Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't Harris bullied by the bible-thumpers?

Does it matter?

Do you take a stick and poke the apes at the zoo, then wonder why they act irritated?

Would it make a difference if you were holding the stick or someone else?

 

[HitchSlap]

Does it matter?

You're denying your heritage, are you, AV?

Tsk, tsk.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're denying your heritage, are you, AV?

Tsk, tsk.

My heritage is found in Luke 3, not The Preservation of Favoured Races.

 

[HitchSlap]

My heritage is found in Luke 3, not The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Sorry, DNA doesn't lie. Your heritage is what it is.

 

[Speedwell]

Now we're getting somewhere. Evolution would provide prey species for the one-legged critter (you did want to broach the subject of evolutionary interdependency, which is much more complex.)

Where are the fossil remains of those unfit variations?

It depends on what you mean by "unfit variations." Such monsters as you describe occur only rarely and represent a failure of the evolutionary process. In the ordinary course of events variations are relatively small. Examine the population of any species and observe the normal variation between one individual and another. That is the kind of variation on which natural selection acts.

 

[RickG]

Sorry, DNA doesn't lie. Your heritage is what it is.

Quite right HitchSlap, as pointed out in an audio segment you posted in another thread by Michael Mann, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not facts.

 

[HitchSlap]

Quite right HitchSlap, as pointed out in an audio segment you posted in another thread by Michael Mann, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not facts.

Right!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, DNA doesn't lie. Your heritage is what it is.

It doesn't, huh?

So science has its own version of Luke 3 based on DNA, does it?

Thanks to this post, I now feel free to say that, on the macroscale, DNA lies.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why "natural selection", why not call it what it is; survival of the fittest.

I guess you can blame Darwin, who called his publication "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". But it gives the underlying reason for the 'survival of the fittest' - only they survive because natural selection winnows out the less fit.

Strictly speaking, even the fittest don't always survive, but it's the ones that do that are of interest

 

[RickG]

It doesn't, huh?

So science has its own version of Luke 3 based on DNA, does it?

Please refrain from making obvious incorrect associations. Thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strictly speaking, even the fittest don't always survive,

Because of natural selection, or in spite of it?

 

[Speedwell]

Because of natural selection, or in spite of it?

In spite of it. The fittest creature may fall victim to an accident, despite its fitness.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please refrain from making obvious incorrect associations. Thank you.

Like in Post 184, where it's assumed my DNA has been traced back to Evolutionland?

 

[HitchSlap]

It doesn't, huh?

So science has its own version of Luke 3 based on DNA, does it?

Thanks to this post, I now feel free to say that, on the macroscale, DNA lies.

DNA was around before Luke 3. Sorry.*

*(cue sad trombone music)

 

[RickG]

Like in Post 184, where it's assumed my DNA has been traced back to Evolutionland?

The only assumption with respect to the science is yours. However, your opinion is noted.

 

[AV1611VET]

In spite of it. The fittest creature may fall victim to an accident, despite its fitness.

So it's really, survival of the fittest, so long as the fittest remains fit?

What's that goofy thread you guys started about some animal that climbed a tree to get out of the way of some animal, and then fell out of it and was dragged away by jackals or something?

The thread came complete with a drawing of this thing posing for its picture.

It's no wonder hyenas laugh: they're laughing at evolutionists.

 

[RickG]

Like in Post 184, where it's assumed my DNA has been traced back to Evolutionland?

see my post 195.

 

[AV1611VET]

DNA was around before Luke 3.

Um ... no.

But you wouldn't understand why, would you?

(It's a doctrinal thing.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The only assumption with respect to the science is yours. However, your opinion is noted.

Thank you.

And I hope my opinion is noted to be in contrast to the opinion in Post 184.

 

[RickG]

Um ... no.

But you wouldn't understand why, would you?

(It's a doctrinal thing.)

If you wish to discuss apologetics there is a portion of the CF specific to that. Conversely, science is expected to be discussed here, is it not?