Creationists

[newpolitics]

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.

So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.

Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,

1. Humans make complex things
2.Nature contains complexity
3. Nature has a builder

This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.

So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.

Prove what you are saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Predictable!

The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.

Typical evo fundie response.

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.

You need some new material.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is it as annoying as Hollie detracting from and denying others educational background while simultaneously refusing to provide any basis for her own?

Use some of you're christian superpowers of forgiveness and let it go. It's annoying as shit for the rest of us, you keep on using huge fonts in PINK COLOR.

Maybe if he got a response to his questions the fonts would go away but i find it amusing.

 

[newpolitics]

So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.

Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,

1. Humans make complex things
2.Nature contains complexity
3. Nature has a builder

This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.

So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.

How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

What she say's has never been shown to be possible, If it has there would be no debate.

 

[newpolitics]

So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.

Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,

1. Humans make complex things
2.Nature contains complexity
3. Nature has a builder

This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.

So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.

How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.

It is not on my side to prove this. Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis being true. Evolution is demonstrable and observable, provable, and verifiable with fossils, DNA evidence, geologic evidence. Everything converges on evolution being true.

Abiogenesis is a theory about how that first cell formed, at which point, evolution took over.
Therefore, it is not on "my side" to prove abiogenesis in a lab in order for evolution to be true. The two are non-contingent upon each other.

 

[Hollie]

So how can you conclude that because we know man can design and build things but biological organisms that are much more complex just came into existence by chance and luck ? Your opinion defies logic.

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.

Prove what you are saying.

Already done. As much as science can offer "proof", there is no argument among the relevant science community as to an ancient earth, more complex biology evolving from less complex, etc.

With virtual certainty, it is only the fundie religious (Christian), haters and social misfits who are pressing an anti-science agenda.

 

[Hollie]

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

What she say's has never been shown to be possible, If it has there would be no debate.

An ancient earth, a vast solar system and universe, the process of evolution have never been shown to be possible? That is just absurd.

Your comments continually call into question your grasp of reality and your ability to function in a rational world. This is one more example in continuing examples of just how dishonest fundie Christians really can be.

 

[daws101]

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

the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,

 

[daws101]

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.

those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!

 

[Gadawg73]

I just returned from Jamaica, a wonderful country with great people. One of the waiters was a Jamaican man with a pregnant wife with their first child. We came to know this young man well the 9 days we were there. He is very religious and also inquisitive of everything and anything science. He was praying daily for the child to be a boy. After a few discussions on the science of it all he was floored to learn that it is the male chromosome, HIM, that determines the sex of the child. He did not believe us when we informed us of that and was upset about it. The next day at breakfast he sought us out and apologized to us. We told him he owed us no apology. He again said he did because his preacher told him we were wrong and that God only decides the sex of the child. He had done his homework and found on the internet office there at the resort the science behind it.
Ditto for all science.
Creationism is NOT science.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

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.

those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!

Wasn't my intent.

I was simply showing that humans share DNA with a variety of species. Most of which DNA has yet to be compared with. We even have similarities in DNA with certain plants.

 

[daws101]

- 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.

those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!

Wasn't my intent.

I was simply showing that humans share DNA with a variety of species. Most of which DNA has yet to be compared with. We even have similarities in DNA with certain plants.

yes we do...everything is made of the same elements ...your point?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

those facts in no way futher your argument that god did it!

Wasn't my intent.

I was simply showing that humans share DNA with a variety of species. Most of which DNA has yet to be compared with. We even have similarities in DNA with certain plants.

yes we do...everything is made of the same elements ...your point?

Was made.

 

[UltimateReality]

Predictable!

The usual cut and paste from creationist propaganda sites.

Typical evo fundie response.

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.

Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, it is you who is defying logic. You can not say,

1. Humans make complex things
2.Nature contains complexity
3. Nature has a builder

This is fallacious inductive reasoning. You can not establish, merely on the basis of inductive reasoning, the complexity in nature necessarily means there was a designer, SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMANS ALSO BUILD "COMPLEX" things. First of all, "complex" is a subjective term that is relative and doesn't carry objective meaning. Second, inductive reasoning, at best, can only establish probabilities, not certainty, as can deductive reasoning. So, for ANYONE to use this watchmaker argument to conclude definitively that a designer must exist is DEFYING THE RULES OF LOGIC.

So, it is you who is defying logic. Now, stop with this stupid fucking argument. It is MEANINGLESS.

How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.

It is not on my side to prove this. Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis being true. Evolution is demonstrable and observable, provable, and verifiable with fossils, DNA evidence, geologic evidence. Everything converges on evolution being true.

Abiogenesis is a theory about how that first cell formed, at which point, evolution took over.
Therefore, it is not on "my side" to prove abiogenesis in a lab in order for evolution to be true. The two are non-contingent upon each other.

How can you say this?!?!?! They absolutely are. This is a totally fallacy your side is ever prone to.

 

[UltimateReality]

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.

Prove what you are saying.

Already done. As much as science can offer "proof", there is no argument among the relevant science community as to an ancient earth, more complex biology evolving from less complex, etc.

With virtual certainty, it is only the fundie religious (Christian), haters and social misfits who are pressing an anti-science agenda.

Why do you keep describing yourself and continue to project your self-loathing existence on others?

 

[UltimateReality]

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

the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,

Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.