The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[sealybobo]

You do believe whales once walked, right?

Nope.

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

 

[sealybobo]

You do believe whales once walked, right?

Nope.

"macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim.Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.

Boss, you are a cherry picking believer in god who just so happens to not believe in evolution or the big bang. How coincidental.

 

[rightwinger]

21st century Anericans denying evolution is the same as denying the earth is round or denying global warming

 

[sealybobo]

21st century Anericans denying evolution is the same as denying the earth is round or denying global warming

There is something seriously wrong with them. I'm fascinated and I'm trying to connect the dots.

Republican voters, brainwashed, gullible, believing the greatest bullshit story ever told, liars, ignorant......etc.

Then they ask why we care or why we attack their religions. They don't even see the problem with their ignorance.

You explain to

And don't you love how in ten years they'll say they never denied evolution or climate change. So infuriating! They'll claim it was the symantics of global WARMING they had a problem with but of course pollution is a problem. They will flip flop faster than you can say flip flop.

Or now they get micro but are unsure about macro. Oh gimme a break! Took em long enough

 

[Syriusly]

Arguing 'evolution' with those who have 'faith' that evolution cannot have possibly have happened is a waste of time.

It is exactly the same thing as arguing whether God is real or not- they take it on faith that evolution cannot possibly have happened because it would contradict what they believe about their God.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Syriusly, it is like arguing the need for tax dollars to maintain our infrastructure, invest in science to keep this nation in the lead and the need to educate our children. We're debating people that hate civilization and probably wouldn't care if it was abolished all together. Of course, the same people see themselves as superior to other human beings and wrap themselves in a flag. It doesn't make sense. They don't make sense.

 

[sealybobo]

Arguing 'evolution' with those who have 'faith' that evolution cannot have possibly have happened is a waste of time.

It is exactly the same thing as arguing whether God is real or not- they take it on faith that evolution cannot possibly have happened because it would contradict what they believe about their God.

And they aren't ready to give that up.

This is why boss fascinates me. He doesn't believe any of the organized religions but believes in God still regardless. So I'm curious why evolution bothers him. If I were a theist who believed in evolution I would just believe God planet the life seed and let it grow. Evolution doesn't disprove God.

So why does evolution bother boss? I think what offends him is that he's just another animal. Can't believe he's related to bird and snakes

Another possibility is that we weren't the smartest creature. We were just the better breeders. Maybe the Neanderthals were smarter but didn't breed like rabbits.

And interesting smarter humans are less religious.

People who are moderately religious are like mildly retarded people are. Isis being full blown retard

 

[sealybobo]

You do believe whales once walked, right?

Nope.

For the record can you tell us all your theory on how snakes got here? Sounds like you believe that all snakes today come from an original snake but how did the first snake get here?

You sound like you believe all birds come from one original bird, but how did the first bird vet here?

Are all mammals related or are humans unique? Do you believe all other mammals are related?

I need to hear your theory so we can test it on the bullshit meter. You know to us its going to sound like magical thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

Syriusly, it is like arguing the need for tax dollars to maintain our infrastructure, invest in science to keep this nation in the lead and the need to educate our children. We're debating people that hate civilization and probably wouldn't care if it was abolished all together. Of course, the same people see themselves as superior to other human beings and wrap themselves in a flag. It doesn't make sense. They don't make sense.

There's two types. The rich corporations politicians media and churches control the message and way too many people are denying global warming worrying about trannys and illegals and tax breaks for the rich. Who's controlling the message?

Then there's the dumb American sheep who buy into it.

So don't ask me why I hate a lie they use to hold us back.

America was great when the government represent all of us not trickle down

 

[sealybobo]

I ask boss these questions and watch him make up a creation story right in front of your eyes. It'll be like going back in time when the first priest was born. He didn't have any evidence either but people didn't know science back then either

 

[Boss]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

 

[sealybobo]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

I want to hear your counter theory to macroevolution

 

[sealybobo]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"

 

[rightwinger]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution

 

[sealybobo]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution

They just asked one of the celebrity contestants on jeopardy about the fear secularism is going to kill religion in America. Lol. The woman said gods been doing well for 2000 years. Yea true but his popularity is dropping.
Said she's a Republican who's for same sex marriage. S.E. Cupp? Ever heard of her?

 

[rightwinger]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution

They just asked one of the celebrity contestants on jeopardy about the fear secularism is going to kill religion in America. Lol. The woman said gods been doing well for 2000 years. Yea true but his popularity is dropping.
Said she's a Republican who's for same sex marriage. S.E. Cupp? Ever heard of her?

I thought God made us 6000 years ago

Think of all the evolution that can occur in 6000 years

 

[Boss]

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant? These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.

In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.

However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.

 

[sealybobo]

No

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

Nope.. are you really THAT ignorant? These experiments have been conducted for over 100 years in an effort to study evolution. Since the fruit flies reproduce new generations so fast, scientists can observe what would be tens of thousands of years in a human or mammal. What they have been looking for is evidence of mutation creating new enzymes and amino acids, which in turn, supports new DNA for a new genera of life. THAT is the theory behind the abiogenesis argument.

In order for macro-evolution to work, you have to explain how the mitochondria managed to randomly create 27 new amino acids and 14 enzymes. The hypothesis was this happened through mutations over many generations. BUT... after billions and billions of generations of fruit flies, not one single new amino acid or enzyme was created. This poses a serious scientific problem for the foundation of macro-evolution.

However, some people are very invested in this idea, it's been around since 1859... and Science is the practice of asking questions on things we don't know, as I have stated before... so Science continues to press on... maybe one day something will be discovered which supports the theory of macro-evolution and abiogenesis. I am not saying the door is shut and it's settled science... that's what people like silly boob are trying to say... and the problem is, that isn't science, that's faith.

No door is shut boss. What is your counter theory? If we knew it we could point out where you are confused

 

[Boss]

My theory is the 2016 theory. What's yours? I can't wait to hear your "theory"

No, your theory is from 1859 and Charles Darwin.

Science is not a pissing contest where I have to present a "better" theory or else your theory is true. That's not how Science works.. it's not it's thing. You see... I don't have to have a theory. You are obligated to prove your theory through testing, observation and analyzing data. If your theory fails those tests, it fails... it has nothing to do with any other theory.

 

[sealybobo]

Macroevolution is a scientific fact.

Nope... It's STILL not... and you can say it over and over again if you like... it still won't be a scientific fact.

You can believe I can walk ten blocks but you can't believe I can walk 100. That's the difference between micro and macro.

Sorry, it's not the same thing and that isn't the scientific method. The SM doesn't state that you can create clever analogies and those prove your theories. It requires that you test, observe and evaluate your hypothesis.... doesn't have a thing in there about poo-pooing religion or creating straw men.

Problem is, when scientists conducted nearly 100 years of fruit fly experiments, they couldn't find evidence to support your hypothesis. The fruit flies refused to become anything other than fruit flies. The reason they chose fruit flies is because they regenerate a new generation every 11 days, a fraction of the time humans take... so it's like being able to look at the process on a macro level. They tried everything they could think of to encourage the fruit flies to "evolve" and after billions of generations, not one new enzyme or amino acid was produced. They had mutation, but the mutations did not result in producing new enzymes or amino acids and in order to successfully have transition from one genera to another it would require at a minimum, 27 amino acids and 14 enzymes. Again... billions of generations, NONE were produced.

Now, you can keep on posting links and propaganda from those on a mission to promote their faith-based beliefs as science... I can't stop you. You and them can explain what's wrong with everybody that they don't jump on your faith-based bandwagon and ridicule them while pointing to this "scientific community" as if somehow, that replaces science and the scientific method.... again, I can't stop you. What you cannot do, apparently, is provide us with the actual scientific data to support your 1859 theory. And until you CAN do that, I am not going to believe in your fairy tale. Sorry!

You expect fruit flys to evolve into humans in a hundred years?

You are a tough act considering we are looking at 500 million years of evolution

They just asked one of the celebrity contestants on jeopardy about the fear secularism is going to kill religion in America. Lol. The woman said gods been doing well for 2000 years. Yea true but his popularity is dropping.
Said she's a Republican who's for same sex marriage. S.E. Cupp? Ever heard of her?

I thought God made us 6000 years ago

Think of all the evolution that can occur in 6000 years

Not much. For example we were modern man 6000 years ago. Not much has changed in that time. 600,000? Big difference. No fruitfly experiment can replicate that