Why the Theory of Evolution is not only the right answer, why it is a critical answer

[orogenicman]

I didn't. Read it again. I said you attack everyone who questions your assertions.

If that is what you take from this thread, then perhaps you are wasting your time. In which case, why are you here?




No it is not. Keep reading.



Notice how your claim uses the singular, not the plural. What part of "populations evolve" do you not understand? How it started is irrelevant to the FACT that life evolves. If you want to discover how life started, you need another theory because evolution, by definition, is only about the origin of species, not the origin of life.



No, the entire theory describes the diversity of life, not how it started or where or when it originated.





Yes that is my answer. No it is not a non-answer. It is THE answer. And I do know. Keep reading.

Oh, so a monkey somewhere along the line popped out a human and viola, a new species is born? I know, I know, "evolution". So why can't you explain HOW "evolution" changes one species into another? I know that species evolve WITHIN their own species to a small extent to adapt to different environments, but you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that they evolve into different species.

Obviously, you don't know evolution. Because if you did, you would not have repeated this misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Again, what part of "populations evolve, not individuals" do you not understand?

I can explain how species evolve. You didn't ask it before so I didn't tell you. Species evolve via natural selection.

Look at artificial selection of domestic animals by humans. The mechanism for changing those animals is there naturally, or we would not be able to breed these animals for our own purposes. That mechanism is their genomes. We select animals based on what we desire of them (i.e., gentle nature, speed, taste, etc.), and then breed only those specimens that have the desired characteristics. After repeated breeding, we end up with breeds that only have those characteristics. They breed true. And we've done this only after a relative few generations of selective breeding. Nature does this via natural selection (i.e., the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment) as well, but over a much longer period of time.

Well, I kept reading and I still didn't see any answers that you keep claiming you have. All I've seen is you telling me I don't understand evolution. Apparently you don't understand it either because you don't seem to be able to answer any of the questions I just asked. For example, I'm still waiting for you to show us how species evolve into other species. And this time, how about something other than "You just don't understand evolution"?

Then apparently you are having trouble with the English language. What part of the below did you not understand?

Look at artificial selection of domestic animals by humans. The mechanism for changing those animals is there naturally, or we would not be able to breed these animals for our own purposes. That mechanism is their genomes. We select animals based on what we desire of them (i.e., gentle nature, speed, taste, etc.), and then breed only those specimens that have the desired characteristics. After repeated breeding, we end up with breeds that only have those characteristics. They breed true. And we've done this only after a relative few generations of selective breeding. Nature does this via natural selection (i.e., the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment) as well, but over a much longer period of time.

Are the words too big? Do you need a dictionary? Perhaps what you really need is a class in basic biology.

But let me ask you a question. If not evolution, then what, in your opinion, better explains the diversity of life we see on this planet? And what evidence do you have to support this 'better' explanation?

 

[S.J.]

Then apparently you are having trouble with the English language. What part of the below did you not understand?

Look at artificial selection of domestic animals by humans. The mechanism for changing those animals is there naturally, or we would not be able to breed these animals for our own purposes. That mechanism is their genomes. We select animals based on what we desire of them (i.e., gentle nature, speed, taste, etc.), and then breed only those specimens that have the desired characteristics. After repeated breeding, we end up with breeds that only have those characteristics. They breed true. And we've done this only after a relative few generations of selective breeding. Nature does this via natural selection (i.e., the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment) as well, but over a much longer period of time.

Are the words too big? Do you need a dictionary? Perhaps what you really need is a class in basic biology.

But let me ask you a question. If not evolution, then what, in your opinion, better explains the diversity of life we see on this planet? And what evidence do you have to support this 'better' explanation?

I don't have a problem understanding it. You're talking about breeding, or evolution (adaptation) within a species. If you think that copy and paste statement makes your case of one species morphing into another, then YOU are the one having trouble with the English language.

And you don't win by default. I don't have to provide a proven explanation for your unproven one to be wrong. Either you can prove your claim or you can't. So far, you have failed miserably, and your personal attacks and condescending remarks don't add much to your credibility.

 

[orogenicman]

Then apparently you are having trouble with the English language. What part of the below did you not understand?

Look at artificial selection of domestic animals by humans. The mechanism for changing those animals is there naturally, or we would not be able to breed these animals for our own purposes. That mechanism is their genomes. We select animals based on what we desire of them (i.e., gentle nature, speed, taste, etc.), and then breed only those specimens that have the desired characteristics. After repeated breeding, we end up with breeds that only have those characteristics. They breed true. And we've done this only after a relative few generations of selective breeding. Nature does this via natural selection (i.e., the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment) as well, but over a much longer period of time.

Are the words too big? Do you need a dictionary? Perhaps what you really need is a class in basic biology.

But let me ask you a question. If not evolution, then what, in your opinion, better explains the diversity of life we see on this planet? And what evidence do you have to support this 'better' explanation?

I don't have a problem understanding it. You're talking about breeding, or evolution (adaptation) within a species. If you think that copy and paste statement makes your case of one species morphing into another, then YOU are the one having trouble with the English language.

And you don't win by default. I don't have to provide a proven explanation for your unproven one to be wrong. Either you can prove your claim or you can't. So far, you have failed miserably, and your personal attacks and condescending remarks don't add much to your credibility.

It is clear that you have tremendous problems understanding it. It isn't about winning or losing. This isn't a popularity contest. Evolution is not a claim. It is a scientifically valid theory backed by over 150 years of compelling evidence compiled by hundreds of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding it and solving its mysteries.

The same processes that allow for artificial selection also allows for natural selection. The primary difference is one of time and the agent of that change, which in this case, is the natural world. You apparently believe that all of that hard won data cannot possibly explain the diversity of life even though you have provided no explanation for your denial. This tells me that you believe that some other theory better explains the diversity of life on Earth. Or perhaps your only reason for posting here is to be contrary. And you are right. Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Evolution has withstood the test of time despite your misgivings and misunderstandings. So, as I said, if you have some other theory that better explains the diversity of life, I'm all ears, SJ.

 

[GISMYS]

THINK!!! TARDS!!! selective breeding CAN ONLY MAKE MINOR CHANGE IN A BREED OF ANIMAL IT CANNOT CHANGE A RAT INTO A CAT,A HONEY BEE INTO A COW NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME

 

[orogenicman]

THINK!!! TARDS!!! selective breeding CAN ONLY MAKE MINOR CHANGE IN A BREED OF ANIMAL IT CANNOT CHANGE A RAT INTO A CAT,A HONEY BEE INTO A COW NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME

But then, no one has ever said it could, just like no evolutionary scientist has ever said that a rat can change into a cat, a honey bee or a cow, despite you and others being told this over and over again. I am coming to the conclusion that some of you people have serious nervous system malfunctions that prevents this from sinking in. And if that is the case, you have my sympathy.

 

[S.J.]

It is clear that you have tremendous problems understanding it.

Or maybe it's like Quantum Windbag said, you have no idea what you're talking about. I would think that a brilliant scientist, such as yourself would be able to answer a few basic questions, but you haven't been able to answer a damn thing, just attack and insult the people who ask them.

 

[GISMYS]

think!!! Tards!!! Selective breeding can only make minor change in a breed of animal it cannot change a rat into a cat,a honey bee into a cow no matter how much time

but then, no one has ever said it could, just like no evolutionary scientist has ever said that a rat can change into a cat, a honey bee or a cow, despite you and others being told this over and over again. I am coming to the conclusion that some of you people have serious nervous system malfunctions that prevents this from sinking in. And if that is the case, you have my sympathy.

oh!!!! Trace man back to the start of life on earth. Tell us all about what evolved into what to make mankind!

 

[orogenicman]

think!!! Tards!!! Selective breeding can only make minor change in a breed of animal it cannot change a rat into a cat,a honey bee into a cow no matter how much time

but then, no one has ever said it could, just like no evolutionary scientist has ever said that a rat can change into a cat, a honey bee or a cow, despite you and others being told this over and over again. I am coming to the conclusion that some of you people have serious nervous system malfunctions that prevents this from sinking in. And if that is the case, you have my sympathy.

oh!!!! Trace man back to the start of life on earth. Tell us all about what evolved into what to make mankind!

I can do one better. I can show you:

 

[GISMYS]

Roflmao!!! Man's silly ideas are no proof of anything but silly man's ignorance!!!and you???

 

[orogenicman]

Roflmao!!! Man's silly ideas are no proof of anything but silly man's ignorance!!!and you???

I think the fact that you have nothing to say other than making insults is proof enough of your silly ignorance. Congratulations.

On the other hand, if you really are interested in the subject, watch this:



Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

 

[GISMYS]

Bottomline=evolution is the religion of god hating sin loving fools!!!

 

[S.J.]

but then, no one has ever said it could, just like no evolutionary scientist has ever said that a rat can change into a cat, a honey bee or a cow, despite you and others being told this over and over again. I am coming to the conclusion that some of you people have serious nervous system malfunctions that prevents this from sinking in. And if that is the case, you have my sympathy.

oh!!!! Trace man back to the start of life on earth. Tell us all about what evolved into what to make mankind!

I can do one better. I can show you:

Where did the Forest Ape come from?

 

[GISMYS]

Roflmao!!! Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla. Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao! When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?

 

[S.J.]

Roflmao!!! Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla. Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao! When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?

He's saying they just morphed into humans (over many years, of course).

 

[orogenicman]

Roflmao!!! Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla. Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao! When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?

He's saying they just morphed into humans (over many years, of course).

Are you a Judeo-Chirstian? I only ask because of the 9th commandment about bearing false witness and how it relates to your statement above.

 

[S.J.]

Roflmao!!! Humans can't breed with chimps or gorilla. Why not?? If they are your uncle??? Roflmao! When will "all" chimps evolve into humans?

He's saying they just morphed into humans (over many years, of course).

Are you a Judeo-Chirstian? I only ask because of the 9th commandment about bearing false witness and how it relates to your statement above.

Okay, how did it happen then, if they didn't breed?

 

[orogenicman]

He's saying they just morphed into humans (over many years, of course).

Are you a Judeo-Chirstian? I only ask because of the 9th commandment about bearing false witness and how it relates to your statement above.

Okay, how did it happen then, if they didn't breed?

You know, I give you information (such as the diagram above), and you don't even bother to read it or go over it, or even try to understand it. Did you even watch the video I provided in post #150? No? So explain to me why I should bother. How old are you, anyway?

 

[S.J.]

Are you a Judeo-Chirstian? I only ask because of the 9th commandment about bearing false witness and how it relates to your statement above.

Okay, how did it happen then, if they didn't breed?

You know, I give you information (such as the diagram above), and you don't even bother to read it or go over it, or even try to understand it. So explain to me why I should bother. How old are you, anyway?

How, exactly, does that diagram show how the apes became humans? You didn't answer my other question either, but let's just stick to this one for now.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you offering to leave the thread?

No, I'm offering to give you a chance to make your case for evolution, which you have not. Since you claim to be so "educated" on the subject, you should be able to answer the critical questions that your theory is based on. You can start with explaining where the first creature in the chain came from. Then you can explain how it became another species. Then explain why those "evolving" creatures are still around if they "evolved" into something else. So, instead of attacking everyone who questions your assertions, how about PROVING your assertions?

First of all, do explain how you managed to interpret my response to your post as an attack. Secondly, your response to my post, if anything was a snide comment on the fact that someone complimented me. Now, I can only conclude that the fact that I was complimented somehow left you feeling slighted, which can only mean that since you weren't even involved in the discussion, that your ego is much larger than it deserves to be. Perhaps you could put a lid on those kinds of comments in the future.

Secondly, we are unsure of where the "first" creature came from for the simple fact that the strata where they would be preserved has itself apparently not been preserved. The Earth is a very old and dynamic planet. Erosion and plate tectonics have likely destroyed the very oldest life-bearing sediments. That said, to suggest that there was a "first" creature is to misunderstand not only evolution, but genetics and even organic chemistry. Evolution of species occurs in populations not in individuals. So the more correct question is 'where did the first population come from". And the plain and simply truth is that to date we don't know, and may never know.

But not knowing where the first life came from had no bearing on the fact that life evolves, so I am unclear on why you believe the question to be germane.

As to how the first life came to be another species, the answer is simple - evolution. I know you were expecting me to suggest some magical sky daddy was involved in the mix. Sorry about that.

As to why evolving species are still around if "they evolved into something else", really? All species evolve. If all evolving species went extinct every time they evolved then there would be no life on this planet, because the life that they evolved into would itself go extinct. It is a meaningless question.

And further questions?

Yeah.. I got one.. What about the MECHANISM(S) of evolution?? Adaptation is irrelevent without MUTATION.. Tell us about ACCELERATED mutation.. Like the known experiment that created 14 species of fruit flys in just a matter of days with radiation.. How much has "evolutionary science" discovered about "jumping species" in very SHORT periods of time? You seem to believe that the "theory" has been "settled science" for centuries. Like before we had DNA sequencing, knowledge of radiation mutation, and a map of the genome..

This theory has taken more twists and turns than the wooden coaster at DollyWood.. And YET ---- so many folks line up to PRETEND that its all been settled since forever..

If evolution can be ACCELERATED beyond Darwin's wildest dreams --- why do you still have a 19th definition of it in your explanations? Ever occur to you that there MAY BE less "missing links" than previously thought because of what we've LEARNED about the MECHANISMS of evolution?

BTW --- for those who want to explore your most ancient ancestral cousins.. There's a GREAT site with an interactive tree of life going across the entire animal kingdom..

Life on Earth

That page is a guide to the 1st life on earth..

 

[orogenicman]

Okay, how did it happen then, if they didn't breed?

You know, I give you information (such as the diagram above), and you don't even bother to read it or go over it, or even try to understand it. So explain to me why I should bother. How old are you, anyway?

How, exactly, does that diagram show how the apes became humans? You didn't answer my other question either, but let's just stick to this one for now.

I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine. Until you do, we're done here.