Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

jamie4418 said:
The idea that we came from apes, and amoeba before that is simply insane.

May God help us to see what truth really is.

Great comment, really important to this discussion...

well...

not...

Have anything of substance to add maybe?

fromdownunder · Aug 13, 2006

LightHorseman said:
Supersport...

Is that a defence of evolutionary theory? Cos it reads like the best 5 point description of how evolution works that I have ever seen. I hope you don't mind me using it to debate further.

It's a strange game that somebody plays when they go to multiple BBs, put up an argument, then refute their own argument by posting links that point out exactly what everybody (except the OP) else said in the first place.

Norm

astroweezer · Aug 13, 2006

jamie4418 said:
The idea that we came from apes, and amoeba before that is simply insane.

May God help us to see what truth really is.

And may he help you open a science book and actually get educated on evolution before denouncing it with simple uneducated statements. God has got to be embarrassed with all the statements carried out in his name.

We did not evolve from apes...we have a common ancestor. What about the overwhelming abundance of evidence for this is wrong? Please explain citing specific mechanisms.

=w=

eri · Aug 13, 2006

I think supersport is trying to argue that since a few animals have it within their genetic makeup to change to suit the environment, evolution must be wrong by saying that only the offspring can benifit from genetic changes.

But he is confused on (at least) two points: one, that phenotypical changes are actual changes to the genetic code (they aren't, and therefore are NOT evolution), and two, that every animal is capable of suiting itself to whatever environment it finds itself in - which is demonstratably false. If you take me straight from SC and dump me in Antarctica, I will die, not grow a thick coat of fur.

(edited because I can't spell)

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

eri said:
I think supersport is trying to argue that since a few animals have it within their genetic makeup to change to suit the environment, evolution must be wrong by saying that only the offspring can benifit from genetic changes.

But he is confused on (at least) two points: one, that phenotypical changes are actual changes to the genetic code (they aren't, and therefore are NOT evolution), and two, that every animal is capable of suiting itself to whatever environment it finds itself in - which is demonstratably false. If you take me straight from SC and dump me in Antarctica, I will die, not grow a thick coat of fir.

Is he? I actually have no idea what he is arguing anymore, other than (maybe) that he can come up with a quote everytime that shows his own argument in the post he's making to be incorrect.

I would agree with you that he is confused though. That much is obvious.

I_Love_Cheese · Aug 13, 2006

you guys are so fun to play with!!

So how is your experiment going?
What is your ranking of the evolutionary knowledge of the various boards you have been spamming?
Are you happy with the accuracy of the rebuttals?
What are the points that we are missing?
Have you come to any conclusions as to how to deal with people who are like you pretend to be?

Advice to you, don't make it quite so easy to rebut your points.

My interpretation so far is that the average level of the responder to your posts is fairly knowledgeable and that you have yet to confuse any of them with your misleadings.

Please tell us if you are going to publish anywhere, I am curious to see your conclusions.

If I am wrong about this, I am sorry for you.

Cheese

LightHorseman · Aug 13, 2006

But evolution isn't about taking animals and dumping them in antarctica, its about gradual changes! When you get sudden changes that are equivalent to dumping things in Antarctica... then what you get is mass extinctions!Macroevolution ISN'T ABOUT WHOLE NEW ORGANS APEARING FULLY FORMED!!!! An organ slowly changes over time, tiny mutations on top of other tiny mutations, over thousands of years, change structure. We aren't talking about going from tadpoles to eagles in one step, but slowly, slowly, over many generations.Lets look at birds. A lizard with birdlike characteristics poassed those characteristics on, and through mutation, some of its offspring had even MORE birdlike characteristics. Repeat this process a couple hundred times, and guess what? Eventually you have a bird with lizardlike characteristics! Nowhere is there required the formation of a completely new organ, fully formed. Just gradual changes over time, that comply with the environmental pressures inherent in the environment.Don't believe me, go look at your local Archaeopterix fossil!

eri · Aug 13, 2006

Since you're talking about Antarctica, I'll assume you're referring to my post. I know. Supersport seemed to be claiming that since a species of fox was capable of changing it's coat color in the winter, any type of fox dumped into the same environment would be capable of doing the same - which is false, obviously - the other foxes don't have the genes to transform like that. Just as I don't have the genes to grow a thick layer of hair at a moments notice.

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

eri said:
Since you're talking about Antarctica, I'll assume you're referring to my post. I know. Supersport seemed to be claiming that since a species of fox was capable of changing it's coat color in the winter, any type of fox dumped into the same environment would be capable of doing the same - which is false, obviously - the other foxes don't have the genes to transform like that. Just as I don't have the genes to grow a thick layer of hair at a moments notice.

What do you want to bet?

I_Love_Cheese · Aug 13, 2006

LightHorseman said:
But evolution isn't about taking animals and dumping them in antarctica, its about gradual changes! When you get sudden changes that are equivalent to dumping things in Antarctica... then what you get is mass extinctions!Macroevolution ISN'T ABOUT WHOLE NEW ORGANS APEARING FULLY FORMED!!!! An organ slowly changes over time, tiny mutations on top of other tiny mutations, over thousands of years, change structure. We aren't talking about going from tadpoles to eagles in one step, but slowly, slowly, over many generations.Lets look at birds. A lizard with birdlike characteristics poassed those characteristics on, and through mutation, some of its offspring had even MORE birdlike characteristics. Repeat this process a couple hundred times, and guess what? Eventually you have a bird with lizardlike characteristics! Nowhere is there required the formation of a completely new organ, fully formed. Just gradual changes over time, that comply with the environmental pressures inherent in the environment.Don't believe me, go look at your local Archaeopterix fossil!

Where have I seen this post before? Don't tell me there are two of you?

eri · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
What do you want to bet?

I'll bet you a billion dollars that I won't grow a thick enough layer of hair to save my life at the South Pole. But that's not hard to proove, heck, I'd probably die from exposure right now if I got locked out of my apt. I'm not all that adaptable.

As for the fox, we have many animals in zoos that don't change color or fur type in their new environments, that is, if they didn't before. Since the normal red foxes around here don't change their coats in the winter, I'd be willing to bet a lot that they wouldn't if they were transported to the north either. But since you seem unwilling to test your theory, and scientists see no reason to do it for you since we already know what will happen based on previous observaitons, we may never know.

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
What do you want to bet?

What can you spare? If it's worth it, and you are ready to pay the costs of the experiment, I'm all game.

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

eri said:
I'll bet you a billion dollars that I won't grow a thick enough layer of hair to save my life at the South Pole. But that's not hard to proove, heck, I'd probably die from exposure right now if I got locked out of my apt. I'm not all that adaptable.

As for the fox, we have many animals in zoos that don't change color or fur type in their new environments, that is, if they didn't before. Since the normal red foxes around here don't change their coats in the winter, I'd be willing to bet a lot that they wouldn't if they were transported to the north either. But since you seem unwilling to test your theory, and scientists see no reason to do it for you since we already know what will happen based on previous observaitons, we may never know.

http://mynarskiforest.purrsia.com/ev3rdesc.htm

The fur consists of a short, very thick undercoat covered with long guard hairs. The typical red fox is light orange to brownish red in colour, with black legs and ears, and a white under belly, chin, and tail tip. Individual coloration tends to be darker in higher latitudes, and winter coats are both darker and thicker.

checkmate!

I dare you to point out any animal that is not adaptive.....

eri · Aug 13, 2006

But that's already something the fox can do. I thought we were talking about it doing something it's never done before - like growing a white coat all over, as the arctic fox does. Didn't you say that all foxes would react the same as the arctic fox under the same conditions?

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

eri said:
But that's already something the fox can do. I thought we were talking about it doing something it's never done before - like growing a white coat all over, as the arctic fox does. Didn't you say that all foxes would react the same as the arctic fox under the same conditions?

I said EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH is adaptive, regardless of the fact that evolutionists insist that adaptation happens only through populations and only through random mutations via selection.

eri · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
http://mynarskiforest.purrsia.com/ev3rdesc.htm

The fur consists of a short, very thick undercoat covered with long guard hairs. The typical red fox is light orange to brownish red in colour, with black legs and ears, and a white under belly, chin, and tail tip. Individual coloration tends to be darker in higher latitudes, and winter coats are both darker and thicker.

checkmate!

I dare you to point out any animal that is not adaptive.....

your theory is pathetic

Yes, the main point of that quote being "tends to be darker in higher latitudes". Since (I'm pretty sure) these foxes don't migrate, foxes that live in colder temps would naturally select for warmer coats. The paragraph isn't stating that the foxes at the warmer latitudes would automatically grow the thicker coat if transported.

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

the fact is, adaptation your way would take thousands of years to spread throughout the population. Not only that but are you suggesting that one form of fox is that much different than the next? Are they not all part of a main group -- with basically the same abilities and characeristics? Are you honestly saying that one type of fox can do something that the next cannot?

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLet...Evolution.html

Anyone still buy this?

Tomk80 · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
http://mynarskiforest.purrsia.com/ev3rdesc.htm

The fur consists of a short, very thick undercoat covered with long guard hairs. The typical red fox is light orange to brownish red in colour, with black legs and ears, and a white under belly, chin, and tail tip. Individual coloration tends to be darker in higher latitudes, and winter coats are both darker and thicker.

checkmate!

I dare you to point out any animal that is not adaptive.....

your theory is pathetic

Nobody has said that animals are not adaptive. Only that this adaptation has limits. Red foxes will not adapt so much that they will start changing coat color in winter, to take one example.

Again, it would be very pleasant if you started to attack what people, or the theory for evolution for that matter, actually state.

Again, a limited adaptablity is not contested by anyone and is perfectly in line with the theory of evolution. Got it? Thanks.

supersport · Aug 13, 2006

http://www.uwm.edu/~johnchay/UWSfolder/Red%20Fox.htm

The Red Fox is slightly heavier than a house cat (though it often appears much larger). Its ears are large and pointed, often tipped with black, and its snout is slender and delicate, while its eyes are relatively large. Its legs are relatively slender and fairly long, though under the Fox's thick winter coat they may appear stubbier than they actually are. The paws are often dark-colored in comparision to the legs. The tail is very bushy and long, usually famously tipped with white. Color is extremely variable despite the name:

astroweezer · Aug 13, 2006

supersport said:
the fact is, adaptation your way would take thousands of years to spread throughout the population. Not only that but are you suggesting that one form of fox is that much different than the next? Are they not all part of a main group -- with basically the same abilities and characeristics?

http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLet...Evolution.html

Anyone still buy this?

Yep...you have convinced me of it wholeheartedly. Evolution occurs just like all the posts you link to suggest.

Seriously, is supersport for real? These is the most insane debating technique since...well...since his last post.

Can I declare Poe's Law here?

=w=

Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

Titleless

Senior Member

Member

Regular Member

Titleless

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Regular Member

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency