A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[ExistenceUnknown]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)"

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I believe... you totally missed my point.

Why so evasive? The point you made which we are discussing is that you were unfairly criticized for not understanding evolution well enough to legitimately criticize it. Your lack of understanding is evinced by the question you asked which showed you don't even understand that evolution occurs on a population scale. You're claiming you don't need to learn any more than you do because you've already convinced yourself evolution is false; we're pointing out that your demonstrated lack of understanding of even the fundamental concept of evolution makes your criticism hollow. You should address this point instead of giving me this undignified evasiveness.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

*subscribing*

 

[Atheos canadensis]

A definition including the words "allele" or "frequencies" or "population" was not included in the first 20 definitions I looked up.

Does that mean we shouldn't take you seriously?

Cute, but if you're trying to question my credibility by pretending evolution is not something that occurs on a population rather than individual scale then all you are acheiving is to put yourself in the same camp as Genez. Evolution is a population-scale process; if you don't know that then your understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed and your criticisms of the theory are empty. Both the first and second hits when you type "evolution" into Google link to definitions that include "population". I'm not going to debate this point with you because it is not up for debate. So either accept that evolution occurs on a population scale or or persist with your denial and prove you don't know what you're talking about. Either way works for me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Cute, but if you're trying to question my credibility by pretending evolution is not something that occurs on a population rather than individual scale then all you are acheiving is to put yourself in the same camp as Genez. Evolution is a population-scale process; if you don't know that then your understanding of evolution is fundamentally flawed and your criticisms of the theory are empty. Both the first and second hits when you type "evolution" into Google link to definitions that include "population". I'm not going to debate this point with you because it is not up for debate. So either accept that evolution occurs on a population scale or or persist with your denial and prove you don't know what you're talking about. Either way works for me.

Yeah, I don't get why people are drawn to treating evolution on the scale of the individual.

 

[GenemZ]

Why so evasive? The point you made which we are discussing is that you were unfairly criticized for not understanding evolution well enough to legitimately criticize it.

How well do you understand God before you mock? Tell us.

 

[Dizredux]

Yeah, I don't get why people are drawn to treating evolution on the scale of the individual.

I suspect two reasons.

First, they don't have a clue of how evolution works.

Second, they think that somehow they can show individuals do not evolve this disproving evolution.

Dizredux

 

[GenemZ]

*subscribing*

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Christopher Hitchens


Why are you a Wiccan?​

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How well do you understand God before you mock? Tell us.

The god described in the bible or the god you think you are having a relationship with?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I suspect two reasons.

First, they don't have a clue of how evolution works.

Second, they think that somehow they can show individuals do not evolve this disproving evolution.

Dizredux

Well, all individuals have some mutations (in humans, 50-60) in their DNA not shared by their parents, so you can't really disprove it on the individual scale. But it isn't realistic to look at it that way anyways, given that individual humans can't reproduce by themselves and that evolution works by changes in allele frequency over populations (which is why sterility is not a barrier to evolution).

 

[PsychoSarah]

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Christopher Hitchens


Why are you a Wiccan?​

Wiccan child, maybe his mom is Wiccan? The guy has an atheist symbol by the avatar, so I don't think he is Wiccan himself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why are you a Wiccan?

I am not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, all individuals have some mutations (in humans, 50-60) in their DNA not shared by their parents,

5-60... what?

 

[GenemZ]

First, they don't have a clue of how evolution works.

You folks are very closed minded. For many do understand. But, what you just said serves as a hiding place for you. Its a means to cover yourselves in smugness to feel untouchable.

We just do not go to great lengths to learn all the intricate details that you have devoted yourself to, like we do not learn all the intricate details as to what a Satanist believes in order to know he is on the wrong track.

What you call evolution, we do understand happens. But, only to some extent. Like the finches beaks that darwin observed. The problem arises when you take this ability for creatures to mutate and begin fantasizing to get them to adapt to the extremes in change that you propose to explain how we got all life. That is when we begin to file you next to Satanist in you fanatical ability to believe what you fantasize beyond what is to be observed.

The beaks of finches changed their shape to adapt to the environmental changes that challenged them. Fine. God also made man to tan when exposed to the sun. But, when you find dogs developing beaks because of a food supply being cut off? Then you might have a point as to what you so dogmatically present as a given fact.

Human hearts may change over time as to adjust to a change in diet. But that does not, and can not, explain how creatures got hearts to begin with! To see changes in something that is already exists does not equate with causing it to be there in the first place!

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[PsychoSarah]

5-60... what?

Every person born will have 50-60 differences in their DNA not shared by either parent (not necessarily on genes, but a few of them can impact genes). Not sure why you are confused.

 

[lasthero]

But when you find dogs developing beaks? Then you might have a point to what you so dogmatically present as a given fact.

No, in fact evolution predicts this CANNOT happen.

Beaks only developed in birds after they developed from dinosaurs. They're on a completely different branch than dogs. It doesn't matter how much they change, a dog is not going to develop a bird's beak, or feathers, or any of the other things that are exclusive to birds, because it's not a part of their lineage. For the same reason, birds will never develop fur or canine teeth. And this is what we expect to happen with a nested hierarchy. If they developed these things, it would violate the nested hierarchy.

 

[GenemZ]

I am not.

I see.. Just being transparent.

 

[GenemZ]

Nice day... but a little cloudy. Beats snow.

(deleted)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nice day... but a little cloudy. Beats snow.

(deleted)

Weather is relative to location.