Big contradictions in the evolution theory

Carico · #1 10th August 2005, 04:46 PM

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today?

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

Pete Harcoff · #2 10th August 2005, 04:51 PM

Breeding between species is not black & white. There are degrees of different organisms ability to fertilize and succesfully reproduce. For example, human and various other primate gametes (eggs and sperm) can successfully fertilize. Whether they produce a viable offspring is another story. Likewise, some species can hybridize and produce offspring (horses and donkeys), but often those offspring are sterile. Finally, you have ring species, where species A can reproduce with species B and species C can reproduce with B, but A and C cannot reproduce with each other.

So over the course of evolution, you'd have a scenario where there is widening diversity. At some point an ancestral population might not be able to reproduce with an existing population, but it doesn't happen all in one step. It's a gradient.

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

Actually, it's your confusion that is the issue. Once you understand evolution better, you won't be confused.

MSBS · #3 10th August 2005, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Carico

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape. Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history. So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced? Where did he get his genes? If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

LOL...You aren't for real are you? An argument of "I don't get it, so it ain't true" is hardly an effective debate tactic. The "numerous contradictions" are in your misunderstanding of science, not in the theory. And frankly, the only embarrassment is what you are garnering for yourself.

Ozymandius · #4 10th August 2005, 04:56 PM

Didn't carico already make pretty much the same thread like 7 or 8 times a few months ago? And then proceed to ignore or lie about the explanations and evidence provided? Do we really need this again?

Dal M. · #5 10th August 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Carico

And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today?

Australopithecus afarensis isn't around anymore.

Nathan Poe · #6 10th August 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Carico

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape.

Very good, Carico, you learned something!

Apes are still producing apes today and always have since the beginning of recorded history.

Recorded history goes back about 8,000 years, and not many people back then were studying apes, wouldn't you agree?

A drop in the proverbial bucket; even you must see that.

So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?

Do you even know what a "missing link" is?

Where did he get his genes?

From its parents, just like you and me

If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring?

Do you even know what "superior" means?

Scientists don't; there's no such term in evolutionary biology.

The genes are different. Whether or not they are "superior" depends on the environment. And "superior" can quickly become "inferior" (and vice versa) with a single environmental shift.

It's really only a matter of what's better suited for the environment at that particular place and time. Hardly a universal endorsement of "superior" by any reasonable definition.

Let me ask you this: Is a Polar bear "superior" to a Bengal Tiger?

Where did they come from?

Where did they go?
Where did you come from, Cotton-Eye Joe?

To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?

To suppose that, perhaps. But your supposition is based on numerous false assumptions which you will, as you have in the past, refuse to acknowledge.

Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes?

From her parents, just like you and me

And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today?

They're not. Look around.

The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

That the theory of evolution contradicts just about everything you've said in this post is indeed embarassing. But you show no embarassment, and that's the blatant truth.

Nathan Poe · #7 10th August 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ozymandius

Didn't carico already make pretty much the same thread like 7 or 8 times a few months ago? And then proceed to ignore or lie about the explanations and evidence provided? Do we really need this again?

Carico makes this same thread every time. She's too proud to admit that the ToE is not what she thinks it is.

She simply cannot humble herself to admit a mistake.

Mistermystery · #8 10th August 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Carico

I have just seen several posts where the poster admitted that an ape cannot breed with anything other than an ape.

well now, that's just too black and white. We also say that ring species exsist, therefor this claim is a bit untrue if you ask me.

So what was the missing link's function and how was he produced?

There is no missing link, we understand pretty good how we share a common ancestor with apes.

Where did he get his genes?

Through evolution, not your strawman's version of it.

If you say it was mutation, then where is the evidence that superior genes not present in the DNA of the parents can suddenly and spontaneously appear in their offspring? Where did they come from? To suppose that, then one can also suppose that humans can breed offspring who can fly, can he not?Where is the evidence of this? So again, where did Lucy acquire her genes? And if Lucy is fitter than her parents, then why are her parents still around today? The numerous contradictions in the theory of evolution are blatant and embarrassing. But the truth holds no contradictions.

It's sad that through all this time that you are here you are still using a horrible creationist version of evolution, instead of a proper scientific one. Keep asking questions though that are relevant and you might still learn one day.

nvxplorer · #9 10th August 2005, 05:07 PM

I now believe in God.

When seeing this topic on the front page, he revealed to me that the OP would include discussion of apes breeding outside their species, missing links and genetic superiority.

Lo and behold, God's word as revealed to me was correct!

I am now a solid believer in God's power. Thanks, Carico.

Carico · #10 10th August 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Breeding between species is not black & white. There are degrees of different organisms ability to fertilize and succesfully reproduce. For example, human and various other primate gametes (eggs and sperm) can successfully fertilize. Whether they produce a viable offspring is another story. Likewise, some species can hybridize and produce offspring (horses and donkeys), but often those offspring are sterile. Finally, you have ring species, where species A can reproduce with species B and species C can reproduce with B, but A and C cannot reproduce with each other.

So over the course of evolution, you'd have a scenario where there is widening diversity. At some point an ancestral population might not be able to reproduce with an existing population, but it doesn't happen all in one step. It's a gradient.

Actually, it's your confusion that is the issue. Once you understand evolution better, you won't be confused.

I'm confused because evolutionists contradict themselves! 2 posters already told me that a species cannot produce offspring with another species. So which is it?

Where is this fertilized egg which you claim is a result of a human and another animal? I was told in my biology classes that this is not possible. So apparently, all scientists are confused about this! So since the premise of evolution can't even be proven, then how can the rest of the theory even be viable?

I would imagine that if a human could produce a fertilized egg with an animal that the whole world would hear about it. And until it can be proven that this is even possible, then the evolution theory is just a theory and not scientifically provable.