Evolution controversy erupts

Professor Baxter said:
No, liar. I was not making a point about the multi regional hypothesis. I was pointing out how stupid your claim is that "no such (genic) network is visible for any other species of anything anywhere." It exists for every sexually reproducing species that has ever existed. This does not prove the multi regional hypothesis and I did not claim it did. You are fucking D-U-M-B dumb.
Click to expand...

you claimed that homo sapiens evolved in multiple locations simultaneously......I asked why that would be true for humans when it isn't true for any other species......you said it WAS true for other species....I asked for an example.....you gave me homo sapiens....."A proves "A".......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd, since that isn't my contention and never has been......polar bears share many genes with grizzly bears for example....
Click to expand...

Sure it is you said there was no network of genic exchange in any species anywhere ever. Do you not know what that means?

And this has nothing to do with sharing genes across species.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you claimed that homo sapiens evolved in multiple locations simultaneously......I asked why that would be true for humans when it isn't true for any other species......you said it WAS true for other species....I asked for an example.....you gave me homo sapiens....."A proves "A".......
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that is what happened. I said it is possible.

It is true for other species. I have given you a list of nearly a dozen species.

It is true for us now. Our entire population is evolving in multiple regions. That's not a is a or circular reasoning. That we are doing it now does not mean we did it then. It does show that it is possible and you claim it is not.

You are D-U-M-B, dumb. And a scumbag liar.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Sure it is you said there was no network of genic exchange in any species anywhere ever. Do you not know what that means?

And this has nothing to do with sharing genes across species.
Click to expand...

once a species has diverged sufficiently that cross breeding is impossible there can be no sharing of genes across species.....as to sharing genes prior to that point I expect the genetic structure of polar bears is more than 99% identical to grizzlies.....what caused the difference is the isolation of the bears that evolved into polar bears from the bears that evolved into grizzlies......you deny that occurred and claim evolution effected all the earlier bears identically.....if so, how did we get the divergence?.......
 
Professor Baxter said:
I said it is possible.
Click to expand...

and I said it was not......thus the argument began, remember?....

I have given you a list of nearly a dozen species.
Click to expand...

you gave me a list of domesticated animals and one pest.....all of which were bred and distributed by human interference with the process of evolution.....you have not given me an example of it happening through evolution because there IS no example of it happening through evolution........

It is true for us now. Our entire population is evolving in multiple regions.
Click to expand...

lol, well perhaps that DOES explain liberalism......New England and California are evolving into a new species......we could call them homo takerus.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and I said it was not......thus the argument began, remember?....



you gave me a list of domesticated animals and one pest.....all of which were bred and distributed by human interference with the process of evolution.....you have not given me an example of it happening through evolution because there IS no example of it happening through evolution........



lol, well perhaps that DOES explain liberalism......New England and California are evolving into a new species......we could call them homo takerus.....
Click to expand...

The memory problems are yours. You keep claiming that I am arguing the mutli regional hypothesis happened when I am only saying it is possible, has not been falsified and that your criticisms of it are just a sign of your ignorance of how evolution works.

Now you are moving the goalposts again. Your original question gave no indication that domesticated animals should be excluded. I gave you an opportunity for you to restate your question and after going through your ignorant bit about hybrids you then let satand the assumption that you meant to exclude domesticated animals. Now it is an animal whose evolution has not been effect by humans?

Human involvement has not stopped evolution in these animals. Nearly every living things evolution has been effected by another. Predator and prey, host and parasite, plants and fertilizing insects... all effect the evolution of the other. Again, you don't seem to know what evolution is or how it works.

Humans are evolving. I did not indicate they were diverging, moron.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
once a species has diverged sufficiently that cross breeding is impossible there can be no sharing of genes across species.....as to sharing genes prior to that point I expect the genetic structure of polar bears is more than 99% identical to grizzlies.....what caused the difference is the isolation of the bears that evolved into polar bears from the bears that evolved into grizzlies......you deny that occurred and claim evolution effected all the earlier bears identically.....if so, how did we get the divergence?.......
Click to expand...

You are full of shit. Link us up to where I denied this, you lying moron?

Evolution effected all the bears, but not identically. Brown bears evolved in ways different than polar bears did due to the variations that proved advantageous to them. The brown bears did not stop evolving. Constant interbreeding though has kept them genetically similar and they could very well converge due to climate change.
 
Professor Baxter said:
when I am only saying it is possible
Click to expand...
/shrugs....and I am saying it is not.....hence, our argument.....

Now you are moving the goalposts again. Your original question gave no indication that domesticated animals should be excluded. I gave you an opportunity for you to restate your question and after going through your ignorant bit about hybrids you then let satand the assumption that you meant to exclude domesticated animals.
Click to expand...

no, I merely pointed out that since you knew what I was asking and in fact gave me the words to say so I would ask the question the way you wanted, I merely stated that since you already knew the question there was no NEED for me to restate it.....there still isn't......answer it!.....

Human involvement has not stopped evolution in these animals.
Click to expand...
when it becomes an intentional breeding program it obviously is no longer evolution.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
Evolution effected all the bears, but not identically.
Click to expand...

lol....changing the goalposts is one thing.....changing the game from football to baseball is something entirely different......if they are different, its because they were not part of the same general population.......you've claimed the changes effected the entire population, not just the diverging strain.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....and I am saying it is not.....hence, our argument.....



no, I merely pointed out that since you knew what I was asking and in fact gave me the words to say so I would ask the question the way you wanted, I merely stated that since you already knew the question there was no NEED for me to restate it.....there still isn't......answer it!.....


when it becomes an intentional breeding program it obviously is no longer evolution.....
Click to expand...

I have answered your question. If you want to rephrase it then do so. There is no reason to exclude domesticated animals. They certainly have evolved. There is no reason to exclude the common rat. The evolutionary course of all animals and plants are affected by other animals.

Intentional breeding obviously does not stop evolution. Many evolutionary studies have been done with intentional breeding and have included domesticated animals. You are plainly wrong and quite stupid. What you mean is that it does not proceed via natural selection.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
did you not say evolution always effects the entire population?.......if that is so, the changes that resulted in polar bears should have effected all bears and thus, all bears would be polar bears......
Click to expand...

Yes, evolution affects the entire population and all animals. No, that does not mean that the changes that affected polar bears should affect all bears and thus all bears would be polar bears. Why would it affect all bears anymore than it would affect dogs? Not all bears share in the genic network of exchange, that you deny exists for any species anywhere ever, with polar bears. Evolution still affects the other bears but since their gene pools are divided they can not evolve in the same direction.

PostmodernProphet said:
lol....changing the goalposts is one thing.....changing the game from football to baseball is something entirely different......if they are different, its because they were not part of the same general population.......you've claimed the changes effected the entire population, not just the diverging strain.....
Click to expand...

No, I did not. You are just stupid, easily confused and you don't follow any better than you articulate.

I said the entire population is affected by evolution. If the gene pools are separated they evolve in divergent ways. If not they still evolve. Not all evolution is divergence.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
I have answered your question. If you want to rephrase it then do so. There is no reason to exclude domesticated animals. They certainly have evolved. There is no reason to exclude the common rat. The evolutionary course of all animals and plants are affected by other animals.

Intentional breeding obviously does not stop evolution. Many evolutionary studies have been done with intentional breeding and have included domesticated animals. You are plainly wrong and quite stupid. What you mean is that it does not proceed via natural selection.
Click to expand...

lol.....if you know what I mean why do you still have a hard time answering it?......
 
Professor Baxter said:
If the gene pools are separated they evolve in divergent ways
Click to expand...

no fair....that's my side of the argument, you can't have both sides......if this is now your position and you've abandoned the defense you raised, let's go back to the question that led to our disagreement......how do you explain the fact that homo sapiens is the only species that did not evolve in divergent ways?.......before you claimed the same was true of all creatures....now apparently you don't.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....if you know what I mean why do you still have a hard time answering it?......
Click to expand...

I answered your question the first time and twice after you shifted the goalposts. I have no idea how you want to move the goalposts now. Common rats are not domesticated or the product of human breeding. What species are you trying to exclude and why? It seems that is any that will prove you wrong.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no fair....that's my side of the argument, you can't have both sides......if this is now your position and you've abandoned the defense you raised, let's go back to the question that led to our disagreement......how do you explain the fact that homo sapiens is the only species that did not evolve in divergent ways?.......before you claimed the same was true of all creatures....now apparently you don't.....
Click to expand...

You are a lying moron. I have not changed on anything and you cannot produce one shred of proof that I have. You are just very very very stupid and don't understand what you are disagreeing with, like when you claimed that no animals anywhere ever share genes.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Common rats are not domesticated or the product of human breeding.
Click to expand...

and became "common" after being dispersed throughout the world in the bilges of ancient trading vessels......if I'm not mistaken another name for the "common" rat is the Norwegian rat......implying perhaps that its origin is not quite as "multi-regional" as one might hope in an example.....

certainly with all the species at your disposal you ought to be able to come up with one multi-regional species which isn't so easily explained away......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top