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

[orogenicman]

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??

What about them?

Adaptation is irrelevent without MUTATION.

In evolutionary terms, adaptation doesn't occur without a mutation.

Tell us about ACCELERATED mutation.

You brought it up, so I assume you know all about it. So why don't you tell us about it. I'm not your instructor.

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?

I'll answer those questions with questions since that is what you folks are so good at. Does that research disprove evolution, and if so, how, and if so, what other explanation would you promote instead?

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..

Thank you for that amusing straw man.

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..

I've never been to Dollywood, so I am sure I wouldn't know if that were true. I myself prefer the roller coasters at Kings Island.

I would say that I am surprised that you are on the wrong side of so many science discussions, but wait - - - no I am not.

]If evolution can be ACCELERATED beyond Darwin's wildest dreams --- why do you still have a 19th definition of it in your explanations?

Because the definition still applies.

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?

If by "missing links' you mean "transitional species" as creationists prefer to refer to it, I must tell you that ALL species are transitional. Next.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Show me where, exactly, you answered that question. Then answer the other one. And the only questions you've asked me is if I have another explanation of diversity to replace your's, and if I'm a Judeo-Christian. BOTH diversions.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Show me where, exactly, you answered that question. Then answer the other one. And the only questions you've asked me is if I have another explanation of diversity to replace your's, and if I'm a Judeo-Christian. BOTH diversions.

There is a process, dude. You ask a question, and I answer it. Then I ask a question and you answer it. Until you decide that you want to participate in the process, there is nothing else to discuss.

 

[S.J.]

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

Show me where, exactly, you answered that question. Then answer the other one. And the only questions you've asked me is if I have another explanation of diversity to replace your's, and if I'm a Judeo-Christian. BOTH diversions.

There is a process, dude. You ask a question, and I answer it. Then I ask a question and you answer it. Until you decide that you want to participate in the process, there is nothing else to discuss.

Ok, answer my first question, and don't dance around it.

 

[orogenicman]

What part of "I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine. Until you do, we're done here." did you not understand?

 

[S.J.]

What part of "I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine. Until you do, we're done here." did you not understand?

I understand that you have NOT answered them. You've sunk to ridiculous comments now, and if you're "done", then stop commenting.

 

[abu afak]

What part of "I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine. Until you do, we're done here." did you not understand?

Welcome to the DISHONEST Hack world of SJ

He can't talk technically on evolution - Pro or anti - at all. He's merely a harassing TROLL on the topic.
He just says 'no' and says he "offered" to post on the topic, but never does.

You've Answered EVERYTHING he Drooled up but he is just an obstinate, in-denial Trolling Turd.
`

 

[S.J.]

What part of "I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine. Until you do, we're done here." did you not understand?

Welcome to the DISHONEST Hack world of SJ

He can't talk technically on evolution - Pro or anti - at all. He's merely a harassing TROLL on the topic.
He just says 'no' and says he "offered" to post on the topic, but never does.

You've Answered EVERYTHING he Drooled up but he is just an obstinate, in-denial Trolling Turd.
`

Maybe YOU can answer the question then, pus pocket. How did one species become another? Answer it or STFU.

 

[abu afak]

What part of "I have answered all of your questions and you have answered not one of mine. Until you do, we're done here." did you not understand?

Welcome to the DISHONEST Hack world of SJ

He can't talk technically on evolution - Pro or anti - at all. He's merely a harassing TROLL on the topic.
He just says 'no' and says he "offered" to post on the topic, but never does.

You've Answered EVERYTHING he Drooled up but he is just an obstinate, in-denial Trolling Turd.
`

Maybe YOU can answer the question then, pus pocket. How did one species become another? Answer it or STFU.

So because you're ignorant... it must be god.. right Dufus?

EVERY extant animal has a close ancestor we do have Fossil and other Evidence of.
Most have 99% of the DNA and skeletal structure as that ancestor and other extant relatives.

So even Homo Sapien, creationists most holy/"image of god", was Fairly Gradual, not a humongous change/creation event.
It all perfectly jibes WITH evolution.

Additionally/Consistently, We have Anatomical VESTIGAL features/organs, such as tail bone, that has No use other being that Remnant/EVIDENCE of more primitive primate ancestor/mutual ancestors we Evolved From.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

ALL this was covered, including 'bat evolution' for Crusader Dope in the string in which you show yourself to be a FRAUD and an asshole troll.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...olution-as-fact-and-theory-4.html#post8112362

You remain a Moron throwing up false challenges when ALL Evidence points to Evolution and NONE to a god.
Every New Science that could make or break it, (Isotopic Dating, DNA analysis, etc) has AFFIRMED evolution.
`

 

[S.J.]

Welcome to the DISHONEST Hack world of SJ

He can't talk technically on evolution - Pro or anti - at all. He's merely a harassing TROLL on the topic.
He just says 'no' and says he "offered" to post on the topic, but never does.

You've Answered EVERYTHING he Drooled up but he is just an obstinate, in-denial Trolling Turd.
`

Maybe YOU can answer the question then, pus pocket. How did one species become another? Answer it or STFU.

So because you Don't know it must be god.. right Dufus?

EVERY extant animal has a close ancestor we do have Fossil and other Evidence of.
Most have 99% of the DNA and skeletal structure as that ancestor and other extant relatives.

So Homo Sapien, creationists mots holy/image of god, was Fairly Gradual, not a humongous change/creation event.
It all perfectly jibes WITH evolution.

Additionally, We have VESTIGAL features/organs, such as tail bone, that has No use other being that Remnant/EVIDENCE of more primitive primate ancestor/mutual ancestors we Evolved From.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

ALL, this was covered, including 'bat evolution' for Crusader Dope in the string in which you show yourself to be a FRAUD and an asshole troll.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...olution-as-fact-and-theory-4.html#post8112362

You remain a Moron throwing up false challenges when ALL Evidence points to Evolution and NONE to a god.
Every New Science that could make or break it, (Isotopic Dating, DNA analysis, etc) has AFFIRMED evolution.
`

You mentioned God, I didn't.

You have fossils, oh boy! That's not proof, stupid.

"It all perfectly jibes WITH evolution".
You mean it all perfectly jibes with your "theory" (fantasy) of evolution. Since you haven't proven evolution, that doesn't mean shit.

"We have VESTIGAL features/organs, such as tail bone, that has No use other being that Remnant/EVIDENCE of more primitive primate ancestor/mutual ancestors we Evolved From".
Well gee, I guess our spine has to end somewhere, huh? That's hardly proof that it's a remnant from a more primitive primate ancestor, is it?

"You remain a Moron throwing up false challenges when ALL Evidence points to Evolution and NONE to a god".
Interesting that instead of proving your claims, you always resort to challenging the existence of God, whom I have yet to mention. It proves you are unable to make your case scientifically. You're either too ignorant of your own theory to sell it, or your theory is a crock of shit that is so full of holes you have to constantly resort to changing the subject, hoping no one will notice you haven't made your case.

Now, how about explaining how one species became another (other than just saying "evolution" ad nauseam)?

 

[orogenicman]

I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ. When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical. She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room. It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid. The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place. And the real question here is why you are here, and why I bother with you.

 

[S.J.]

I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ. When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical. She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room. It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid. The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place.

That's a nice story, though not verifiable, but it doesn't address my question. Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?

 

[orogenicman]

I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ. When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical. She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room. It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid. The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place.

That's a nice story, though not verifiable, but it doesn't address my question. Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?

You should rename yourself "Mr. Denial", because - damn!

 

[S.J.]

I've come across assclowns like you before, SJ. When I was taking physical anthropology as an undergraduate in the 1970s, we had a young woman in the class who was an evangelical. She lasted about 10 minutes in the first lecture before she got up and spouted the same asinine nonsense you have here, and ran out of the room. It is a typical response from the perpetually stupid. The real question is why she bothered signing up for the class in the first place.

That's a nice story, though not verifiable, but it doesn't address my question. Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?

You should rename yourself "Mr. Denial", because - damn!

Because what, because I don't buy your ridiculous theory, or because you're unable to make a case for it?

 

[orogenicman]

That's a nice story, though not verifiable, but it doesn't address my question. Why don't you just admit you can't answer it?

You should rename yourself "Mr. Denial", because - damn!

Because what, because I don't buy your ridiculous theory, or because you're unable to make a case for it?

You say this as if evolution is something I made up instead of it being the premier scientific theory of our time accepted as fact by the vast majority of the world's scientists. You're a fool, nothing more. Goodbye.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Why is this a problem for you? The theory of evolution was never meant to explain the origin of life. it was meant to explain the diversity of life. There are separate theories for the origin of life. One popular theory is the abiogenesis theory. Another is the panspermia theory.

The reasons why there are more extinct species than living include:

1) The fact that the Earth is a VERY dangerous place to live;

2) the fact that evolution would not occur if #1 were not true.

3) Evolution weeds out the less fit. If you, as a species, have evolved in a stable environment and have survived in that environment as a species for thousands of years, then a sudden, drastic change in that environment occurs (i.e., a five mile wide asteroid strikes the Yucatan Peninsula), the chances of your survival are greatly diminished.

Finally, you seem to think that evolution is about positive change only. The existence of genetic diseases demonstrates clearly that that notion is not true.

I applaud you on your google search capability.

What google search? Left you speechless, have I?

Yes, speechless that there is no end to the lengths in which you will offer lies to lend credence to your posts.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

EVOLUTION IS PURE BUNK "science" MICRO YES AS ANIMALS CAN BE BREED FOR SIZE OR COLOR AND SUCH BUT NO HONEY BEE WILL EVER BECOME A COW JUST AS POND SCUM WILL NEVER EVOLVE INTO THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THER HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY!!!! TRY TO THINK!

And that's a GOOD thing, because if that were possible, that would disprove evolution. But since evolution doesn't make such silly claims, perhaps you should do more than try to think. Perhaps you should learn what evolution is before you comment on it.

Still not tired of using the same lame response, huh? Holes are poked in you evolution theory and all you can say is "you need to learn what it is before you comment"? Isn't that the same thing Pelosi said about obamacare? And look what a pile of shit that has turned out to be.

 

[S.J.]

You should rename yourself "Mr. Denial", because - damn!

Because what, because I don't buy your ridiculous theory, or because you're unable to make a case for it?

You say this as if evolution is something I made up instead of it being the premier scientific theory of our time accepted as fact by the vast majority of the world's scientists. You're a fool, nothing more. Goodbye.

And let the record show that at no time during this thread did you answer any questions asked of you. All of your responses have been evasive or ad hominem. You promote this theory, yet you are unable to defend it when asked basic questions about it. You get an F.

 

[orogenicman]

And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?

 

[S.J.]

And let the record show that the only reason SJ and his posse is here is to derail yet another science thread about evolution. They can't argue the facts (because they have none), nor present an opposing theory (because that would be a terrible admission that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt), so they post page after page of unsupported accusations in order to deflect attention from the fact that they believe that the Flintstones to be a documentary. How pathetic is that?

You never presented any facts to argue against, you posted claims that can't stand up to scrutiny. That's why, instead of answering my very basic questions, you charged in with personal attacks that had nothing to do with what you were trying to sell. And for the third time now, I don't have to present a theory of my own for your's to be flawed. Either you can back up your claims or you can't. You claim common ancestors but can't explain how it happens. It wasn't through breeding, so what was it, magic? When you can give us an answer to that, other than just repeating the word "evolution", then you might have a little credibility. Until then, you're just full of shit. No offense.