Question for evolutionists

[Mott the Hoople]

Exactly. Science requires OBSERVATION, REPRODUCTION, and CONSISTENCY. Evolution has been debunked every time it is placed to the test of the Scientific Method. (If not show me the experiment that confirms evolution, one life form morphing into another after life was created from nothing. As I said...its a faith based belief void of even the Prima Facie evidence required to support it. With every statement from an evolutionist.....there are many demonstrated DOUBTS provided to accept it as a common sense truth.

First everything came from nothing, That from Hawking. Next we must accept that every element came from the two basic elements found after the big ban (another unprovable theory) …….Hydrogen and Helium...somehow morphed into all the elements found on the periodic table of elements. Then we must accept that life came from DEAD MATTER (when no such example has ever been witnessed)….then we must believe that a single asexual cell morphed into complex examples of life that require a male and a female to procreate. Then we must accept that fish (cold blooded life) morphed into land dwelling warm blooded mammals.

Should I go on?

Please don't. You've aptly proven your bonafides as a scientific illiterate.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Speaking of evolution! LOL!

 

[Fentoine Lum]

One important key here. The mutation, adaptation has to be selected. No natural selection, no evolution. Vast number of mutations occur that could be neutral, harmful or advantageous all of which means nothing if they are not selected.

I believe what I stated was that mutations arise randomly. Selective pressure is something else. A mutation is not adaptation in and of itself. And a mutation can be both beneficial and detrimental simultanouesly which is another potential outcome in addition to the others you've listed. I rather think we're in agreement here.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I know what original means. You don't.

You're the one not keeping up in your own conversation shoog.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Actually that's an important point but it must be qualified that though yes over time it is progressive, it is not directional.

And conditions might change that make a given adaptation, once advantageous, no longer advantageous, and the phenotypic adaptation could disappear over time as well in the population. This term "progress" is quite anthropomorphic in usage.

 

[/MSG/]

If that was your intent, you failed.

No, I definitely succeeded. If you're too dumb to see it well, that's on you.

 

[CFM]

Gee and I thought it was just a sarcastic one.

He tried to play it off as an insult. He failed.

 

[CFM]

You're the one not keeping up in your own conversation shoog.

You're the one that doesn't know what original means, coon.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

He tried to play it off as an insult. He failed.

All hominid life began in Africa, you are descended from Africans hon.

 

[CFM]

No, I definitely succeeded. If you're too dumb to see it well, that's on you.

If you're so stupid you think you did, that's your problem. Educate yourself. You do sound like the typical leftwinger when called on something trying to play it off.

 

[CFM]

All hominid life began in Africa, you are decended from Africans hon.

That's your claim.

I took the same type DNA test as Pocahontas Warren. I'm whiter than she is.

 

[DarthPedant]

You cant answer the question. No one can. You can deflect all you like. It changes nothing.

Even if it were true that I couldn’t answer your question, that would just make your point an argument from ignorance fallacy: ‘I don’t know how the circulatory system could have evolved therefor a god did it.’ There’s no logical bridge from ‘I don’t know’ to ‘therefor god’.

But again, there’s no point in me trying to walk you through anything about evolution when it’s clear what you really want to do is make assertions and thump your chest. I think it’s sad, but then everyone needs a hobby I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grugore]

Even if it were true that I couldn’t answer your question, that would just make your point an argument from ignorance fallacy: ‘I don’t know how the circulatory system could have evolved therefor a god did it.’ There’s no logical bridge from ‘I don’t know’ to ‘therefor god’.

But again, there’s no point in me trying to walk you through anything about evolution when it’s clear what you really want to do is make assertions and thump your chest. I think it’s sad, but then everyone needs a hobby I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some simple facts. In mammals, a circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood is useless without a circulatory system. Neither one can exist without the other. So how did we acquire a circulatory system that pumps blood through our bodies? It's a simple question.

 

[DarthPedant]

Some simple facts. In mammals, a circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood is useless without a circulatory system. Neither one can exist without the other. So how did we acquire a circulatory system that pumps blood through our bodies? It's a simple question.

Why limit the discussion to mammals? Mammals inherited their circulatory system from ancient reptiles, which got their from even more ancient amphibians, which got theirs from even more ancient fish and down the line to the worm-like ancestors of fish and so on. There are great books on this subject. Why would you expect anyone to type it all out for you here when it’s pretty obvious you aren’t really open-minded about this? Especially given that if you were sincerely curious, you could go to the library....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Why else would it evolve?

all evolution results from accidents which failed to be sterile.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It's progression. You don't start out with warm blooded animals because they appear after cold blooded ones, which appear after bloodless ones, and so on down the line.

obviously it can be regression as well.......just look at basement dwelling millenials.......

One important key here. The mutation, adaptation has to be selected. No natural selection, no evolution. Vast number of mutations occur that could be neutral, harmful or advantageous all of which means nothing if they are not selected.

there's the answer.......no one selects millenials.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It comes down to belly buttons!

Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?

If you can't answer that, then I can't give you credit for knowing much of anything else!

why did the first creature to have an umbilical cord, have an umbilical cord?......did it accidentally forget to lay its egg?......oh wait, eggs don't have umbilical cords.......

 

[Flash]

Neither one of which is a warm-blooded mammal. The question still remains. Blood could not evolve without a circulatory system. A circulatory system could not evolve without blood to circulate. It's a catch-22. You cant have one without the other, and they could not evolve separately.

Because they are not warm blooded mammals does not mean mammals could not have evolved in the same manner.

We Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, and Homo Sapiens all created at the same time?

 

[Phantasmal]

Not exactly but close. A mutation provides an adaptation that improves the likely hood of survival or procreation and thus is naturally selected. Natural selection is what causes biological evolution, genetic mutations and reproductive mortality are the mechanism that make natural selection work. Natural selection and time (usually lots and lots of time but not always) cause biological evolution to happen, which in turn creates speciation.

Thanks, you can tell it wasn’t my major, lol

Its why should just wait for you to show up.

 

[Into the Night]

Except for the circulatory systems that exist without blood that you just keep ignoring, because you likely failed high school biology.

What circulatory system exists without blood? How can you call it a circulatory system at all?