Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

[Biological] Evolution (CoRaST)

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 12:45:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, everyone!

((NOTE: Whenever I say evolution I mean [biological] evolution.))

First, allow me to define some terms:

[Biological] Evolution: The change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. (Some people might call this microevolution...not sure why you'd change terms randomly like that but...)

Speciation: The evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. (Some people apparently call this macroevolution. Again, not sure why the biological terms change randomly outside of evolutionary biology but hey hoe...)

Genetic Mutation: Any change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element.

Natural Selection: The gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.

Variation: The level of biodiversity, refers to the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species.

[Biological] Adaptation: A trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.

So, this a chance for everyone to point out flaws in evolution, either very minor that are being worked on by evolutionary biologists or huge flaws that cripple evolutionary theory! Please just post what's wrong with it and try to exclude bias.

Creationists, budding biologists, anyone - this is the forum! I'm placing it in religion for the Creationists' sake, mostly.

Please use the correct terms and don't semantically change them!

Thanks in advance everyone,

J
retroman000
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 2:39:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are a few minor things about evolution that I don't understand fully, if I may ask you about them.
First of all, I know that genes can be duplicated and then mutated, but that doesn't seem like a very reliable way of acquiring new information in an organism's genome. Are there any other ways of acquiring new information as opposed to changing already existing information?
Why was it beneficial for therapsids to evolve fur and somewhat thinner skin? What would be the evolutionary benefits of this?
Why are humans so relatively hairless compared to other primates? I understand that we could engineer clothing, thus making the hairlessness a null point, but we would have no need to engineer clothing if we had hair, only if we needed a method of keeping warm due to our hairlessness. If we developed clothing after losing hair, then, what evolutionary pressure would there be for individuals with less hair?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 3:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 2:39:13 PM, retroman000 wrote:
Are there any other ways of acquiring new information as opposed to changing already existing information?

Of course. Here's an example:

aahrf

That is a 5-character string that, informationally, could be compressed slightly due the duplication of the 'a' characters at the start. We could change it to:

ahhrf

And we would have an equally compressible but informationally different string. But, I concede, whilst this is different information, it isn't strictly new information in the sense of 'more'. So how about we change it to:

achrf

Now we have new information in a string that cannot be compressed in the way the previous ones could. This is both different - i.e. distinct from - and new - something that was not present previously. But it is not more information, I agree. So:

achrft

Here we have a string that meets all criteria; it is different, it contains new information and it contains more information. If these are now all the necessary and sufficient criteria for acquiring new information, I would suggest that there are no grounds for doing so.

Why was it beneficial for therapsids to evolve fur and somewhat thinner skin? What would be the evolutionary benefits of this?

At a guess, fur is a better dynamic insulator. It can keep heat in, but it is more flexible than skin at losing excess heat effectively because the heat it contains is less 'tied' to the organism. A thinner skin would be in response to the slightly higher surface temperature of the body below the fur and the increased energy cost of growing fur in the first place.

There are probably studies on this, but I am not familiar with them. If not, I look forward to my Nobel Prize.

Why are humans so relatively hairless compared to other primates? I understand that we could engineer clothing, thus making the hairlessness a null point, but we would have no need to engineer clothing if we had hair, only if we needed a method of keeping warm due to our hairlessness. If we developed clothing after losing hair, then, what evolutionary pressure would there be for individuals with less hair?

You are assuming that hair and clothing are equally good at performing the task in question. You're also assuming that the individuals in question stayed in a fixed environment. What works well near the equator does not necessarily work well near the poles and individuals that exhibit greater tolerance for the differences will be able to better utilise a greater amount of resources and adapt to a wider range of opportunities. Over time, these differences lead to preferential selection towards one side, which in turn leads to genetic drift and, over long enough times and diverse enough environments, evolution and speciation.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nice reply, Graincruncher!

CoRaST will prevail! I particularly want to introduce it to the younger population of America, where religious bias, influence and distortions are strong, indeed.
retroman000
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 4:38:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you very much, Graincruncher. I was hoping to have an answer to those questions, and I'm glad to see there are ones. Happy I got here before my legitimate questions got blown out the wayside by the creationist brigade.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:03:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 4:38:45 PM, retroman000 wrote:
Thank you very much, Graincruncher. I was hoping to have an answer to those questions, and I'm glad to see there are ones. Happy I got here before my legitimate questions got blown out the wayside by the creationist brigade.

No problem at all. I actually quite enjoy the reasoning involved in evolutionary questions like that, so it was no bother. Sad but true about the last part though; reasonable, insightful dissidence is easily lost amongst the madness and drivel. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that wasn't part of the agenda, tbh.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:38:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."

What is idiotic; people making points, asking questions and giving answers? You're right, this isn't the correct website for that at all. Try reading the thread again and then consider giving posting another go.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:12:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:38:48 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."

What is idiotic; people making points, asking questions and giving answers? You're right, this isn't the correct website for that at all. Try reading the thread again and then consider giving posting another go.

What's idiotic is posting this in the religion forum, thereby not solely discussing various aspects of evolution (which is fine), but infusing it with religion.

This thread is more suited towards the science section.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:31:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:12:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:38:48 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."

What is idiotic; people making points, asking questions and giving answers? You're right, this isn't the correct website for that at all. Try reading the thread again and then consider giving posting another go.

What's idiotic is posting this in the religion forum, thereby not solely discussing various aspects of evolution (which is fine), but infusing it with religion.

This thread is more suited towards the science section.

I am sure, if the lord provides, there could be two that were approaching the issue from different angles. Or the same ones, but involving different people, according to who participates in which forum?

You seem overly upset by what is only the location of a thread on an internet forum. I'd suggest just letting it go, as the world is likely to keep turning.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:56:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:31:27 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:12:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:38:48 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."

What is idiotic; people making points, asking questions and giving answers? You're right, this isn't the correct website for that at all. Try reading the thread again and then consider giving posting another go.

What's idiotic is posting this in the religion forum, thereby not solely discussing various aspects of evolution (which is fine), but infusing it with religion.

This thread is more suited towards the science section.

I am sure, if the lord provides, there could be two that were approaching the issue from different angles. Or the same ones, but involving different people, according to who participates in which forum?

wut?

You seem overly upset by what is only the location of a thread on an internet forum. I'd suggest just letting it go, as the world is likely to keep turning.

Nah, I'm always like this. Mostly because almost everybody is an idiot.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 3:14:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Knuckle, please read the OP. The point of this being on the religion forum is to try and help certain Creationists see why they're wrong. We can't just insult them; it won't get us anywhere.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 3:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:56:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
wut?

There can quite easily be more than one thread about the subject, in more than one forum.

Nah, I'm always like this. Mostly because almost everybody is an idiot.

You're always an idiot because almost everybody is an idiot?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:13:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have the ability for complex organs like hearts and brains to develop through generations been observed or experimented with?

Have the ability for single-celled organisms to develop into mulch-celled organism been observed or experimented with?

I am only asking for the ability. Not the actual thing happening.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:35:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 6:13:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Have the ability for complex organs like hearts and brains to develop through generations been observed or experimented with?

Have the ability for single-celled organisms to develop into mulch-celled organism been observed or experimented with?

I am only asking for the ability. Not the actual thing happening.

And you're either too ignorant on the subject to comment or too dishonest to be listened to; the only way that ability could be demonstrated would be observing the actual thing happening, as well you know. We have plenty of evidence supporting those things. It doesn't matter how loud, ignorant or angry creationists get about it, the evidence is still there and you're only making yourselves look like ever-bigger fools by persisting with such dishonest, willful stupidity.

Stop wasting everyone's time and either shut up or educate yourself on the topic. Honestly, it's like talking to a petulant child, with you lot.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:41:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 6:35:29 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:13:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Have the ability for complex organs like hearts and brains to develop through generations been observed or experimented with?

Have the ability for single-celled organisms to develop into mulch-celled organism been observed or experimented with?

I am only asking for the ability. Not the actual thing happening.

And you're either too ignorant on the subject to comment or too dishonest to be listened to; the only way that ability could be demonstrated would be observing the actual thing happening, as well you know. We have plenty of evidence supporting those things. It doesn't matter how loud, ignorant or angry creationists get about it, the evidence is still there and you're only making yourselves look like ever-bigger fools by persisting with such dishonest, willful stupidity.

Stop wasting everyone's time and either shut up or educate yourself on the topic. Honestly, it's like talking to a petulant child, with you lot.

Why the hostility? Science is about questioning, not defending.

I am only asking for scientific evidence for those critical steps in the evolutionary model.
If not being able to find them is being ignorant, then so be it.

Also, you are assuming that I am a creationist, which is untrue.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 7:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 6:41:41 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Why the hostility? Science is about questioning, not defending.

The only people stupid enough to believe your protests of innocence already agree with your position. Science may be about questioning, but it is also in need of defending against the dishonest agenda of creationism.

Also, you are assuming that I am a creationist, which is untrue.

If you're about to smugly say something about Intelligent Design, I suggest you:

1) Don't.
2) Read about the origins of ID.
3) Educate yourself as to what the scientific method is and why both variants are equally invalid.

And the hostility, btw, is because you fools are ruining the planet with your vile agenda, constant lies and magical bigotry.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 8:23:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 7:23:36 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:41:41 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Why the hostility? Science is about questioning, not defending.

The only people stupid enough to believe your protests of innocence already agree with your position. Science may be about questioning, but it is also in need of defending against the dishonest agenda of creationism.

Also, you are assuming that I am a creationist, which is untrue.

If you're about to smugly say something about Intelligent Design, I suggest you:

1) Don't.
2) Read about the origins of ID.
3) Educate yourself as to what the scientific method is and why both variants are equally invalid.

And the hostility, btw, is because you fools are ruining the planet with your vile agenda, constant lies and magical bigotry.

Colourful, but surprisingly accurate.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 8:27:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 6:13:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Have the ability for complex organs like hearts and brains to develop through generations been observed or experimented with?

If you mean: "have we seen organs evolve?" then the answer is clearly no. Changes as large as that would take many, many years.

Have the ability for single-celled organisms to develop into muty-celled organism been observed or experimented with?

Not sure. I'd ask your nearest University.

I am only asking for the ability. Not the actual thing happening.

Ability to do what? To evolve? We've seen "the actual thing" happening for both speciation and natural selection.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 2:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 7:23:36 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:41:41 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Why the hostility? Science is about questioning, not defending.

The only people stupid enough to believe your protests of innocence already agree with your position. Science may be about questioning, but it is also in need of defending against the dishonest agenda of creationism.

Also, you are assuming that I am a creationist, which is untrue.

If you're about to smugly say something about Intelligent Design, I suggest you:

1) Don't.
2) Read about the origins of ID.
3) Educate yourself as to what the scientific method is and why both variants are equally invalid.

And the hostility, btw, is because you fools are ruining the planet with your vile agenda, constant lies and magical bigotry.

Lol. An evolutionaut trying to prevent discussion.
Seriously dude, take a chill pill and let go of your problems.

And again, you are making assumptions. I found them entertaining, especially the one about a creationist cult conspiring to destroy humanity by having an alternative opinion. I believe ID is unscientific. I am simply honest enough to admit that I don't know rather than bandwagon something I find unconvincing.

At 10/1/2013 8:27:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:13:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Have the ability for complex organs like hearts and brains to develop through generations been observed or experimented with?

If you mean: "have we seen organs evolve?" then the answer is clearly no. Changes as large as that would take many, many years.

Then how can we know organs can evolve? And how does the scientific methods apply to this?

Have the ability for single-celled organisms to develop into muty-celled organism been observed or experimented with?:
Not sure. I'd ask your nearest University.

Assuming the answer is no, and the method of discovery is the same as above, this is a repeated question.

I am only asking for the ability. Not the actual thing happening.

Ability to do what? To evolve? We've seen "the actual thing" happening for both speciation and natural selection.

The theory of evolution makes an extra ordinary claim, which would unfortunately require extra ordinary evidence.
So have the mechanisms claimed to perform evolution proven such feats in their known functions?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 3:58:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 2:35:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Lol. An evolutionaut trying to prevent discussion.

I have always found it slightly amusing that creationists seem to all live in the playground when it comes to making up hilarious names for people who have evidence that they themselves lack. I can only assume that a complete lack of credibility is one of the primary goals of evolution-deniers.

And again, you are making assumptions. I found them entertaining, especially the one about a creationist cult conspiring to destroy humanity by having an alternative opinion. I believe ID is unscientific. I am simply honest enough to admit that I don't know rather than bandwagon something I find unconvincing.

You can make up words and claim I said them as much as you like. I actually take it as a compliment, since you do the same for god. There is no bandwagonning going on; if that were the case, statistically, I would be religious, wouldn't I?

If there any more points you'd like to make to undermine your own position, please feel free.

Then how can we know organs can evolve? And how does the scientific methods apply to this?

So... you haven't heard of DNA and/or don't know the role it plays in the development of an organism. Yet you feel equipped to have an opinion on the validity of a theory that relies on such knowledge. Interesting. Here's a clue: what is it that tells heart cells to become heart cells? Here's another one: what is the mechanism & medium for genetic change, as proposed by evolutionary theory?

For the hard of brain, the answer is that the changes take place to the DNA and the DNA informs organ formation. If we can show that the genetic material of an organism can evolve - which we have done, repeatedly - we can show that the things that said DNA codes for can also evolve.

If you find yourself seriously needing answers to questions like "what is DNA?" or "what is the scientific method?", you shouldn't have the audacity to pipe up as if you have a valid opinion. I'm sure now you're already part-way through thinking "but I do understand the scientific method!". If that is the case, why are you unable to apply it here? What is it that you find an obstacle to its application in evolutionary biology? Why do you discount the many, many thousands of previous applications, by people with PhDs, professional experimental design proposals and major budgets to ensure that other variables than the one under examination are not influencing the results?

The theory of evolution makes an extra ordinary claim, which would unfortunately require extra ordinary evidence.

What are these claims? What would such evidence need to be? Or are you sticking to 'vague, faux confidence' where you aren't going to get explicitly caught out?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 9:27:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 3:58:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/1/2013 2:35:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Lol. An evolutionaut trying to prevent discussion.

I have always found it slightly amusing that creationists seem to all live in the playground when it comes to making up hilarious names for people who have evidence that they themselves lack. I can only assume that a complete lack of credibility is one of the primary goals of evolution-deniers.

Like you are any better. You believe a slow zero IQ entity magically created life, assembled nature, and maintained the biological system. Really, the same result, only slower and infinitely lucky.

I mean, if you really have so much proof, wouldn't it be simple to present it from the first place? Dude, present the damn credibility alreadyy.

And again, you are making assumptions. I found them entertaining, especially the one about a creationist cult conspiring to destroy humanity by having an alternative opinion. I believe ID is unscientific. I am simply honest enough to admit that I don't know rather than bandwagon something I find unconvincing.

You can make up words and claim I said them as much as you like. I actually take it as a compliment, since you do the same for god. There is no bandwagonning going on; if that were the case, statistically, I would be religious, wouldn't I?

If there any more points you'd like to make to undermine your own position, please feel free.

Aaaand... We're back to the assumption game!
You aren't really being clear. Are you accusing me of being part of the said cult? Gosh, no wonder you were so hostile. I am not trying to destroy humanity, I promise!

Also, why are you denying something I never accused you of? Calm down, I am sure you have some valid basis for your belief in evolution.

Then how can we know organs can evolve? And how does the scientific methods apply to this?

So... you haven't heard of DNA and/or don't know the role it plays in the development of an organism. Yet you feel equipped to have an opinion on the validity of a theory that relies on such knowledge. Interesting. Here's a clue: what is it that tells heart cells to become heart cells? Here's another one: what is the mechanism & medium for genetic change, as proposed by evolutionary theory?

For the hard of brain, the answer is that the changes take place to the DNA and the DNA informs organ formation. If we can show that the genetic material of an organism can evolve - which we have done, repeatedly - we can show that the things that said DNA codes for can also evolve.

If you find yourself seriously needing answers to questions like "what is DNA?" or "what is the scientific method?", you shouldn't have the audacity to pipe up as if you have a valid opinion. I'm sure now you're already part-way through thinking "but I do understand the scientific method!". If that is the case, why are you unable to apply it here? What is it that you find an obstacle to its application in evolutionary biology? Why do you discount the many, many thousands of previous applications, by people with PhDs, professional experimental design proposals and major budgets to ensure that other variables than the one under examination are not influencing the results?

Red herring is a smelly fish, dragged across the trail of the fox in order to mislead the dogs. I shall ignore you assumptions and ad hominem attacks.
Species go through change in their genetic pool over time, I never disagreed with that. However, the evidence that you used, is not even remotely close to the evolution we are talking about, I am asking for proof that organs like the heart, eyes, or brain can evolve. If that is really the only evidence you can provide, then please present steps of how an organ of your choosing is created through evolution.

I find it weird how the scientific method is applied without observation or experimentation. All I see are hypotheses and protoscience. How can we test or reach a conclusion?

The theory of evolution makes an extra ordinary claim, which would unfortunately require extra ordinary evidence.

What are these claims? What would such evidence need to be? Or are you sticking to 'vague, faux confidence' where you aren't going to get explicitly caught out?

That single celled organisms became multi-celled organisms. That fully-equipped land mammals who took a swim and never came back become dolphins and whales, wasting millions of years of evolution since sharks weren't so bad after all. That biological systems come from organs that evolve through small steps over thousands if not millions of years.
Something that applies to the scientific method would be good evidence. Although I would give fossil evidence a pass. Just present me the most convincing pieces of evidence you know of that confirms the theory of evolution.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 10:10:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 9:27:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/2/2013 3:58:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/1/2013 2:35:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Lol. An evolutionaut trying to prevent discussion.

I have always found it slightly amusing that creationists seem to all live in the playground when it comes to making up hilarious names for people who have evidence that they themselves lack. I can only assume that a complete lack of credibility is one of the primary goals of evolution-deniers.

Like you are any better. You believe a slow zero IQ entity magically created life, assembled nature, and maintained the biological system. Really, the same result, only slower and infinitely lucky.

I believe that over long periods of time, adding enough grains of sand will eventually take you from a pile to a heap to a beach. You think that the sand will re-organise itself by magic to prevent these otherwise statistically probable outcomes from occurring. Which is more credible - the heaps getting bigger and more complex or somehow remaining the same size and complexity, despite the addition of further grains?

I mean, if you really have so much proof, wouldn't it be simple to present it from the first place? Dude, present the damn credibility alreadyy.

It has been presented. It is the basis for multiple fields of study, both theoretical and applied. What creationists don't seem to understand is that they literally might as well be shouting that white is black, at this point. It is a settled issue. There are mountains of evidence for it. There are many accurate predictions that have been correct. The entire informed world understands this. The ONLY people who deny it are those who are fundamentalist idiots. If you don't like being called an idiot, you can do one of two things; either shut up when it comes to topics you're very ignorant of or educate yourself about them. Doing neither is the intellectual equivalent of pathetic mewling when people say they can't see your imaginary friend.

So, to reiterate; those who are actually open to reason have already been presented with this evidence and accepted it, due to its overwhelming and carefully controlled nature. You, who obviously have an emotional investment in the matter, are pretending to be a supporter of scientific enquiry only because science has given some results that you don't like. Well tough titty - neither science nor I cares about your feelings enough to change reality for you. Sorry, but you can make as much noise and a fool of yourself as you want, but that isn't going to change the fact. The evidence is out there. You can go and find it and poke it and ask experts about it. Instead, you avoid addressing points that show up your ignorance and lack of logical rigor. I think this speaks volumes about how interested you really are in an honest and studious appraisal of the evidence and arguments available.

Aaaand... We're back to the assumption game!
You aren't really being clear. Are you accusing me of being part of the said cult? Gosh, no wonder you were so hostile. I am not trying to destroy humanity, I promise!

I am saying that I think it a reasonable assumption that you believe in god, most likely the Abrahamic one and are making all the noises associated with the creationist brigade. If this is not the case, I would suggest that you behave differently, so as not to give the false impression of the above.

Red herring is a smelly fish, dragged across the trail of the fox in order to mislead the dogs. I shall ignore you assumptions and ad hominem attacks.
Species go through change in their genetic pool over time, I never disagreed with that. However, the evidence that you used, is not even remotely close to the evolution we are talking about, I am asking for proof that organs like the heart, eyes, or brain can evolve. If that is really the only evidence you can provide, then please present steps of how an organ of your choosing is created through evolution.

There are countless examples of such explanations, step-by-step, readily available for anyone who has the slightest genuine interest in the subject. The fact you're unaware of them would fit with my accusation that you don't have the slightest genuine interest in the subject. What you are talking about is irreducible complexity and it has been debunked so thoroughly that books supporting it find their examples being rebutted before the books even reach the shelves. You give eyes as an example. Now, before I go on, I'll give you a chance to confess; have you or have you not done a substantial amount of research into the subject, having read at least the basic core texts?

I'll be fair; you haven't. We all know you haven't. You keep proving you haven't. I know this, because I own one of the most basic core texts on the topic and know for a fact that it gives an extensive account of why the eye is not irreducibly complex.

I find it weird how the scientific method is applied without observation or experimentation. All I see are hypotheses and protoscience. How can we test or reach a conclusion?

Would you care to answer my question re: why the scientific method isn't applicable to evolutionary biology, where the evidence falls short and why you think the above?

That single celled organisms became multi-celled organisms.

You find it hard to believe that single-celled organisms, which are KNOWN to have very high rates of genetic mutation and population density, could end up combining? You find that SO hard to believe that you dismiss thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence that corroborate evolutionary theory?

That fully-equipped land mammals who took a swim and never came back become dolphins and whales, wasting millions of years of evolution since sharks weren't so bad after all.

I was not aware that evolution makes such a claim. Could you perhaps quote any evolutionary biologists who suggests that "fully-equipped land mammals who took a swim and never came back became dolphins and whales"?

That biological systems come from organs that evolve through small steps over thousands if not millions of years.

Or billions. Biological systems are networks of material that evolves via small steps over time, we have observed this and documented it. You find something that we know to happen to be incredible if run over much longer periods of time? Why do you find that so hard to believe? Does the pile of sand not get a bit bigger with each grain? Will it not one day be large enough to be considered a beach or a desert? Do you also disbelieve in geological erosion, plate tectonics, stellar development, compound interest and myriad other examples of the exact same principle?

Something that applies to the scientific method would be good evidence. Although I would give fossil evidence a pass. Just present me the most convincing pieces of evidence you know of that confirms the theory of evolution.

The fact that we have observed, based on predictions made long before the evidence was available to us, evolution taking place. That's a good one. The fact that you dismiss fossil evidence is yet further proof that you don't have a genuine interest in the issue, haven't got even a basic grasp of it and are here only to spread more lies and disruption. It's like talking to Ken Ham, only I'm not drenched in blood and dancing around wearing his beard as a trophy. That is to say: a waste of my time to interact with someone who is both stupid AND dishonest.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 4:51:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 10:10:26 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

I believe that over long periods of time, adding enough grains of sand will eventually take you from a pile to a heap to a beach. You think that the sand will re-organise itself by magic to prevent these otherwise statistically probable outcomes from occurring. Which is more credible - the heaps getting bigger and more complex or somehow remaining the same size and complexity, despite the addition of further grains?

I really hope for your own sake that you are aware of false analogy. Either way, just an indoctrinated blind evolutionaut. People like you just gave up their last shread of skepticism and reality, you are ready to believe a series of some of the most improbable events imaginable while lacking actual proof.

I mean, if you really have so much proof, wouldn't it be simple to present it from the first place? Dude, present the damn credibility alreadyy.

Blabbering cut for space. You may read it above.

Seriously, it is just so sad. Look, you already put yourself in a group. You are not an acting like an indvidual, neither are you thinking like one. When asked a question, you choose to question my intelligence and put any possible red herring distraction from the question imaginable from attacking religion to personal attacks rather than answering it, you repeat something you memorize and ask me to read sources. Seriously, have you ever questioned anything? Are you interested in discussing evolution at all? Your #1 priority is to defend evolution at all cost. Oh, I am sorry! I meant to question you dogma because I have the right to do so, idiot.

I am saying that I think it a reasonable assumption that you believe in god, most likely the Abrahamic one and are making all the noises associated with the creationist brigade. If this is not the case, I would suggest that you behave differently, so as not to give the false impression of the above.

And what does this have to do with evolution? Oh! This must be a cop-out mechanism... Interesting. Someone evolved that for you?


There are countless examples of such explanations, step-by-step, readily available for anyone who has the slightest genuine interest in the subject. The fact you're unaware of them would fit with my accusation that you don't have the slightest genuine interest in the subject. What you are talking about is irreducible complexity and it has been debunked so thoroughly that books supporting it find their examples being rebutted before the books even reach the shelves. You give eyes as an example. Now, before I go on, I'll give you a chance to confess; have you or have you not done a substantial amount of research into the subject, having read at least the basic core texts?

Really? What do you have? Richard Dawkins assembling a toy of an eye composed of five parts, piece by piece, in order to demonstrate how an eye evolved in hundreds of thousands of steps and parts randomly?
I fear I may die of laughter if you present the mouse trap. The same fantasy that an evolutionaut like you would desperately suck up. You are simply in a state of worship. You believe the know it all people you admire so much's stuff is so great, then learn it and stop being a robot, and perhaps there is the probability that we would have a discussion.

And oh no! I didn't heard anything about evolution, but I know! There is this one 5th grader who can help me understand something so complex as the concept of gradual genetic change bringing diversity and all species into the bio-system.

I'll be fair; you haven't. We all know you haven't. You keep proving you haven't. I know this, because I own one of the most basic core texts on the topic and know for a fact that it gives an extensive account of why the eye is not irreducibly complex.

*Proposed reaction*: Oh no! The sacred holy text! I am defeated!
*Actual reaction*: And?


Would you care to answer my question re: why the scientific method isn't applicable to evolutionary biology, where the evidence falls short and why you think the above?

Are you really that dense? Let me simplify it.

Evolutionist method: "Propose a possibility during the absence of any evidence"
Which evolves into->
Science fiction: "Stories about how people and societies are affected by imaginary scientific developments in the future"

This is inferior to:

Scientific method: "Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

That single celled organisms became multi-celled organisms.

You find it hard to believe that single-celled organisms, which are KNOWN to have very high rates of genetic mutation and population density, could end up combining? You find that SO hard to believe that you dismiss thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence that corroborate evolutionary theory?

There are thousands of evidence that genetic mutations can cause single-celled organism to combine? Enlighten me with scientific data.
I apologize for not losing the last shred of skepticism I have because of my dogma. I am not into theater work, so I am not really that good at suspension of disbelief.


I was not aware that evolution makes such a claim. Could you perhaps quote any evolutionary biologists who suggests that "fully-equipped land mammals who took a swim and never came back became dolphins and whales"?

http://www.reuters.com...

"Proposed" "Suggested" "May". Typical words to find in an evolution article. I find it funny when they add the contradicting word of "Discovered".
They are not letting the observation lead them, they are trying to fit observations into supporting evidence, which I have to admit that it is amusing.

That biological systems come from organs that evolve through small steps over thousands if not millions of years.

Blabbering cut for space.

We have observed it! Surely a video must have been made to document this glorious moment!
Comparing ultra-complex machinery with identical particles of sands. Must be living in La-La Land! I apologize for my failure at preventing that pesky skepticism... I try to be hallucinogens-free... :(

Something that applies to the scientific method would be good evidence. Although I would give fossil evidence a pass. Just present me the most convincing pieces of evidence you know of that confirms the theory of evolution.

The fact that we have observed, based on predictions made long before the evidence was available to us, evolution taking place. That's a good one. The fact that you dismiss fossil evidence is yet further proof that you don't have a genuine interest in the issue, haven't got even a basic grasp of it and are here only to spread more lies and disruption. It's like talking to Ken Ham, only I'm not drenched in blood and dancing around wearing his beard as a trophy. That is to say: a waste of my time to interact with someone who is both stupid AND dishonest.

I didn't dismiss fossil evidence, I accepted it for the sake of argument since it is not real science. Sheesh, don't hold fossils in such high regard.
I see... Heresy! The philosophical atrocity, the blessed and holy, Richard Dawkins said that evolution have not been observed, are you suggesting he is wrong? Read a book!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 5:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 4:51:33 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I really hope for your own sake that you are aware of false analogy. Either way, just an indoctrinated blind evolutionaut. People like you just gave up their last shread of skepticism and reality, you are ready to believe a series of some of the most improbable events imaginable while lacking actual proof.

I notice you didn't answer the question I asked and instead opted for abuse. Interesting.

Seriously, it is just so sad. Look, you already put yourself in a group. You are not an acting like an indvidual, neither are you thinking like one. When asked a question, you choose to question my intelligence and put any possible red herring distraction from the question imaginable from attacking religion to personal attacks rather than answering it, you repeat something you memorize and ask me to read sources. Seriously, have you ever questioned anything? Are you interested in discussing evolution at all? Your #1 priority is to defend evolution at all cost. Oh, I am sorry! I meant to question you dogma because I have the right to do so, idiot.

So I should take it you will not be addressing any of what you 'cut for space'?

And what does this have to do with evolution? Oh! This must be a cop-out mechanism... Interesting. Someone evolved that for you?

Nothing. I has everything to do with the comment you made and that my response was to, though. Which, I once again note, you haven't actually addressed. Interesting.

Really? What do you have? Richard Dawkins assembling a toy of an eye composed of five parts, piece by piece, in order to demonstrate how an eye evolved in hundreds of thousands of steps and parts randomly?

If you had studied the literature to the extent to which you seem to suggest you have, you would know 'what I have'. There are accounts of the evolution of the eye - of which the Dawkins example is a necessarily abridged version - that show it is not irreducibly complex. Have you addressed these accounts? Are you gong to answer any of my questions or just keep demanding answers to objections to points I have not made?

I fear I may die of laughter if you present the mouse trap. The same fantasy that an evolutionaut like you would desperately suck up. You are simply in a state of worship. You believe the know it all people you admire so much's stuff is so great, then learn it and stop being a robot, and perhaps there is the probability that we would have a discussion.

I believe that people who have dedicated their lives to studying a topic may have some authority on it. What is interesting is that you do not. Would you care to explain why?

And oh no! I didn't heard anything about evolution, but I know! There is this one 5th grader who can help me understand something so complex as the concept of gradual genetic change bringing diversity and all species into the bio-system.

If someone a couple of years older than you is willing to help you better understand something at school, you probably should take them up on the offer.

*Proposed reaction*: Oh no! The sacred holy text! I am defeated!
*Actual reaction*: And?

While we are all doubtless very grateful for you taking us through your proposed and actual reactions, I don't think you'll find many people sympathetic to the argument "no, I haven't read the core texts on the subject but I still feel I have the authority to discuss the topic as if I were an expert in it". If you want to stick with that, that's you're call. I just think you'd be better trying another angle.

Are you really that dense? Let me simplify it.

One of us is, certainly. Let's have a look at this:

Evolutionist method: "Propose a possibility during the absence of any evidence"
Which evolves into->
Science fiction: "Stories about how people and societies are affected by imaginary scientific developments in the future"

Would you care to provide an example of this being stated? Because evolutionary biology, being interested in things that have already happened, only tends to talk about the future as part of hypothetical projections which it then tests. And - guess what! - they are very often right.

This is inferior to:

Scientific method: "Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"

You are correct, a non-scientific approach such as creationism is not science. Well done, you have just agreed with me completely. The fact that you don't realise you've done so is the true mark of an ignorant fool. You can, of course, reply to this with an "I know you are, but what am I?" response if that's the best you can scrape up. Or you could address some points I've raised. I'm kidding! I know you won't do that.

There are thousands of evidence that genetic mutations can cause single-celled organism to combine? Enlighten me with scientific data.

I would expect someone who feels confident enough to comment on the subject to already be familiar with said evidence. Are you not? Have you never studied cellular biology? Evolution? Genetics? Evidently not. Here's the summary: lots of similar things that are undergoing changes in close proximity run a significant chance of accidentally interacting. If you think this principle is unsound, I would point you towards the entirety of physics, chemistry and biology as starting points.

I apologize for not losing the last shred of skepticism I have because of my dogma. I am not into theater work, so I am not really that good at suspension of disbelief.

Oooooh, I think you're being hard on yourself. There are plenty of plays that have a part that's a clueless blowhard. You could be raking it in with your, uh, talents.

"Proposed" "Suggested" "May". Typical words to find in an evolution article. I find it funny when they add the contradicting word of "Discovered".
They are not letting the observation lead them, they are trying to fit observations into supporting evidence, which I have to admit that it is amusing.

Yes, it is amusing how the people you're saying are making absolute statements based on no evidence do the exact opposite of that with painstaking care. Do you know why it is amusing?

I notice you didn't respond to my request for evidence of evolutionary biologists making the claims you said they do. Interesting.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 5:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Blabbering cut for space.

That's interesting, too. You selected one sentence out of a paragraph of questions that you did not answer. Is that not somewhat... dishonest? Misleading? Why would you do such a thing?

We have observed it! Surely a video must have been made to document this glorious moment!

There is very detailed data recording the process. I suspect that no-one really felt like watching a 20-year video of the process, though. Would decades of rigorous statistical book-keeping be satisfactory? Interesting that you think it was a planned event; do you think all evolutionary biologists are part of a conspiracy to undermine whatever insane waffle it is that has turned you into such an unpleasant, ignorant failure?

Comparing ultra-complex machinery with identical particles of sands. Must be living in La-La Land! I apologize for my failure at preventing that pesky skepticism... I try to be hallucinogens-free... :(

Identical particles of sand? Please do show me some. And indeed, evolutionary biology is potentially faster to act that simply adding grains of sand, as there is a retroactive impact potential to each addition. If you could try a bit harder to be hallucinogens-free for the rest of the thread, that would be grand.

I didn't dismiss fossil evidence, I accepted it for the sake of argument since it is not real science.

A hypothesis that is made at a time when the person proposing it is ignorant of the modern fossil record yet still makes accurate predictions is not a scientifically valid piece of evidence? Seriously?

Sheesh, don't hold fossils in such high regard.

I hold them, on intellectual terms, more highly than I hold you. And they are rocks.

I see... Heresy! The philosophical atrocity, the blessed and holy, Richard Dawkins said that evolution have not been observed, are you suggesting he is wrong? Read a book!

Which book was this and when was it written? Because - and I'm sorry if you find this unsettling - but as time passes, things change.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."

I can never understand what makes you think that scientists are the only ones that have the authority to point out flaws in a theory
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 6:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 5:32:17 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:35:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is idiotic. Evolution is as dogmatic in the scientific community as religion is with retards; the only difference is that evolution has facts supporting it.

Pointing out "flaws" is something to be done by PhD researchers, not impressionable retards who think "Hurr durr.... since scientists don't know X or Y, evolution MUST be false."

I can never understand what makes you think that scientists are the only ones that have the authority to point out flaws in a theory

Because scientists understand this stuff. I don't have the authority to point out X and Y about the mathematics about quantum mechanics because I know jack sh!t about them. In the same way, most people here have no authority to point out "flaws" in evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 1:28:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 2:35:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/1/2013 7:23:36 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:41:41 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Why the hostility? Science is about questioning, not defending.

The only people stupid enough to believe your protests of innocence already agree with your position. Science may be about questioning, but it is also in need of defending against the dishonest agenda of creationism.



At 10/1/2013 8:27:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:13:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Have the ability for complex organs like hearts and brains to develop through generations been observed or experimented with?

If you mean: "have we seen organs evolve?" then the answer is clearly no. Changes as large as that would take many, many years.

Then how can we know organs can evolve? And how does the scientific methods apply to this?

Well, we can infer it from the evidence of evolution. Natural selection has shown to be able to create things as complex as new species, so it's not irrational to assume that organs followed - and indeed, follow - the same process. If you want to provide counter-evidence from the inference; I implore you to do so!

Have the ability for single-celled organisms to develop into muty-celled organism been observed or experimented with?:
Not sure. I'd ask your nearest University.

Assuming the answer is no, and the method of discovery is the same as above, this is a repeated question.

Repeated answer!

I am only asking for the ability. Not the actual thing happening.

Ability to do what? To evolve? We've seen "the actual thing" happening for both speciation and natural selection.

The theory of evolution makes an extra ordinary claim, which would unfortunately require extra ordinary evidence.

Evolution doesn't claim anything. It merely draws conclusions from evidence.

So have the mechanisms claimed to perform evolution proven such feats in their known functions?

That's basically saying: "Have we seen things like organs [evolution of organ = feat] evolve?", correct?
I would repeat myself: No. But that doesn't mean that we cannot know that it happened. It must have happened, as we can infer it from other evidence and data. If seeing meant believing, we'd all be stuck in the iron age.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 6:09:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 5:28:47 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/2/2013 4:51:33 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I really hope for your own sake that you are aware of false analogy. Either way, just an indoctrinated blind evolutionaut. People like you just gave up their last shread of skepticism and reality, you are ready to believe a series of some of the most improbable events imaginable while lacking actual proof.

I notice you didn't answer the question I asked and instead opted for abuse. Interesting.

Already answered it. Said that it was a dumb weak analogy.
From that analogy, are you claiming that almost all random mutation will result in healthy tissues, with the right place and the right amount to create organs with functions and purpose? Evidence please.

So I should take it you will not be addressing any of what you 'cut for space'?

For what reason should I address any of the blabbering you wrote? You hid from my question by claiming some mountain of evidence you are unable to provide exists (Figures) and by claiming that "It has already been answered!" (No it hasn't sweetheart), and then you proceeded to attacking biblical creationism which I do not acknowledge, neither does it have anything to do with the topic we are discussing, please indicate from my writing of who you rationally reached that conclusion.

And I'd take being an idiot any day over a dogmatic indoctrinate any day as it is infinitely better. At least I am capable of thinking.

And what does this have to do with evolution? Oh! This must be a cop-out mechanism... Interesting. Someone evolved that for you?

Nothing. I has everything to do with the comment you made and that my response was to, though. Which, I once again note, you haven't actually addressed. Interesting.

You are associating questioning with religion. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that you perceive evolution as a religion. Lets be frank, atheism needs evolution. If you feel incapable of addressing the topic from a scientific point of view, please say so. Such cliche behavior from evolutionauts.

If you had studied the literature to the extent to which you seem to suggest you have, you would know 'what I have'. There are accounts of the evolution of the eye - of which the Dawkins example is a necessarily abridged version - that show it is not irreducibly complex. Have you addressed these accounts? Are you gong to answer any of my questions or just keep demanding answers to objections to points I have not made?

Really? How do you know? Is this statement correct because you said so, or what exactly?

Abridged. *Snicker* Present these accounts. Heck, if the accounts are imaginative enough, they might earn a smile.

I am making objection to evolution, in which you claimed to be true. Do you not believe you have the burden of proof?

I believe that people who have dedicated their lives to studying a topic may have some authority on it. What is interesting is that you do not. Would you care to explain why?

Quite easily. Galileo said it best:

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Quote.

So you appeal to authority and believe that nobody have the right to question the said authority?

And oh no! I didn't heard anything about evolution, but I know! There is this one 5th grader who can help me understand something so complex as the concept of gradual genetic change bringing diversity and all species into the bio-system.

If someone a couple of years older than you is willing to help you better understand something at school, you probably should take them up on the offer.

Dammit! You were too late in giving me the advice.
So to defend your dogma you use the no true Scotsman fallacy? No one who questions evolution is questioning the real understanding evolution?

You don't question it. That should means you understand it. Therefore, you should be able to answer my questions.

*Proposed reaction*: Oh no! The sacred holy text! I am defeated!
*Actual reaction*: And?

While we are all doubtless very grateful for you taking us through your proposed and actual reactions, I don't think you'll find many people sympathetic to the argument "no, I haven't read the core texts on the subject but I still feel I have the authority to discuss the topic as if I were an expert in it". If you want to stick with that, that's you're call. I just think you'd be better trying another angle.

Oh no! He discussed evolution! Burn him with fire!
How did you conclude that I haven't read any core texts?

Would you care to provide an example of this being stated? Because evolutionary biology, being interested in things that have already happened, only tends to talk about the future as part of hypothetical projections which it then tests. And - guess what! - they are very often right.

Even better, you pick any evidence of your choosing regarding evolution, and show that it doesn't apply with the evolutionist method.
Evo is unfalsifiable, of course it gonna apply to anything. Just give the contradicting back up hypotheses like stasis a scientific-like name and it won't look like a failure. Oh, you missed the part about being imaginary.

You are correct, a non-scientific approach such as creationism is not science. Well done, you have just agreed with me completely. The fact that you don't realise you've done so is the true mark of an ignorant fool. You can, of course, reply to this with an "I know you are, but what am I?" response if that's the best you can scrape up. Or you could address some points I've raised. I'm kidding! I know you won't do that.

Loool. a slow creationist picking on fast creationists. I have nothing to do with this, have fun kids!

There are thousands of evidence that genetic mutations can cause single-celled organism to combine? Enlighten me with scientific data.

I would expect someone who feels confident enough to comment on the subject to already be familiar with said evidence. Are you not? Have you never studied cellular biology? Evolution? Genetics? Evidently not. Here's the summary: lots of similar things that are undergoing changes in close proximity run a significant chance of accidentally interacting. If you think this principle is unsound, I would point you towards the entirety of physics, chemistry and biology as starting points.

So you are making the extraordinary claim that the said evidence exists (Either that or you are too dogmatic to admit being wrong). I disagree, as this would be an event that would cause evolutionauts to disregard all their outdated stalling arguments, and use this evidence as the singularity that composes their new and current arguments.
In other words: put up or shut up.

Oooooh, I think you're being hard on yourself. There are plenty of plays that have a part that's a clueless blowhard. You could be raking it in with your, uh, talents.

Does that mean there will be a lot of special effects? The other components of a play is insignificant as long as there are a lot of distractions!

Yes, it is amusing how the people you're saying are making absolute statements based on no evidence do the exact opposite of that with painstaking care. Do you know why it is amusing?

I notice you didn't respond to my request for evidence of evolutionary biologists making the claims you said they do. Interesting.

I was never aware I was operating my thinking process under group mentality, and I certainly do not associate myself with any faction within the scientific community. What assumption are you making?

Also, are you blind now? Already posted the link. What scientific evidence is there that a raccoon-like animal's descendant became the blue whale?

http://www.reuters.com...