The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[beingofone]

How blind believers are incapable of seeing the blantly obvious contradictions is mind blowing.

A Satire on the Mindless Theory:

1) A cat is said not to be able to drop a litter of puppies but given millions of years it can drop a litter of kittens/puppies/tulips/extra terrestrial/fungi/rock/man eating/cyclops offspring.

But a cat cannot give birth to anything but kittens as this would falsify evolution.

2) Once the divergence between animal and plant has taken place they can never cross the lineage back again. If a cat gives birth to a plant that would be to dramatic a change and therefore; falsify evolution.

A simple cell can evolve into a plant/animal species but only if it already occured millions of years ago and if we were to see a plant/animal it would falsify evolution.

Therefore; as long as wee see the categories that we actually see in reality, evolution is true.

If we were ever to see an imaginary monster plant/animal that would falsify evolution. Therefore because our fantasy imagination is not seen evolution is true.

3) All organisms are still evolving but can never, under any circumstances, utilize past gene mutation because the lineage has already been vanquished therefore; evolution is true.

Unless we could imagine what mankind will evolve into as utilizing plant characteristics and therefore; because we can imagine a possible human/plant life form evolution is true.

4) Only new species can evolve from a simple single cell as highly complex life forms cannot utilize the material it has to work with as this would falsify evolution because it must have evolved the way we see it has.

Complex life forms can continue to evolve into new species utilizing all the programming inherent in the DNA and become a super dooper human and therefore; evolution is true.

5) All life started from the same 'soup' but can no longer utilize past genetic advantages.

All life continues to evolve and utilizes all past genetic advantages.




What do you not understand about why this is such a contradiction?

All you have is wise cracks about how I do not understand the theory.

Nonsense - address the points or you are simply a blind follower of whatever a textbook tells you. I was told in grade school there were no volcanic activity in the North American continent to be found and that oil came from dinasours.

The textbooks can be wrong - use your head for God`s sakes and stop assuming the 'experts' are always right. They are people just like you and me, do your own thinking and stop being so gullible.

Warpus:

Beingofone's Theorem: A mule cannot reproduce, therefore God exists.

This is an oversimplification even for a mind such as yours.

I am sorry you cannot keep up with a conversation.

 

[Xanikk999]

How blind believers are incapable of seeing the blantly obvious contradictions is mind blowing..

You seem like the blind beilever here actually.

A Satire on the Mindless Theory:

1) A cat is said not to be able to drop a litter of puppies but given millions of years it can drop a litter of kittens/puppies/tulips/extra terrestrial/fungi/rock/man eating/cyclops offspring.

Pretty unlikely actually. These mutations would have to be benificial to actually survive and be passed on. And many of those would only be taken in very very small steps.

But a cat cannot give birth to anything but kittens as this would falsify evolution.

A cat gives birth to kittens yes, but these kittens have different genes then its mother. Given time and seperation from other cats these cats would become distinctly seperate species.

I dont think you understand how evolution works.

2) Once the divergence between animal and plant has taken place they can never cross the lineage back again. If a cat gives birth to a plant that would be to dramatic a change and therefore; falsify evolution.

This deserves no response. You do not know enough about evolution to even argue against it.

A simple cell can evolve into a plant/animal species but only if it already occured millions of years ago and if we were to see a plant/animal it would falsify evolution.

I snipped your other quotes, they made absolutely no sense such as this one.

 

[Masquerouge]

How blind believers are incapable of seeing the blantly obvious contradictions is mind blowing.

The way assume you're actually right and the whole scientific community worldwide is wrong, THAT is mindblowing.

What do you not understand about why this is such a contradiction?

Maybe because you're the only one to see contradictions based on your wrong perception of ToE?

All you have is wise cracks about how I do not understand the theory.

Well reading the posts made by others in this thread, what you call wise cracks are actually sound rebuttals of every single point you've made.

Nonsense - address the points or you are simply a blind follower of whatever a textbook tells you. I was told in grade school there were no volcanic activity in the North American continent to be found and that oil came from dinasours.

Your grade school sucks.

The textbooks can be wrong - use your head for God`s sakes and stop assuming the 'experts' are always right. They are people just like you and me, do your own thinking and stop being so gullible.

And what if I've done my own thinking and came to the conclusion that ToE is the best and only explanation there is?

Furthermore, why should I trust you, an anonymous guy on an internet forum, over the books on evolution I've read written by scientists who studied for years that very subject?

 

[El_Machinae]

1) A cat is said not to be able to drop a litter of puppies but given millions of years it can drop a litter of kittens/puppies/tulips/extra terrestrial/fungi/rock/man eating/cyclops offspring.

But a cat cannot give birth to anything but kittens as this would falsify evolution.

Okay, here's the way the ToE would state things happen:
The cat drops a litter into a population that has sufficient genetic diversity to sustain itself (you understand that, right? Too small a population base will lead to fatal inbreeding).
Put the cat into cryogenic storage.
Breed the population for a million years, in an environment that changes occassionally.
If you wake up the cat, it will be unable to breed with what has resulted in the population.

Do you understand that this is what the theory is stating?

- as to the rest of your points, I can't even tell what you're saying. What do you mean by "utilize past gene mutation"? You mention it a few times in a few contexts, but the phrase does not mean anything to me.

 

[beingofone]

Xanikk999:

You do not know enough about evolution to even argue against it.

You do not know enough about evolution - it is why you believe in it.


Masquerouge:

The way assume you're actually right and the whole scientific community worldwide is wrong, THAT is mindblowing.

What is mind blowing is not thinking for yourself.

Maybe because you're the only one to see contradictions based on your wrong perception of ToE?

This is like a mantra. I hear this over and over and yet; no one actually points it out. They just claim it as if saying it makes it true rather than using logic and thought.

Well reading the posts made by others in this thread, what you call wise cracks are actually sound rebuttals of every single point you've made.

You assume a response void of content is a point.

And what if I've done my own thinking and came to the conclusion that ToE is the best and only explanation there is?

I would say you have done yourself a great service and I would not change until it is overturned in your own mind.

I would also say it is okay to say "I do not know" - if it is honesty, it is how we grow.

Furthermore, why should I trust you, an anonymous guy on an internet forum, over the books on evolution I've read written by scientists who studied for years that very subject?

Good question; you just nailed it.

Do not trust anything but your own thinking and logical experience.

Make up your own mind, examine all the facts with an open mind but utilize your own thinking as the final decision maker. Never - ever - let someone else do your thinking for you including me.

If what I say makes sense then contemplate it - then make up your own mind but always keep your mind open.

It is not so important that we disagree so long as we are crystal clear WHERE we disagree - we can then make progress using the handy tool of logic and what is self evident.


El_Machinae:

Okay, here's the way the ToE would state things happen:
The cat drops a litter into a population that has sufficient genetic diversity to sustain itself (you understand that, right? Too small a population base will lead to fatal inbreeding).
Put the cat into cryogenic storage.
Breed the population for a million years, in an environment that changes occassionally.
If you wake up the cat, it will be unable to breed with what has resulted in the population.

Thank you for addressing the issues.

Yes I understand that - how does mutations that are imperceptable give say; a human wings?

In other words, how did a single cell evolve into a divergence of plant/animal/fungi but these categories can never utilize the past advantages?

- as to the rest of your points, I can't even tell what you're saying. What do you mean by "utilize past gene mutation"? You mention it a few times in a few contexts, but the phrase does not mean anything to me.

Because the theory gives a single cell more properties of adaptation then complex organisms. A single cell can evole into a plant or animal but a complex organism - such as a human - can never evolve using plant characteristics.

That does not make sense and has no comparison whatsoever in any other field of science anywhere to be found in relation.

 

[ArneHD]

Evolution is like random particle movement, the reason why vacumes suck. Particles will move randomly in any given direction, although very fast. If you imagine opening a bottle, the particles will still move randomly, they will however encounter less resistance from the direction of the opening.

Evolution is like that, random mutations that happen to be benficial to the organism.

 

[warpus]

In other words, how did a single cell evolve into a divergence of plant/animal/fungi but these categories can never utilize the past advantages?

The first life on this planet could have had an "evolutionary advantage", since they were single-celled. One minor mutation affects the whole organism on a huge scale.. since it's only one cell. This explains the divergence of the first lifeform into very different and distinct forms of life.

An organism like a human is much more complex - a mutation too large and the fetus and/or baby will not survive. There isn't as much room for sudden biological changes.

Then again I'm not a biologist, but that makes sense to me.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because the theory gives a single cell more properties of adaptation then complex organisms.

I can't see how this would be a concern. The rate of adaption is pretty well tied to reproduction rate and opportunity cost of reproduction. The number of generations a fruit fly colony undergoes is massive in the time it takes for a mammal to have a few generations (this is why the fruit fly experiments were able to split into non-interbreeding species in the course of a lab project). The opportunity for a change in the species occurs when there's reproduction: more babies = greater rate of change.

Single-celled organisms reproduce way faster than fruit flies.

A single cell can evole into a plant or animal but a complex organism - such as a human - can never evolve using plant characteristics.

Again, I don't understand. The animals never had access to 'plant' DNA; both came from a founding species, but DNA has been added to both our genomes after the split in the species occured.

As to how humans could get wings: well, we'd clearly need selection pressure in that direction. Like with all 'new' organs, it would be the gradual change of another organ in minutely useful ways that eventually would allow the organ to be used as a flight supplement (which would like then move towards useful wings).

But keep in mind that it's not merely pressure 'towards' wings, but pressure that allows a current organ to mutate and still be useful. It could even be something stupid like a mutation in the eardrum that made a large ear more useful (and then lead to larger ears that could later modify into gliding instruments)

 

[brennan]

Beingofone: Do you know how dog and cat breeds are bred? That's how evolution works.

 

[Lord Parkin]

That is because macroevolution wants its cake and eats it to and as such, is a gigantic strawman.

And that's another strawman. Man, we must sure be scaring away the birds pretty well...

I am done - cya.

Well, goodbye then. I see that when the questions become too hard for you to retaliate to, you simply give up and leave. It's a shame that you left before you shared any of your great knowledge about how ID is actually a science, though. Perhaps you didn't actually have any evidence after all, as we suspected from the beginning...

Yes I understand that - how does mutations that are imperceptable give say; a human wings?

In case you haven't noticed, there are no humans with wings, except in fantasy stories. Thus, your question is irrelevant.

 

[beingofone]

warpus:

Beingofone's Theorem: A mule cannot reproduce, therefore God exists.

This is an oversimplification even for a mind such as yours.

I apologize that you cannot keep up with a conversation.

Moderator Action: Do not attack other people, focus on the discussion isntead.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889


El_Machinae:

Single-celled organisms reproduce way faster than fruit flies.

You still do not understand - it is not the amount of time to make the change that is essential, it is the structure of the life form mutating.

The cells in your body can keep up with the high rate, can they not?

The animals never had access to 'plant' DNA; both came from a founding species, but DNA has been added to both our genomes after the split in the species occured.

Some of the latest models show animal appearing before plant. It really doesn`t matter, either way you cannot share the DNA and saying they were never related invalidates the entire macroevolution conjecture completely.

As to how humans could get wings: well, we'd clearly need selection pressure in that direction. Like with all 'new' organs, it would be the gradual change of another organ in minutely useful ways that eventually would allow the organ to be used as a flight supplement (which would like then move towards useful wings).

But keep in mind that it's not merely pressure 'towards' wings, but pressure that allows a current organ to mutate and still be useful. It could even be something stupid like a mutation in the eardrum that made a large ear more useful (and then lead to larger ears that could later modify into gliding instruments)

How many birds needed to jump off a cliff before they learned in the eons of the past they could fly?

Before they could fly how was it a survival advantage that spread through the gene pool? How did macroevolution 'know' it would be an advantage to work out as a goal?

If it takes millions of years, is random changes in DNA , and only keeps what is survivable - how many birds had to die jumping out of trees before it became an advantage while trying to use their brand new wings? Billions maybe?

Its nonsense dude, Its pure mindless propoganda with hocus pocus.

Lord Parkin:

Well, goodbye then. I see that when the questions become too hard for you to retaliate to, you simply give up and leave. It's a shame that you left before you shared any of your great knowledge about how ID is actually a science, though. Perhaps you didn't actually have any evidence after all, as we suspected from the beginning...

No, I don`t have the inclination to talk to the intellectually dishonest, you disregard what you want and hang onto your blind belief system.

You must, at the very least, crack your closed mind and let in a little light.

In case you haven't noticed, there are no humans with wings, except in fantasy stories. Thus, your question is irrelevant.

In case you haven`t noticed, you seem to never "get the point" - I wonder why that is?

 

[El_Machinae]

Some of the latest models show animal appearing before plant. It really doesn`t matter, either way you cannot share the DNA and saying they were never related invalidates the entire macroevolution conjecture completely.

You seem to be fixated on this plant/animal divide, but you don't really make any sense about your complaint. Plants didn't come from animals, or vis versa - they each developed from diverging Eukaryote lines. Animals evolved from Eukaryotes that didn't evolve into plants. If you go back far enough, you'll eventually get a common Eukaryote ancestor.

How many birds needed to jump off a cliff before they learned in the eons of the past they could fly?

Before they could fly how was it a survival advantage that spread through the gene pool? How did macroevolution 'know' it would be an advantage to work out as a goal?

If it takes millions of years, is random changes in DNA , and only keeps what is survivable - how many birds had to die jumping out of trees before it became an advantage while trying to use their brand new wings? Billions maybe?

Yeah, I thought this would continue to be the problem. In my example, proto-wings didn't become wings in a vacuum. In my example, large ears were later co-opted to become wings.

Let's look at the flying squirrel. Can you imagine selection pressure that could occur in the evironment, such that improved gliding ability would be an advantage? Would you think that this would lead to superior or inferior gliding? Would the wing flaps become larger in this case? I think so.

Now, those wing flaps have other uses. If they get larger, the flaps can be co-opted to serve a different function. I can think of a couple examples: heat exchange or as a canvas to make the squirrel look bigger when threatened.

If the squirrel starts taking advantage of the wing flaps to give it more environment diversity (as a heat exchange), there will be evolution of the wing flap towards another function. If it uses the flaps to look bigger, then mutations that allow mimickry will be selected for. Through a string of luck, we might have squirrels that can look like bobcat faces when threatened - a whole new function. At that point, the mimicky might be more useful than the gliding, because the squirrel is in a different environment (fewer trees, more bobcats), so it will split and change from the flying squirrel ancestors.

I think your confusion is that you think evolution pundits think it goes towards something, de novo. That's not the way it works. Evolution takes something that's useful already and co-opts it for another use, if it can

And, to be very clear, do you understand that the cat (frozen for a million years) would not be able to reproduce with its decendants? That there would be a new species?

 

[brennan]

warpus:
You still do not understand - it is not the amount of time to make the change that is essential, it is the structure of the life form mutating.

The cells in your body can keep up with the high rate, can they not?

What, you think that an actual creature mutates and that is evolution? (Please tell me this isn't what you believe.)

No, no, no:

The genetic information passed down to the next generation changes. The next generation grows slightly differently, that is how it works. A mouse never mutated wings overnight and then become a bat. What you are describing is a sort of mutation caused by damage to DNA (which can cause cancer), not replication error.

How many birds needed to jump off a cliff before they learned in the eons of the past they could fly?

Before they could fly how was it a survival advantage that spread through the gene pool? How did macroevolution 'know' it would be an advantage to work out as a goal?

Macroevolution doesn't 'know' anything, that is why you end up with sub optimal characteristics, such as the poor arrangement of the eye. How is half a wing a survival trait? It lets you arrest a fall, gives you better control when you leap to the next tree, lets you glide maybe. Look up flying squirrels, they have 'half a wing'. Off hand I can think of species of frogs and lizards that have rather less than half a wing and use it to their advantage.

 

[warpus]

beingofone which part of this diagram do you not agree with? Which part do you think doesn't happen and is wrong?

You have a knack for ignoring requests such as these, but I hope you cooperate in the interests of continuing this discussion in a meaningful manner.

 

[Phlegmak]

I don't know if this is necessary to post, but:

1. There is no "force" or "energy" that is evolution nor that is driving evolution. It's just a description of what is observed.
2. There is no "goal" of evolution. Evolution doesn't really result in "improvements" to a species, but rather it leads to increased adaptation to an environment.
3. Species don't truly exist in nature. They're just a way of describing what is observed.

 

[Lord Parkin]

No, I don`t have the inclination to talk to the intellectually dishonest, you disregard what you want and hang onto your blind belief system.

Once again you have avoided the question. How is ID a science?

You must, at the very least, crack your closed mind and let in a little light.

You're talking to me about having a closed mind?

Consider this; the whole point of science is to keep an open mind - but not so widely open that your whole brain starts falling out of your head.

In case you haven`t noticed, you seem to never "get the point" - I wonder why that is?

Because you do not seem to have a point. And you will not have one, until you start offering evidence for why ID is a science, rather than merely picking out small pieces of evolution which you do not personally agree with (all of which can be explained by science anyway), and setting up vast paddocks of strawmen.

 

[sanabas]

Some of the latest models show animal appearing before plant. It really doesn`t matter, either way you cannot share the DNA and saying they were never related invalidates the entire macroevolution conjecture completely.

Nobody has said they are not related. Animals and plants ARE related. They are COUSINS. One IS NOT the lineal descendant of the other.

How many birds needed to jump off a cliff before they learned in the eons of the past they could fly?

Before they could fly how was it a survival advantage that spread through the gene pool? How did macroevolution 'know' it would be an advantage to work out as a goal?

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MACROEVOLUTION. One verified example of the macroevolution you keep blabbering about would immediately prove evolutionary theory to be wrong. If you want to argue about how evolution is simply hocus pocus and propaganda, learn what it actually says.

If it takes millions of years, is random changes in DNA , and only keeps what is survivable - how many birds had to die jumping out of trees before it became an advantage while trying to use their brand new wings? Billions maybe?

Is it an advantage for possums and squirrels alive now to use their protowings to glide?

I have a challenge for you. Please give me one example of a complex behaviour, or a complex 'design' that could NOT have arisen as a long series of very smal changes. Just one. You come up with a successful example, and I'll accept evolution is false. So will most biologists.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I don't know why you people are bothering with this. You know that he isn't convincing anyone, right? And you know that you aren't going to convince him, right? And it really doesn't look like you're all having a fun time doing this. So why bother? It's a waste of energy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The way assume you're actually right and the whole scientific community worldwide is wrong, THAT is mindblowing.

What's truly mindblowing is that he insists that the scientific community thinks not what it says it thinks but his strawman thereof. I mean, he's actually claiming to believe that scientists believe in obvious bunk, and that the plausible theories they present are just smokescreens that need not be addressed.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You still do not understand - it is not the amount of time to make the change that is essential, it is the structure of the life form mutating.

The cells in your body can keep up with the high rate, can they not?

Am I to infer you don't understand the distinction between germ and somatic cell lines?

If it takes millions of years, is random changes in DNA , and only keeps what is survivable - how many birds had to die jumping out of trees before it became an advantage while trying to use their brand new wings? Billions maybe?

You're aware that not all trees are tall enough that a jump from one is fatal, are you?