? ... and show your math, like we do for Mendel's theories ...

 

[ReinyDays]

demonstrate evolution where one species becomes 2 or more different species in a lab setting.

Gregory Mendel did this in the middle of the 19th Century ... you should have been taught that in biology class ...

Can you give us 100 millions years? ... do you consider B.t. Corn that same species as Zea mays? ... how about the common cold and COVID? ... sugar maple and big-leaf maple? ... how about new taxons ... like St John's dogs being split into Labador Retrievers and Newfoundlands dogs ... same species but different taxons ... what about species that cannot breed without benefit of cultivation? ... do you include viruses as "life" ... or are these reproductive minerals? ... because we've grown diamonds in the lab since WWII ... would that be a new mineral species? ... are wolves and coyotes the same species? ... because their hybrids are themselves fertile ... how about the feral house cats in Australia? ... they'll never be allowed to outbreed, so they are now (legally) a new taxon, given us 100 million years and they will be a new species ... simple ...

Not to mention:

Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gregory Mendel did this in the middle of the 19th Century ... you should have been taught that in biology class ...

Can you give us 100 millions years? ... do you consider B.t. Corn that same species as Zea mays? ... how about the common cold and COVID? ... sugar maple and big-leaf maple? ... how about new taxons ... like St John's dogs being split into Labador Retrievers and Newfoundlands dogs ... same species but different taxons ... what about species that cannot breed without benefit of cultivation? ... do you include viruses as "life" ... or are these reproductive minerals? ... because we've grown diamonds in the lab since WWII ... would that be a new mineral species? ... are wolves and coyotes the same species? ... because their hybrids are themselves fertile ... how about the feral house cats in Australia? ... they'll never be allowed to outbreed, so they are now (legally) a new taxon, given us 100 million years and they will be a new species ... simple ...

Not to mention:

Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ok retard let me be more specific show any actual fact that a mammal species ever evolved into 2 distinctly different species. And plants and microbes are not the same as animals.