Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas
you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
As usual, you're left to stumble and sputter. Your description of evolution so narrowly defined is typical creationist babble, totally absent an understanding of the process.you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate. Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.
The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory. Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.
You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils. Here's a site, aptly named :
(A few) transitional fossils\
There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist. As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.
Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.
Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]
What larger population are you talking about? Urban dwelling didn't start until the domestication of animals ten thousand years ago. Before that, we were hunter gatherers, living in small groups sized 30 to 150. Before cro-magnon man, there would not have been large populations either, as it would have been unsustainable without a large enough food source, hence smaller groups are easier to sustain (without animal domestication), so I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Therefore, any mutations would not have become too diluted, besides, as long as we're speculating, I would say that if an advantageous mutation did come along that was truly helpful, that individual would be considered extremely sexually attractive and would have no problem passing on his/her genes, and neither would their children, and neither would their children, and so on... there is no reason to believe a mutation would be distributed evenly throughout a population. Like those with money, those with an advantageous genome would want to keep it in close quarters and only among a small group until it became more robust. There are a few theories regarding how a mutation would distribute throughout a population, and they don't all include a homogenous distribution as you mentioned.
As for women not having facial hair... simple, it is sexual selection. Given that there isn't too much sexual dimorphism in the human race, If men found it more attractive for women to have less hair, it wouldn't take long for the hairless female face to be selected for strongly, and female facial hair to be extinguished as a trait rapidly. I am merely speculating, but this seems highly plausible. I don't see the point in actually researching this, because, I am not the one that doubts evolution. Also, No matter what I come back with, you will find some ridiculous way to dismiss.
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes
Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.
Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.
you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.
What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.
Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.
Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.
What evidence do you have that we killed off neanderthal?
you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.
Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.
No, you didn't post anything of that sort. You just think you did. If you had, you'd be a nobel prize winner and everyone on this earth would be a believer. It is merely you're presupposition that convinces you, in your circularity, that's you're right. At best, you made a fallacy of inductive logic. You think that because DNA is a "digital code" which it isn't, it has to be created because the ONLY OTHER EXISTING EXAMPLE we have of an existing code, is made by US, and hence was designed. That's not evidence whatsoever. That's inductive reasoning and is simply insufficient to even make a valid, let alone sound argument.
you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out
Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
In case you missed them.
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas
Your reading comprehension sucks. I have presented no such ideas. It is your personal bias that dreamed up I was saying one species wipes out another one. Here are a couple that you missed: weather change, food shortage, natural disaster, geographical changes in predatory species.
You're basically shooting a rather large, gaping hole in your own creationist belief system.Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
To much inbreeding or a natural disaster could wipe out a community.
The tale of Noah defines a small, immediate family left to repopulate the earth after an alleged global flood used by the gods to wipe humanity from the planet.
An obvious outcome of the Noah fable would be incestuous breeding.
Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
In case you missed them.
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
How many times do you need to be told this?
Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
In case you missed them.
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
How many times do you need to be told this?
Whoa there cowboy. I don't believe in Natural Selection or Evolution. The burden of proof is on you. This statement above just proves my point that your pathetic TOE is pseudo science. Natural selection states traits survive if they make a species more "fit". Your statements above shows your theory is built on a concept no one can even agree on. What a joke.
Oh and nice try projecting the strawman term back on me. Everything I have stated can be verified in evolutionary thought with a simple google search.
Evolution 101: What about Fitness?
Evolution and Natural Selection
You're the one making asserting that common ancestry isn't logical, using the example of how apes and humans are both still alive after having split off from a common ancestor, and that this is somehow evidence that evolution, and more specifically, natural selection, is an inaccurate model. The implied assertion is that one of us should have died out. Is this not what you are saying? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could have sworn that's wath you wrote. Now, you're backing down from that assertion and claiming that I made that very assertion first?! THAT is simply dishonest. Now, I think you're assessment of evolution is highly inaccurate, skewed by your preconceptions about the universe. I'm not saying your'e straw man is intentional. It's not, and the presence of a strawman does not imply intentionality. You simply can't help it because you're presuppositions and preconceptions about the nature of reality are so influenced by you're indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity. You are not able to take an honest look at evolution, because if you did, and you found it to make sense, it would destroy your entire belief structure, because evolution is necessarily at odds, and mutually exclusive with, young earth creationism. Therefore, at the outset, you're intentions are not honorable nor can you be honest. You MUST be dishonest, because you're goal is not to find truth, but to preserve your beliefs. This unconscious motive for fundamental dishonesty has not gone unnoticed, and is highly visible in the way you, and nearly all YEC's debate. This has more to do with the power of human belief and its relationship with identity, than evolution. But whatever, I am seriously digressing, but I must get this out, because it is serious bullshit that you creationists get to simply create your own reality and then try to push it onto the rest of us when you have no evidence to back anything up, yet continually insist, based on an ancient book that you interpret too literally, that people take you seriously.
In case you missed them.
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
Already addressed. Apes are a different species than human. Humans were never apes.In case you missed them.
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?
If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?
There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes.
How many times do you need to be told this?
Nope you may think you addressed the question but all you offered was baseless speculation,a story.
Here is the so called human evolution tree. How can you say your theory does not teach we came from apes ?
Google Image Result for http://scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v4i4g7.jpg
