Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Evolution proof @Stegley

AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 1:30:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
@Stegley, here is some evidence (but not all) for evolution:

Firstly, what is evolution? Evolution is a process where an organism's gametes (sex cells such as sperm or eggs) genetically mutate randomly. If the genetic mutation is beneficial, any offspring produced with that genetic mutation will benefit and better adapt to its environment, produce offspring, and the population from which it comes from will also slowly attain this mutation, evolve, and the same process happens again. However, if the genetic mutation is not beneficial or in fact harmful, the organism dies out and nothing of much consequence happens.

There's a bit more to it then just that, but that'll do for the mean time.

Now, this process has been proven over and over again scientifically and within an observable timeframe. The evolution within a small amount of time (0 - 1000 years or so) is called micro evolution. Evolution within a large amount of time is called macro evolution (1000 or so - whenever).

Micro evolution and macro evolution are EXACTLY the same. The only difference between them is the timeframe. So if you accept micro evolution, you logically should likewise accept macro evolution because they are the same thing.

Evidence for micro evolution:

Guppies evolve different colours and patterns based on natural selection (predator present).
(http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...)
(http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...)

Hyper swarming bacteria things:

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

Stickleback fish evolving to endure greater temperatures:

(http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...)

etc etc etc

This has all been well documented. So what about macro evolution? You know, primates evolving into humans?

Well, here is some evidence for the so-called "missing link":

Homo habilis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Homo erectus (lol "erectus"...sorry): https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Homo...heidelbergensis?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Neanderthal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

General timeline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

All of these have skulls that perfectly show a man-ape looking creature (yes, I know they're Wikipedia but shut up. They all have pictures of skulls and they have references).

Hey, but that's not all! We even have evidence for the evolution of other animals:

Whale: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Birds: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Horses: http://chem.tufts.edu...

Other: http://www.agiweb.org...

So there you have it: Get f*cked. Got questions? Google it.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 8:24:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Awsm, as thoughtful and diligent is your post, Stegley is not a member on whom I would waste time with complex reasoning or detailed research.

Instead, I would invite you to review the range of threads he has started with his less than day-old account, consider his tone and methods in response to members, and take into account the fact that he presently has four evolution- or science-related threads in Religion, yet none in Science. [http://www.debate.org...] [http://www.debate.org...][http://www.debate.org...][http://www.debate.org...][http://www.debate.org...][http://www.debate.org...][http://www.debate.org...][http://www.debate.org...]

Stegley is a member so trollish that he has trench-foot, goat-breath, plank-marks on his forehead, and flosses with mohair.

Just saying. :)
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 9:10:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Yes, Stegley doesn't really want proof of evolution. What he really wants is to be prison buddies with his hero, Kent Hovind.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 3:52:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 1:30:44 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
@Stegley, here is some evidence (but not all) for evolution:

...
So there you have it: Get f*cked. Got questions? Google it.

Your post is a joke, really. Not you personally, but the excuse for science that you are regurgitating.

Basically, you are claiming proof of an extrapolation by defending the process that is being extrapolated. It's like claiming one can reach the moon by stacking shipping pallets, and defending that claim by showing you can stack shipping pallets.

Nobody is disputing descent with modification. Thoughtful and tech-savvy people DO dispute that this process is sufficient to explain the existence of the entire extant ecosystem.
This space for rent.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 1:51:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 3:52:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:30:44 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
@Stegley, here is some evidence (but not all) for evolution:

...
So there you have it: Get f*cked. Got questions? Google it.

Your post is a joke, really. Not you personally, but the excuse for science that you are regurgitating.

Explain...

Basically, you are claiming proof of an extrapolation by defending the process that is being extrapolated. It's like claiming one can reach the moon by stacking shipping pallets, and defending that claim by showing you can stack shipping pallets.

Bad analogy. The evidence I have above at least got me 3/4ths to the moon!

Jokes aside, I didn't metaphorically stack a few shipping pallets. I showed quite extensively different fossils of many different types of animals including humans, as well as laboratory experiments and their results, and they all showed quite obviously a gradual change over time. I'm not quite sure what more one could ask for.

Nobody is disputing descent with modification. Thoughtful and tech-savvy people DO dispute that this process is sufficient to explain the existence of the entire extant ecosystem.

Ohhh so your questioning the claim that everything came from a single cell-like thing 3.5 billions years ago? Well, firstly, we can assume that all animals came from a common ancestor due to all species having DNA. I'm talking purely scientifically here, so don't say anything about a "common designer".

Anyway, this implies that everything cam from a single cell-like organism (or microbe or something) 3.5 billions years ago rather than from different organisms.

Another proof for everything combine about through this process is the fact that simple organisms become more complex the further up the geological timeline you go.

And also the fact that abiogenesis is a rare occurrence (how rare is unknown) implies that organisms of today cam from a single simple organism rather than many (because abiogenesis is rare...see?).

Anyway, that's all I got. Take it or leave it.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Stegley
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:36:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 1:30:44 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
@Stegley, here is some evidence (but not all) for evolution:

Firstly, what is evolution? Evolution is a process where an organism's gametes (sex cells such as sperm or eggs) genetically mutate randomly. If the genetic mutation is beneficial, any offspring produced with that genetic mutation will benefit and better adapt to its environment, produce offspring, and the population from which it comes from will also slowly attain this mutation, evolve, and the same process happens again. However, if the genetic mutation is not beneficial or in fact harmful, the organism dies out and nothing of much consequence happens.

There's a bit more to it then just that, but that'll do for the mean time.

Now, this process has been proven over and over again scientifically and within an observable timeframe. The evolution within a small amount of time (0 - 1000 years or so) is called micro evolution. Evolution within a large amount of time is called macro evolution (1000 or so - whenever).

Micro evolution and macro evolution are EXACTLY the same. The only difference between them is the timeframe. So if you accept micro evolution, you logically should likewise accept macro evolution because they are the same thing.

Evidence for micro evolution:

Guppies evolve different colours and patterns based on natural selection (predator present).
(http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...)
(http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...)

Hyper swarming bacteria things:

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

Stickleback fish evolving to endure greater temperatures:

(http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...)

etc etc etc

This has all been well documented. So what about macro evolution? You know, primates evolving into humans?

Well, here is some evidence for the so-called "missing link":

Homo habilis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Homo erectus (lol "erectus"...sorry): https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Homo...heidelbergensis?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Neanderthal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

General timeline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

All of these have skulls that perfectly show a man-ape looking creature (yes, I know they're Wikipedia but shut up. They all have pictures of skulls and they have references).

Hey, but that's not all! We even have evidence for the evolution of other animals:

Whale: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Birds: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Horses: http://chem.tufts.edu...

Other: http://www.agiweb.org...

So there you have it: Get f*cked. Got questions? Google it.
Lol. As do all who dabble in cognitive weaknesses, you resort to ad hominem. Got character?

A mutated guppy, a deformed drosphila, a speedier bacterium, and a microevolved fish are all still guppies, flies, bacteria, and fish. No genus change has occurred.

No macroevolution has been demonstrated or has been found in the geologic record. Did you think your imagination was equivalent to material reality? You have not the capacity to answer this question.

P.S. Take a loving and scientific look at the stance and axial configuration of all those supposed "human precursors." Look carefully, now. Do you see how all of them have the giveaway pyramidal thorax typical of a primate, and never found in humans?
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 7:27:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:36:02 AM, Stegley wrote:
At 2/22/2016 1:30:44 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
@Stegley, here is some evidence (but not all) for evolution:

Firstly, what is evolution? Evolution is a process where an organism's gametes (sex cells such as sperm or eggs) genetically mutate randomly. If the genetic mutation is beneficial, any offspring produced with that genetic mutation will benefit and better adapt to its environment, produce offspring, and the population from which it comes from will also slowly attain this mutation, evolve, and the same process happens again. However, if the genetic mutation is not beneficial or in fact harmful, the organism dies out and nothing of much consequence happens.

There's a bit more to it then just that, but that'll do for the mean time.

Now, this process has been proven over and over again scientifically and within an observable timeframe. The evolution within a small amount of time (0 - 1000 years or so) is called micro evolution. Evolution within a large amount of time is called macro evolution (1000 or so - whenever).

Micro evolution and macro evolution are EXACTLY the same. The only difference between them is the timeframe. So if you accept micro evolution, you logically should likewise accept macro evolution because they are the same thing.

Evidence for micro evolution:

Guppies evolve different colours and patterns based on natural selection (predator present).
(http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...)
(http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...)

Hyper swarming bacteria things:

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

Stickleback fish evolving to endure greater temperatures:

(http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...)

etc etc etc

This has all been well documented. So what about macro evolution? You know, primates evolving into humans?

Well, here is some evidence for the so-called "missing link":

Homo habilis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Homo erectus (lol "erectus"...sorry): https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Homo...heidelbergensis?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Neanderthal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

General timeline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

All of these have skulls that perfectly show a man-ape looking creature (yes, I know they're Wikipedia but shut up. They all have pictures of skulls and they have references).

Hey, but that's not all! We even have evidence for the evolution of other animals:

Whale: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Birds: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Horses: http://chem.tufts.edu...

Other: http://www.agiweb.org...

So there you have it: Get f*cked. Got questions? Google it.
Lol. As do all who dabble in cognitive weaknesses, you resort to ad hominem. Got character?

Not Ad Hominem. Just an insult. An Ad Hominem is where you ignore the argument and attack the person. I answered the argument. No Ad Hominem.

A mutated guppy, a deformed drosphila, a speedier bacterium, and a microevolved fish are all still guppies, flies, bacteria, and fish. No genus change has occurred.

NO SH*T SHERLOCK, maybe that's why I inserted them under the "micro evolution evidence" part you f*cking dolt. Maybe try learning English before taking on biology. Jesus Christ, some people are stupid...

No macroevolution has been demonstrated or has been found in the geologic record. Did you think your imagination was equivalent to material reality? You have not the capacity to answer this question.

Did you just completely ignore the OTHER links I gave? The ones that directly showed skulls of missing links and tranistional fossils? You just skipped them? Utterly ignored them?
https://m.youtube.com...

P.S. Take a loving and scientific look at the stance and axial configuration of all those supposed "human precursors." Look carefully, now. Do you see how all of them have the giveaway pyramidal thorax typical of a primate, and never found in humans?

True. They also typically have a "brain", as apposed to some humans...

But seriously, you looked at ONE part of my argument. ONE. The stupidity in your comment persuades me to ignore you from this point on. Far well.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...