Question for evolutionists

[PostmodernProphet]

You, again, haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. It goes without saying that homologies create phylogenies and those are easily explained by common descent. Please provide a plausible alternative scientific explanation?

In other words he’s right. You’re wrong.

why do we have to provide a scientific explanation when what you just gave was NOT a scientific explanation?.........common descent is simply your faith assumption.......homologies can be just as much evidence of intelligent design as of macro evolution.......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Theories don't produce anything.

Yours certainly don’t.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They actually have nothing to do with each other.

There are those who subscribe to the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution at the same time. They are not incompatible with each other.

The Theory of Creation IS mutually exclusive with the Theory of Abiogenesis, however. One of them MUST be False.

None of these theories are theories of science. All of them remain circular arguments...and religions.

See again, you prove you don’t know even something as fundamental as a scientific theory.

Biological evolution by means of natural selection is a scientific theory.

Creationism is religion and has nothing to do with science. It is not a scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is an unproven scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific theory.

You really need to try studying some science dude. You have no idea how funny you are.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Do you know how evolution works?

That’s a rhetorical question, right?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Again, both share a FAITH....one in there being an eternal Supreme Being that created the earth and stars, the other in there being some physical explanation the will explain how it all came into being. FAITH: a belief that cannot be logically or factually proven at the present.

And the beat goes on.

Sorry Thaichi but that’s a philosophical belief. Not a scientific one. Science only explains the factual basis of naturally occurring events or phenomena. It has nothing to say about other philosophical beliefs or faith.

It would be erroneous to say religious beliefs and scientific understanding are incompatible. That would be an utterly false dichotomy. They are though non-overlapping magesteria.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No. Neither do you. No one does.

So why would a circulatory system develop without blood, or why would blood develop without the circulatory system? If they developed together, that would require quite a leap. You seem to be attempting to deny your own argument.

I see... so why then have a vast number of predictions based on evolutionary theory been independently verified? Why are most of the applied life sciences in part or are wholly based on evolutionary theory? Why are thousands upon thousands of independent scientists wrong but you are right?

It boils down to this, as a Biologist, unless you can provide a workable scientific alternative to model speciation, your arguments are simply a waste of our time. Write us when you have something. We have serious work to do.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mother of fucking Christ, this clown is an idiot.
This asshole is dumb enough to be the next Republican presidential candidate.

Yeah it is a pretty dumb argument. A circulatory system is useless without blood? The lymphatic system is a circulatory system. It doesn’t use blood.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think the answer is "we don't know", but we do know there was no global flood. Geologists are quite sure of that.

Sure we do. Circulatory systems evolved before hemopoetic circulatory systems as endothelial systems that overcame the time constraint barriers of simple diffusion. That occurred over 600 million years ago.

Around 550 million years ago an endothelial system evolved in an ancestral vertebrate to optimize flow dynamics and barrier functions and/or to localize immune or coagulation functions. Endothelial heterogeneity evolved as a core function of endothelium from the outset reflecting its role in meeting the diverse needs of body tissues.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

See again, you prove you don’t know even something as fundamental as a scientific theory.

Biological evolution by means of natural selection is a scientific theory.

Creationism is religion and has nothing to do with science. It is not a scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is an unproven scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific theory.

You really need to try studying some science dude. You have no idea how funny you are.

Many people find sciencing to be really difficult.

 

[StoneByStone]

wait.....aren't you the atheist who thinks he understands religion?......

I understand religion far more than I want to.

 

[StoneByStone]

yes......random shit happening randomly.......incredibly slow.....intelligent design is much more efficient.......

 

[StoneByStone]

You’re close to right. That’s just one part of it. Random genetic mutations occur. Some provide adaptative advantage others are neutral and some harmful. What isn’t random is the next part of the process. Something Creationist tend to forget about. That’s Natural Selection. The random mutations that do provide adaptive advantages are selected for those advantages.

So to argue that evolution can’t occur because it’s a random process is an argument from ignorance. Natural Selection is anything but random.

Yeah, the mutations are random, but natural selection is simple cause and effect.

 

[Ralph]

Yeah, the mutations are random, but natural selection is simple cause and effect.

The basic problem with anyone claiming that "MUTATIONS" cause evolution is the documented fact that mutations do occur but when something is MUTATED that simply means that an error has happened within the dna code, SOMETHING IS TAKEN AWAY BY MUTATION NOT ADDED. Take for example.....inbreeding causes mutation. Is that evolution? Hardly...all you get is deformity. Why? Because the original DNA chain was corrupted. Nothing evolves by mutation....especially in a MACO example of life. Some point to germs mutating(micro)...….and becoming resistant to treatment. But are they really mutating or ADOPTING because they already possess the required DNA signature to adapt when required and it lies dormant until required?

Every life form has the ability to adapt to a changing environment.....if such were not true mankind would have been wiped from the face of the earth the first time he came into contact with a simple virus.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

ROTFLMAO True dat. That’s probably because it is really difficult.

Many people find sciencing to be really difficult.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, the mutations are random, but natural selection is simple cause and effect.

correct. It isn’t random at all.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The basic problem with anyone claiming that "MUTATIONS" cause evolution is the documented fact that mutations do occur but when something is MUTATED that simply means that an error has happened within the dna code, SOMETHING IS TAKEN AWAY BY MUTATION NOT ADDED. Take for example.....inbreeding causes mutation. Is that evolution? Hardly...all you get is deformity. Why? Because the original DNA chain was corrupted. Nothing evolves by mutation....especially in a MACO example of life. Some point to germs mutating(micro)...….and becoming resistant to treatment. But are they really mutating or ADOPTING because they already possess the required DNA signature to adapt when required and it lies dormant until required?

Every life form has the ability to adapt to a changing environment.....if such were not true mankind would have been wiped from the face of the earth the first time he came into contact with a simple virus.

True. Thank God he gave us the ability to evolve and understand evolution.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

why do we have to provide a scientific explanation when what you just gave was NOT a scientific explanation?.........common descent is simply your faith assumption.......homologies can be just as much evidence of intelligent design as of macro evolution.......

Because I have fact and testable empirical observations that can and have been independently verified to back my assertions up and you don’t.

 

[Into the Night]

I love how you Creationist just throw shit out and hope it sticks. It’s actually not a bad method. To convince noobs who know nothing about science. Hell you don’t even know something as basic as what a scientific theory is. Thanks for the laugh.

A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That's what science is: a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't even making a creationist argument.

 

[Into the Night]

You’re close to right. That’s just one part of it. Random genetic mutations occur. Some provide adaptative advantage others are neutral and some harmful. What isn’t random is the next part of the process. Something Creationist tend to forget about. That’s Natural Selection. The random mutations that do provide adaptive advantages are selected for those advantages.

So to argue that evolution can’t occur because it’s a random process is an argument from ignorance. Natural Selection is anything but random.

If the Theory of Natural Selection is True, what created the variety in the first place? The tendency is toward the few species that are suited. No, the theory is falsified.

 

[Into the Night]

He can’t bullshit me. He’s fairly ignorant on the subject.

Insult fallacy.