Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

A problematic issue for evolution.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:32:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
(I apologise for my inconsistency, but my spelling must be perfect.)

'Disevolutionism'

Also known as 'disevolution', it is a philosophical concept that makes a distinction between limb and feature. A limb being precise in relation to a particular animal/creature, and a feature being renown for a general ability which a species possess. An example of a limb would be an arm. An example of a feature would be the ability to lift.

Because the limb is precise and not general (as a species does not have limbs, rather features) this has become problematic for evolutionists. The evolutionary theory states that all biological life gradually evolves, due to the environment over millions of years. However for life to consist of macroevolution, new limbs must evolve to produce new features, rather than just improving on the species current and already exiting ones. For that matter, as a species as a whole does not have limbs but instead features, it is philosophically difficult to conceive how one species would evolve into another species.

Limbs are not visible since there is a consistent movement of a feature, the feature is always in use even when the feature is still. As features are being used, you cannot see the limb. The feature acts like a skin covering the limb. For evolution to proceed, new features must be applied to species current limbs which already consist of features. But when a feature adapts it merely improves, and therefore new limbs must evolve to feature new features. However limbs are subjective and precise, they are not consistent with a species as a whole. Due to that, a whole species cannot evolve new limbs but only new features, which are formed by individual animals/creatures. And in which cannot evolve new feature, because they cannot evolve new limbs. If they could, it has never been observed.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:33:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/10/2010 9:33:00 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Troll.

He's obviously trying to clog the Education forum with this.

End discussion.

.............................


Go away and believe in evolution.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:34:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"A limb being precise in relation to a particular animal/creature, and a feature being renown for a general ability which a species possess."

Possesses, not possess.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:34:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:33:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
Go away and believe in evolution.

Totally sigged.

And, again, what in the f*ck is this? It makes zero sense.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:35:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:33:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 6/10/2010 9:33:00 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
Troll.

He's obviously trying to clog the Education forum with this.

End discussion.

.............................


Go away and believe in evolution.

We know what you're doing.

You may also be trying to use "perfect" spelling. I proved you wrong.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:35:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:34:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/10/2010 9:33:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
Go away and believe in evolution.

Totally sigged.

And, again, what in the f*ck is this? It makes zero sense.

It's GodSands, remember.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:38:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:36:07 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I'm just kidding.

I'm not. I serious have no idea what this is supposed to be.

GS, you need to take a lesson or two in biology.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:46:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/10/2010 9:34:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/10/2010 9:33:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
Go away and believe in evolution.

Totally sigged.

And, again, what in the f*ck is this? It makes zero sense.


I am making a distinction between limb and feature. Which has happened to be a problem for evolution. This is because a species, which according to evolution evolves into a different one over millions of years, does not consist of limbs but rather only features, such as paws, its general sense of smell, the general sound it makes, whiskers etc... Therefore as evolution claims that the limbs evolve to consist of new feaure to evolve a new species from the current one, it doesn't seem to be philosophically correct since only precise animals/creature have limbs, which are not visible. Rather the feature is because it is in consistent use all of the time. So then how does one species evolve into another different species if the species must evolve new limbs to feature new feature.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features that already exists which grows from the certain animal in the womb, and a positive mutation would be a new limb with new features which grows in the womb. This has never been seen.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:49:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:46:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am making a distinction between limb and feature. Which has happened to be a problem for evolution. This is because a species, which according to evolution evolves into a different one over millions of years, does not consist of limbs but rather only features, such as paws, its general sense of smell, the general sound it makes, whiskers etc... Therefore as evolution claims that the limbs evolve to consist of new feaure to evolve a new species from the current one, it doesn't seem to be philosophically correct since only precise animals/creature have limbs, which are not visible. Rather the feature is because it is in consistent use all of the time. So then how does one species evolve into another different species if the species must evolve new limbs to feature new feature.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features that already exists which grows from the certain animal in the womb, and a positive mutation would be a new limb with new features which grows in the womb. This has never been seen.

Again, what the f*ck are you on about? I don't get where philosophy came into this.

And there is no "problem" here for evolution, because there isn't anything here to begin with!
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:49:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Copypasta from other thread....

I think Godsands is confusing philosophy and biology.

In any case, I'm having a hard time understanding your post, Godsands. For example, structurally, a monkey's arms and a human's arms are very similar. We do not, however, use our arms in the same way, because we adapt to our environments. I don't see the contradiction you're saying exists.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:51:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/10/2010 9:46:47 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 6/10/2010 9:34:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/10/2010 9:33:42 PM, GodSands wrote:
Go away and believe in evolution.

Totally sigged.

And, again, what in the f*ck is this? It makes zero sense.


I am making a distinction between limb and feature. Which has happened to be a problem for evolution. This is because a species, which according to evolution evolves into a different one over millions of years, does not consist of limbs but rather only features, such as paws, its general sense of smell, the general sound it makes, whiskers etc... Therefore as evolution claims that the limbs evolve to consist of new feaure to evolve a new species from the current one, it doesn't seem to be philosophically correct since only precise animals/creature have limbs, which are not visible. Rather the feature is because it is in consistent use all of the time. So then how does one species evolve into another different species if the species must evolve new limbs to feature new feature.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features that already exists which grows from the certain animal in the womb, and a positive mutation would be a new limb with new features which grows in the womb. This has never been seen.


For goodness sake, don't read the above.

I am making a distinction between limb and feature. Which has happened to be a problem for evolution. This is because a species, (which according to evolution evolves into a different one over millions of years) does not consist of limbs but rather only of features, such as paws, its general sense of smell, the general sound it makes, whiskers etc... Therefore as evolution claims that limbs evolve over time to consist of new features to evolve a new species from the current one, it doesn't seem to be philosophically correct since only precise animals/creatures have limbs, which are not visible. Rather the feature is the only thing visible because it is in consistent use all of the time. So then how does one species evolve into another different species if the species must evolve new limbs to feature new features.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features that already exists which grows from the certain animal in the womb, and a positive mutation would be a new limb with new features which grows in the womb. This has never been seen.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:53:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:51:38 PM, GodSands wrote:
For goodness sake, don't read the above.

OK. I shall read what's below.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features...

Huh?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:54:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/10/2010 9:53:23 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/10/2010 9:51:38 PM, GodSands wrote:
For goodness sake, don't read the above.

OK. I shall read what's below.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features...

Huh?


***Current***
Sorry.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 9:55:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:54:35 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 6/10/2010 9:53:23 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/10/2010 9:51:38 PM, GodSands wrote:
For goodness sake, don't read the above.

OK. I shall read what's below.

A negative mutation would be a limb with currect features...

Huh?


***Current***
Sorry.

Go make a new thread now, since you found another error.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 12:03:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can't take this lesson until you sort out your spelling, grammar and definition of basic terms. You need to evolve.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 4:48:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can't believe I'm even attempting to respond to this gubbish but...

When the "features" of a limb change, the function of the limb can change too. Almost all vertebrates (you might wanna look that one up) have four limbs but different features of those limbs within different species can give them the different functions of legs, arms and wings.

You may have noticed for example that although your feet and your hands have very different functions, they have a lot of similarities, try visualising your toes stretching out into fingers if it doesn't freak you out too much.

Most "lower" mammals have four legs but our closest relatives, the primates have developed oppossable thumbs like us from standing up on their back legs and manipulating objects.

A wing is basically an arm (or leg) with a huge skeletal hand (or foot) and flaps of skin (kind of like webbed feet) stretched across the digits plus feathers on top.

These changes develop very slowly over time as different animals adapt for different purposes, in the way that people on this site have been trying to explain to you for over a year now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 9:40:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 4:28:23 AM, GodSands wrote:
Why don't you read over it a few time, and are you prepared to deny the fact that evolution might not actually exist?

I have a vested interest in denying evolution, construct a valid argument for evolution not being true and I will read it. But at least attempt to put it in English, your have spammed gibberish. I am not interested. But then you have absolutely no idea what evolution is.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 10:53:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 9:32:00 PM, GodSands wrote:
(I apologise for my inconsistency, but my spelling must be perfect.)

'Disevolutionism'

Also known as 'disevolution', it is a philosophical concept that makes a distinction between limb and feature. A limb being precise in relation to a particular animal/creature, and a feature being renown for a general ability which a species possess. An example of a limb would be an arm. An example of a feature would be the ability to lift.

Link me to the concept, because A) you've just made it up, or B) It's more Creationist 'science' BS.


Because the limb is precise and not general (as a species does not have limbs, rather features) this has become problematic for evolutionists. The evolutionary theory states that all biological life gradually evolves, due to the environment over millions of years. However for life to consist of macroevolution, new limbs must evolve to produce new features, rather than just improving on the species current and already exiting ones. For that matter, as a species as a whole does not have limbs but instead features, it is philosophically difficult to conceive how one species would evolve into another species.

Snakes have small limbs on their back which cannot be generally seen. These stubs are a result of the Snakes evolution from four-legged lizards, as they are a descendant of lizards. As you can see, the snake is losing it's limbs in the process of evolution. Watch video please to understand the concept of the evolution of limbs.


Limbs are not visible since there is a consistent movement of a feature, the feature is always in use even when the feature is still. As features are being used, you cannot see the limb. The feature acts like a skin covering the limb. For evolution to proceed, new features must be applied to species current limbs which already consist of features. But when a feature adapts it merely improves, and therefore new limbs must evolve to feature new features. However limbs are subjective and precise, they are not consistent with a species as a whole. Due to that, a whole species cannot evolve new limbs but only new features, which are formed by individual animals/creatures. And in which cannot evolve new feature, because they cannot evolve new limbs. If they could, it has never been observed.

Basically, what you're saying is an animal requires limbs to have more features...

Is this like creationists trying to define 'kinds' and 'sorts' of animals?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.