Evolution controversy erupts

pmp, you have shown once again that you are surprisingly ignorant of the topics you discuss. Your confusion comes in largely due to your insistence on the absolute purity of certain words/phrases but then you get confused about the words or phrases.

You are now claiming that it's not evolution if it happens within domesticated animals. Well that would be news to biologists and Darwin. Darwin used domesticated animals as a means of explaining evolution. It was well understood that changes in animals could be brought about by selection of the breeder. If the breeder is trying to develop a line of long legged black horses he simply excludes short legged white ones from the gene pool. But that is still evolution. What was not understood was how, if at all, this could effect non domesticated animals. One of Darwin's contributions was natural selection as opposed to what is often called artificial selection of a breeder. Domesticated animals have been a key part of our understanding of evolution. We have also used artificial selection in non domesticated animals to further our understanding. But according to you and you alone that makes it not evolution. You do not know what you are talking about.

You have confused natural selection as being evolution and make it clear with your repeated attempts to clumsily reject my answer. I gave you a second opportunity and you foolishly misused hybrid. A hybrid, in this context, is the product of a coupling between two closely related species. It had nothing at all to do with my list of animals, though you did make me realize I should have added donkeys to the list. What you want to ask is for me to give an example of multi regional evolution driven primarily by natural selection as opposed to artificial selection.
 
Professor Baxter said:
What you want to ask is for me to give an example of multi regional evolution driven primarily by natural selection
Click to expand...

well, here's a solution for you.....I really don't give a fuck if you want to claim animal husbandry is actually evolution......instead of dodging the question by pretending it is, why not answer the question you admit you knew I was asking?.......
 
D-U-M-B said:
obviously it isn't.....its silly to pretend it is.....
Click to expand...


Obviously it is.


D-U-M-B said:
not at all....I know of no domesticated butterflies....
Click to expand...


You previously claimed that your belief in God's "manipulation of genes" was in agreement with evolutionary theory (it is not because you are claiming some supernatural power). Now you are saying it is not evolution. Which is it?


D-U-M-B said:
but not over an entire population......Polar bears are not a change over the entire population of bears.....it is the exact opposite of what you claim, otherwise, all bears would be white and eat seals.....
Click to expand...


As I explained in the FULL post that you cut this from a species distinct from archaic forms can appear within the entire population.


D-U-M-B said:
and obviously it isn't.....I'm sure that's not the first thing that would surprise Darwin......
Click to expand...


Obviously it is.


D-U-M-B said:
and that is evolution.....shit just happening versus shit being caused.....
Click to expand...


Nope. Shit happening has nothing to do with natural selection. Yours is just the refrain of a moron that does not understand the material or want to understand it.


D-U-M-B said:
well, here's a solution for you.....I really don't give a fuck if you want to claim animal husbandry is actually evolution......instead of dodging the question by pretending it is, why not answer the question you admit you knew I was asking?.......
Click to expand...


I answered the question you asked. Nowhere did you indicate that it should not include artificial selection. You moved the goalposts after I answered. If you are going to employ such dishonest tactics then I am going to demand that you restate your question. And I am not going to fill in the gaps for you stupidity and mental sloppiness, since you are making the inaccurate claim that I am evading. I have given you every opportunity and even suggested how you might phrase your question, but I am not going to make assumptions so that you can weasel out again.


Where is your clear explanation of how speciation occurs? You have not given one.
 
You claim to better explain evolution than Darwin and that it does not include domesticated animals. If Darwin is not enough, then here are several recent papers and books discussing the evolution of domesticated animals. What is your basis for excluding domesticated animals? Just your (a moron that can't do simple math and does not know what hybrid means) word?

Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/

From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9971.full.pdf

Plant and Animal Domestication as Human Made Evolution
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gepts/Gepts AIBS-NABT Chicago 2004.pdf

Evolution of Domesticated Animal
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Domesticated-Animals-I-L-Mason/dp/0582460468http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Domesticated-Animals-I-L-Mason/dp/0582460468http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/gepts/Gepts AIBS-NABT Chicago 2004.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9971.full.pdfhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01019.html
 
Professor Baxter said:
You previously claimed that your belief in God's "manipulation of genes" was in agreement with evolutionary theory
Click to expand...
no....actually what I said was that my belief in God's creation was as much "science" as your belief in regarding evolution....I should have realized you wouldn't understand that....


As I explained in the FULL post that you cut this from a species distinct from archaic forms can appear within the entire population.
Click to expand...

I read your post.....doesn't change the fact you are in error for the reason I stated in the quote above.....

I answered the question you asked.
Click to expand...

but lol.....you answered what you wanted....you've admitted you knew what I was asking but you continue to refuse to answer......primarily because once you do you will have admitted you were wrong.....sucks but deal with it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....actually what I said was that my belief in God's creation was as much "science" as your belief in regarding evolution....I should have realized you wouldn't understand that....




I read your post.....doesn't change the fact you are in error for the reason I stated in the quote above.....



but lol.....you answered what you wanted....you've admitted you knew what I was asking but you continue to refuse to answer......primarily because once you do you will have admitted you were wrong.....sucks but deal with it.....
Click to expand...

You are a liar. You have claimed throughout to accept evolution and proposed that your childish ideas about God manipulating genes after the flood was consistent with evolution.

You have not shown me to be in error on anything. The entire population of a single species can evolve from its archaic forms just as I have explained it.

I answered your stupid question honestly. You did not do the same with mine. I did not know how you were going to move the goalposts until after I answered. Since you are moving the goalposts I am demanding that you clearly restate your question. There are plenty of more examples I can give. If you are too stupid to restate your question then that is your problem.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You are a liar. You have claimed throughout to accept evolution and proposed that your childish ideas about God manipulating genes after the flood was consistent with evolution.
Click to expand...
well, except actually.......no......I said it was "instead of" evolution.....

The entire population of a single species can evolve from its archaic forms just as I have explained it.
Click to expand...

which of course, explains why all bears are polar bears.......

There are plenty of more examples I can give.
Click to expand...
then just give one you repetitively silly stupid fuck........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, except actually.......no......I said it was "instead of" evolution.....



which of course, explains why all bears are polar bears.......


then just give one you repetitively silly stupid fuck........
Click to expand...

Bears are not a single species. There are many species of bears.

One what, you lying moron?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can't be....evolution caused them to change the entire population......under your beliefs all bears had to turn into polar bears.....even the ones on the other side of the globe.....it's multi-regional, donchaknow.......
Click to expand...

Bullshit, I never claimed all bears must turn into polar bears, you lying moron.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....the answer is quite obvious in what was quoted.....do you need me to get a graphic of a finger and point to it?........
Click to expand...

I already answered. You have some sort of condition you want to add to your incredibly stupid question, but youre too stupid to articulate it. It sucks to be you, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top