Creationists

[LOki]

Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.

Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED.

"These species were fit because they survived."

"The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."

"... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."

"Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."

"... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."

"Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"

" It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​

Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.


"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."

Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and according to the theory of evolution its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE? Have we proven the TOE or am I mis-informd that the TOE is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition, attempts its proof of the TOE by assuming the TOE is true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.

Perhaps you are not getting DEFINITION confused with THEORY again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that DEFINITIONS are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.

Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."

You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of FITNESS is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.

Evolution is a FACT.

There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.

"Creation science" is not science.

Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.

Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

Hmm, I tried telling them how foolish it is to try and use DNA similarity as an argument. I have told them DNA similarity proves nothing. It just shows how the designer was able to use the same substance and produce the diversity seen.

DNA similarity but vastly different genetic information. This will go ignored as usual.

 

[UltimateReality]

Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.

So who is this mythical common ancestor? Bigfoot? Do we have fossil evidence for our common Hominid father? And if so, who was his ancestor? A lizard? A bird? A fish? A flying squirrel?

What does modern dna evidence tell us about Darwin's "Tree" of life?

I didn't know him personally, but I hear his name was Bob.

C'mon, spit it out. What are you trying to say. C'mon, you can do it.

Spit out what? I have posed several questions to you. Care to take a stab at them?

Is there fossil evidence for the common ancestor of man, gorillas, and chimpanzees?

If so, what life form precedes this common ancestor?

What does modern dna evidence tell us about this common ancestor of apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, and man?

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.

If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?

And I answer again that there is nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with the actual theory of evolution.

There are numerous reasons why other descendants of the group we evolved from are still here, and the better adapted transitional groups that lead to human beings have gone extinct.

The most obvious of these is that these transitional species that lead to human beings were themselves in direct competition for survival resources with humans, rather than the common ancestor species.

This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.

Well, you just got one of several. What's your point now?

You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?

Your denial of reality does not actually make your alternative--MAGIC!--any more compelling.

Ahh, the false dilemma fallacy. Why can't you just defend evolution on the basis of its merits? Instead, you have presented the false dilemma fallacy numerous times in this thread. You infer by fallacious reasoning that there are only two choices-either believe in evolution or believe in magic. This is not the case at all. We can reject the materialistic driven TOE as the psuedoscience that it is, and begin to explore MANY other better scientific explanations that don't have anything to do with Creationism.

 

[UltimateReality]

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.

Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.

Evolution is a FACT.

There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.

"Creation science" is not science.

The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.

Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.

Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.

Wow, am I in the twilight zone right now? Cause I could swear you just claimed absolute certainty for the "fact" of evolution above. And no, there is not definitive proof that natural selection acting on random mutations can result in speciation. And while beneficial mutations may have been shown in viruses, they have never been documented in complex organisms like mice or humans.

It is a fact that God exists. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and materialistic grounds that such a Being can not exist, but the existence of God is not in question among rational human beings.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.

If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?

This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.

You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?

YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.

Correction:

"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​

Fixed.

Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.

Correction:

"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​

Fixed.

Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur [in the time periods claimed], it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

 

[UltimateReality]

Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED.

"These species were fit because they survived."

"The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."

"... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."

"Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."

"... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."

"Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"

" It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​

Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.


"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."

Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and according to the theory of evolution its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE? Have we proven the TOE or am I mis-informd that the TOE is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition, attempts its proof of the TOE by assuming the TOE is true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.

Perhaps you are not getting DEFINITION confused with THEORY again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that DEFINITIONS are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.

Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."

You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of FITNESS is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.

I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.

 

[LOki]

Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and according to the theory of evolution its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE? Have we proven the TOE or am I mis-informd that the TOE is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition, attempts its proof of the TOE by assuming the TOE is true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.

Perhaps you are not getting DEFINITION confused with THEORY again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that DEFINITIONS are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.

Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."

You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of FITNESS is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.

I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.

What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?

Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.

Correction:

"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​

Fixed.

Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.

Correction:

"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​

Fixed.

Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur [in the time periods claimed], it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.

I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Correction:

"Really, all UR's strawman version of Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today. "​

Fixed.

Correction:

"Furthermore, UR's strawman version of evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur UR's strawman version of natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to UR's strawman version of Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same."​

Fixed.

Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur [in the time periods claimed], it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.

I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.

There is nothing to refute your theory is built on conjecture. What little evidence your partners have put on display have been refuted. The theory refutes itself with their mechanisms that evolutionist claim to be the engine of evolution.

Did you not see loki's silly answer given after I asked why all supposed transitional species are extinct ?

How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?

 

[Hollie]

Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur [in the time periods claimed], it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.

I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.

There is nothing to refute your theory is built on conjecture. What little evidence your partners have put on display have been refuted. The theory refutes itself with their mechanisms that evolutionist claim to be the engine of evolution.

It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.

Did you not see loki's silly answer given after I asked why all supposed transitional species are extinct ?

Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?

How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?

I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.

 

[UltimateReality]

Perhaps you are not getting DEFINITION confused with THEORY again. Perhaps you are not still hung up on the reality that DEFINITIONS are formal tautologies, hence valid. Even if so, you're wrong.

Perhaps you mean the "Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection."

You're still wrong. Recognizing the fact that the real and measurable quality of FITNESS is central to Natural Selection, with the fact that Natural Selection is central to the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, does not--of itself--make a question-begging argument.

I think you are just plain confused, cheesecake. You just built a strawman. Look, it's a strawman. Does anyone see the strawman??? Strawman, strawman, strawman! Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. Look!! There goes a strawman!!! Look ma, no strawman! Strawman got your tongue? Strawman's going to get you. Hollie to Loki: You're the Strawman of my dreams. Loki to Hollie: Your Straw-manhands are kind of Rugged.

What's the matter Pumpkin? Having difficulty with accepting that your fraud has been exposed? Is it just not fair that valid logic applied to verifiable evidence offers no support for your belief in magic; that it always supports evolution?

Face it Cupcake, the only hope you have to appear that you have refuted the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection, is to make up your own nonsense to refute and hope nobody notices it's your own made-up nonsense.

Would that made up nonsense include all the Wiki quotes above which prove your strawman accusations to be TOTALLY BOGUS??? Funny how you don't respond to the posts where you get totally OWNED.

 

[UltimateReality]

How strange that the science hating, evolution denying fundie has spent a considerable amount of time cutting and pasting material from wiki which does not refute evolution.

I couldn't help but also notice that the rabid cut and paster is generous when he self-describes "my earlier comment" which was a cut and paste from wiki.

It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.



Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?

How did their traits get passed on if they were going extinct ? Where did the genetic information go for even earlier transitional species ?

I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.

Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?

What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.

Where else did you go to school besides online?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear CBirch2 and YouWereCreated:

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Meh. It baffles me.

YWC mentioned not knowing what animals were on the ark 5000 years ago.

Are you both or neither open to the idea of interpreting the 6000 year timeline
in the Bible as stages, where each period (referred to as 1000 years, but that just means a very long time spanning multiple generations) represents a Day to God,
so that the world is created in Stages?

 

[newpolitics]

Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.

Evolution is a FACT.

There is no way to deny that the frequency of organisms of traits found in populations can change over time such that later generations are markedly different than their forebears. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and superstitious grounds that such differences can by any means what-so-ever lead to speciation, but evolution is not in question among rational human beings.

"Creation science" is not science.

Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.

Your "43 might haves and could haves" complain is ENTIRELY bullshit in light of the OBVIOUS fact of reality that "... scientists never really claim ... absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties." There are NO UNCERTAINTIES in faith ... otherwise you asshats would not have an ontological dispute with natural selection.

Wow, am I in the twilight zone right now? Cause I could swear you just claimed absolute certainty for the "fact" of evolution above. And no, there is not definitive proof that natural selection acting on random mutations can result in speciation. And while beneficial mutations may have been shown in viruses, they have never been documented in complex organisms like mice or humans.

It is a fact that God exists. There is so much evidence confirming this FACT of reality, that only the more dereistic of thinkers could possibly be in denial of this.

You may object on your irrational and materialistic grounds that such a Being can not exist, but the existence of God is not in question among rational human beings.

Evolution is fact. It is also a theory. That you deny the fact of evolution means you also deny artificial selection, something which I assume you accept, so you are contradicting yourself without knowing it, such as what we see with dogs evolving from the grey wolf. That is an example of evolution. That this was by artificial selection is not important: it is change in species over time. That is the definition of evolution. Do you deny artificial selection? Do you deny that a poodle came from a wolf many years ago? How is this ANY DIFFERENT from humans descending from a common ancestor with apes many years ago? It is not. It is you're theological holdings which disallow this thought to enter your head as a serious contender for reality.

Natural selection accomplishes the same thing as artificial selection: selecting for traits which are better suited for survival in any given environment. It is non-random. How you sustain your misunderstanding of evolution given what you know about it, is really miraculous to me. Please explain to me how you can deny the process of natural selection. Please, and how is it different from artificial selection, in terms of its effects?

Yes, UL, you can take everybody's post and substitute words in to make it appear arbitrary, good for you. That's not hard to do. You have zero evidence for god, and have not dispelled evolution.

 

[newpolitics]

It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.



Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?


I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.

Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?

What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.

Where else did you go to school besides online?

WHO CARES? This is none of your business, and has no bearing on this discussion. I normally wouldn't intervene, but this is getting annoying.

 

[newpolitics]

If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?

false comparison

Explain your ignorant comment ?

We know that humans built things that humans built... we were here. We've been here to build it. To suggest otherwise is so fucking assinine, I don't even know how to sit in my chair. Therefore, we don't see these things coming from nature.

Humans are not circuit boards, are not spaceships, are not engines. Why do creationists think these are valid comparisons and think inductive reasoning is valid here in order to assume ID? It is so dishonest and just... stupid as fuck.

 

[Hollie]

It's stereotypical for religious zealots to blind themselves to science. You are free to believe that science is one, enormous conspiracy theory. Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is obviously a function of religious zealotry and the ignorance that malady breeds, so you're excused.



Why would you be so foolish to believe all transitional species are extinct?


I'm afraid your lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of biology and science makes you appear to be quite the pathetic buffoon.

Hollie, you really just revealed your total and utter ignorance, or the fact that you never read any of the posts before re-posting your same tired, repetitive nonsense. Doesn't your online degree from Haran Yahya address this?

What you failed to grasp in your limited understanding, is that my Wiki cut and pastes were not to support MY argument, but to prove that Loki's constant strawman accusations have no basis in reality. Everything I have claimed the TOE claims is right there in black and white for anyone to see.

Where else did you go to school besides online?

Actually, it is you who literally screams out the absurdities you cut and paste from from Harun Yahya in failed attempts to prove your creationist fantasies. What you failed to grasp is that your rabid cutting and pasting of subject matter you don't understand renders your posts as silly as those of the other fundie.

You should demand a refund of the tuition you wasted at the Harun Yahya academy.

 

[newpolitics]

Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube

I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.

However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.

Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube

Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.

 

[Hollie]

Why I am no longer a Creationist - Part 1: Genus Homo - YouTube

I realize that posting this an argument ad populum, and doesn't verify evolution just because someone, somewhere switched to being a non-creationist, so you can spare telling me that.

However, the same can not be said of this next video by the same person, who demonstrates an understanding of evolution. I know that posting videos is not the best argumentation form, and may not be particularly convincing, but I thought it was worth a shot.

Why I am no longer a creationist -- Part 2.1: Missing Links - Proboscidea - YouTube

Cute video's. However, at the risk of you falling into the "Creationist trap" the narrator in the video alludes to, i.e., not looking for evidence, perhaps you should check out the opposing viewpoint if you are serious about wanting to be fully informed. You can start here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-Ann-Gauger/dp/193659904X/ref=pd_sim_b_18]Science and Human Origins: Ann Gauger,Douglas Axe,Casey Luskin: 9781936599042: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Ummm... you want me to spend money to learn about creationism? Yeah, no thanks. Point me to a website if you like, but there no way I am buying a book on creationism. I am fully aware of the creationist viewpoint. It would be a waste of my time and brain cells to store such information.

Douglas Axe is yet another Loon flailing his pom poms on behalf of the Discovery Institute.

How embarrassing for the creationist industry that the spokesmen are so often people who shouldn't be allowed in grown-up company.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe

Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function - The Panda's Thumb

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.