# Haw!  ANOTHER "missing link" discovered!



## Seymour Flops (Feb 3, 2022)

These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?









						Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel
					

***




					www.haaretz.com
				




*About 1.5 million years ago, a child died near the Sea of Galilee. All that remains of the youngster is a single bone, a vertebra. But that skeletal fragment, first unearthed in 1966 and only now recognized for what it actually is – the earliest large-bodied hominin found in the Levant – changes the story of human evolution.*

So keep in mind, they are hanging their hat on one single bone, that was found 55 years ago, but that they have suddenly announced is "the missing link."  Here is a photograph* of the fossil:






That is four different angles of the same bone, not four bones.  It is only one.

But look at all they claim to "know" from that one bone:

*Among other things, that one bone proves for the first time that there were multiple exits by archaic humans from Africa. At 1.5 million years of age, the bone is the second-oldest hominin fossil to be found outside Africa. The oldest date to 1.8 million years ago and were found in Dmanisi, Georgia, and that difference of about 300,000 years proves in and of itself that there was more than one exit.

More? This archaic child in the Jordan Valley and the hominins at Dmanisi were not the same species.*

This is absurd, but I await several well thought-out attempts at a reasonable defense of this.  Just kidding!  I await nothing more than ad hominem attacks (insults for the less literate of you).

*That's a photograph.  Why do Darwinists find it so hard to show a photograph of a fossil?  I asked them to show me the fossils in a thread of the same title and got several paintings and fill in the gap models, but few if any photographs.  Wadup with dat?


----------



## mak2 (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How old do you believe the Earth is?


----------



## 1srelluc (Feb 3, 2022)

LOL....Was it on a stick?


----------



## jwoodie (Feb 3, 2022)

Darwinists are on a collision course with CRT.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 3, 2022)

mak2 said:


> How old do you believe the Earth is?


Four billion, five billion years, give or take.

You?


----------



## mak2 (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Four billion, five billion years, give or take.
> 
> You?


Ok thanks.  The same.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow!
That's funny!

Where are all the fossils that refute evolution?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow!
> That's funny!
> 
> Where are all the fossils that refute evolution?


Those designer gods, they're such kidders. They left all those fossils lying around just to play a joke on us.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haw. I wish the religionists would do their homework. In the submission of the find made to Scientific Reports, there was no mention of any ''missing link''









						The earliest Pleistocene record of a large-bodied hominin from the Levant supports two out-of-Africa dispersal events - Scientific Reports
					

The paucity of early Pleistocene hominin fossils in Eurasia hinders an in-depth discussion on their paleobiology and paleoecology. Here we report on the earliest large-bodied hominin remains from the Levantine corridor: a juvenile vertebra (UB 10749) from the early Pleistocene site of ‘Ubeidiya...




					www.nature.com
				




The ''missing link'' label appears to be a description added by the writer for Haaretz.

Those gullible religionists. Hey, did you hear the one about Noah living to be 900 years old?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow!
> That's funny!
> 
> Where are all the fossils that refute evolution?


They all do.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 3, 2022)

The most important thing about this hominid fossil find is ... 

... did it worship the ONE, TRUE, GOD?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> They all do.



  ^^^^ A Harun Yahya wannabe.









						Fossils Refute Evolution
					

Fossils Refute Evolution



					www.harunyahya.com


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just watch TV...the missing link is on most of the commercials...marrying the hhhwhite womens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> They all do.



Link?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Link?











						Fossils Refute Evolution
					

Fossils Refute Evolution



					www.harunyahya.com


----------



## idb (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where in the article does it mention 'missing link'?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Fossils Refute Evolution
> 
> 
> Fossils Refute Evolution
> ...



Did you have any real links?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did you have any real links?


Did that link not work?

If you're interested in a real debate, I'm happy to have one. If you really think a one word post like "Link?" is part of an actual debate I'm not going to take you seriously, so you get what you get.

I believe in the merit system not the entitlement system.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

idb said:


> Where in the article does it mention 'missing link'?


The top.

Missing and link are the 3rd and 4th words.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Fossils Refute Evolution
> 
> 
> Fossils Refute Evolution
> ...


Actually the gaps disprove how evolution works not that there was no evolution.

That's how it's done, Toddsterpatriot


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually the gaps disprove how evolution works not that there was no evolution.
> 
> That's how it's done, Toddsterpatriot


Yes, my link was a sarcastic one off reply to another poster thinking that saying "Link?" is a real argument.

My disagreement is with Darwinism, not so much evolution.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, my link was a sarcastic one off reply to another poster thinking that saying "Link?" is a real argument.
> 
> *My disagreement is with Darwinism, not so much evolution.*


You're LYING Again
*You only believe in god-guided/"designed" 'evolution' which is NOT evolution, but serial creationism.
100% Fraudulent post.
If species can't evolve into one another they were CREATED roughly as is.
NO choice.
NOT evolution.*

*`

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 7, 8. (and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' (nothing to shoot at in Env this AM, so he's here. He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.)*


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, my link was a sarcastic one off reply to another poster thinking that saying "Link?" is a real argument.
> 
> My disagreement is with Darwinism, not so much evolution.


That's what I thought.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You're LYING Again
> *You only believe in god-guided/"designed" 'evolution' which is NOT evolution, but serial creationism.
> 100% Fraudulent poster.*
> 
> *`*


Calm down, ma'am.  And please stop accusing others of what you do.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ONE BONE with a lot DNA and other information in it.

I don't understand how this is hard to grasp.

One drop of blood ...
One Hair...
Etc 

Always contains a lot of information


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You're LYING Again
> *You only believe in god-guided/"designed" 'evolution' which is NOT evolution, but serial creationism.
> 100% Fraudulent poster.
> If species can't evolve into one another they were CREATED roughly as is.
> ...


Dude, if I'm "lying," there's no point in debating me, is there? 

I never said "God did it."  I never said that species "can't" evolve into one another.  You attributing positions to me that I haven't taken and then yelling at me about them, is a little bizarre.

Your all-caps reveal a level of frustration not appropriate for an internet forum. 

Please seek help.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, my link was a sarcastic one off reply to another poster thinking that saying "Link?" is a real argument.
> 
> My disagreement is with Darwinism, not so much evolution.


If you don't mind my asking, what is it about Darwinism that you disagree with?

Toddsterpatriot


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> ONE BONE with a lot DNA and other information in it.
> 
> I don't understand how this is hard to grasp.
> 
> ...


That's interesting.

Tell me about the DNA that has been extracted from that vertabra in the article.  I saw nothing in the article about it.   DNA is very difficult to extract from bones which have been fossilized.


----------



## Orangecat (Feb 4, 2022)

Those aren't fossils.
Those pics are chicken mc nuggets, fruit pies, hash browns, and a hot pocket.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Dude, if I'm "lying," there's no point in debating me, is there?
> 
> I never said "God did it."  I never said that species "can't" evolve into one another.  You attributing positions to me that I haven't taken and then yelling at me about them, is a little bizarre.
> 
> ...


I'm not debating you as much s outing your Fraud.
"apparent design" all over the place (ID too), and of course:

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges



> *Seymour Flops said:
> Who sent the meteor that came Right in Time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be Saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
> Was that another co-inkie-dink?*


Then I said:
Now you're really outing yourself boy.
YES!
Oh yeah, 'god sent the meteor.'
And what is that?
An 'intelligent'/'designed' way to work?
Wiping out more than half of 'his creation' because it was imperfect/a Mistake.
Punishing the dinosaurs and much other life for their sins!! LOL
Billions of years wasted, billions of species extinct Instead of more coherent True 'design' to get to where we are now?
You just set your @ss on fire again.


*PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 10, 12, 14? (and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' (nothing to shoot at in Env this AM, so he's here. He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.)
`*


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's interesting.
> 
> Tell me about the DNA that has been extracted from that vertabra in the article.  I saw nothing in the article about it DNA is very difficult to extract from bones which have been fossilized.


HUN, the world has progressed quite a bit and you obviously do not understand how much information can be extracted from the tiniest of things at this point.





__





						Exploratorium : Evidence : Extracting DNA from Neanderthal Bones
					





					annex.exploratorium.edu


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I'm not debating you as much s outing your Fraud.
> "apparent design" all over the place (ID too), and of course:
> 
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> ...


Are you seriously arguing that God can't exist because he's a meanie?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Did that link not work?
> 
> If you're interested in a real debate, I'm happy to have one. If you really think a one word post like "Link?" is part of an actual debate I'm not going to take you seriously, so you get what you get.
> 
> I believe in the merit system not the entitlement system.



No, I mean a real, serious link.
Not a nutjob link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> Actually the gaps disprove how evolution works not that there was no evolution.
> 
> That's how it's done, Toddsterpatriot



How do gaps disprove how evolution works?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, my link was a sarcastic one off reply to another poster thinking that saying "Link?" is a real argument.
> 
> My disagreement is with Darwinism, not so much evolution.



Link? isn't an argument, it's a question.

Are you a moron? < That's another question.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do gaps disprove how evolution works?


Long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes - which is the norm in the geologic record - and leaves  gaps (aka lack of transitional fossils) in the fossil record go against Darwin's idea of slight successive changes.

Check out punctuated equilibrium.  It fits the fossil record better than Darwin's model does.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Link? isn't an argument, it's a question.
> 
> Are you a moron? < That's another question.


He doesn't seem like he's a moron.  Maybe you haven't asked the right question and he's not feeling very forthcoming because he senses you aren't genuine in your quest.  But I could be wrong.  I am still asking soup questions so my opinion is subject to change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> Long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes - which is the norm in the geologic record - and leaves  gaps (aka lack of transitional fossils) in the fossil record go against Darwin's idea of slight successive changes.
> 
> Check out punctuated equilibrium.  It fits the fossil record better than Darwin's model does.



Periods of quick evolutionary change disprove how evolution works?
Or they conflict with Darwin's original idea?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, my link was a sarcastic one off reply to another poster thinking that saying "Link?" is a real argument.
> 
> My disagreement is with Darwinism, not so much evolution.


It's obvious your disagreement with "Darwinism" is a function of religious extremism,  not on the merits of the theory. The efficacy of the theory is not in question among the relevant science community. It's in the fundamentalist ministries and ID'iot creationer "institutes" where the science loathing charlatans become frantic about facts upsetting their notions of gods, a young earth and angels dancing on the heads of pins.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Periods of quick evolutionary change disprove how evolution works?
> Or they conflict with Darwin's original idea?


Long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes - which is the norm in the geologic record - and leaves gaps (aka lack of transitional fossils) in the fossil record go against Darwin's idea of slight successive changes.

I prefer to say punctuated equilibrium fits the observed data better and does a better job explaining how evolution works when it comes to speciation.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> If you don't mind my asking, what is it about Darwinism that you disagree with?
> 
> Toddsterpatriot


I don't mind, at all.  Caveat:  In a short post, I can only skim the surface.

As a political issue, my main disagreement is quasi-religious fervor with which Darwinists cling to this idea.  It is a non-scientific hypothesis, that cannot be tested.  It is fine as an idea, but not as something we are expected to swallow whole as factual and to join in with the politically driven bullying of non-believers.  It shouldn't be a political issue at all.

As a supposed science, I understand that it is not subject to experimentation, so it is not science in that sense, but natural history.  As with other kinds of history, we look at what the past left behind to try to figure out what happened in the past.  We can't prove any of it.

My main disagreement is how fantastically unlikely the process is.

Here is how *one step* in changes brought about by Darwinian evolution is supposed to happen:

1)  A random mutation occurs, that causes the offspring of two members of a species to be the same species, but with a new trait.  

2)  That trait causes that individual to survive longer and reproduce more* than the other members of the same species.

3)  When reproducing, that trait is passed on to the individual's offspring - even though that individual had to mate with an individual who _did not_ have that new trait.

4)  The descendants of that one individual - with a new trait created by a random mutation - survive and reproduce with such greater efficiency than the rest of the population that they replace the other non-mutated members or they move to a new habitat.  

5)  The new mutated version of the species is still the same species - otherwise the original mutant could not have mated with anyone - so with all those sub-steps, Darwinian evolution has still not take place with that one step.  

6)  Many (dozens?  hundreds?  thousands?  millions?) of such coincidentally beneficial mutations take place, each time replacing non-mutated members or moving away from them, until finally the multiple mutated individuals are unable to mate and reproduce with the original non-mutated versions and so have become a new species.

There are 2.9 billion bits of information in human DNA, each of which supposedly evolved through the process described above, in less than 5 billion years.  That's just human evolution  The same thing happened for catfish, bumblebees and all other species.

Another disagreement along the same lines is the uselessness of transitional mutations in increasing survival and reproduction.  "Transitional mutation" is my term.  Darwinists do not have a term for it, because it is not a topic with which they are comfortable.  Transitional mutations are the intermediate steps between an original species and a new species with a beneficial feature, such as a wing, or an eye.

For example, a wing helps a flying animal survive and reproduce.  No one would argue that.  But how did a non-winged animal evolve wings?  More correctly, how did a series of random mutations produce a species similar to an existing species, but with wings?  

If flying bats evolved from a non-flying rodent, how did that process start?  

The Darwinist answer is this:  Two non-flying rodents conceived a randomly mutated individual who had a physical feature that was a step in the direction of a wing (presumably a pair of them).  That feature, while not a functioning wing, allowed that individual to survive and reproduce in much greater numbers than its non-mutated fellow species members.  It passed that feature on, by mating with a non-mutated member or members.

Then, later (years?  decades?  centuries?) another completely random mutation occurred that moved that feature further in the direction of a working wing or wings.  Though the wings are not yet working and will not for many, many more mutations, this future wing is somehow already aiding survival and reproduction to the point of excluding other members. 

Is that completely impossible?   No, but it is so unlikely that we must acknowledge that there is likely something very significant missing from that model.

According to Darwinian logic, flying evolved in mammals, insects, and reptiles, independently of each other.  So that lengthy multi-step random process that led to flight happened at least three times.  By coincidence.

Darwinists do have an explanation for this wing evolution.  I'll leave it to one of them to post it.  I don't know how to describe it without seeming to parody it.

*In actual fact, it is only the reproduce part that is important in evolution.  If a random mutation caused an individual to only live half as long, but to have twice as many offspring (which all had the beneficial trait), that would satisfy the Darwinist requirement.   "Survival of the fittest" should actually be "reproduction of the most fertile" or some such.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> HUN, the world has progressed quite a bit and you obviously do not understand how much information can be extracted from the tiniest of things at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But you specified that particular fossil.

Tell me about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> He doesn't seem like he's a moron.  Maybe you haven't asked the right question and he's not feeling very forthcoming because he senses you aren't genuine in your quest.  But I could be wrong.  I am still asking soup questions so my opinion is subject to change.



Posts #10 and #15 point toward moron.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Link? isn't an argument, it's a question.
> 
> Are you a moron? < That's another question.


You win, Toddster!


----------



## james bond (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You're LYING Again
> *You only believe in god-guided/"designed" 'evolution' which is NOT evolution, but serial creationism.
> 100% Fraudulent post.
> If species can't evolve into one another they were CREATED roughly as is.
> ...


So much for your mensa claim.

An intelligent person would provide the correct response and not have to resort to ad hominem attacks.  You don't have the correct answer so are easily frustrated.  You even have to attack a second person.  You are such a loser.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> As a political issue, my main disagreement is quasi-religious fervor with which Darwinists cling to this idea. It is a non-scientific hypothesis, that cannot be tested. It is fine as an idea, but not as something we are expected to swallow whole as factual and to join in with the politically driven bullying of non-believers. It shouldn't be a political issue at all.


Yeah, it does seem to have its fair share of "religious" fanatics, that's for sure.  But most of them don't know the first thing about science.  


Seymour Flops said:


> As a supposed science, I understand that it is not subject to experimentation, so it is not science in that sense, but natural history. As with other kinds of history, we look at what the past left behind to try to figure out what happened in the past. We can't prove any of it.


That's true.  It's not really testable.  It's inferred.  I think it's fair to say that the nature of life is to complexify though.  And it has done so through a logical process.  


Seymour Flops said:


> My main disagreement is how fantastically unlikely the process is.
> 
> Here is how *one step* in changes brought about by Darwinian evolution is supposed to happen:
> 
> ...


Which is why I believe in punctuated equilibrium.  Genetic mutations.  Nature filling a need.  It's clear that life is a system; connected.  



Seymour Flops said:


> There are 2.9 billion bits of information in human DNA, each of which supposedly evolved through the process described above, in less than 5 billion years. That's just human evolution The same thing happened for catfish, bumblebees and all other species.
> 
> Another disagreement along the same lines is the uselessness of transitional mutations in increasing survival and reproduction. "Transitional mutation" is my term. Darwinists do not have a term for it, because it is not a topic with which they are comfortable. Transitional mutations are the intermediate steps between an original species and a new species with a beneficial feature, such as a wing, or an eye.
> 
> ...


Life is an interconnected system.  Nature filling its needs.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Posts #10 and #15 point toward moron.


I challenged him on that in my first post in the thread, post #20.  He explained it in post #21.  You might want to read that one.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> Yeah, it does seem to have its fair share of "religious" fanatics, that's for sure.  But most of them don't know the first thing about science.
> 
> That's true.  It's not really testable.  It's inferred.  I think it's fair to say that the nature of life is to complexify though.  And it has done so through a logical process.
> 
> ...


I don't know much about punctuated equilibrium, other than a vague idea of what it means.  I'll look into it.

Clearly, there is more going on than randomness.  There is something that wants - or behaves as if it wants - life to multiply and spread to fill all the life-sustaining niches of Earth.  Darwinists speak of this, but then immediately add that it is only an analogy, and that everything is really random.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't mind, at all.  Caveat:  In a short post, I can only skim the surface.
> 
> As a political issue, my main disagreement is quasi-religious fervor with which Darwinists cling to this idea.  It is a non-scientific hypothesis, that cannot be tested.  It is fine as an idea, but not as something we are expected to swallow whole as factual and to join in with the politically driven bullying of non-believers.  It shouldn't be a political issue at all.
> 
> ...


That long, tedious list, largely stolen from the Disco'tute has many errors typically perpetrated by ID'iot creationer ministries.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't know much about punctuated equilibrium, other than a vague idea of what it means.  I'll look into it.
> 
> Clearly, there is more going on than randomness.  There is something that wants - or behaves as if it wants - life to multiply and spread to fill all the life-sustaining niches of Earth.  Darwinists speak of this, but then immediately add that it is only an analogy, and that everything is really random.


The universe is an intelligence creating machine.  It's literally written into the fabric of matter.  



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
		


Although some Darwinists may say everything is random, the ones who actually know the theory will admit that changes happen for logical reasons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> You win, Toddster!



Obviously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> I challenged him on that in my first post in the thread, post #20.  He explained it in post #21.  You might want to read that one.



Post #21 didn't explain post #10.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Post #21 didn't explain post #10.
> 
> View attachment 596974


Nevermind.  It's not worth the work.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 4, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot: Where are all the fossils that refute evolution?


Seymour Flops said:


> They all do.


Sorry but none of them do and we have trillions of them.  You may say they don't prove evolution but they certainly don't refute it.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 4, 2022)

ding said:


> Long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes - which is the norm in the geologic record - and leaves  gaps (aka lack of transitional fossils) in the fossil record go against Darwin's idea of slight successive changes.
> 
> Check out punctuated equilibrium.  It fits the fossil record better than Darwin's model does.


Actually the two are no incompatible.  I think what is happening is that slight successive changes don't take that long to appear and propagate, in terms of geologic time anyway.  Once they're made and the selection pressure is relieved, stasis.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't mind, at all.  Caveat:  In a short post, I can only skim the surface.
> 
> As a political issue, my main disagreement is quasi-religious fervor with which Darwinists cling to this idea.  It is a non-scientific hypothesis, that cannot be tested.  It is fine as an idea, but not as something we are expected to swallow whole as factual and to join in with the politically driven bullying of non-believers.  It shouldn't be a political issue at all.
> 
> ...


So no answer to my last.
In fact you confirm the accusation.

You do NOT believe in evolution between species. Period. Impossible in your description above.

That's why you don't like 'Darwinism'.. it IS the Real Scientific evolution.
You only want to call 'evolution' a god-guided/DesignER process which is NOT the real scientific definition of evolution but Religion/theism with a designER.
You're a FRAUD twisting actual meaning to your own ID/Creationism from it's main theme: Darwin.

And again it's not only "designER," it's creationism, since 'species can't morph into one another' they must have been put/created here roughly as is.
Of course even then most of the "DesignER's" 'creations' have gone Extinct/Failed as design.

`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> So no answer to my last.
> In fact you confirm the accusation.


I don't know what "my last," is.  I'm not tracking you that closely.


abu afak said:


> You do NOT believe in evolution between species. Period. Impossible in your description above.


Evolution "between species" as you put it, may have happened.  My description is of evolution driven by the Darwinian theory.

Was any part of my description inaccurate?  If not, then you are saying that Darwinian evolution is impossible.


abu afak said:


> That's why you don't like 'Darwinism'.. it IS the Real Scientific evolution.
> You only want to call 'evolution' a god-guided/DesignER process which is NOT the real scientific definition of evolution but Religion/theism with a designER.
> You're a FRAUD twisting actual meaning to your own ID/Creationism from it's main theme: Darwin.
> 
> ...


It isn't creationism. 

If you want to argue with a creationist, you'll have to be patient and wait until one comes on the forum.

Sorry.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> My main disagreement is how fantastically unlikely the process is.
> 
> Here is how *one step* in changes brought about by Darwinian evolution is supposed to happen:
> 
> ...


Except that is not Darwinism, that is your strawman.  Darwin's famous finches came to the Galapagos and managed to survive long enough to reproduce.  Like all populations there was variations in their traits.  We're not all the same size are we?  On some islands the finches with larger more powerful beaks found more food and passed that trait on to their offspring.  Finches with smaller beaks didn't do as well and had fewer, less robust offspring.  The population slowly had more of the genes for big beaks over time, in fact, big beaks may have been an advantage in finding mates since they would have been healthier and better fed.  If some of that island's population ended up on other islands, the populations would have been kept apart by their mating preferences.

Simplistic maybe but not impossible or even improbable.



Seymour Flops said:


> Another disagreement along the same lines is the uselessness of transitional mutations in increasing survival and reproduction.  "Transitional mutation" is my term.  Darwinists do not have a term for it, because it is not a topic with which they are comfortable.  Transitional mutations are the intermediate steps between an original species and a new species with a beneficial feature, such as a wing, or an eye.


There is no such term because there is no such thing.  Every trait that evolves gives an advantage to the animal or plant.  Every step in the evolution of the eye conveyed advantage to the animal.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Except that is not Darwinism, that is your strawman.  Darwin's famous finches came to the Galapagos and managed to survive long enough to reproduce.  Like all populations there was variations in their traits.  We're not all the same size are we?  On some islands the finches with larger more powerful beaks found more food and passed that trait on to their offspring.  Finches with smaller beaks didn't do as well and had fewer, less robust offspring.  The population slowly had more of the genes for big beaks over time, in fact, big beaks may have been an advantage in finding mates since they would have been healthier and better fed.  If some of that island's population ended up on other islands, the populations would have been kept apart by their mating preferences.


That's really not an example that you want to hold up in an informed discussion.  I know "Darwin's Finches" are talked about in junior high textbooks, but more advanced textbooks avoid them.  You misstate even the junior high version.

The point of the finches as a supposed exemplar of Darwinian evolution is not that the "larger more powerful beaks" were always better and therefore all the finches had developed large powerful beaks.  If that were true, Darwin would have found nothing but large beaked finches, which would show no change.  The idea is that each island had different food sources for the birds, with different kinds of beaks being most useful for each one.  Therefore the different species evolved.

Unfortunately for that theory, they are *not* different species.

*In a bold and thought-provoking paper published in 2014 in Biological Reviews, “Sisyphean evolution in Darwin's finches,” Bailey D. McKay and Robert M. Zink challenge the fundamental premise of this textbook example of speciation in Darwin's Finches. They present a detailed morphological analysis to complement previous genetic analyses of the six putative species of ground finch in the genus Geospiza that form the Darwin's Finch complex, and report that there is insufficient genetic and morphological divergence among populations to support species-level taxonomic ranks for these finch populations. Instead, in opposition to deep-rooted conventional thinking by evolutionary biologists, McKay and Zink propose that populations of Darwin's finches are “transient morph” that have diverged in bill size and body size under strong selection for ability to use local seed resources, but that shifting adaptive landscapes and gene flow among islands constantly erode morphological and genetic differences among populations and thwart speciation.*

*. . . 

McKay and Zink make a strong case that there is only one species of ground finch, and that rather than unveiling the process of speciation, the Darwin's Finch case study shows that local adaptation and morphological divergence under the influence of natural selection are not sufficient to initiate speciation. In their challenge to entrenched orthodoxy regarding speciation in Darwin's Finches, McKay and Zink are deserving of the Katma Award.*









						Katma Award 2015, to Bailey McKay and Robert Zink
					

The Katma Award of the Cooper Ornithological Society is intended to encourage the formulation of new ideas that could change the course of thinking about the bi




					academic.oup.com
				




I know that that's a lot to digest for a person with only a junior high understanding of evolution.  To put it more simply:  the finches have different beaks because finches with certain beaks reproduced better on particular islands.  But they are still the same species.  Move the population of one island to another and in several generations, the descendants of those newcomers will have the beaks appropriate for that island. 

Here is another explanation:

*No New Species*​*The textbooks are wrong, says ornithologist Robert Zink of the University of Minnesota’s Bell Museum of Natural History. The ground finches may seem to be different species, at least with superficial comparison, but they’re stuck in what he calls Sisyphean evolution. “Species kind of get started, but . . . they never make it to the top of the hill,” Zink says.

In a recent paper in Biological Reviews, Zink helps make the case. “None of these ‘species’ are distinct,” he says. The various ground finches don’t differ significantly in ways that usually differentiate bird species, such as plumage patterns or song. Unlike with discrete species, these features aren’t stable and can vary over just a few generations, depending on weather and food availability. Sequences of their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA show little variation and none of the telltale signs that suggest distinct species.*









						Are Darwin's Finches One Species or Many?
					

Darwin’s finches are icons of evolution, but scientists disagree about what exactly they represent.




					www.discovermagazine.com
				





alang1216 said:


> Simplistic maybe but not impossible or even improbable.
> 
> 
> There is no such term because there is no such thing.  Every trait that evolves gives an advantage to the animal or plant.  Every step in the evolution of the eye conveyed advantage to the animal.


Really?  What was the very first step and what advantage did it convey?

Feel free to either guess, or give evidence, so long as you are honest about it if you are guessing.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's really not an example that you want to hold up in an informed discussion.  I know "Darwin's Finches" are talked about in junior high textbooks, but more advanced textbooks avoid them.  You misstate even the junior high version
> 
> The point of the finches as a supposed exemplar of Darwinian evolution is not that the "larger more powerful beaks" were always better and therefore all the finches had developed large powerful beaks.  If that were true, Darwin would have found nothing but large beaked finches, which would show no change.  The idea is that each island had different food sources for the birds, with different kinds of beaks being most useful for each one.  Therefore the different species evolved.
> 
> ...


''To put it more simply: the finches have different beaks because finches with certain beaks reproduced better on particular islands.''

You inadvertently confirmed some basic precepts of biological evolution: Changes in population over time due to environment and adaptation. 

I hope this won't reduce your standing with the folks at the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 4, 2022)

> abu afak said:
> That's why you don't like 'Darwinism'.. it IS the Real Scientific evolution.
> You only want to call 'evolution' a god-guided/DesignER process which is NOT the real scientific definition of evolution but Religion/theism with a designER.
> You're a FRAUD twisting actual meaning to your own ID/Creationism from it's main theme: Darwin.
> ...





			
				Seymour Flops Again[/quote said:
			
		

> It isn't creationism.
> 
> If you want to argue with a creationist, you'll have to be patient and wait until one comes on the forum.


But it is ID which IS stealth Creationism (as my Wiki link explained a while back), leaving the usual speechless and 100 percent refuted.

So what we have left with is your unstated but obvious position Designer/god-guided evolution for which there is NO evidence and not lone Dawkins' BS "quote" to MISLEAD people with. In fact Dawkins said he Opposite of what you claim
That Design' is an "Illusion."

And while there is plenty of HARD EVIDENCE for Evolution there is NONE for a DesignER/god.

You are ergo factLess in a Science debate.
A BS artist with only Faith.
`
`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> But it is ID which IS stealth Creationism (as my Wiki link explained a while back), leaving the usual speechless and 100 percent refuted.
> 
> So what we have left with is your unstated but obvious position Designer/god-guided evolution for which there is NO evidence and not lone Dawkins' BS "quote" to MISLEAD people with. In fact Dawkins said he Opposite of what you claim
> That Design' is an "Illusion."
> ...


Your wiki link is wrong.

You need only answer one simple question: 

Is there appearance of design in life on Earth, as Dawkins claimed?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> But it is ID which IS stealth Creationism (as my Wiki link explained a while back), leaving the usual speechless and 100 percent refuted.
> 
> So what we have left with is your unstated but obvious position Designer/god-guided evolution for which there is NO evidence and not lone Dawkins' BS "quote" to MISLEAD people with. In fact Dawkins said he Opposite of what you claim
> That Design' is an "Illusion."
> ...


Thats really the laugh out loud part of the ID'creationer religion. Their entire presence in the science forum is to rail against science and knowledge. Without exception. The ID'iot creationers can't make a single, positive case for their religion, so they're left to screeching tirades about their hurt feelings that religious views aren't given credibility on science matters.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Actually the two are no incompatible.  I think what is happening is that slight successive changes don't take that long to appear and propagate, in terms of geologic time anyway.  Once they're made and the selection pressure is relieved, stasis.


We may have had this discussion before but if there were many slight successive changes I would expect the geologic record to record it rather than record stasis.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Your wiki link is wrong.
> 
> You need only answer one simple question:
> 
> Is there appearance of design in life on Earth, as Dawkins claimed?


Dawkins, like me, and that I already explained several times, "claimed" it's an "Illusion."
As I said, what's LEFT of Billions of FAILED MUTATIONS/EXTINCTIONS looks perfect, but is the result of trial and error/culling to fit current conditions. 
`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Dawkins, like me, and that I already explained several times, "claimed" it's an "Illusion."
> As I said, what's LEFT of Billions of FAILED MUTATIONS/EXTINCTIONS looks perfect, but is the result of trial and error/culling to fit current conditions.
> `


So, why is is so hard to say "Yes, it has the appearance of design?"

Trial and error?  Hm . . .

That's what it looks like to me also.

Who conducted the trials?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> So, why is is so hard to say "Yes, it has the appearance of design?"
> 
> Trial and error?  Hm . . .
> 
> ...


It doesn't remotely "have the appearance of design" to me.
Life is messy.
The Universe is messy.
Stars exploding, galaxies colliding (as we will with Andromeda)

Our bodies could be infinitely simpler.
We could be 'solid state' none of your unbelievably messy insides, no reproduction necessary, no birth defects (mutations), no cancer, no disease, etc x100.
In fact, IF humans were different ('in god's image') than other animals in composition, not just 1% DNA different, THAT would prove creation or 'design.' but alas we are not anything but a continuing small DNA increment as between all other species.

Hurricanes.
Invasive species all over the place.
Viruses.
How 'designed' has your/(others) life been the last 2 years?
`
Nonsense you FRAUD.
You deny hard evidence in favor of some faith/dream.

And if you had an IQ you would realize you can't prove or even evidence the supernatural on a message board, which is why sane people keep their religion to themselves (realizing it's faith), and we get the loonies here.

You're especially Dishonest as well with your word games, personal definitions, twisting, hidden "No Co-inkie-dinks"
You've been exposed as not just an errant believer, but a total charlatan.

*PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.
`*


----------



## Hollie (Feb 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> So, why is is so hard to say "Yes, it has the appearance of design?"
> 
> Trial and error?  Hm . . .
> 
> ...


There is no appearance of design. See, that was easy. I have to note that the religious extremists can't define anything in nature that displays the appearance of godly design. 

The obvious question for the religious extremists is ''what in the natural world shows signs of godly design''? How do the religious extremists differentiate between nature and their claimed godly design?

How about the peculiar tilt / rotation of the planet which along with convection currents create twisters? Is that evidence of the gods design? The Chicxulub meteor? Evidence of one or more godly designs?
​


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> We may have had this discussion before but if there were many slight successive changes I would expect the geologic record to record it rather than record stasis.


Then you'd be mistaken I think.  How many genetic changes has the Covid virus had in the last few years?  Would the fossil record being formed today be expected to record those changes?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Then you'd be mistaken I think.  How many genetic changes has the Covid virus had in the last few years?  Would the fossil record being formed today be expected to record those changes?


That's a virus, dude.   Besides it lends itself to the theory of rapid changes via genetic mutation.  

Even Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils.  He dismissed it as an imperfect fossil record which is a weak argument.  The reality is that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes.  Had Darwin known about genes he might have proposed a different mechanism.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> That's a virus, dude.   Besides it lends itself to the theory of rapid changes via genetic mutation.


and natural selection determines which mutations or variations will survive



ding said:


> Even Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils.  He dismissed it as an imperfect fossil record which is a weak argument.  The reality is that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes.  Had Darwin known about genes he might have proposed a different mechanism.


Darwin was right about the fossil record


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> and natural selection determines which mutations or variations will survive
> 
> 
> Darwin was right about the fossil record


Punctuated equilibrium says otherwise.  Darwin dismisses the fossil record.  Punctuated equilibrium explains the fossil record.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Punctuated equilibrium says otherwise.  Darwin dismisses the fossil record.  Punctuated equilibrium explains the fossil record.


The fossil record in Darwin's day was very incomplete and revealed nothing at the time.  It is only now, with a much richer fossil record we see PE.  Again, I see no conflict between PE and natural selection, I see the time scale of them being too different.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The fossil record in Darwin's day was very incomplete and revealed nothing at the time.  It is only now, with a much richer fossil record we see PE.  Again, I see no conflict between PE and natural selection, I see the time scale of them being too different.


Do you have a link to back up your assertion?   









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




In evolutionary biology, *punctuated equilibrium* (also called *punctuated equilibria*) is a theory that proposes that once a species appears in the fossil record, the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history.[1] This state of little or no morphological change is called _stasis_. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted with phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).[2]

In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it _punctuated equilibria_.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

A year before their 1972 Eldredge and Gould paper, Niles Eldredge published a paper in the journal _Evolution_ which suggested that *gradual evolution was seldom seen in the fossil record* and argued that Ernst Mayr's standard mechanism of allopatric speciation might suggest a possible resolution.[5]


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis.


So what is the mechanism for this "significant evolutionary change"?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So what is the mechanism for this "significant evolutionary change"?


Genetic mutations.  









						Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape
					

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...




					www.pnas.org


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Genetic mutations.


Random genetic mutations?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Random genetic mutations?


How would a herd rapidly change if the mutations were random?  Seems to me that the mutation would have to occur across the herd in significant numbers for it to take, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> How would a herd rapidly change if the mutations were random?



How long is each generation?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How long is each generation?


What do you think the answer is?  Because I would say it depends on which species you are discussing, right?

Interestingly enough here's a paper which modeled genetic mutations and no where in it is the length of the generation mentioned.  Go figure.









						Evolution in the weak-mutation limit: Stasis periods punctuated by fast transitions between saddle points on the fitness landscape
					

The gradual character of evolution is a key feature of the Darwinian worldview. However, macroevolutionary events are often thought to occur in a nongradualist manner, in a regime known as punctuated equilibrium, whereby extended periods of evolutionary stasis are punctuated by rapid transitions...




					www.pnas.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Because I would say it depends on which species you are discussing, right?



Exactly.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Exactly.


Exactly what?  What difference does that make in crafting an evolutionary model that honors long periods of stasis followed by a rapid change that leads to speciation?   Because Darwin's model doesn't match the fossil record.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Exactly what?  What difference does that make in crafting an evolutionary model that honors long periods of stasis followed by a rapid change that leads to speciation?   Because Darwin's model doesn't match the fossil record.


_Exactly what?_

*it depends on which species you are discussing, right?*
_
What difference does that make_

You said,* "How would a herd rapidly change if the mutations were random?"*

It depends on how long it takes for the species to reproduce. Right?

_Because Darwin's model doesn't match the fossil record._

Ok. Do we have any newer models?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Exactly what?_
> 
> *it depends on which species you are discussing, right?*
> 
> ...


Punctuated equilibrium addresses the fossil record as it is.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It depends on how long it takes for the species to reproduce. Right?


Rapid speciation is doubtful unless mutation rates are high.  Low mutation rates match periods of stasis.  It's in the paper you didn't read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Punctuated equilibrium addresses the fossil record as it is.



Then we should use that one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Rapid speciation is doubtful unless mutation rates are high.



That wasn't the question.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That wasn't the question.


It's the answer to the question.  The duration of a generation doesn't matter.  It can be a long lived species and if the mutation rate is low the species will be remain in stasis.


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Then we should use that one.


Exactly!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> The duration of a generation doesn't matter.



Sure it does. If a generation is 20 minutes, how long does it take the mutation to "change the herd"?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure it does. If a generation is 20 minutes, how long does it take the mutation to "change the herd"?


If the mutation rate is zero then never.  

See how that works.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> If the mutation rate is zero then never.
> 
> See how that works.



How high does it have to be to take over the herd?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How high does it have to be to take over the herd?


You mean with realistic lifespans?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> If the mutation rate is zero then never.
> 
> See how that works.


Darwinists seem to get a little fuzzy with numbers when you ask them questions like how many mutations to get from the first primordial DNA to the species we see on Earth now, and how fast do the mutations happen.

If they answer at all, they will divide the available time by the needed mutations and say that's how often mutations happen.  Then they get mad.

Questions in general just send Darwinists 'round the bend.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> You mean with realistic lifespans?



Sure.

Take a herd of 1000.
They double every generation.
1 mutation quadruples every generation.
How many generations until the mutation is greater than 50% of the population?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Darwinists seem to get a little fuzzy with numbers when you ask them questions like how many mutations to get from the first primordial DNA to the species we see on Earth now, and how fast do the mutations happen.



As an IDer, what's your answer to those questions?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure.
> 
> Take a herd of 1000.
> They double every generation.
> ...


11 generations. If that's how it happens.  But still don't see how the first mutation can do anything by itself.  We are talking about speciation.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As an IDer, what's your answer to those questions?


Good question.  I don't know the answer, but I'm not mad at you for asking it.  Let me look into that and "circle back" to it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2022)

ding said:


> But still don't see how the first mutation can do anything by itself.



You wanted to know how long it takes to change the herd. 
Why does it have to "do anything by itself"?

*We are talking about speciation.*

Yup.


----------



## ding (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You wanted to know how long it takes to change the herd.
> Why does it have to "do anything by itself"?
> 
> *We are talking about speciation.*
> ...


Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd? Or was that you who wanted to know how long it takes to change a herd?

Critical mass would be required.  I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You wanted to know how long it takes to change the herd.
> Why does it have to "do anything by itself"?
> 
> *We are talking about speciation.*
> ...


If the first mutation isn't use "by itself" then under Darwinian theory there would be no reason for it to add to the survival and reproduction of that individual and it's progeny.  

So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.

That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic. An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye? Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

ding said:


> Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd? Or was that you who wanted to know how long it takes to change a herd?
> 
> Critical mass would be required.  I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.


*Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd?*

Yes.







*Critical mass would be required.*

Well, if your mutation results in twice the survival, critical mass happens pretty quickly.

*I never took you for an Adam and Eve kinda guy.*

Why do you feel I am?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If the first mutation isn't use "by itself" then under Darwinian theory there would be no reason for it to add to the survival and reproduction of that individual and it's progeny.
> 
> So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.
> 
> That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic. An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye? Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.



*If the first mutation isn't use "by itself"*

Not sure what that means.

*So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.*

Just like any other gene. And?

*That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic.*

What's a key flaw? Apparent design?

*An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye? *

Light sensitive cells.

* Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.*

What about two? Or four?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If the first mutation isn't use "by itself"*
> 
> Not sure what that means.


Sorry - useful.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So it would not be passed on except by pure chance.*
> 
> Just like any other gene. And?


So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on.

If a mutation is not passed on, it does not further evolution in any way.

Unless you can explain - using Darwinian logic - why an individual with a useless mutation would reproduce more than its non-mutated cousins and become dominant.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That's a key flaw in Darwinian logic.*
> 
> What's a key flaw? Apparent design?


The irreconcilable complexity.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *An eye is obviously very useful. But what was the first step in evolving an eye? *
> 
> Light sensitive cells.



Light sensitive cells cannot be the *first* step.  Not unless you're telling me that one individual was suddenly born/hatched that had a groups of localized light sensitive cells already wired to send signals to a brain already wired to interpret those signals as light.

That is way too many mutations to suddenly appear in one individual.

What are the steps that led to light sensitive cells?


Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Whatever it was, that one mutation would not have been sufficient to add to survival and reproduction.*
> 
> What about two? Or four?


You tell me:  how many random mutations, none of which added survival and reproduction advantage have to accumulate before they produce a useful trait?

If you're really asking me, I would say thousands at a bare minimum.  A thousand random mutations can occur, but why would each of them be passed on if they were not useful?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Sorry - useful.
> 
> So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on.
> 
> ...



_So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on._

Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they aren't.
Sometimes they're passed on, sometimes they aren't.

_Light sensitive cells cannot be the *first* step._

Why not?

_What are the steps that led to light sensitive cells?_

Feel free to google your little heart out.

_You tell me:  how many random mutations, none of which added survival and reproduction advantage have to accumulate before there is a useful trait?_

I don't know. Do you?

_If you're really asking me, I would say thousands at a bare minimum. _

OK.

_a thousand random mutations can occur, but why would they be passed on if they were not useful?_

Unless they're harmful, why wouldn't they be passed on?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations - would not be passed on._
> 
> Sometimes they're useful, sometimes they aren't.
> Sometimes they're passed on, sometimes they aren't.
> ...


Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists.  Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.

You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all and then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.

It actually makes less sense than Darwinism, which isn't easy, since Darwinism has been so thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists.  Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.
> 
> You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all and then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.
> 
> It actually makes less sense than Darwinism, which isn't easy, since Darwinism has been so thoroughly debunked.



*Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists.*

I did? Be more specific.

*Darwin's theory is that useful traits are passed on because the possessors of useful traits are able to survive and reproduce better than those who do not have them.*

Yup. Where did I disagree?

*You are arguing that traits are passed on for no reason at all *

I didn't say that. Sometimes someone with a useful trait dies before they can reproduce.
Sometimes the offspring doesn't have the trait. There are no guarantees.

*then by coincidence, they end up producing a useful trait, and then a new species.*

You're lying.
*
It actually makes less sense than Darwinism*

I'm sorry that you're too confused to understand my very clear post.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Toddster in that post, you have completely abandoned the reasoning of the Darwinists.*
> 
> I did? Be more specific.
> 
> ...


I understood you perfectly.

You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.

If not, what is the reason that non-useful mutations would be passed on and accumulate into a useful trait?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I understood you perfectly.
> 
> You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.
> 
> If not, what is the reason that non-useful mutations would be passed on and accumulate into a useful trait?



*You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason *

You bet. Why wouldn't they be?

*and that they could accumulate into a useful trait.*

That was your claim.

_So, the useless mutation - that supposedly later led to a useful adaption after many more non-useful mutations_


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You argued that non-useful mutations could be passed on for no particular reason *
> 
> You bet. Why wouldn't they be?
> 
> ...


That's fine, if that's your theory.

But it isn't Darwin's theory, because your idea doesn't require any greater survival/reproduction by the mutated individuals in a species.

I don't know, maybe you've got something there.  The universe as craps table in which a seven is rolled millions of times in a row by millions of species.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's fine, if that's your theory.
> 
> But it isn't Darwin's theory, because your idea doesn't require any greater survival/reproduction by the mutated individuals in a species.
> 
> I don't know, maybe you've got something there.  The universe as craps table in which a seven is rolled millions of times in a row by millions of species.


Arguing against what you don’t understand.

Well, there’s always the religion forum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's fine, if that's your theory.
> 
> But it isn't Darwin's theory, because your idea doesn't require any greater survival/reproduction by the mutated individuals in a species.



What idea of mine are you talking about?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What idea of mine are you talking about?


Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.

7 for originality.
-9 for logic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.
> 
> 7 for originality.
> -9 for logic.



*Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason*

Why wouldn't non-harmful mutations be passed on?

*and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.*

For the second time, you made that claim, not me.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Your idea that non-useful mutations were passed on for no particular reason*
> 
> Why wouldn't non-harmful mutations be passed on?


That's the idea that disagrees with Darwin.  I'm not trying to dissuade you and persuade you to accept Darwin.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *and somehow accumulated into a useful adaptation.*
> 
> For the second time, you made that claim, not me.


So, where do you claim that the useful adaptations came from?


----------



## ding (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Did I say I wanted to know how long it takes a to change a herd?*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


That's not even close to me asking how long for a herd to change. 

I don't see a new species passing go and collecting $200 without being at critical mass at the start.

Because you seem to believe speciation can occur with as little as two mutated creatures.  I don't.


----------



## idb (Feb 6, 2022)

Ah...I see the problem here...you confuse 'headline' with 'article'.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's the idea that disagrees with Darwin.  I'm not trying to dissuade you and persuade you to accept Darwin.



*That's the idea that disagrees with Darwin. *

Why does the propagation of a mutation that neither harms nor helps, disagree with Darwin?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

ding said:


> Because you seem to believe speciation can occur with as little as two mutated creatures.



Where did I even mention speciation, let alone make that claim?


----------



## ding (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where did I even mention speciation, let alone make that claim?


If you follow the quote chain you will see multiple references to speciation.  What do you think you've been discussing with me for the past two pages?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

ding said:


> If you follow the quote chain you will see multiple references to speciation.  What do you think you've been discussing with me for the past two pages?



That is awesome that everyone else was talking about speciation.
And that I wasn't.

Anything else I can clear up for you?


----------



## ding (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That is awesome that everyone else was talking about speciation.
> And that I wasn't.
> 
> Anything else I can clear up for you?


I'm just glad I have this.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Then we should use that one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Killed by global warming


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 6, 2022)

ding said:


> I'm just glad I have this.



I'm happy for you?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That is awesome that everyone else was talking about speciation.
> And that I wasn't.
> 
> Anything else I can clear up for you?


LoL!

Toddster is a slippery boy!


----------



## ding (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> LoL!
> 
> Toddster is a slippery boy!


So much so he's predictable.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Does anyone even know what this means?





???


----------



## ding (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Does anyone even know what this means?
> 
> View attachment 598197
> ???


Ramblings?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Does anyone even know what this means?
> 
> View attachment 598197
> ???


Completely OUT of context and pathetic revenge attempted by an outed raging Liar/Sociopath who lost every debate we've had.
so he throws it to some sympathetic @holes.

He Really got his **** Reamed tonight (like 10x worse than usual) so was Reduced to this.

`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Completely OUT of context and pathetic revenge attempted by an outed raging Liar/Sociopath who lost every debate we've had.
> so he throws it to some sympathetic @holes.
> 
> He Really got his **** Reamed tonight (like 10x worse than usual) so was Reduced to this.
> ...


Hm . . .


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Completely OUT of context and pathetic revenge attempted by an outed raging Liar/Sociopath who lost every debate we've had.
> so he throws it to some sympathetic @holes.
> 
> He Really got his **** Reamed tonight (like 10x worse than usual) so was Reduced to this.
> ...


Girl, puh-leeeze....you get your ass handed to you on a daily basis and then whine when you get rebuked. You have been a running joke on this forum from day one. You suffer from an over-inflated sense of self.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 6, 2022)

Dale Smith said:


> Girl, puh-leeeze....you get your ass handed to you on a daily basis and then whine when you get rebuked. You have been a running joke on this forum from day one. You suffer from an over-inflated sense of self.


Whatever you say Chemtrails Conspiracy guy!
(He sneaks those into real science threads)
That's how I know him and why he's got a grudge.
I outed Dale's Conspiracy crap too, just Like I've destroyed Seymour Flops Again's "apparent design" fudge.
`
`


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Whatever you say Chemtrails Conspiracy guy!
> (He sneaks those into real science threads)
> `


Over 100 patents validate my claims. You can't stand it because it flies in the face of your contention that "fossil fuels" are the cause for weather anomalies. You are a sucker and you buy into the "findings of the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N and they have been stone cold busted for fudging data.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 6, 2022)

Dale Smith said:


> Over 100 patents validate my claims. You can't stand it because it flies in the face of your contention that "fossil fuels" are the cause for weather anomalies. You are a sucker and you buy into the "findings of the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N and they have been stone cold busted for fudging data.


There ya go!
Dale admits it.
His 'Chemtrail' claims are 'validated.'
`


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2022)

What a great example of speciation through genetic mutation and not natural selection.  





__





						Human(s) Chromosome 2 resulted from the Fusion of two Ape Chromosomes: Easily seen.
					

Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website... (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.) this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE. Easy to understand/SEE. We have 23 pairs of Chromos, ALL GREAT Apes 24. Their 2 a/b fused into our #2 as can be easily seen...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Periods of quick evolutionary change disprove how evolution works?
> Or they conflict with Darwin's original idea?



Was this me arguing against it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Then we should use that one.



Or this?


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

ding said:


> Long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes - which is the norm in the geologic record - and leaves  gaps (aka lack of transitional fossils) in the fossil record go against Darwin's idea of slight successive changes.
> 
> Check out punctuated equilibrium.  It fits the fossil record better than Darwin's model does.











						Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel
					

***




					www.haaretz.com


----------



## surada (Feb 16, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> But you specified that particular fossil.
> 
> Tell me about it.


 Archaeologists discover missing link in human evolution, in Israel


----------



## Woodznutz (Apr 18, 2022)

mak2 said:


> Ok thanks.  The same.


Evolutionists have waaaay too much time on their hands.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 18, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> These evolutionists just luurve announcing the latest "missing link," don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haw! Another sockpuppet troll who would fail a 7th grade science quiz...discovered!


----------



## The Irish Ram (Jul 23, 2022)

mak2 said:


> How old do you believe the Earth is?


I think there were billions of years between Genesis1.  <Created, period, done,  and the battle that followed after ejecting Satan out of Heaven like a lightening bolt, during which the finished earth became  un-naturally dark, formless and void, and the remake that took place along with the advent of Adam and Eve.  < about 6,000 years ago.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 23, 2022)

mak2 said:


> How old do you believe the Earth is?


irrelevant,,


----------

