Why Darwinists call non-Darwinists "Flat Earthers"

[alang1216]

Evolution is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.

Not quite. Evolution is the process of descent from a common ancestor. Extinction explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth. Evolution explains the presence of species that appear in the fossil record at various times.

Variation: while most offspring will be very similar to their parents, occasionally an individual is born/hatched/seeded that has a slight or significant difference. For example, an animal similar to the giraffe, but with a much shorter "normal-sized" neck, might give birth to a mutated calf with a longer neck.

Again, not quite. Populations consist of a variety of slightly different genes in various proportions in that population. If the environment changes and forests disappear, forest animals that can survive on a savannah will reproduce and the gene pool of that population will be changed

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not quite. Evolution is the process of descent from a common ancestor. Extinction explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth. Evolution explains the presence of species that appear in the fossil record at various times.

Ok.

Again, not quite. Populations consist of a variety of slightly different genes in various proportions in that population. If the environment changes and forests disappear, forest animals that can survive on a savannah will reproduce and the gene pool of that population will be changed

So, does that lead to new species?

What you describe is changes within a species, like Darwin's finches.

 

[alang1216]

So, does that lead to new species?

What you describe is changes within a species, like Darwin's finches.

It seems that is not a simple question and depends on how you define species. It is probably best to say they are on their way to becoming different species. They can interbreed but generally don't. Are horses and donkeys separate species? Same thing.

The consensus I see is that, if nothing changes, they will be separate species in the future. Lots of little changes add up to a big one.

 

[Hollie]

Glad to. Thanks for admitting that you don't know the difference. You are not alone on this forum, I assure you.

Evolution is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.

Darwinism is an explanation for how species evolved from each other. It consists of four main parts:

Variation, inheritance, selection, and time.

Variation: while most offspring will be very similar to their parents, occasionally an individual is born/hatched/seeded that has a slight or significant difference. For example, an animal similar to the giraffe, but with a much shorter "normal-sized" neck, might give birth to a mutated calf with a longer neck.

Inheritance: That mutation is passed on the offspring of that mutated individual, and in turn to their offspring. So more and more slightly longer-necked animals appear.

Selection: The mutation is beneficial to the mutated individual and his progeny in that it allows it to survive and reproduce more so than its non-mutated peers (because he gets more leaves!). So much so that the mutated offspring take over the habitat, move to another habitat, or force the original short-necked animals to find another habitat.

Time: Given enough time, similar neck-elongating mutations occur (each independent of the one before it), and lead the modern giraffe. It was similar processes that led to the origin of all species on Earth.

If any Darwinists thinks that is inaccurate, I welcome them to give their own explanation.

Leaving you to your own creationer devices was predictable. Your first attempt to define evolution was a disaster. When you steal from creationer websites, you become an accomplice to fraud. Don’t be an accomplice to fraud. You really should advise the industry of creationer charlatans that they need an intro course in biology. Species no longer seen living on earth has some obvious explanations.

The natural world (as opposed to the supernatural creationer world), is largely symbiotic in function. The removal of one species from an ecosystem can cause the entire ecosystem to collapse. There is observational data concerning this. Loss of habitat can cause extinction of one of more species. Changes in climate such as has occurred over the timespan of the planet can cause individual species to disappear in turn causing species sharing that habitat to disappear. Predator and prey?
Identifiable mass extinction events on the planet?

Blank stare? Just say duh?

 

[ding]

Your first attempt to define evolution was a disaster.

Evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. It's more than just biological evolution. Evolution has been occurring since the universe was created.

 

[Ringtone]

Re: What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.

You may have given me an alternative explanation (ID or Creationism) for the evidence (of evolution) on a number of occasions (I honestly don't recall). What I have yet to see is evidence to SUPPORT ID and Creationism. Picking holes in evolution is fine but you must have evidence to support the alternatives or just come out and say that the alternatives are supernatural and have no evidence beyond faith.

False. The evidence evinces that adaptive radiation occurs and, generally, that different species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time. Given that this evidence is perfectly compatible with both ID and creationism, how the hell do you figure that an evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry necessarily follows.

What is the name of the hocus pocus you unwittingly and gratuitously impose on the evidence as you unwittingly beg the question?

Holly and rightwinger are mindless, slogan-spouting zombies. Their minds are as closed as slammed shut doors. I think you're smarter than they are. But are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the obvious potentiality that flies right over their heads?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's wishful thinking.

They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.

That Earth is round, and travels around the sun while rotating, can be demonstrated to middle school kids through simple experiments that they can understand. They can even perform many of these experiments themselves, any day of the week, any time of year, and get the same results confirming the round Earth.

Not so with Darwinism. Darwinism is untestable. No experiment could prove it is false, so of course no experiment can prove it is true.

Judging from their childish insults, many of the fanatical Darwinists here are either still in middle school or have never outgrown the middle school mentality.

So, if a genuine flat earther came on this forum, they would simply recite the proofs of the round Earth that they learned in middle school.* Obviously accompanies by a lot of name calling, because that's what middle schoolers do.

But when it comes to defending Darwinian theory, name calling is their main "argument," along with demanding that non-Darwinists prove that their untestable and non-falsifiable hypothesis is false.

*I may be giving them too much credit. Likely many of the Darwinists on here paid no attention to subjects like Math and Science, and are now googling "experiments to prove the earth is round," to see what I'm talking about.

The earth is not round

 

[Hollie]

False. The evidence evinces that adaptive radiation occurs and, generally, that different species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time. Given that this evidence is perfectly compatible with both ID and creationism, how the hell do you figure that an evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry necessarily follows.

What is the name of the hocus pocus you unwittingly and gratuitously impose on the evidence as you unwittingly beg the question?

Holly and rightwinger are mindless, slogan-spouting zombies. Their minds are as closed as slammed shut doors. I think you're smarter than they are. But are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the obvious potentiality that flies right over their heads?

Nonsense. There is nothing about the natural world that supports the intervention of your particular polytheistic gods. You need to make a defendable case for you gods before you can use them as conscripts. See how that works? You can’t use the hocus pocus of magic and supernaturalism with your usual, ‘’…… because I say so”, nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.

When you have finished making a defendable case for your gods, we can move on to requiring that you support a 6,000 year old planet. How is the diversity of life on the planet compatible with a 4,000 year timeframe after the claimed global flood?

It is evident in all of biological evolution, just as we see in human evolution, that there is not a straight line from species to sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" as described and supported by Charles Darwin’s observation with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by the hyper-religious but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes complete dead ends. You god's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent. I pointed out elsewhere that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" by your gods so let’s have a round of applause for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases.

It is curious to note that ID’iot creationists make such a fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry, which of course has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. They deny it even exists. There is an ID’iot creationer in these forums who insists the entirety of the fossil record is a grand, worldwide conspiracy theory. And yet, the ID’iot creationers never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require explanation by the reality challenged.

 

[alang1216]

False. The evidence evinces that adaptive radiation occurs and, generally, that different species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time. Given that this evidence is perfectly compatible with both ID and creationism, how the hell do you figure that an evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry necessarily follows.

So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? Were Homo Sapians, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related? Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species that you're trying to put arbitrary lines around to keep man's place unique.

What is the name of the hocus pocus you unwittingly and gratuitously impose on the evidence as you unwittingly beg the question?

Occam's razor?

Holly and rightwinger are mindless, slogan-spouting zombies. Their minds are as closed as slammed shut doors. I think you're smarter than they are. But are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the obvious potentiality that flies right over their heads?

Thanks but I think you're wrong about all of us. Most on this board approach this topic already knowing the answer, either from science or from religion.

 

[Ringtone]

So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? Were Homo Sapians, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related? Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species that you're trying to put arbitrary lines around to keep man's place unique.


Occam's razor?


Thanks but I think you're wrong about all of us. Most on this board approach this topic already knowing the answer, either from science or from religion.

No it's not.

 

[Hollie]

No it's not.

“… because I say so,”

Stunning.

 

[Ringtone]

So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? Were Homo Sapians, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related? Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species that you're trying to put arbitrary lines around to keep man's place unique.


Occam's razor?


Thanks but I think you're wrong about all of us. Most on this board approach this topic already knowing the answer, either from science or from religion.

So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? ​

No! Adaptive radiation occurs within species. Evolutionary transmutation would be interspeciation.

Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? ​

You're asking if God is going to create more new species?!

Were Homo Sapiens, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related? ​

Related.

Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species ​

Really? You're manifestly arguing evolution is true because evolution is true. You're repeating yourself.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The earth is not round

Correct, it's an ellipsoid. But, I'm dealing with simple folk here, who were shown hoax drawings in elementary school and never gave the issue of evolution another thought.

They're going to get lost if I try to explain the difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid. In simplespeak, the Earth is called "round."

 

[Hollie]

Correct, it's an ellipsoid. But, I'm dealing with simple folk here, who were shown hoax drawings in elementary school and never gave the issue of evolution another thought.

They're going to get lost if I try to explain the difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid. In simplespeak, the Earth is called "round."

That's good to know because it was the supernatural creationer minded church folks who literally held back humanity for 800 years by crushing scientific inquiry.

Creationers don't have that power of coercion anymore so let's see if we can convince them to drop their quaint "science is a conspiracy" mindset.

Another 800 years? I would say not that long because the current crop of gods will likely be replaced by newer, more user friendly gods. That is after all, the history of gods.

 

[alang1216]

So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? ​

No! Adaptive radiation occurs within species. Evolutionary transmutation would be interspeciation.

Is there a limit on how much a species can radiate from its initial form? Could a therapod dinosaur radiate into a bird?

Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? ​

You're asking if God is going to create more new species?!

No, I'm asking if he has created every new species on earth?

Were Homo Sapiens, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related?

Related.

So they 'radiated' into different species?

Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species ​

Really? You're manifestly arguing evolution is true because evolution is true. You're repeating yourself.

No, I'm arguing that there is evidence that all species are descended from an ancestral species and that is the definition of evolution.

 

[Ringtone]

Is there a limit on how much a species can radiate from its initial form? Could a therapod dinosaur radiate into a bird?


No, I'm asking if he has created every new species on earth?


So they 'radiated' into different species?


No, I'm arguing that there is evidence that all species are descended from an ancestral species and that is the definition of evolution.

Yes. I know what you're arguing, but you're mistaken. The range of adaptive radiation is cyclically limited and fixed for each species. God's design is ingenious.

 

[Old Rocks]

Did you know Democrats get by far the most votes from the uneducated and illiterate? But thanks for outing yourself as merely parroting for a political agenda, not 'science n stuff'.

Do you know you are a bullshitter and a liar. Most of the red states have the lowest educational levels in the nation.

Blue States Barack Obama Won In 2012 Are More Educated Than Red States

The least educated states of the union vote red.

time.com

 

[alang1216]

Yes. I know what you're arguing, but you're mistaken. The range of adaptive radiation is cyclically limited and fixed for each species. God's design is ingenious.

So you're arguing that all new species are created by God? OK, there are no scientific arguments for or against that.

My only question is, if God creates all new species, why can't he utilize evolution?

 

[Hollie]

Yes. I know what you're arguing, but you're mistaken. The range of adaptive radiation is cyclically limited and fixed for each species. God's design is ingenious.

Heart disease is one of the “gods design is ingenious”, platitudes. The cancer was pretty good, too.

 

[Ringtone]

So you're arguing that all new species are created by God? OK, there are no scientific arguments for or against that.

My only question is, if God creates all new species, why can't he utilize evolution?

So a fossil record overwhelmingly exhibiting the sudden appearances of fully formed species sans intermediate forms over geological time doesn't support intelligent design or creationism, eh?

Evolutionary speciation cannot be observed.

So now we come to the real reason that you believe evolution is true. You assume the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, begging the question!

See how that works? Like I said, most evolutionists are not even cognizant of the real reason they belive the theory of evoluton is true: they unwittingly assume that all of biological history is necessarily an unbrokent chain of natural cause and effect. What if it's not?