Evolution happens

[AV1611VET]

Evolution through imperfections ... sounds like an oxymoron.

And don't forget:

We're mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Buzzard3]

Plant breeders will tell you that there is a limit to what they can do with a particular plant type. The barrier is genetics. It's one that cannot be crossed.

If you told a dog breeder that a non-dog could be bred from a dog, they'd laugh. Your average animal or plant breeder has got more common-sense and a better grip on reality than your average evolutionary scientist.

 

[Buzzard3]

And don't forget:

We're mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

When I remember that I evolved from some kind of ape, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you told a dog breeder that a non-dog could be bred from a dog, they'd laugh. Your average animal or plant breeder has got more common-sense and a better grip on reality than your average evolutionary scientist.

Except that's not what the theory of evolution says will happen. You could get an animal that looks like a dog that follows the cat lineage, but it wouldn't be a dog. It would be dog-like.

Like, do you actually know anything about the thing you're railing against?

 

[Shemjaza]

Plant breeders will tell you that there is a limit to what they can do with a particular plant type. The barrier is genetics. It's one that cannot be crossed.

They "will tell you" why can't it simply be demonstrated then? If it's so trivial, why haven't all the millions of dollars put into Intelligent Design and Creationism been able to demonstrate this simple barrier that any amateur breeder can demonstrate?

Evolution through imperfections ... sounds like an oxymoron.

Why?

Evolution isn't perfect and never claims to be.

Many problems humans face come from the way our hip, knees and internal organ attach to the rest of our body. It makes perfect sense when you see that we have an almost identical body plan to a quadrupedal mammal, but since evolution by individual mutations and traits can shift posture and gait, it can't rewrite gross internal structure.

If you told a dog breeder that a non-dog could be bred from a dog, they'd laugh. Your average animal or plant breeder has got more common-sense and a better grip on reality than your average evolutionary scientist.

Oh really?

Have you met Abby, my Timber Wolf

She is still a canine and still a mammal... but even in a few centuries of encouraged mutations she is clearly not a wolf. She has a great number of traits not found in wild wolf populations that let her survive in her environment that would get a wolf killed.

The exact same mechanisms led to humans varying from the forest dwelling primates that both humans are chimps are descended from. We have the genetic evidence and we have the bones.

You have claims and unjustified mockery.

 

[Buzzard3]

That's not really relevant though .. is it(?)

Not sure what you mean.

All beliefs are optional.

Tell that to the scientific community, that dogmatically insists that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. They've been ramming that belief down our throats for a long time.

 

[Buzzard3]

Can you describe the mechanism that creates an ultimate barrier?

No.

Populations of life can diverge to the point where they no longer breed.

And this is evidence that humans evolved from a fish?

Without some mechanism there is no reason to assume this divergence can't continue.

That seems a bit like saying "Without some mechanism there's no reason to doubt that a human will one day run as fast as a cheetah."

Divergence within a species is one thing - a human evolving from a fish is quite another.

In fact we have both fossil and genetic evidence to indicate that this divergence has continued.

No one is disputing that genetic evidence confirms microevolution (variations within a species).

Fossil evidence reveals changes over time ("evolution"), but fossil evidence tells us nothing about what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B, nor anything about what biological process was responsible for their respective appearances.

Furthermore, the fossil is characterized by the sudden appearance of species and stasis of species - so much so that Gould described Darwin's theory of gradualism as an "embarrassment" ... which is rather ironic, bcoz Gould's bizarre theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is even harder to swallow. The bottom line is, evolutionists struggle to explain the fossil record.

Nested hierarchies are a prediction of evolution, and are not necessary for intelligent design.

A nested hierarchy is understandable. The appearance of novel organs and body plans and the sudden appearance of new phyla ... not so much.

 

[SelfSim]

Not sure what you mean.

Uh huh.

Tell that to the scientific community, that dogmatically insists that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. They've been ramming that belief down our throats for a long time.

Define 'belief'.

 

[Shemjaza]

No.

Good start.

And this is evidence that humans evolved from a fish?

Yes, it is. It's not the whole evidence, but it's absolutely a component.

That seems a bit like saying "Without some mechanism there's no reason to doubt that a human will one day run as fast as a cheetah."

Good thing we have mechanisms for that then.

Divergence within a species is one thing - a human evolving from a fish is quite another.

How so? We've established that species can vary to the point of splitting into separate, but similar species... and we have evidence of ever further variation.

A lion and a tiger are separate species of great cat, closely related, but no longer the same species... but a puma or a cheetah are also clearly cats but futher away and less compatible.

No one is disputing that genetic evidence confirms microevolution (variations within a species).

The same genetic evidence for paternity and micro evolution within species demonstrates degrees of genetic reateedness between more distantly related life forms.

Fossil evidence reveals changes over time ("evolution"), but fossil evidence tells us nothing about what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B, nor anything about what biological process was responsible for their respective appearances.

Except the fossil evidence is consistent with the genetic evidence.

And new mechanisms are not necessary to explain the evidence. Micro evolution leading to divided species can also explain over the built up changes over a longer period of time.

Furthermore, the fossil is characterized by the sudden appearance of species and stasis of species - so much so that Gould described Darwin's theory of gradualism as an "embarrassment" ... which is rather ironic, bcoz Gould's bizarre theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is even harder to swallow. The bottom line is, evolutionists struggle to explain the fossil record.

Not true.

I think you should try reading what "evolutionists" actually say in context, rather than dishonest misrepresentations of their points.

Punctuated Equilibrium is an explanation about how the rate of evolution can vary depending on environment not a universal explanation of the process of evolution.

In many instances the evidence indicates more gradual changes and adaptations.

Rapid changes in environments lead to higher evolutionary pressures and greater speeds of fixing of new or rare traits.

A nested hierarchy is understandable. The appearance of novel organs and body plans and the sudden appearance of new phyla ... not so much.

Do you have a specific example? If you examine most new novel traits in life forms it's pretty clear that it's actually a new adaption of an existing organ or structure.

If you look at the skeleton of a seal's flipper you can see that it has enclosed toes foot structures much like related land carnivores.

 

[Buzzard3]

Evolution is excellent science and has nothing to do with atheism.

Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:

1.Evolution is poor science, which is dressed up to look like good science and aggresively marketed as such.

2. It has everything to do with atheism. The aim of the game is to provide an explanation for life on earth without the need of a Creator.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." - William Provine

Evidently, you are one of the billions who has been deceived by this fable.

 

[Shemjaza]

Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:

1.Evolution is poor science, which is dressed up to look like good science and aggresively marketed as such.

False. It's an explanation for evidence.

2. It has everything to do with atheism. The aim of the game is to provide an explanation for life on earth without the need of a Creator.

False, but also incredibly poor at its task.

In most western countries Christians who accept evolution outnumber atheists of all varieties.

...including many Catholic priests.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." - William Provine

Evidently, you are one of the billions who has been deceived by this fable.

If the choice is maintained as a dichotomy between Creationism vs Atheism, then Creationism fails at the evidence... however luckily for religious people who accept science, that is a false dichotomy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:

1.Evolution is poor science, which is dressed up to look like good science and aggresively marketed as such.

What exactly do you know about science?
How would you identify "good science"?
What is your field of study?

2. It has everything to do with atheism. The aim of the game is to provide an explanation for life on earth without the need of a Creator.

The aim of evolution is to understand the diversity of biology. It is not a branch of "atheism". Plenty of believers accept evolution.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." - William Provine

Never heard of him. I have heard said knowing about evolution makes it easier to abandon the notion of gods since we don't need gods to explain life's diversity anymore.

Evidently, you are one of the billions who has been deceived by this fable.

There aren't any talking animals (except humans) ergo, it is not a fable.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that's not what the theory of evolution says will happen. You could get an animal that looks like a dog that follows the cat lineage, but it wouldn't be a dog. It would be dog-like.

Like, do you actually know anything about the thing you're railing against?

According to my understading of ToE ....

A population of dogs + mutations + selection + lots of time = an animal that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae

 

[Shemjaza]

According to my understading of ToE ....

A population of dogs + mutations + selection + lots of time = an animal that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae

They would still be a subsection of the family Canidae... perhaps it could be re-labelled a superfamily if the descendants were sufficiently distinct to require separate groups labelled families.

A creature never evolves out of their ancestry.

That's why humans are still vertebrates, amniotes, mammals, primates and apes... while being hominids.

 

[Buzzard3]

They would still be a subsection of the family Canidae... perhaps it could be re-labelled a superfamily if the descendants were sufficiently distinct to require separate groups labelled families.

A creature never evolves out of their ancestry.

That's why humans are still vertebrates, amniotes, mammals, primates and apes... while being hominids.

I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestry

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestry

The same way you can't decide who your great grandfather was. It's a part of you.

It's not to say that significant change isn't possible.

Examples, is a snake is still a tetra pod, despite no longer having four limbs; and ab axolotl is still an amphibian despite spending it's entire life living in the water.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You do have to make up stuff thought.
Like your King James McGraw Hill Science Textbook.

And scripture it not science.
Its religion.

Evidence matters.

Truth matters. God's word is truth. Baseless statements by scientists are not truth. It's about time that evolutionary "scientists" started each new pronouncement with "We were wrong". One day the light will dawn and they will realise that they were wrong about evolution as a theory. Science is not God. It is as flawed, dishonest, corrupt, self-serving, money hungry and arrogant as any other human endeavor. Sure, there are honest scientists as well. But to elevate science to some kind of infallible, noble and ethically pure pursuit is to deny reality.

I'd give you a list of pronouncements of "facts" that have proven wrong if I thought you'd take notice. I'd give you a list of the phony, peer-reviewed papers that were false or plagiarised. I'd tell you about the guy who fraudulently obtained grants worth millions or the other man who almost defrauded the Nobel Prize committee. Of course, none of this matters to someone blinded by his worship of science.

I'm not anti science. I'm against the false concept that science is infallible and beyond reproach. I'm against worthless research that benefits only the researchers. Particle research for example. Now some clown has decided that quantum physics determines that there is no reality. Try telling that to the people of Ukraine. Is there intelligent life on Mars? It's hard enough to find it on earth. How about solving the problems of this world before screwing up another planet.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestry

Anything is possible in theory. In practice, another thing entirely.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to my understading of ToE ....

A population of dogs + mutations + selection + lots of time = an animal that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae

And your understanding of evolution is completely wrong. A member of the Family Canidae will never stop being a member of the Canidae family no matter how it mutates.

 

[Buzzard3]

Anything is possible in theory. In practice, another thing entirely.

If there's one thing evolutionary scientists are "good" at, it's dreaming up theories. Evolutionary theories are a dime a dozen, and a great deal of them can't be tested, which means they don't even qualify as science. Theories that can't be tested are just worthless stories, which suits evolutionary science just fine, because it's a bs-artist's paradise.

Take Stephen Jay Gould, for example: His books were lapped up by the evo-masses, but his ideas didn't advance science one bit. His famous theory - Punctuated Equilbrium - surprise, surprise - can't be tested. Gould was your typical evolutionary "scientist" ... a purveyor of worthless pseudo-scientific stories.
Evolutionary science is the most overrated, useless branch of science in history ... but that doesn't matter, because it's raison d'être is not to advance science, but to advance atheism.