Evolution controversy erupts

Professor Baxter said:
Let's just take the first of your sources as a comparison. The Kurnai flood myth seems fairly similar according to your source. Only different in that God did not cause it or give a warning. Those differences are significant but still 4 out of 6 points are similar. Here is the Kurnai myth.

Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women who took refuge on a mud island near Port Albert. Pelican came by in his canoe and went to help them. He fell in love with one of the women. He ferried the others to the mainland, but left her for last. Afraid of being alone with him, the woman dressed a log in her opossum rug so it looked like her, left it by the fire, and swam to the mainland. The pelican returned and flew into a passion when the log dressed as a woman wouldn't answer him. He kicked it, which only hurt his foot and made him angrier. He began to paint himself white so that he might fight the woman's husband. Another pelican came up when he was halfway through with these preparations, but not knowing what to make of the strange half black and half white creature, pecked him and killed him. That is why pelicans are now black and white. [Dixon, pp. 279-280; Gaster, pp. 113-114]

Yeah pretty much the same story.

Or let's take one that was similar on 6 of 6 points. From the Montagnais of Canada.

Being angry with giants, God commanded a man to build a large canoe. The man did so, and when he embarked, the water rose till no land was visible anywhere. Weary of seeing nothing but water, the man threw an otter into it. The otter dived and brought up a little mud, which the man breathed on and caused to expand. He placed the earth on the water and prevented it from sinking. After awhile, he placed reindeer on the new island, but they completed a circuit of the island quickly, so he concluded it wasn't yet large enough. He continued to blow on it and grow it so the mountains, lakes, and rivers were formed; then he disembarked. [Gaster, p. 117]

Oh yeah, that's almost verbatim.

PMP fail.
Click to expand...


lol....according to the professor.....not significant.....
"Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women"

significant....
"pelican kicks woman"......

not significant...
"God commanded a man to build a large canoe. The man did so, and when he embarked, the water rose till no land was visible anywhere"

significant.....
"Weary of seeing nothing but water, the man threw an otter into it"

Christ's return is in doubt because of an otter and a pelican....../chortle.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....according to the professor.....not significant.....
"Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women"

significant....
"pelican kicks woman"......

not significant...
"God commanded a man to build a large canoe. The man did so, and when he embarked, the water rose till no land was visible anywhere"

significant.....
"Weary of seeing nothing but water, the man threw an otter into it"

Christ's return is in doubt because of an otter and a pelican....../chortle.....
Click to expand...

The stories are not the least bit similar. Your nightly mishaps share as much in common.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
Sure. Dogs, cats, cows, horses, sheep, chicken, pigs, but not mules.
Click to expand...

okay......if intentionally breeding animals is an example of evolution.......and I tell you I believe an Intelligent Designer intentionally bred various species of felines from a single type of feline after the flood.....why do you complain I don't believe in evolution.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
okay......if intentionally breeding animals is an example of evolution.......and I tell you I believe an Intelligent Designer intentionally bred various species of felines from a single type of feline after the flood.....why do you complain I don't believe in evolution.........
Click to expand...

You did not claim that he bred them. You claimed he magically transformed them in the womb.

You are D-U-M-B, dumb!

So you did not really mean an example of multi regional evolution excluding hybrids? You meant to exclude those that are intentionally bred by humans but your third grade vocabulary got in the way? It's still simple to answer and there are many examples.

You still have not told us in clear language what you understand the theory of evolution to say about how speciation occurs. You did a me too and vaguely agreed with what I said after I corrected your nonsense about it being due to mutation in a single member of the species. Then you rejected that by saying "God does it."

Again, if you understand that changes within a GROUP brings about a new species then there is absolutely no reason for you to have trouble understanding how the entire population might become a new species distinct from the archaic forms. Can you explain what your issue is or why you disagree?
 
Professor Baxter said:
You meant to exclude those that are intentionally bred by humans
Click to expand...

to be honest I thought that it went without saying that evolution would exclude anything intentionally bred by humans.....I underestimated your capacity for stupidity.....I'm still waiting for an example of something that actually evolved in multiple locations.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
You did not claim that he bred them. You claimed he magically transformed them in the womb.
Click to expand...

quite right....I pointed out that if humans are capable of breeding specific traits into an animal within just a few thousand years, the being that created DNA ought to have no problem bringing about the desired change in a single generation by manipulating the specific gene involved......if you can change water into wine, a tiger fetus ought to be a piece of cake......
 
Professor Baxter said:
how the entire population might become a new species distinct from the archaic forms. Can you explain what your issue is or why you disagree?
Click to expand...

I have issue with the impracticality of this silly claim.....if the variation is not kept in isolation from the entire population the variation would be bred back out of existence.......if you are trying to develop a line of long legged black horses you don't breed your stallion to short legged white ones.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
to be honest I thought that it went without saying that evolution would exclude anything intentionally bred by humans.....I underestimated your capacity for stupidity.....I'm still waiting for an example of something that actually evolved in multiple locations.....
Click to expand...

Why would we exclude them? We discussed them in other threads concerning evolution.

They ARE evolving in multiple locations. I have given you an answer.

Since you are so incredibly stupid I will give you a third chance. Go ahead and restate your question, idiot.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
quite right....I pointed out that if humans are capable of breeding specific traits into an animal within just a few thousand years, the being that created DNA ought to have no problem bringing about the desired change in a single generation by manipulating the specific gene involved......if you can change water into wine, a tiger fetus ought to be a piece of cake......
Click to expand...

So then you admit we discussed these animals in regards to evolution. D-U-M-B, dumb!

Manipulation of genes through magic is not evolution. It's magic.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it has to start somewhere.....or did you think that shit not only happens but also happens simultaneously......
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "shit happening." A single mutation is not gonna cause speciation. If it did it would have no way of reproducing the genes. The mutation would make the carrier incapable of producing offspring.

You think the same basal feline gave birth to a tiger and a house cat or that such nonsense is possible. You don't understand evolution and you certainly don't accept it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have issue with the impracticality of this silly claim.....if the variation is not kept in isolation from the entire population the variation would be bred back out of existence.......if you are trying to develop a line of long legged black horses you don't breed your stallion to short legged white ones.....
Click to expand...

It is not necessary at all that the variation would be bred out of existence nor is it impractical. If the variation makes the animal more fit then that animal will be more likely to have successful offspring carrying his genes forward. That's how it works. You don't know that?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
without single mutations there isn't going to be any speciation as well...



I see why we're having a problem here.....have you ever looked at a biology text?......
Click to expand...

If a single mutation were enough to cause speciation then it would not reproduce.

Speciation occurs because of a large number of changes building up over time. It can result into splitting into two simulataneously existing species of the populations if they are genetically isolated or the entire population could change into something distinct from archaic forms. The archaic forms are static and don't share in changes within the gene pool.

You fail to understand this because you are stupid and don't understand evolution. You don't care to understand it since you are simply trying to attack it. But your attacks will always fail against anyone who does not share your ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top