Why didn't the pre-Columbian Americans evolve?

[Seymour Flops]

I guess now we are debating the meaning of "evolve," and "evolution?"

Only because you appear to be confused.

Not at all. Darwinists like to mix and match terms to try to confuse people but I'm on to it.

I'm referring to origin of species by natural selection

Did you think natural selection occurred in isolated groups in the Americas?

Over ten to twenty thousand years? It should have, according to Darwinian theory. But humans stayed human.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over ten to twenty thousand years? It should have, according to Darwinian theory.

It didn't occur? Were they genetically identical to the people they left behind?

But humans stayed human.

Right, but you said "kids aren't twins of their parents".

 

[Seymour Flops]

It didn't occur? Were they genetically identical to the people they left behind?

But humans stayed human.

Right, but you said "kids aren't twins of their parents".

LoL!

So your definition of "evolution" is that kids are different from their parents?

Fine with me, since you are abandoning the idea of speciation due to natural selection. Let me know when all other evolutionists agree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your definition of "evolution" is that kids are different from their parents?

Were the differences seen above....selected?

Fine with me, since you are abandoning the idea of speciation due to natural selection.

I'm not.

 

[Hollie]

Not at all. Darwinists like to mix and match terms to try to confuse people but I'm on to it.

Over ten to twenty thousand years? It should have, according to Darwinian theory. But humans stayed human.

Actually, it's a case where religious extremists with no science background/ science vocabulary mindlessly reiterate what they read at creationer ministries.

Identify where biological evolution "should have" occurred per the teaching at your Jimmy Swaggert madrassh.

"Jimmy Swaggart says..." is not a science source.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 605499

Were the differences seen above....selected?

Fine with me, since you are abandoning the idea of speciation due to natural selection.

I'm not.

Wait, what?

You think the above picture is a father with his kids? I dont think evolution by any definition happens that fast.

I don't think the differences above are selected. I don't think that the differerences were selected. Do you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wait, what?

You think the above picture is a father with his kids? I dont think evolution by any definition happens that fast.

I don't think the differences above are selected. I don't think that the differerences were selected. Do you?

I don't think the differences above are selected.

How did they occur?

Do you?

If not, what reason is there for such huge differences?

 

[Hollie]

I don't think the differences above are selected.

How did they occur?

Do you?

If not, what reason is there for such huge differences?

Too bad the ID'iot creationers won't post their General Theory of Supernatural Creation as that would explain the differences.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don't think the differences above are selected.

How did they occur?

It appears that each of those humans were designed to live in the climate of their ancestors. It appears that way, but that isn't proof. It's just the default answer. When and if someone comes up with a better idea, with evidence to support it, I'm all ears.

Do you?

If not, what reason is there for such huge differences?

They are not so huge. If the tall guy had sex with the short lady, they would likely have children. Because they are the same species.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It appears that each of those humans were designed to live in the climate of their ancestors. It appears that way, but that isn't proof. It's just the default answer. When and if someone comes up with a better idea, with evidence to support it, I'm all ears.

They are not so huge. If the tall guy had sex with the short lady, they would likely have children. Because they are the same species.

It appears that each of those humans were designed to live in the climate of their ancestors.

Did their ancestors live in the same climate, if you went back far enough?

They are not so huge.

What are the differences?

If the tall guy had sex with the short lady, they would likely have children. Because they are the same species.

Did someone, somewhere, deny that?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It appears that each of those humans were designed to live in the climate of their ancestors.

Did their ancestors live in the same climate, if you went back far enough?

Maybe. I can't go back that far.

Can you?

They are not so huge.

What are the differences?

You're seeing the same picture I am. But you don't find it racist and I do, so maybe we see it differently.

If the tall guy had sex with the short lady, they would likely have children. Because they are the same species.

Did someone, somewhere, deny that?

Darwinian evolution is about speciation. However different you think those humans are from each other, they did not evolve into a new species. So, it is not an example of Darwinian evolution.

You can't defend Darwinian evolution, but you claim that you are not abandoning it.

 

[Colin norris]

The people of America before European exploration were descendants of a large group of people who were isolated for ten to twenty thousand years. Those descendants spread over a large land mass, and founded civilizations including cities with up to five million in habitants. All without trade or any form of communication with people outside of the Americas. There were a wide variety of climate conditions over the large area and across the thousands of years. A perfect opportunity for Darwinian evolution to take place.

Yet, when Europeans landed in the Americas, they immediately began to copulate with natives and they produced large numbers of healthy and fertile offspring. In other words, in all those thousands of years, no human evolution had taken place. The Americans had their own languages, cultures, and superficial appearances, but their they were.

Still human. "After their kind," indeed.

The fact they mated with blacks etc is evolution before you're eyes.
Is that too hard to understand?

 

[Hollie]

Maybe. I can't go back that far.

Can you?


You're seeing the same picture I am. But you don't find it racist and I do, so maybe we see it differently.

Darwinian evolution is about speciation. However different you think those humans are from each other, they did not evolve into a new species. So, it is not an example of Darwinian evolution.

You can't defend Darwinian evolution, but you claim that you are not abandoning it.

It might be helpful if you had made an effort to understand the topic; evolution, you're trying to argue against.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The fact they mated with blacks etc is evolution before you're eyes.
Is that too hard to understand?

Again, when I say "evolution," I mean speciation by natural selection, as Darwin wrote about.

Changes within species due to breeding is also part of Creationism, and I don't believe in that either.

 

[Hollie]

It appears that each of those humans were designed to live in the climate of their ancestors. It appears that way, but that isn't proof. It's just the default answer. When and if someone comes up with a better idea, with evidence to support it, I'm all ears.

They are not so huge. If the tall guy had sex with the short lady, they would likely have children. Because they are the same species.

It doesn't at all appear that humans were 'designed',

It does appear that you have no knowledge of the subject you're arguing against.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe. I can't go back that far.

Can you?


You're seeing the same picture I am. But you don't find it racist and I do, so maybe we see it differently.

Darwinian evolution is about speciation. However different you think those humans are from each other, they did not evolve into a new species. So, it is not an example of Darwinian evolution.

You can't defend Darwinian evolution, but you claim that you are not abandoning it.

Maybe. I can't go back that far.

Maybe? Humans didn't all come from the same place?

You're seeing the same picture I am.

I see some differences. You don't?

But you don't find it racist and I do

What's racist about it?

Darwinian evolution is about speciation.

Evolution is about evolution. Separate populations can evolve in different directions.
Chihuahuas are different than pugs and Saint Bernards.

However different you think those humans are from each other, they did not evolve into a new species.

Right, but different characteristics were selected for each. Or do you feel they are identical?

You can't defend Darwinian evolution,

Why do you feel that?

but you claim that you are not abandoning it.

Your confusion won't give anyone a reason to abandon it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Maybe. I can't go back that far.

Maybe? Humans didn't all come from the same place?

What is your proof that they did?

You're seeing the same picture I am.

I see some differences. You don't?

Yes, but if you see the same differences, why ask me what the differences are?

But you don't find it racist and I do

What's racist about it?

About a white man in modern dress, paternalistically draping his arms around a family of Africans in primitive dress? I have to explain that to you?

Darwinian evolution is about speciation.

Evolution is about evolution. Separate populations can evolve in different directions.
Chihuahuas are different than pugs and Saint Bernards.

I fully believe that people and animals and plants undergo changes within species. But that's not what I mean when I talk about "evolution."

So, do you or do you not believe in origin of species by natural selection? Because if the answer is yes, explain how that happened and what your proof is.

However different you think those humans are from each other, they did not evolve into a new species.

Right, but different characteristics were selected for each. Or do you feel they are identical?

Who selected those characteristics?

You can't defend Darwinian evolution,

Why do you feel that?

Because you have not defended Darwinian evolution.

but you claim that you are not abandoning it.

Your confusion won't give anyone a reason to abandon it.

Cling to it then, by all means!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is your proof that they did?

Yes, but if you see the same differences, why ask me what the differences are?

About a white man in modern dress, paternalistically draping his arms around a family of Africans in primitive dress? I have to explain that to you?

I fully believe that people and animals and plants undergo changes within species. But that's not what I mean when I talk about "evolution."

So, do you or do you not believe in origin of species by natural selection? Because if the answer is yes, explain how that happened and what your proof is.

Who selected those characteristics?

Because you have not defended Darwinian evolution.

Cling to it then, by all means!

What is your proof that they did?

You think they evolved independently? That's funny.

Yes, but if you see the same differences, why ask me what the differences are?

Maybe because, in the OP, you claimed they didn't evolve?

About a white man in modern dress, paternalistically draping his arms around a family of Africans in primitive dress? I have to explain that to you?

They're each wearing what is considered normal for their culture. Why is that racist?
It wasn't taken last week in Canada. The little guy isn't Justin Trudeau.

But that's not what I mean when I talk about "evolution."

You should stop saying evolution if you mean speciation.

So, do you or do you not believe in origin of species by natural selection?

Selection and mutation.

Who selected those characteristics?

Nature.

Because you have not defended Darwinian evolution.

If you post a well thought out attack, I'll see what I can do to defend it.

Cling to it then, by all means!

And you keep flailing away.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What is your proof that they did?

You think they evolved independently? That's funny.

I don't have an opinion either way. If you have proof either way, I'm waiting for you to stop stalling and present it.

Yes, but if you see the same differences, why ask me what the differences are?

Maybe because, in the OP, you claimed they didn't evolve?

I claimed that pre-Columbian Americans didn't evolve. Which they did not, by the definition of evolution we have been talking about, which is speciation via natural selection.

You want to claim "evolution" just means "change," I'm fine with that. But it sure seems like an abandonment of Darwinism.

But did you really go through all this because you thought I meant that in pre-Columbian America, children were genetic copies of their parents?

Please tell me you aren't that stupid.

About a white man in modern dress, paternalistically draping his arms around a family of Africans in primitive dress? I have to explain that to you?

They're each wearing what is considered normal for their culture. Why is that racist?
It wasn't taken last week in Canada. The little guy isn't Justin Trudeau.

Is it hard to see what you're typing through those two little eye-holes?

But that's not what I mean when I talk about "evolution."

You should stop saying evolution if you mean speciation.

Nope. Because if I said, "I believe in evolution, but only within species," the Darwinist religious fanatics would roast me - after I explained what that meant. Evolution means evolution, not just "change."

So, do you or do you not believe in origin of species by natural selection?

Selection and mutation.

Then present your evidence that species arose via natural selection and mutation.

Who selected those characteristics?

Nature.

Who's that?

Because you have not defended Darwinian evolution.

If you post a well thought out attack, I'll see what I can do to defend it.

I don't attack it. I just don't accept it.

Cling to it then, by all means!

And you keep flailing away.

Not flailing at anything. I'm happy to leave it alone. It's the Darwinists who get torqued up when someone disagrees with them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The people of America before European exploration were descendants of a large group of people who were isolated for ten to twenty thousand years. Those descendants spread over a large land mass, and founded civilizations including cities with up to five million in habitants. All without trade or any form of communication with people outside of the Americas. There were a wide variety of climate conditions over the large area and across the thousands of years. A perfect opportunity for Darwinian evolution to take place.

Yet, when Europeans landed in the Americas, they immediately began to copulate with natives and they produced large numbers of healthy and fertile offspring. In other words, in all those thousands of years, no human evolution had taken place. The Americans had their own languages, cultures, and superficial appearances, but their they were.

Still human. "After their kind," indeed.

A scant few hundred years before contact with the Europeans, they were a civilization far more advanced than their European conquerors. I suppose when the Chinese arrived over a hundred years before the Europeans they brought some pox along with the Asiatic chickens they left behind and whose presence has puzzled researchers ever since their discovery