Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Cecilie1200]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

Pretty much.

I rather like the position of "Well, if you don't know EXACTLY how it happened, with reams of empirical truth, that makes evolution correct. So there!" It's like arguing with a first-grader, isn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can you carve out a Grand Canyon in 6000 years?

Who said anything about 6000 years?

That's about how long most right wingers feel is the age of the earth.

Really? MOST right-wingers, huh? Prove it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn't "shatter" anything. All biological structures on an animal are formed as a reaction to the environment and as an adaptation to survive. If there was no light..there would be no need for an eye..and animals simply wouldn't have them. That's why earthworms have no eyes. They don't need them.

And we can see the results of "evolution" through our own domestic animals. We "forced" results of animals we are trying to modify through selective breeding. The results have been startling to say the least..and this is during a much shorter time then natural evolution.

Why you guys cling to this religious crapola is beyond me. But heck..keep it out of science..for pete's sake.

By what mechanism do they adapt?

And don't say evolution...evolution is random mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Evolution.

And your definition of evolution is incorrect.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutation is one factor..it isn't the whole story.

Yeah, Lonestar. The mighty Wikipedia said it, and everyone knows that anonymous dweebs on the Internet writing their own "encyclopedia" would NEVER lie or be wrong, so it's practically written in stone by the finger of . . . well, some random fluctuation in the space-time continuum, I guess.

 

[RDD_1210]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

Pretty much.

I rather like the position of "Well, if you don't know EXACTLY how it happened, with reams of empirical truth, that makes evolution correct. So there!" It's like arguing with a first-grader, isn't it?

Do you EVER post anything worthwhile that isn't some snide comment?

 

[Cecilie1200]

We're talking about gene mutations, each of which are accidental and slightly (or dramatically) modify the genetic instructions for the organism. Most gene mutations are harmful for the next generation, but occasionally a mutation turns out to give better instructions than that of the predecessor. These are the ones who tend to survive and reproduce. Of course, for all we know, the lizard born with the best instructions evah was randomly scooped up by a bird and eaten in it's infancy.

Evolution is random, but which mutations survive is not.

I totally agree with that explanation.

Now answer part 2...This is from an earlier post.

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

Sallow's response was "why do they need to be simultaneous?".

So I explained what you explained above...for natural selection to function, the mutation (or gene recombination or gene flow)...the change must produce an advantage.


Sallow says "well then it's a crap shoot."


A crap shoot is not part of evolutionary theory.



and now Sallow wants to go all around the mulberry bush.


So...

Explain how natural selection works on a trait that provides no advantage whatsoever.

And if you can't do that, then explain how a creature evolves the multiple structure simultaneously to enable that light receptor to function so it does create an advantage.


To be clear, this is an open question to anyone, not just you specifically, or Sallow.

What part aren't you understanding?

Evolutions happens.

It's part of a process. We are "evolving" as we speak.

Whether the species survives as a result is a crap shoot.

Sometimes they do..sometimes they don't.

The part I'm not understanding is where you ever got the idea you had any ******* clue what you're talking about. Sounds to me like the people arguing AGAINST evolution know more about it than you do. Of course, from the sound of it, almost anyone knows more about it than you do.

 

[RDD_1210]

I totally agree with that explanation.

Now answer part 2...This is from an earlier post.

Sallow's response was "why do they need to be simultaneous?".

So I explained what you explained above...for natural selection to function, the mutation (or gene recombination or gene flow)...the change must produce an advantage.


Sallow says "well then it's a crap shoot."


A crap shoot is not part of evolutionary theory.



and now Sallow wants to go all around the mulberry bush.


So...

Explain how natural selection works on a trait that provides no advantage whatsoever.

And if you can't do that, then explain how a creature evolves the multiple structure simultaneously to enable that light receptor to function so it does create an advantage.


To be clear, this is an open question to anyone, not just you specifically, or Sallow.

What part aren't you understanding?

Evolutions happens.

It's part of a process. We are "evolving" as we speak.

Whether the species survives as a result is a crap shoot.

Sometimes they do..sometimes they don't.

The part I'm not understanding is where you ever got the idea you had any ******* clue what you're talking about. Sounds to me like the people arguing AGAINST evolution know more about it than you do. Of course, from the sound of it, almost anyone knows more about it than you do.

You just answered my previous question. Thanks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's not a belief, a working knowledge of basic physics does answer that first question. In fact, we have scientific explanations for everything you asked. We know what keeps the earth spinning, we know what happens because the earth spins on an axis, we know how long the days are, and how long the years are, we know why climates and temperatures on earth remain stable.

I'm not sure where the miracle is here. There's as much place for a miracle in these questions and answers as there is for Miracle Whip.

Can you imagine what would happen to us if the earth was not on it's axis ? you don't consider that a miracle ? as well as us conviently having the moon where it is positioned.

Many planets rotate on an axis. I don't know of any planets with an axial rotation of 0 degrees. Our own tilt is 23.4 degrees. Venus' is 177.3 degrees. Uranus' I believe is somewhere around 90 degrees (it rotates on it's side). Our own tilt is actually also slowly decreasing, much like our speed of rotation.

If our axial tilt was different, our own climate would be different. But how much it would affect I'm not really informed enough to say, but we probably wouldn't have the extremely diverse climates we see on this planet. I would hardly call it a miracle.

Trust me ,if the moon was not positioned where it is our planet would not be on it's current axis, it would be a very bad thing for life on this planet. Again evidence of design.

Your evidence is that it happened so a creator must have done it. That's rather poor evidence.

Poor evidence , if the earth was not on it's current axis what do you think this planet would be like ?

The moon happens to be in the right position is that not true ?

God's perfection is slowly degrading because the world is no longer a perfect place since the fall of adam.

And you think the theory of evolution is solidly supported by evidence ?

 

[Gadawg73]

If we have Perry that is so ignorant on science he does not believe in evolution running against Obama who is so ignorant about economics he does not know how to formulate economic policies what does that leave us?:
A vote for Rick Perry 100 times out of 100.

 

[Warrior102]

Wasn't Perry accused of being in a porn ring last week by some of you brain-dead dimwits ? How did that pan out?

 

[Gadawg73]

Wasn't Perry accused of being in a porn ring last week by some of you brain-dead dimwits ? How did that pan out?

Then he definitely gets my vote!

 

[Woyzeck]

Can you imagine what would happen to us if the earth was not on it's axis ? you don't consider that a miracle ? as well as us conviently having the moon where it is positioned.

Many planets rotate on an axis. I don't know of any planets with an axial rotation of 0 degrees. Our own tilt is 23.4 degrees. Venus' is 177.3 degrees. Uranus' I believe is somewhere around 90 degrees (it rotates on it's side). Our own tilt is actually also slowly decreasing, much like our speed of rotation.

If our axial tilt was different, our own climate would be different. But how much it would affect I'm not really informed enough to say, but we probably wouldn't have the extremely diverse climates we see on this planet. I would hardly call it a miracle.

Trust me ,if the moon was not positioned where it is our planet would not be on it's current axis, it would be a very bad thing for life on this planet. Again evidence of design.

Your evidence is that it happened so a creator must have done it. That's rather poor evidence.

Poor evidence , if the earth was not on it's current axis what do you think this planet would be like ?

The moon happens to be in the right position is that not true ?

And the point is....?

God's perfection is slowly degrading because the world is no longer a perfect place since the fall of adam.

What's that supposed to even mean?

And you think the theory of evolution is solidly supported by evidence ?

No I've just been posting it and schooling you on basic biology for shits and giggles.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Many planets rotate on an axis. I don't know of any planets with an axial rotation of 0 degrees. Our own tilt is 23.4 degrees. Venus' is 177.3 degrees. Uranus' I believe is somewhere around 90 degrees (it rotates on it's side). Our own tilt is actually also slowly decreasing, much like our speed of rotation.

If our axial tilt was different, our own climate would be different. But how much it would affect I'm not really informed enough to say, but we probably wouldn't have the extremely diverse climates we see on this planet. I would hardly call it a miracle.



Your evidence is that it happened so a creator must have done it. That's rather poor evidence.

Poor evidence , if the earth was not on it's current axis what do you think this planet would be like ?

The moon happens to be in the right position is that not true ?

And the point is....?

God's perfection is slowly degrading because the world is no longer a perfect place since the fall of adam.

What's that supposed to even mean?

And you think the theory of evolution is solidly supported by evidence ?

No I've just been posting it and schooling you on basic biology for shits and giggles.

The point is you deny any sort of evidence that could point to intelligent design,why ?

Since adams sin the earth and universe and everything in them is experiencing entropy. So much for you grasping basic biology.

All you have been pointing out is Micro-adaptations nothing showing your theory is viable. Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they can evolve in to a destinctly new organism. That is just simply fairytale land.

You still have not shown the engine of Macroevolution,can you explain how it works and then give evidence of it actually happening ?

Schooling

 

[Youwerecreated]

Many planets rotate on an axis. I don't know of any planets with an axial rotation of 0 degrees. Our own tilt is 23.4 degrees. Venus' is 177.3 degrees. Uranus' I believe is somewhere around 90 degrees (it rotates on it's side). Our own tilt is actually also slowly decreasing, much like our speed of rotation.

If our axial tilt was different, our own climate would be different. But how much it would affect I'm not really informed enough to say, but we probably wouldn't have the extremely diverse climates we see on this planet. I would hardly call it a miracle.



Your evidence is that it happened so a creator must have done it. That's rather poor evidence.

And the point is....?


What's that supposed to even mean?


No I've just been posting it and schooling you on basic biology for shits and giggles.

Debunking macroevolution.

Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils? : Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

 

[Woyzeck]

Poor evidence , if the earth was not on it's current axis what do you think this planet would be like ?

The moon happens to be in the right position is that not true ?

And the point is....?



What's that supposed to even mean?

And you think the theory of evolution is solidly supported by evidence ?

No I've just been posting it and schooling you on basic biology for shits and giggles.

The point is you deny any sort of evidence that could point to intelligent design,why ?

The evidence you have boils down to: it happened, ergo creator. That's not really evidence.

Since adams sin the earth and universe and everything in them is experiencing entropy. So much for you grasping basic biology.

Adam doesn't exist. If he did he would have to live 14 billion years ago if he's the cause of entropy.

All you have been pointing out is Micro-adaptations nothing showing your theory is viable. Because organisms have the ability to adapt does not mean they can evolve in to a destinctly new organism. That is just simply fairytale land.

No, I've given quite a bit of evidence, despite you jamming your fingers in your ears at every turn. You claim only micro-adaptations are possible, but insist that many of them are not possible to change the organism. You never quite explained why there's a cap on that.

If micro-evolutions are not possible, and micro-adaptations are, what do you call this then?

I would hardly call it an adaptation.

You still have not shown the engine of Macroevolution,can you explain how it works and then give evidence of it actually happening ?

What do you mean by 'engine' of macro-evolution?

Schooling

You don't seem to understand much of biology, given your rather curious thoughts about intelligent design. Or even physics for that matter, because you don't seem to know why the earth continues to spin, what determines climate, or even how long a day actually is.

 

[Woyzeck]

And the point is....?


What's that supposed to even mean?


No I've just been posting it and schooling you on basic biology for shits and giggles.

Debunking macroevolution.

Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils? : Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Summarize the points you want to make. Use your own words. I'm not going to watch videos that make your arguments for you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And the point is....?



What's that supposed to even mean?



No I've just been posting it and schooling you on basic biology for shits and giggles.

The point is you deny any sort of evidence that could point to intelligent design,why ?

The evidence you have boils down to: it happened, ergo creator. That's not really evidence.



Adam doesn't exist. If he did he would have to live 14 billion years ago if he's the cause of entropy.


No, I've given quite a bit of evidence, despite you jamming your fingers in your ears at every turn. You claim only micro-adaptations are possible, but insist that many of them are not possible to change the organism. You never quite explained why there's a cap on that.

If micro-evolutions are not possible, and micro-adaptations are, what do you call this then?

I would hardly call it an adaptation.

You still have not shown the engine of Macroevolution,can you explain how it works and then give evidence of it actually happening ?

What do you mean by 'engine' of macro-evolution?

Schooling

You don't seem to understand much of biology, given your rather curious thoughts about intelligent design. Or even physics for that matter, because you don't seem to know why the earth continues to spin, what determines climate, or even how long a day actually is.

You do not understand what the term engine means ? well an engine powers a car what powers macroevolution that is what i was asking.

Changing the subject are you.

 

[Woyzeck]

The point is you deny any sort of evidence that could point to intelligent design,why ?

The evidence you have boils down to: it happened, ergo creator. That's not really evidence.



Adam doesn't exist. If he did he would have to live 14 billion years ago if he's the cause of entropy.


No, I've given quite a bit of evidence, despite you jamming your fingers in your ears at every turn. You claim only micro-adaptations are possible, but insist that many of them are not possible to change the organism. You never quite explained why there's a cap on that.

If micro-evolutions are not possible, and micro-adaptations are, what do you call this then?

I would hardly call it an adaptation.



What do you mean by 'engine' of macro-evolution?

Schooling

You don't seem to understand much of biology, given your rather curious thoughts about intelligent design. Or even physics for that matter, because you don't seem to know why the earth continues to spin, what determines climate, or even how long a day actually is.

You do not understand what the term engine means ? well an engine powers a car what powers macroevolution that is what i was asking.

It's a stupid question, because it's the same thing that "powers" micro-evolution. There's no reason to make the distinction of what "powers" macro-evolution.

Changing the subject are you.

You make a habit of this far more than I do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Debunking macroevolution.

Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils? : Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Summarize the points you want to make. Use your own words. I'm not going to watch videos that make your arguments for you.

Why do i need to summarize the videos. I was just debunking your theory whether you watch them or not i could care less,but i know many viewing this thread will watch them .You being unwilling to view the videos just shows me no matter what is presented you would simply deny it and try to change the subject. But you expected me to look at your evidence posted and respond to it,do you remember that ? so once your true colors were revealed i just simply moved on and i will continue presenting arguments against your theory so people are not blindly accepting your absurd explanations.

You have taken every word from your textbook as actual proof of your beliefs, while being ignorant of the fact that much of your theory is built on opinions not on observed evidence. All you have shown is either micro-adaptations or variations within a kind nothing that is considered Macro-evolution. Variations within a kind is information that was already present in the family not the result of new information from mutations. If you are gonna say it's new information then you have to prove the origins of the new information.

Where did the new information come from ?and what is your proof ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The evidence you have boils down to: it happened, ergo creator. That's not really evidence.



Adam doesn't exist. If he did he would have to live 14 billion years ago if he's the cause of entropy.


No, I've given quite a bit of evidence, despite you jamming your fingers in your ears at every turn. You claim only micro-adaptations are possible, but insist that many of them are not possible to change the organism. You never quite explained why there's a cap on that.

If micro-evolutions are not possible, and micro-adaptations are, what do you call this then?

I would hardly call it an adaptation.



What do you mean by 'engine' of macro-evolution?



You don't seem to understand much of biology, given your rather curious thoughts about intelligent design. Or even physics for that matter, because you don't seem to know why the earth continues to spin, what determines climate, or even how long a day actually is.

You do not understand what the term engine means ? well an engine powers a car what powers macroevolution that is what i was asking.

It's a stupid question, because it's the same thing that "powers" micro-evolution. There's no reason to make the distinction of what "powers" macro-evolution.

Changing the subject are you.

You make a habit of this far more than I do.

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

 

[Woyzeck]

Summarize the points you want to make. Use your own words. I'm not going to watch videos that make your arguments for you.

Why do i need to summarize the videos. I was just debunking your theory whether you watch them or not i could care less,but i know many viewing this thread will watch them .You being unwilling to view the videos just shows me no matter what is presented you would simply deny it and try to change the subject. But you expected me to look at your evidence posted and respond to it,do you remember that ? so once your true colors were revealed i just simply moved on and i will continue presenting arguments against your theory so people are not blindly accepting your absurd explanations.

Because an argument is not the same as an article that serves as evidence for arguments. You'll take any excuse you can to not have to look at actual science, hm? Well of course, that's usually the only response you have for actual science. That and not actually knowing what the science is about.

You have taken every word from your textbook as actual proof of your beliefs, while being ignorant of the fact that much of your theory is built on opinions not on observed evidence.

No matter how many times you repeat this bullshit mantra of yours, it still remains that I have in fact posted much observed evidence for evolution. I just posted some more a few posts ago. Why do you insist on constantly lying about it?

Also, actually I know what I do of modern biology from the biology section at my local library. I suggest you also take a trip and take a book out on the subject as well, you are in sore need of it.

All you have shown is either micro-adaptations or variations within a kind nothing that is considered Macro-evolution. Variations within a kind is information that was already present in the family not the result of new information from mutations. If you are gonna say it's new information then you have to prove the origins of the new information.

See below. By the way, do you know why questions like "what drives macro-evolution" are stupid and pointless? It has to do with the differences between micro and macro. One represents a shorter period of time, the other a much longer period. The only thing that makes the two distinct is time. There's no proof that only variations can occur, and in fact the fossil record and existence of previous species on this planet heartily dispels that notion. If only variations can occur and if speciation is impossible than we should continue to find the same bones of organisms that we have today. But we don't, we find whole worlds of extinct species.

Where did the new information come from ?and what is your proof ?

Mutations. Errors in DNA. That's where the 'new information' comes from. Come now, this is basic biology. Please don't try that "new information cannot enter the genome" argument either, because I've debunked that several times now.