In this video Dawkins claims the Darwinism explains diversity of life. The FACT is, it doesn't even come close. Saying it explains life does not mean that it actually does. And that's about all it has.
The key element that distinguishes your evolutionary faith from adaptation is the irreversibility of evolution, Any change which can be reversed is not an evolutionary change.
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation"
@FSApetheist "they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation" HAR HAR HAR
why bother with out of context quote mines? It is the worst of the IDiots tactics, and the most pointless. The above quote comes from a biologist (zooligist?) who is a proponent of evolution, why would you think he says something like that if he thinks it is proof against evolution? Why don't you look him up on the net and see what he REALLY has to say about evolution.
Another favorite ploy of the IDiot. Quote mine respected evolutionists and claim victory. Mark Pagel is an evolutionist, do you really think that he feals that is a problem for evolution? If I could be bothered I could find hundreds (thousands) of quotes from Mark Pagel that support evolution. Indeed I suspect that if you put that quote in context with the rest of what he was saying it would suport evolution.
Qote mining - the most pathetic of the IDiot tactics.
Another favourite tactic of Darwimps is to hand wave away what their own evo priests admit because their evo faith cannot survive scrutiny and it must be dogmatically followed and not questioned.
The biggest difference between science and religion is that science is NOT dogmatic whereas religion has ONLY dogmatism. The reason your quote mines are dishonest is that they are taken out of context, which you know, and hence makes you a lyer. I have yet to see one of these quotes, when put in context, actually mean what the IDiot who quotes them wants them to mean. It is not "hand waving", it is calling out the lie.
Yes it is, You engage in that tactic because you cannot defend your fairytale and you cannot bare to see any criticism of it which shows your dogma, Retarded and dishonest Darwimps always fail just like you have failed and exposed yourself as a liar as well as a retard.
You brought up the "hand waving". You brought it up in regard to the dishonest quote mining of respected evolutionists. Now you wish to try to turn it around on to me. It is you that is lying, by quote mining - when you know very well that the quotes don't mean what you are trying to represent. I find it completely disgusting that you continue to ly like this, what type of disingenuous hypocrite are you?
The biggest difference between science and religion is that science is NOT dogmatic whereas religion has ONLY dogmatism"
Science is a process not a position, The fact that you follow your evo faith uncritically and do not bare criticism of it shows that it is more of a dogmatic religion to you than anything else, If it were not a religion to you then you would accept criticism of it, You don't scrutinize it and believe it uncritically thus it is your religious faith.
This is the most stupid thing you've said - and that is saying something.
Evolution is always questioned by IDiots like you, and always comes up trumps. The arguments you raise come from your lack of education and/or understanding of the basic theory. Scientists themselves question the theory and these questions have, so far, been answered.
It is the total and absolute stupidity of your arguments that is the problem. This post is mothing more than a case of projection
"The experiments did not "fail", you mean they did not produce other species - which was NOT the intent of the experiments"
Your excuse for the failure of the fruit fly experiments is lack of intent but at the same time you believe that the attempt to create life by intent is unscientific.
You can't even find yourself holding a consistent and coherent position, You probably couldn't find your way home, You moron.
"you believe that the attempt to create life by intent is unscientific."
wtf? where did you get this from?
"Your excuse for the failure of the fruit fly experiments is lack of intent"
Firstly, Drosophila experiments have not "failed". I use the word intent because it appears to me that you believe that the "intent" of the experiments was to produce a different species. This is total garbage. Probably better to say it is not EXPECTED.
"The experiments did not "fail", you mean they did not produce other species - which was NOT the intent of the experiments"
First you argue for evolution as a process ABSENT OF INTENT and that mutations caused a new structure in just 35 years, Now your argument is mutations on fruit flies that go thru many generations that represent THOUSANDS OF YEARS do not have new structures appear because of ABSENCE of intent.
lol, Fruitfly experiments do NOT represent thousands of years. Show me where this is the case. These experiments are primarily to measure mutation rates and population fitness. You are obviously to stupid to realise that absence of intent in a process is different to "absence of intent" in an experiment set up by humans.
Just one more more time for you, maybe repeating things will work for the the moronic.
Did you realize: That without people running all over the world proclaiming God exists, there would be NO ATHEISTS. I wouldn't have to sit here and explain to you why I really am a good person despite the stigma of a word, which by the way describes not what I am but what I am not.
The first atheist was born the first time someone said that there was a God. There can be no atheists without theists FIRST. So blame yourselves for our existence. There will always be atheists in a world of theists.
So when we reject the tooth fairy, do we need to be convinced by a stronger argument elsewhere or can we simply reject the existence of the tooth fairy?
@pestmanpat - Indeed, hence my question in relation to the tooth fairy. Do we need to find a more convincing argument to the tooth fairy or can we reject the existence of such a being a s amtter of principle?
@faithisfiction Oh i think one could reject belief in a tooth fairy around the age of 5 years old.God is a little more difficult to dismiss however.You see The theism has such convincing arguments that it is worthy of real debates between the likes of Hitchens and Craige,Dawkins and Lennox for example.It is also noteworthy that the greatest minds of our time such as Newton,Einstein and even Hawking take INTELLIGENT DESIGN seriously.Before you respond watch my videos on Hawking and Einstein
You are right Pat, atheists are not agnostic, they are those who deny the existance of God by the very definition of the word "atheist". I see this clearly in the atheists I debate. They falsely define themselves as agnostic while labeling themselves an atheist in an attempt to make their denial of God not seem unintellectual, but it does not work, but instead reveals thier true feelings.
@NephilimFree I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@goreziad The mythologies of the world are based upon a distorted rememberance of the angels God cast out of heaven. They all speak of the same beings. For example, Zues and Thor are the same being. You have very much to learn. CYA
@NephilimFree I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. CYA.
You can't use a few examples to put a strict definition on a non-belief.
A god was never more real to me than the boogeyman. I was an atheist before I said I was an atheist, before I put away the childish fear that there might be a god, before I rejected a theist claim and before even HEARING a theist claim.
My belief about any god's existence has never changed.
From Dawkins' context, it is absurd to refuse to believe in something SOLELY because you can't see it. Poor articulation on his part.
Hahaha! You did a good job pointing out the self-contradition of the falacious philosophy of atheists. Poor Dick. He's such a self-depricating bafoon.
I became an atheist after understanding the emergence of complexity out of simple units and rules, It was Conway's game of life that started turning the wheels on my head.
There is no need of an "infinitely complex" entity to explain complex things.
A cell is simpler than a person, a molecule simpler than the cell, and so on...
I'm afraid your reasoning is flawed. It is perfectly philosophically acceptable to be led to skepticism and atheism via expanding your mind in other areas.
Suppose you honestly believe that the god Prometheus brought fire down from Mount Olympus for humanity. Then you read about science's discoveries of ancient man using fire long before the Greeks were around. So you stop believing in Prometheus.
@FiverBeyond RE: It is perfectly philosophically acceptable to be led to skepticism and atheism via expanding your mind in other areas
Yes of course.I haven't claimed otherwise.But according to the definition ,one becomes an atheist by becoming unconvinced by the evidence for God.Therefore the term is not appropriate in this context.Dawkinjs told of his learning and embracing evolution.
It would be more accurate for Dawkins to say ''AT THAT MOMENT I BECAME AN EVOLUTIONIST''.
@pestmanpat Perhaps, if he was making a direct argument for atheism, but he wasn't. He is remembering his own experience, where learning about evolution was a major factor in his turn to atheism, He wasn't reconstructuring every step of the mental path that led him to atheism, so I don't think your criticism here is apropos.
I hate to break it to you but Dawkins' experience is a common one among atheists. Evolution, Darwin, etc., are not 'other gods,' as you seem to think. The fact is, science has valid explanations for the Universe and its workings and religion has unprovable stories. We know atoms exist because we HAVE seen them. We know the wind is real because we see what it does. Religion is completely devoid of evidence that can't be traced to human stories. Get it?
@Christheatheist1 No need to break it to me.You missed my point.According to the definition ,one becomes an atheist by becoming unconvinced by the evidence for God.Therefore the term is not appropriate in this context.Dawkins told of his learning and embracing evolution.It would be more accurate for Dawkins to say ''AT THAT MOMENT I BECAME AN EVOLUTIONIST''. After all one can become an evolutionist and still be a theist.
This is completely incorrect. Dawkins started out as an atheist, as did you. No one starts out as a theist. He looked to "god" because that is a predominant myth in our societies. When he realised there is no actual evidence for these myths he dropped them, just like any clear thinking adult should. It is not the "rejection" of said proofs it is the realisation that there are no proofs.
@tirua100 No you are mistaken.Dawkins could have decided there was no proof for God without ever hearing of Darwins theory.He makes it very clear that he replaced theism for darwinian evolution not because he found fault with God but because he embraced a new explanation.Atheism could be a default position but to say he became an atheist after accepting evolution makes no sense.He became an evolutionist.After all it is evolutionists that claim no intelligence was required to create diverse life.
Sorry Pat, but thats tripe. The christian myth is predominant and was the first thing he heard. He was probably told these things by well meaning adults when he was very young. Indeed I think in your video (I haven't rewathced it so you can correct me) I believe it is at least inferred that he was v-young when he considered magic. It is consistent to believe that he knew nothing of evolution until AFTER he was told about "god" and hence he started with god... cont...
I would also argue that he did find fault with "god". He found that it was not a satisfactory explanation for the diversity and existence of life. If memory serves me correct you say that he "tried" to reconcile with the god myth but I suspect he never did, so he was probably never a "true" believer (not that it would matter if he was - pedantic). Yes, I see no reason to say intellegence is required, evolution beautifully predicts diversity.
@tirua100 RE:If memory serves me correct you say that he "tried" to reconcile with the god myth
Dawkins words were''when i was a boy i looked to God to explain life''.That is a positive statement.He did not say he''tried'' to reconcile with the God myth''.
You are reading to much into his words.Please remember that my point here is simply that he did not become an atheist as a result of darwins theory.That doesnt make sense.,He became an evolutionist.
"The ability to adapt fits intelligent design just as well."
Every thing fits ID, no matter what data comes to light "Zues did it" will always explain it.
I'd also point out that small scale changes IS evolution it is the explanation not the data. ID has nothing in it that specifically predicts what we see in the natural world.
@tirua100 ID proponents in 1994 predicted that the then held scientific view of JUNK DNA was incorrect and that RNA and DNA would be found to have far more function.Specified complexity in biology.
There is a huge advantage in knowing this as scientists continue to try to understand those complex systems.But i think i already mentioned this and you ignored it then.
Small scale change does not prove dramatic morphological change.It proves small scale change.
Science knew of several other functions of DNA, not just protien codeing, decades before this. The amount of "junk DNA" present in the genome has been shrinking from a long time before then, and real scientists had been debateing wether it was correct to call it "junk" well before then as well. The reality is that IDists "predicted" nothing. Also I believe that there is still around 80 (85?)% of the genome with no known function - that is still junk.
Continued small scale change over long periods logically produces dramatic morphological change. In order for it not to you would need to show how it would be stopped. Why do you presume that it is somehow limited? There is absolutely nothing we know of that would limit change.
Skin colour change causes skin colour change, eye colour change causes eye colour change etc. You really don't get it do you. NO ONE thinks that skin colour change is go to "cause" other new structures to evolve, it is the skin that changes. Also, thinks don't just "appear" - they evolve over time.
Continual small changes of one structure over time will eventual change it into a different structure. There are observed examples of this.
No you really don't get it, How can an expression of existing genes for existing traits cause new genes for new traits that are not in the parent population?
Also it is well documented and observed that continual small changes will transform an EXISTING structure into a different structure. Recently a population of lizards was moved from one habitat to another, the dietary change caused the new pop'n to develope a new valve i.e. A NEW STRUCTURE.
The "problems" you are bringing up are infantile, they have been dealt with countless times before. I suggest coming up with something new.
"it is well documented that small changes will transform an EXISTING structure into a different structure"
No they haven't, Let's try an analogy to make it easier for you, Say I only give you the ingredients for making vegetarian food, it does not matter how many variations you do with those ingredients but you will never be able to make a Steak pie because you do not have the beef, No amount of shuffling around of vegetarian ingredients is going to give you a steak pie.
Is that supposed to be an analogy? Whose talking about turning a carrot into a steak? I'm talking about turning an organic structure into a different organic structure.
"If a gene duplicates then it can mutate to form something different while still maintaining the old gene"
If mutations on the original gene do not create new morphological traits then they are not going to do the same on the duplicate gene because the duplicate is the same information
.
Even though you are a Retarded Darwimp and are not used to thinking for yourself instead of uncritically swallowing what Darwimps like Dawkins tell you, You should start questioning your evo faith.
It is retarded Darwimps like you that equate evolution with atheism, Design is not a problem for Evolution it is a problem for Atheism and that is why you use it to argue against design when there is no conflict at all but you reveal your motivations.
It is not that design would be a "problem" it is that there is no evidence of design.Or at least no evidence of good design. i.e. from a magical sky wizard. The aparent design that we see is the sort of "design" you would expect from a natural process like evolution. If your invisible sky wizard is the architect, I recommend firing it and getting a good human engineer to design the next lot.
1. Experiments with Fruit flies and Moths Have been a failure, You end up with with dead and deformed fruit flies but no beneficial new structures.
2. The fossil record is not one that is consistent with the gradual accumulation of mutations, As Lynn marguils said " There is no Gradualism in the fossil record, Punctuated Equillibrium was brought in to explain away the discontinuity"
1.Rubbish you should read the data I've seen experiments where the beneficial mutations are around the 16% rate (of mutations) within low fittness populationsThe experiments not were expected to produce new structures they measured the fittness of the population and their ability to adapt Typical IDiot misrepresentation of the science
Just like all your other "problems"I'm sure that if you keep repeating them scientists
will start to believe in them other than the facts
2. Darwin didn't get it quite correct - so what? That is not the only thing he got wrong. He actually made 2 predictions about the fossil record 1 was that you would see very simple organisms evolving into much more complicated ones - big tick on that one, its EXACTLY what we see, how does ID account for that?
The other was that it would be a slow continual process. He did not get that quite right, almost but not quite.
Even the parts of the fossil record that show "rapid" change are periods on geologic time scales i.e. millions of years. The fact is that evolution works perfectly well with the
fossil record, afterall the fossil record is a record of evolution.
Why do you IDiots think that Darwin should have got everything correct and that if one thing he says is not quite correct it disproves the whole of evolution?
This is probably the most stupid thing about IDiots, amoungst the many. Darwin lived in the 1800's and had no knowledge of genetics and molecular biology (amoungst other things). Why would you expect him to be able to predict everything? On the whole his predictions were v-accurate. You need to realise that the theory of evolution, as it stands today, is v-diferent to what Darwin thought. Just like all science, evoution adapts with new data.
Unlike other theories postulated by scientists your evo faith is a sponge that can accomodate all data, No evolution in organisms for millions of years is also evidence for your faith.
You retarded mutation intoxicated Darwimps will believe anything to hold onto your evo faith.
If something comes along that can not be explained within the theory then it will be thrown out or adapted. Up until now there has been NOTHING found that is inconsistent with evolution. There is just a continual whine in the back ground from IDiots calling out "listen to me, listen to me....." adnorsium.
3. You have organisms like lampreys who's morphology is not said to have changed in millions of years, more evidence against the claim that random mutations accumulate to cause the evolution you believe in.
4. The reason the evolution promoting scientists say they do not know or agree how the Darwin tale is meant to have occured is because mutations have failed as an explanation, They do not know that mutations could do it that is why they admit they do not know.
3. So what? There is no nesecesity for an organism to massively change. If there is no selective pressure, why would you expect things to change much? Crocodiles,
sharks, platypuses (and plenty more) are also said to have been pretty much unchanged for millions of years - so what?
Again, I'm sure that if you keep saying these things a couple of hundred
times more it will change the scientists view. These things have been explained to you IDiots hundereds of times
4. You said earlier that I should release my findings and claim a nobel. Well, here is your
opurtunity. go tell the scientists they are wrong and mutation has failed, it will be news to them all. You should stop making stupid claims. There is no reputable scientist that does not believe mutations is the mechanism of evolution.
"go tell the scientists they are wrong and mutation has failed"
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
The retarded darwimp has already been shown where it is admitted that those evo priests do not know how their faith occured but you are too stupid to comprehend it.
You seem to have a real mental block with the mutation creating new structures thing
I'll help you out. Type "Pod Mrcaru lizard" into google. In short its a lizard that was moved to a different environment and over about 20 years developed cecal valves in its gut, as well as other morphological changes. THIS.IS.A.NEW.STRUCTURE How do you explain this? Did you sky wizard wave its wand and say Abracadabra? I think the word mutation comes to mind.
" Abracadabra I think the word mutation comes to mind"
HAHAHAHAHAHA, Yes abracadabra comes to mind, You believe in the Darwin fairytale and the darwin fairy.
What you have with the wall lizards is phenotypic plasticity( gene expression) and after just 16 weeks of feeding them an arthropod diet they lost the valves, thus gene expression not a new irreversible structure being created by mutations.
Just another example of environmental variation within a population, of the tired old Peppered Moth variety. A percentage of the lizards express the genes for cecal valves. No wall lizard has changed or is changing into something else. They are still just wall lizards.
It would take a fair bit longer than 30 years to produce a "new" species, the fact that one did not "appear" is not surprising and would have been unexpected. The stupid "they are still just ..." comment becomes so tiring. I expect you think that one species will just give birth to another, that is not what evolution says The transformation from one species to another takes many generations, something we are not likely to observe The limitations you place are imaginary
"The transformations from one species to another takes many generations"
And fruit flies give you those many generations and the experiments with them failed.
And Pat has made some great points in his comment, Furthermore this example of adaptation does not equal evolutionary change because when the diet is changed the valves dissapear and the organisms return to their prior state, cont:
By many evolutionists mean many thousands (maybe millions?) not hundreds.
The experiments did not "fail", you mean they did not produce other species - which was NOT the intent of the experiments. The experiments with flies etc are to measure mutation rates and population fitness, not "how long to produce a new species". NO one expects to see a new, i.e. non-fly, species evolve in these experiments. I think you know that, which makes you a lyer.
Oh but they did, No beneficial new structures and this is after over 70 years of experiments using mutations with fruit flies, You know that if mutations had the ability to cause the evolution you believe in and new beneficial structures then these experiments would have demonstrated it, The fact you promote mutations still makes you a liar.
Wrong again. Keep trying, you may understand oneday. Experiments with Drosophila were never meant to produce new species, the genetic changes that were expected were observed and they confirm evolution, not the other way around. You are seriously confused if you beleive that Drosophila experiments confirm ID. They would need to have an isolated population under some type of stress for thousands of years to expect what you seem to.
Once is enough, I've already pointed out to you that repetition is the IDiot tactic of choice.
"BTW, You think "oneday" is all one word, You idiot."
I often make mistakes like that, although I try hard not to. I also can not read overly well, but have improved over the years. It was a major hurdle for me when I was at school and university. I am dyslexic. It is instructive that you have stooped to grammatical errors in a vain attempt to improve your argument.
Dr. Weisenberg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps." There you go dumbshit. He claims that anything can turn into anything. Watch? v=0Fmh8PCmrlk
AHHH. the ever great and lying Eric Hovind. If you find any logic in his stupidity then I'm afraid you are lost. If you had any common sense you would understand that that video is a screed of quote mined drivel not worthy of anything more than a dirisionary snort.
You can dribble over your keyboard about eric hovind all you want, However you have not proven that the context of Dr weinsenberg's comments have been changed, Until you back up your claim that he was quote mined then it stands that you did not understand your own messed up evo faith that flying pigs are possible, You do not even know what natural selection means, You don't understand your own messed up evo faith.
I've said before that I am happy to ignore quote mined comments. The comment from Dr Weinsenberg is quote mined, so I ignore it.
I understand natural selection perfectly well. You, on the other hand, repeatidly show that you have no clue what evolution by natural selection means. You find some random quote that says
"...Nature is just eliminating the less fit"
and then conclude that no selection takes place. total garbage from a piece of quote mined crap.
It is you that have to prove yourself to me dumb dumb, I do not have to prove what is observed to occur in nature and that is that cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs that has been shown all throughout recorded history, If you think dogs producing dogs requires proof then you are retarded.
"Experiments with Drosophila were never meant to produce new species"
There you are arguing for intention again, First you argued that mutations will cause a new structure in 35 years without intention, Now your excuse is that because there was no intention then there will be lack of significant change with an organism that goes thru many generations rapidly that represent thousands of years.
Actually it was incorrect of me to use the word "meant" or "intent" with respect to these experiments. I should have said they did not "expect" to see the changes you are harping on about. The intent of the experiments was/are to measure mutation rates and population fitness etc. To that end the experiments have been v-useful in explaining the role that mutations have played in evolution.
No experiment on Drosophila has been conducted that represents thousands of years. I keep telliing you, THIS IS WRONG.
I suspect you believe that the experiments where they irradiated drosophila somehow represent 000's of years. The intent of the irradiation is to measure the effect of irradiation on mutation rate. How exactly do you think it "speeds up" evolution? You need to work out what the exps were actually doing/testing not project your own delusions on them.
@tirua100 "No experiment on Drosophila has been conducted that represents thousands of years" You dont' know what you're talking about. They were attempting to prove speciation can occur. They failed.
There are several Drosophila experiments. I remember seeing one that took 2 populations and put them on different diets. Each population adapted to their own. At the end the 2 populations would not interbread i.e. speciation.
I fail to see why Drosophila is so important for this as speciation has been observed to occur several times naturaly. If you go and google "speciation event" you can end your own ignorance on this point.
"Experiments with Drosophila were never meant to produce new species"
There you are arguing for intention again, First you argued that mutations will cause a new structure in 35 years without intention, Now your excuse is that because there was no intention then there will be lack of significant change with an organism that goes thru many generations rapidly that represent thousands of years.
You are seriously confused if you think scientists attempting to create life from scratch using intelligence and design is evidence that a living organism came into being on its own without design.
Scientists waiting around hoping that one day a living organism will arise on its own in a natural enviroment is not part of the scientific process.
Are you trying to change the subject? Do you want to have a thread on abiogenisis as well? Happy to oblige but from your first effort it would appear you are as confused about this as you are evolution.
"..create life from scratch using intelligence and design..."
"Are you trying to change the subject, Do you want to have a thread on abiogenesis as well?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are using biological evolution as an argument design when design is not a problem for biological evolution but for atheism, Even if we pretended the Darwinian fairytale was true then life would not be the result of Darwinian Evolution but Darwinian evolution would be the result of life alreading existing,cont:
If you want to argue against design then you have to argue against life occuring on its own in a natural enviroment without design because design and biological evolution are not mutually exclusive and biological evolution is an argument for what happens once you already have existing life you dumbass.
If it is obvious you know that biological evolution is what happens once you have life then you shouldn't be using it as an argument against ID Dumbass.
You are arguing against ID and then you are whining about abiogenesis being brought up.
You dumbshit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If you want to use evolution against ID then abiogensis will be raised dumbshit.
Listen here your fucked up retarded little peice of dog shit (see I can use those words to) abiogensis is NOT a part of the theory of evolution, which is what we were discussing, dickwad. If you could pull that lump of shit you loosly call a head out of your festering arse for 2 seconds and think like a rational human you'd realise that. I'd be ashamed if a retarded 6 year old thought with same ridiculous logic as you.
"abiogenesis is NOT a part of the theory of evolution"
Then you should stop foaming at the mouth about Design or making the false Dichotomy of Biological Evolution vs Design, Because Design is not a problem for evolution but a problem for atheism, And the fact that you bring in creationism into the discussion and God reveals your true motivation, it is not about science for you but because you think your evo faith speaks to Atheism.
"And the fact that you bring in creationism into the discussion"
You are the one that brought creationism into the descussion when you argue for design, design is creationism
We were/are discussing evolution, not abiogenisis. Design (i.e. creationism) has nothing to do with evolution, evolution can not coexist with creationism - they are diametrically opposed
"God reveals your true motivation"
Dog revealed it, did it? Did it write you an email, or wisper it in your ear?
Only dishonest people would say it is not. I guess that since you have been shown to be dishonest you might say it is not.
The fact remains that ID claims that life was “designed” and did not arrive through natural processes. That is creationism, you will claim that ID does not claim to know “who” the designer is and therefore is not creationism but it is irrelevant what it is.
It makes no difference what creation myth you invoke, and you must invoke one at some point in time, it is just a CREATION myth. I find you dishonesty to be some what distasteful.
Scientists are using their intelligence and design with the goal of creating a living organism, Intelligent design is very much a part of the scientific process.
Your abiogenesis faith that a living organism created itself on its own in a natural enviroment is not part of the scientific process, You are projecting again Darwimp.
Your creation myth is not part of science Darwimp100.
Evolution does coexist with design though, In fact we know that evolution and design coexist perfectly well from experience, for example the evolutiopn of technology from the ipod to the ipad for example,design is a problem for atheism and the fact you are trying to rule design as creationism again shows your motivations, You have not shown how biological organisms came into being without design so you have failed again.
Please show how dr weisenberg's words were taken out of context, You made the allegation but failed to do it, You also made the claim against pat here, You have 0 credibility and use that quote mine crap as a rhetorical ploy because you cannot back up your assertions, Why did you lie about dr weisenberg's words being taken out of context?
"If you want to argue against design then you have to argue against life occuring on its own in a natural enviroment without design"
So, in order to argue AGAINST design (which I'm not - theres just no evidence FOR design - or, at least, you have presented none) I need to argue AGAINST life occuring WITHOUT design? How does that work? If I show that life cannot occur naturally WITHOUT design, haven't I just shown evidence FOR design?
lets see what is scientific and who is rejecting science, You accuse others of rejecting science but you seem to be projecting.
What is a known scientific law?
The law of biogenesis that life only comes from previous life, Never once violated in all of recorded history, You believe in abiogenesis which violates this thus you have rejected Science.
So if life cannot arise in a natural enviroment on its own without design then it must have been designed, Scientists are working hard using their intelligence to create life, They are not waiting around hoping that one day a living organism will arise by itself in a natural enviroment, thus what you believe is not part of the scientific process.
" Do you want to have a theory on abiogenesis as well? Happy to oblige but from your first effort it would appear you are as confused about this as you are about evolution"
There you are projecting your own ignorance again, You don't think abiogenesis is evolution.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
abiogenesis is chemical evolution you dunce.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And a centre for abio research is called "The centre for chemical evolution."
"Flying pigs? lol, do you think that evolution predicts something like that? You REALLY need an education."
Dr. Weisenberg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps." There you go dumbshit. He claims that anything can turn into anything.
I would also say that no new beneficial structures is not quite correct. Maybe no structures but they have procuced low o2 tolerant populations, populations with different dietary requirements (producing speciation) and many other results consistent with evolution.
The problem is that you have nothing to back up your delusional faith that given enough time you can get things like flying pigs. Your entire argument collapses with your delusional excuse for the failure of the fruit fly experiments.
You have 0 evidence for the genetic principle of like begets like being violated in experiments or observed to occur naturally.
You are going against what is known to occur in nature, The burden of proof thus falls on you.
Flying pigs? lol, do you think that evolution predicts something like that? You REALLY need an education.
There is no "excuse" (let alone "delusional excuse") for "failures" of Drosophila experiments (exp). I was simply pointing out that you were totally and completely (utterly as well) wrong about the expected outcome of the exp's. All the exp's were a success in thier own fashion, they all helped understand genetic mutation and hence evolution.
" Flying pigs? lol do you think that evolution predicts something like that? You REALLY need an education."
You don't understand your own fucked up theory.
"Dr. Weisenberg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps." There you go dummass. He claims that anything can? turn into anything."
But he does not think a pig could develop wings and start flying. He doesn't think this because if it developed wings it would no longer look anything like a pig and indeed would not be a pig, but some other type of animal alltogether. Your total lack of understanding of the theory of evolution is obvious to all.
Not only were you wrong as usual but you contradicted yourself, What they do help us understand is that fruit flies will never become anything other than fruit flies.
You obviously have comprehension problems darwimp, I was pointing out that you were making excuses for the failure of those experiments, Get over it crybaby.
"There are no thousands of years in drosphila experiments ( let alone millions)"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You dumbshit, the reason that scientists use fruit flies is because they go thru many generations rapidly, They do not need to wait thousands or millions of years to test mutations and what evolution they can produce you dumbshit.
And all you can do is whine and complain because those experiments failed.
The reason scientists use Drosophila is because they only have 4 chromosomes which are, now, completely mapped. They are v-common, easy and cheap to breed. they also only have a breeding cycle of about 2 weeks.
"they go thru many generations rapidly"
BULLSHIT! They go through one generation every 2 or so weeks.1 generation every 1 generation - bumdass.
There is no "speeding up" - dumbass.
Thousands of years worth of evolution would take thousands of years - DUMBASS!!
They were exposed to radiation to increase normal mutation rates.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"thousands of years worth of evolution would take thousands of years of evolution"
You don't know the difference between years and generations.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Even after 600 generations of fruit flies there is no evidence that fruit flies can become anything other than fruit flies, No wonder you keep making excuses.
"They were exposed to radiation to increase normal mutation rates"
We've covered this one. Irradiating Drosophila, or anything for that matter, would not simulate evolution. If you thought about it for a second you would realise what a ridiculus idea that is. To simulate evolution you would need to isolate a population and give it some kind of environmental (dietary) change that would push evolution in a particular direction. Then leave them for thousands of years.
"You don't know the difference between years and generations."
I'm afraid it is you that does not know the difference. Take a look at the comment I was responding to. I believe you will read the following
"They do not need to wait thousands or millions of years to test mutations"
Is that not you mentioning years? Why would I respond with generations when you are talking years? I'm happy to switch to generations if you wish, its all the same.
Ohhhh, you should have said. 600!!! wow, we certainly should have seen a few cows evolving by now, I mean 600 is close to infinity, its more generations than I could have ever imagined - but still no cows!!! Dog must have done it, I concede
Even with a couple more 0's it is meaningless. None of the experiments on Drosophila are EXPECTED to produce a new species, actually I think you mean "kind" and not actual speciation (which we've seen)
The fruit fly experiments have been so extensive , that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created is equivalent to the millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. cont:
@Darwimp100 Furthermore you have scientists who acting as the “selecting agent,” speed up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and selection really could happen then , we should see that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from being a fly into other kinds of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
But still you have faith in the failed experiments.
Pierre Grassé zooologist and former chair of evo biology in paris said “The fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times."
It is impossible to perform an experiment where the expected outcome would be a new species. Time does not permitt it.
However, if you look at the fossil record you will see a huge amount of evidence for this. Tell me, I've always been curious, how does ID explain the fact that no human fossils are found before about 1mil years ago, but species of ape like animals (that are now extinct) that are v-similar to humans are? Never the 2 are mixed?
hahahahahahahaha first you were arguing that 35 years is enough to observe your faith and when the fruit flie experiments fail and no new beneficial morphological traits appear then it is because there is not enough time.
In this video Dawkins claims the Darwinism explains diversity of life. The FACT is, it doesn't even come close. Saying it explains life does not mean that it actually does. And that's about all it has.
Sockpuppet308 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
@Darwimp100
The key element that distinguishes your evolutionary faith from adaptation is the irreversibility of evolution, Any change which can be reversed is not an evolutionary change.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
Not correct.
tirua100 2 months ago
Comment removed
JackSShit 2 months ago
@MutationIntoxicatedDarwimp100
Mark Pagel oxford zoologist
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation"
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist "they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation" HAR HAR HAR
THEY ARE OWNED
JackSShit 2 months ago
@JackSShit
why bother with out of context quote mines? It is the worst of the IDiots tactics, and the most pointless. The above quote comes from a biologist (zooligist?) who is a proponent of evolution, why would you think he says something like that if he thinks it is proof against evolution? Why don't you look him up on the net and see what he REALLY has to say about evolution.
tirua100 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
Another favorite ploy of the IDiot. Quote mine respected evolutionists and claim victory. Mark Pagel is an evolutionist, do you really think that he feals that is a problem for evolution? If I could be bothered I could find hundreds (thousands) of quotes from Mark Pagel that support evolution. Indeed I suspect that if you put that quote in context with the rest of what he was saying it would suport evolution.
Qote mining - the most pathetic of the IDiot tactics.
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp100
"quote mine respected evolutionists"
Another favourite tactic of Darwimps is to hand wave away what their own evo priests admit because their evo faith cannot survive scrutiny and it must be dogmatically followed and not questioned.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
The biggest difference between science and religion is that science is NOT dogmatic whereas religion has ONLY dogmatism. The reason your quote mines are dishonest is that they are taken out of context, which you know, and hence makes you a lyer. I have yet to see one of these quotes, when put in context, actually mean what the IDiot who quotes them wants them to mean. It is not "hand waving", it is calling out the lie.
tirua100 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@Darwimp100
"It is not "hand waving"
Yes it is, You engage in that tactic because you cannot defend your fairytale and you cannot bare to see any criticism of it which shows your dogma, Retarded and dishonest Darwimps always fail just like you have failed and exposed yourself as a liar as well as a retard.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
You brought up the "hand waving". You brought it up in regard to the dishonest quote mining of respected evolutionists. Now you wish to try to turn it around on to me. It is you that is lying, by quote mining - when you know very well that the quotes don't mean what you are trying to represent. I find it completely disgusting that you continue to ly like this, what type of disingenuous hypocrite are you?
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp100
The biggest difference between science and religion is that science is NOT dogmatic whereas religion has ONLY dogmatism"
Science is a process not a position, The fact that you follow your evo faith uncritically and do not bare criticism of it shows that it is more of a dogmatic religion to you than anything else, If it were not a religion to you then you would accept criticism of it, You don't scrutinize it and believe it uncritically thus it is your religious faith.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
This is the most stupid thing you've said - and that is saying something.
Evolution is always questioned by IDiots like you, and always comes up trumps. The arguments you raise come from your lack of education and/or understanding of the basic theory. Scientists themselves question the theory and these questions have, so far, been answered.
It is the total and absolute stupidity of your arguments that is the problem. This post is mothing more than a case of projection
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
"The experiments did not "fail", you mean they did not produce other species - which was NOT the intent of the experiments"
Your excuse for the failure of the fruit fly experiments is lack of intent but at the same time you believe that the attempt to create life by intent is unscientific.
You can't even find yourself holding a consistent and coherent position, You probably couldn't find your way home, You moron.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheist
"you believe that the attempt to create life by intent is unscientific."
wtf? where did you get this from?
"Your excuse for the failure of the fruit fly experiments is lack of intent"
Firstly, Drosophila experiments have not "failed". I use the word intent because it appears to me that you believe that the "intent" of the experiments was to produce a different species. This is total garbage. Probably better to say it is not EXPECTED.
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp100 aka LiarForDarwin
"The experiments did not "fail", you mean they did not produce other species - which was NOT the intent of the experiments"
First you argue for evolution as a process ABSENT OF INTENT and that mutations caused a new structure in just 35 years, Now your argument is mutations on fruit flies that go thru many generations that represent THOUSANDS OF YEARS do not have new structures appear because of ABSENCE of intent.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
lol, Fruitfly experiments do NOT represent thousands of years. Show me where this is the case. These experiments are primarily to measure mutation rates and population fitness. You are obviously to stupid to realise that absence of intent in a process is different to "absence of intent" in an experiment set up by humans.
Just one more more time for you, maybe repeating things will work for the the moronic.
tirua100 1 month ago
@IDiotFSA
IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF FRUITFLY EXERIMENTS TO CREATE NEW SPECIES OR EVEN NEW STRUCTURES. THE TIME SCALE FOR THESE THINGS TO OCCUR IS PROHIBITIVE.
Go get an education.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALLAH asking the atheist these questions in the QURAN in chapter 52 verse 35:
"Were they created of nothing,
or were they the creators [of themselves]? 35 "
=> for more type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
Did you realize: That without people running all over the world proclaiming God exists, there would be NO ATHEISTS. I wouldn't have to sit here and explain to you why I really am a good person despite the stigma of a word, which by the way describes not what I am but what I am not.
The first atheist was born the first time someone said that there was a God. There can be no atheists without theists FIRST. So blame yourselves for our existence. There will always be atheists in a world of theists.
2eelShmeal 3 months ago
So when we reject the tooth fairy, do we need to be convinced by a stronger argument elsewhere or can we simply reject the existence of the tooth fairy?
faithisfiction 3 months ago
@faithisfiction This has nothing to do with how valid or invalid God is.
Its about the definition of an atheist.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat - Indeed, hence my question in relation to the tooth fairy. Do we need to find a more convincing argument to the tooth fairy or can we reject the existence of such a being a s amtter of principle?
faithisfiction 3 months ago
@faithisfiction Oh i think one could reject belief in a tooth fairy around the age of 5 years old.God is a little more difficult to dismiss however.You see The theism has such convincing arguments that it is worthy of real debates between the likes of Hitchens and Craige,Dawkins and Lennox for example.It is also noteworthy that the greatest minds of our time such as Newton,Einstein and even Hawking take INTELLIGENT DESIGN seriously.Before you respond watch my videos on Hawking and Einstein
pestmanpat 3 months ago
You are right Pat, atheists are not agnostic, they are those who deny the existance of God by the very definition of the word "atheist". I see this clearly in the atheists I debate. They falsely define themselves as agnostic while labeling themselves an atheist in an attempt to make their denial of God not seem unintellectual, but it does not work, but instead reveals thier true feelings.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@NephilimFree I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
goreziad 3 months ago
@goreziad The mythologies of the world are based upon a distorted rememberance of the angels God cast out of heaven. They all speak of the same beings. For example, Zues and Thor are the same being. You have very much to learn. CYA
NephilimFree 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NephilimFree I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. CYA.
goreziad 3 months ago
You can't use a few examples to put a strict definition on a non-belief.
A god was never more real to me than the boogeyman. I was an atheist before I said I was an atheist, before I put away the childish fear that there might be a god, before I rejected a theist claim and before even HEARING a theist claim.
My belief about any god's existence has never changed.
From Dawkins' context, it is absurd to refuse to believe in something SOLELY because you can't see it. Poor articulation on his part.
robtbo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
unconvinced of the evidence that there is a God?
There is no evidence. Just wishful thinking and a bit of creativity.
Rocketryman 3 months ago
Hahaha! You did a good job pointing out the self-contradition of the falacious philosophy of atheists. Poor Dick. He's such a self-depricating bafoon.
NephilimFree 3 months ago
@NephilimFree Spell your insults properly.
indignant99 3 months ago
I became an atheist after understanding the emergence of complexity out of simple units and rules, It was Conway's game of life that started turning the wheels on my head.
There is no need of an "infinitely complex" entity to explain complex things.
A cell is simpler than a person, a molecule simpler than the cell, and so on...
orcodrilo 3 months ago
I'm afraid your reasoning is flawed. It is perfectly philosophically acceptable to be led to skepticism and atheism via expanding your mind in other areas.
Suppose you honestly believe that the god Prometheus brought fire down from Mount Olympus for humanity. Then you read about science's discoveries of ancient man using fire long before the Greeks were around. So you stop believing in Prometheus.
Is this illogical? Of course not.
FiverBeyond 3 months ago
@FiverBeyond RE: It is perfectly philosophically acceptable to be led to skepticism and atheism via expanding your mind in other areas
Yes of course.I haven't claimed otherwise.But according to the definition ,one becomes an atheist by becoming unconvinced by the evidence for God.Therefore the term is not appropriate in this context.Dawkinjs told of his learning and embracing evolution.
It would be more accurate for Dawkins to say ''AT THAT MOMENT I BECAME AN EVOLUTIONIST''.
cont-
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat Perhaps, if he was making a direct argument for atheism, but he wasn't. He is remembering his own experience, where learning about evolution was a major factor in his turn to atheism, He wasn't reconstructuring every step of the mental path that led him to atheism, so I don't think your criticism here is apropos.
Cafeeine 3 months ago
@FiverBeyond I must say though i am not sure the title of my video is the best way to put it.I may change it.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
I don't see what's strange with it. There are many roads to atheism.
Griexxt 3 months ago
I hate to break it to you but Dawkins' experience is a common one among atheists. Evolution, Darwin, etc., are not 'other gods,' as you seem to think. The fact is, science has valid explanations for the Universe and its workings and religion has unprovable stories. We know atoms exist because we HAVE seen them. We know the wind is real because we see what it does. Religion is completely devoid of evidence that can't be traced to human stories. Get it?
Christheatheist1 3 months ago
@Christheatheist1 No need to break it to me.You missed my point.According to the definition ,one becomes an atheist by becoming unconvinced by the evidence for God.Therefore the term is not appropriate in this context.Dawkins told of his learning and embracing evolution.It would be more accurate for Dawkins to say ''AT THAT MOMENT I BECAME AN EVOLUTIONIST''. After all one can become an evolutionist and still be a theist.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
This is completely incorrect. Dawkins started out as an atheist, as did you. No one starts out as a theist. He looked to "god" because that is a predominant myth in our societies. When he realised there is no actual evidence for these myths he dropped them, just like any clear thinking adult should. It is not the "rejection" of said proofs it is the realisation that there are no proofs.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 No you are mistaken.Dawkins could have decided there was no proof for God without ever hearing of Darwins theory.He makes it very clear that he replaced theism for darwinian evolution not because he found fault with God but because he embraced a new explanation.Atheism could be a default position but to say he became an atheist after accepting evolution makes no sense.He became an evolutionist.After all it is evolutionists that claim no intelligence was required to create diverse life.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
Sorry Pat, but thats tripe. The christian myth is predominant and was the first thing he heard. He was probably told these things by well meaning adults when he was very young. Indeed I think in your video (I haven't rewathced it so you can correct me) I believe it is at least inferred that he was v-young when he considered magic. It is consistent to believe that he knew nothing of evolution until AFTER he was told about "god" and hence he started with god... cont...
tirua100 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
I would also argue that he did find fault with "god". He found that it was not a satisfactory explanation for the diversity and existence of life. If memory serves me correct you say that he "tried" to reconcile with the god myth but I suspect he never did, so he was probably never a "true" believer (not that it would matter if he was - pedantic). Yes, I see no reason to say intellegence is required, evolution beautifully predicts diversity.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 RE:If memory serves me correct you say that he "tried" to reconcile with the god myth
Dawkins words were''when i was a boy i looked to God to explain life''.That is a positive statement.He did not say he''tried'' to reconcile with the God myth''.
You are reading to much into his words.Please remember that my point here is simply that he did not become an atheist as a result of darwins theory.That doesnt make sense.,He became an evolutionist.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@tirua100 re:evolution beautifully predicts diversity
That is because evolutionists use the same evidence intelligent design uses.Small scale change rather than dramatic morphological change.
The ability to adapt fits intelligent design just as well.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
"The ability to adapt fits intelligent design just as well."
Every thing fits ID, no matter what data comes to light "Zues did it" will always explain it.
I'd also point out that small scale changes IS evolution it is the explanation not the data. ID has nothing in it that specifically predicts what we see in the natural world.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100 ID proponents in 1994 predicted that the then held scientific view of JUNK DNA was incorrect and that RNA and DNA would be found to have far more function.Specified complexity in biology.
There is a huge advantage in knowing this as scientists continue to try to understand those complex systems.But i think i already mentioned this and you ignored it then.
Small scale change does not prove dramatic morphological change.It proves small scale change.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
"ID proponents in 1994..."
Science knew of several other functions of DNA, not just protien codeing, decades before this. The amount of "junk DNA" present in the genome has been shrinking from a long time before then, and real scientists had been debateing wether it was correct to call it "junk" well before then as well. The reality is that IDists "predicted" nothing. Also I believe that there is still around 80 (85?)% of the genome with no known function - that is still junk.
tirua100 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
Continued small scale change over long periods logically produces dramatic morphological change. In order for it not to you would need to show how it would be stopped. Why do you presume that it is somehow limited? There is absolutely nothing we know of that would limit change.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100
"Continued small change over long periods logically produces dramatic morphological change"
How would variations in skin colour, eye colour or hair colour over time cause new stuctures to appear that were not in the parent population?
How would changes in height over time in a population causes new structures to appear?
How would a variety of body shapes in humans over time mean that non human structures could appear?
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Skin colour change causes skin colour change, eye colour change causes eye colour change etc. You really don't get it do you. NO ONE thinks that skin colour change is go to "cause" other new structures to evolve, it is the skin that changes. Also, thinks don't just "appear" - they evolve over time.
Continual small changes of one structure over time will eventual change it into a different structure. There are observed examples of this.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100
" You really don't get it do you"
No you really don't get it, How can an expression of existing genes for existing traits cause new genes for new traits that are not in the parent population?
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
They call it gene duplication.
Also it is well documented and observed that continual small changes will transform an EXISTING structure into a different structure. Recently a population of lizards was moved from one habitat to another, the dietary change caused the new pop'n to develope a new valve i.e. A NEW STRUCTURE.
The "problems" you are bringing up are infantile, they have been dealt with countless times before. I suggest coming up with something new.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100
"it is well documented that small changes will transform an EXISTING structure into a different structure"
No they haven't, Let's try an analogy to make it easier for you, Say I only give you the ingredients for making vegetarian food, it does not matter how many variations you do with those ingredients but you will never be able to make a Steak pie because you do not have the beef, No amount of shuffling around of vegetarian ingredients is going to give you a steak pie.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
wtf?
Is that supposed to be an analogy? Whose talking about turning a carrot into a steak? I'm talking about turning an organic structure into a different organic structure.
total analogy fail.
AND - YES THEY HAVE.
tirua100 3 months ago
@tirua100
"total analogy fail"
Of course an analogy that was made simple for your simple mind fails because you are too stupid to understand it.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
"If a gene duplicates then it can mutate to form something different while still maintaining the old gene"
If mutations on the original gene do not create new morphological traits then they are not going to do the same on the duplicate gene because the duplicate is the same information
.
Even though you are a Retarded Darwimp and are not used to thinking for yourself instead of uncritically swallowing what Darwimps like Dawkins tell you, You should start questioning your evo faith.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
"because the duplicate is the same information"
Not if it has mutated. Genes code for proteins, if the sequence changes they produce different proteins. How is this the same?
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp100
It is retarded Darwimps like you that equate evolution with atheism, Design is not a problem for Evolution it is a problem for Atheism and that is why you use it to argue against design when there is no conflict at all but you reveal your motivations.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
It is not that design would be a "problem" it is that there is no evidence of design.Or at least no evidence of good design. i.e. from a magical sky wizard. The aparent design that we see is the sort of "design" you would expect from a natural process like evolution. If your invisible sky wizard is the architect, I recommend firing it and getting a good human engineer to design the next lot.
tirua100 2 months ago
@tirua100
" Not if it has mutated"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You mutation intoxicated Darwimps are funny.
1. Experiments with Fruit flies and Moths Have been a failure, You end up with with dead and deformed fruit flies but no beneficial new structures.
2. The fossil record is not one that is consistent with the gradual accumulation of mutations, As Lynn marguils said " There is no Gradualism in the fossil record, Punctuated Equillibrium was brought in to explain away the discontinuity"
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
1.Rubbish you should read the data I've seen experiments where the beneficial mutations are around the 16% rate (of mutations) within low fittness populationsThe experiments not were expected to produce new structures they measured the fittness of the population and their ability to adapt Typical IDiot misrepresentation of the science
Just like all your other "problems"I'm sure that if you keep repeating them scientists
will start to believe in them other than the facts
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
"The experiments not were expected to produce new structures"
Look at the mutation intoxicated Darwimp making excuses, wah wah wah, Go cry to your mommy.
"Typical IDiot misrepresentation of science"
Typical projection by a mutation intoxicated Darwimp.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
2. Darwin didn't get it quite correct - so what? That is not the only thing he got wrong. He actually made 2 predictions about the fossil record 1 was that you would see very simple organisms evolving into much more complicated ones - big tick on that one, its EXACTLY what we see, how does ID account for that?
The other was that it would be a slow continual process. He did not get that quite right, almost but not quite.
to be cont....
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
"Darwin didn't get it quite right"
Darwinism failed, You retarded Darwimp, And still you hold onto your faith.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
2. cont..
Even the parts of the fossil record that show "rapid" change are periods on geologic time scales i.e. millions of years. The fact is that evolution works perfectly well with the
fossil record, afterall the fossil record is a record of evolution.
Why do you IDiots think that Darwin should have got everything correct and that if one thing he says is not quite correct it disproves the whole of evolution?
to be cont....
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
"afterall the fossl record is a record of evolution"
The retarded mutation intoxicated Darwimp is lying to himself.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
2. cont..
This is probably the most stupid thing about IDiots, amoungst the many. Darwin lived in the 1800's and had no knowledge of genetics and molecular biology (amoungst other things). Why would you expect him to be able to predict everything? On the whole his predictions were v-accurate. You need to realise that the theory of evolution, as it stands today, is v-diferent to what Darwin thought. Just like all science, evoution adapts with new data.
to be cont...
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
"evolution adcapts with new data"
Unlike other theories postulated by scientists your evo faith is a sponge that can accomodate all data, No evolution in organisms for millions of years is also evidence for your faith.
You retarded mutation intoxicated Darwimps will believe anything to hold onto your evo faith.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
2. cont.
If something comes along that can not be explained within the theory then it will be thrown out or adapted. Up until now there has been NOTHING found that is inconsistent with evolution. There is just a continual whine in the back ground from IDiots calling out "listen to me, listen to me....." adnorsium.
tirua100 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@tirua100
3. You have organisms like lampreys who's morphology is not said to have changed in millions of years, more evidence against the claim that random mutations accumulate to cause the evolution you believe in.
4. The reason the evolution promoting scientists say they do not know or agree how the Darwin tale is meant to have occured is because mutations have failed as an explanation, They do not know that mutations could do it that is why they admit they do not know.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
3. So what? There is no nesecesity for an organism to massively change. If there is no selective pressure, why would you expect things to change much? Crocodiles,
sharks, platypuses (and plenty more) are also said to have been pretty much unchanged for millions of years - so what?
Again, I'm sure that if you keep saying these things a couple of hundred
times more it will change the scientists view. These things have been explained to you IDiots hundereds of times
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
"there is no neccesity for an organism to massively change"
As if random mutations decide that an organism has no need to change.
HAHAHAHAHA!
You inconsistent and retarded Darwimps are funny.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
4. You said earlier that I should release my findings and claim a nobel. Well, here is your
opurtunity. go tell the scientists they are wrong and mutation has failed, it will be news to them all. You should stop making stupid claims. There is no reputable scientist that does not believe mutations is the mechanism of evolution.
to be cont...
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
"go tell the scientists they are wrong and mutation has failed"
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
The retarded darwimp has already been shown where it is admitted that those evo priests do not know how their faith occured but you are too stupid to comprehend it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
You seem to have a real mental block with the mutation creating new structures thing
I'll help you out. Type "Pod Mrcaru lizard" into google. In short its a lizard that was moved to a different environment and over about 20 years developed cecal valves in its gut, as well as other morphological changes. THIS.IS.A.NEW.STRUCTURE How do you explain this? Did you sky wizard wave its wand and say Abracadabra? I think the word mutation comes to mind.
tirua100 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
" Abracadabra I think the word mutation comes to mind"
HAHAHAHAHAHA, Yes abracadabra comes to mind, You believe in the Darwin fairytale and the darwin fairy.
What you have with the wall lizards is phenotypic plasticity( gene expression) and after just 16 weeks of feeding them an arthropod diet they lost the valves, thus gene expression not a new irreversible structure being created by mutations.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
watch?v=9fLuTYPDXWU
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@Darwimp1000
Just another example of environmental variation within a population, of the tired old Peppered Moth variety. A percentage of the lizards express the genes for cecal valves. No wall lizard has changed or is changing into something else. They are still just wall lizards.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
It would take a fair bit longer than 30 years to produce a "new" species, the fact that one did not "appear" is not surprising and would have been unexpected. The stupid "they are still just ..." comment becomes so tiring. I expect you think that one species will just give birth to another, that is not what evolution says The transformation from one species to another takes many generations, something we are not likely to observe The limitations you place are imaginary
tirua100 2 months ago
@tirua100
"The transformations from one species to another takes many generations"
And fruit flies give you those many generations and the experiments with them failed.
And Pat has made some great points in his comment, Furthermore this example of adaptation does not equal evolutionary change because when the diet is changed the valves dissapear and the organisms return to their prior state, cont:
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
By many evolutionists mean many thousands (maybe millions?) not hundreds.
The experiments did not "fail", you mean they did not produce other species - which was NOT the intent of the experiments. The experiments with flies etc are to measure mutation rates and population fitness, not "how long to produce a new species". NO one expects to see a new, i.e. non-fly, species evolve in these experiments. I think you know that, which makes you a lyer.
tirua100 2 months ago
@Darwimp100
"The experiments did not fail"
Oh but they did, No beneficial new structures and this is after over 70 years of experiments using mutations with fruit flies, You know that if mutations had the ability to cause the evolution you believe in and new beneficial structures then these experiments would have demonstrated it, The fact you promote mutations still makes you a liar.
"
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
Wrong again. Keep trying, you may understand oneday. Experiments with Drosophila were never meant to produce new species, the genetic changes that were expected were observed and they confirm evolution, not the other way around. You are seriously confused if you beleive that Drosophila experiments confirm ID. They would need to have an isolated population under some type of stress for thousands of years to expect what you seem to.
tirua100 1 month ago
@tirua100
"Wrong again. Keep trying, you may understand oneday"
Now repeat that to yourself 1000 times and it might sink in that you keep getting it wrong, BTW, You think "oneday" is all one word, You idiot.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheist
Once is enough, I've already pointed out to you that repetition is the IDiot tactic of choice.
"BTW, You think "oneday" is all one word, You idiot."
I often make mistakes like that, although I try hard not to. I also can not read overly well, but have improved over the years. It was a major hurdle for me when I was at school and university. I am dyslexic. It is instructive that you have stooped to grammatical errors in a vain attempt to improve your argument.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp
"I also can not read overly well"
I know you have comprehension problems.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Dr. Weisenberg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps." There you go dumbshit. He claims that anything can turn into anything. Watch? v=0Fmh8PCmrlk
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
AHHH. the ever great and lying Eric Hovind. If you find any logic in his stupidity then I'm afraid you are lost. If you had any common sense you would understand that that video is a screed of quote mined drivel not worthy of anything more than a dirisionary snort.
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp100
You can dribble over your keyboard about eric hovind all you want, However you have not proven that the context of Dr weinsenberg's comments have been changed, Until you back up your claim that he was quote mined then it stands that you did not understand your own messed up evo faith that flying pigs are possible, You do not even know what natural selection means, You don't understand your own messed up evo faith.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
I've said before that I am happy to ignore quote mined comments. The comment from Dr Weinsenberg is quote mined, so I ignore it.
I understand natural selection perfectly well. You, on the other hand, repeatidly show that you have no clue what evolution by natural selection means. You find some random quote that says
"...Nature is just eliminating the less fit"
and then conclude that no selection takes place. total garbage from a piece of quote mined crap.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
" vain attempt to prove your argument"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It is you that have to prove yourself to me dumb dumb, I do not have to prove what is observed to occur in nature and that is that cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs that has been shown all throughout recorded history, If you think dogs producing dogs requires proof then you are retarded.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@tirua100
"Experiments with Drosophila were never meant to produce new species"
There you are arguing for intention again, First you argued that mutations will cause a new structure in 35 years without intention, Now your excuse is that because there was no intention then there will be lack of significant change with an organism that goes thru many generations rapidly that represent thousands of years.
You need to make up your mind.
hahahahahahahahaha
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
Actually it was incorrect of me to use the word "meant" or "intent" with respect to these experiments. I should have said they did not "expect" to see the changes you are harping on about. The intent of the experiments was/are to measure mutation rates and population fitness etc. To that end the experiments have been v-useful in explaining the role that mutations have played in evolution.
tirua100 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
No experiment on Drosophila has been conducted that represents thousands of years. I keep telliing you, THIS IS WRONG.
I suspect you believe that the experiments where they irradiated drosophila somehow represent 000's of years. The intent of the irradiation is to measure the effect of irradiation on mutation rate. How exactly do you think it "speeds up" evolution? You need to work out what the exps were actually doing/testing not project your own delusions on them.
tirua100 1 month ago
@tirua100 "No experiment on Drosophila has been conducted that represents thousands of years" You dont' know what you're talking about. They were attempting to prove speciation can occur. They failed.
brayingjackass 1 month ago
@brayingjackass
There are several Drosophila experiments. I remember seeing one that took 2 populations and put them on different diets. Each population adapted to their own. At the end the 2 populations would not interbread i.e. speciation.
I fail to see why Drosophila is so important for this as speciation has been observed to occur several times naturaly. If you go and google "speciation event" you can end your own ignorance on this point.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
"Experiments with Drosophila were never meant to produce new species"
There you are arguing for intention again, First you argued that mutations will cause a new structure in 35 years without intention, Now your excuse is that because there was no intention then there will be lack of significant change with an organism that goes thru many generations rapidly that represent thousands of years.
You need to make up your mind.
hahahahahahahahaha
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@tirua1000
As for ID.
You are seriously confused if you think scientists attempting to create life from scratch using intelligence and design is evidence that a living organism came into being on its own without design.
Scientists waiting around hoping that one day a living organism will arise on its own in a natural enviroment is not part of the scientific process.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
"As for ID...."
Are you trying to change the subject? Do you want to have a thread on abiogenisis as well? Happy to oblige but from your first effort it would appear you are as confused about this as you are evolution.
"..create life from scratch using intelligence and design..."
lol, seriously? Your ignorance is showing.
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp
"Are you trying to change the subject, Do you want to have a thread on abiogenesis as well?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are using biological evolution as an argument design when design is not a problem for biological evolution but for atheism, Even if we pretended the Darwinian fairytale was true then life would not be the result of Darwinian Evolution but Darwinian evolution would be the result of life alreading existing,cont:
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@Dunce100
If you want to argue against design then you have to argue against life occuring on its own in a natural enviroment without design because design and biological evolution are not mutually exclusive and biological evolution is an argument for what happens once you already have existing life you dumbass.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
lol
"biological evolution is an argument for what happens once you already have existing life you dumbass"
Don't you understand english? I said
"Are you trying to change the subject, Do you want to have a thread on abiogenesis as well?"
From this sentence, which you referenced, it is obvious that I realise that
"biological evolution is an argument for what happens once you already have existing life" - you dumbass.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
Don't you understand English.
You call your mangled way of talking English
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You said
" 2 populations would not interbread"
"Interbread"
When you learn how to speak English then you can talk about understanding English you Illiterate retard.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
Gee, a spelling error!!! I was wrong all along. It must be a designer, I mean look its irrifutable proof... a spelling error!!!
If all you've got is a moronic attack on my spelling I think I'll claim victory and leave.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
If it is obvious you know that biological evolution is what happens once you have life then you shouldn't be using it as an argument against ID Dumbass.
You are arguing against ID and then you are whining about abiogenesis being brought up.
You dumbshit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If you want to use evolution against ID then abiogensis will be raised dumbshit.
You did not know that abiogenesis is evolution.
You dumbass.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSPoopHead
Listen here your fucked up retarded little peice of dog shit (see I can use those words to) abiogensis is NOT a part of the theory of evolution, which is what we were discussing, dickwad. If you could pull that lump of shit you loosly call a head out of your festering arse for 2 seconds and think like a rational human you'd realise that. I'd be ashamed if a retarded 6 year old thought with same ridiculous logic as you.
you.. you... poopyhead!!
nah nah nah nah!! I win.
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp100
"abiogenesis is NOT a part of the theory of evolution"
Then you should stop foaming at the mouth about Design or making the false Dichotomy of Biological Evolution vs Design, Because Design is not a problem for evolution but a problem for atheism, And the fact that you bring in creationism into the discussion and God reveals your true motivation, it is not about science for you but because you think your evo faith speaks to Atheism.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheis
"And the fact that you bring in creationism into the discussion"
You are the one that brought creationism into the descussion when you argue for design, design is creationism
We were/are discussing evolution, not abiogenisis. Design (i.e. creationism) has nothing to do with evolution, evolution can not coexist with creationism - they are diametrically opposed
"God reveals your true motivation"
Dog revealed it, did it? Did it write you an email, or wisper it in your ear?
tirua100 1 month ago
@tirura
"design is creationism"
according to whom?
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheist
“"design is creationism"
according to whom?”
Only dishonest people would say it is not. I guess that since you have been shown to be dishonest you might say it is not.
The fact remains that ID claims that life was “designed” and did not arrive through natural processes. That is creationism, you will claim that ID does not claim to know “who” the designer is and therefore is not creationism but it is irrelevant what it is.
cont.
tirua100 2 weeks ago
@Darwimp100
"only dishonest people would say it is not"
Those that say it is not Creationism are dishonest according to whom?
"I guess that since you have been shown to be dishonest you might say it is not"
Who specifically showed I was dishonest and how Sepcifically?
What is preventing you from showing those quotes of mine and Pats were quote mines?
Why are you lying for darwin?
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
@FSApetheist
cont... "design is creationism"
It makes no difference what creation myth you invoke, and you must invoke one at some point in time, it is just a CREATION myth. I find you dishonesty to be some what distasteful.
tirua100 2 weeks ago
@Darwinp100
"It is Just a CREATION myth"
Prove it, Prove that life created itself on its own in a natural enviroment.
You can't, thus your claim of a myth is a lie.
You can't help but lie can you Darwimp
hahahahahahahahahahaha
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
@Darwim100
"it is just a CREATION myth."
Scientists are using their intelligence and design with the goal of creating a living organism, Intelligent design is very much a part of the scientific process.
Your abiogenesis faith that a living organism created itself on its own in a natural enviroment is not part of the scientific process, You are projecting again Darwimp.
Your creation myth is not part of science Darwimp100.
FSApetheist 2 weeks ago
@tirua100
"evolution canot coexist with creationism."
Evolution does coexist with design though, In fact we know that evolution and design coexist perfectly well from experience, for example the evolutiopn of technology from the ipod to the ipad for example,design is a problem for atheism and the fact you are trying to rule design as creationism again shows your motivations, You have not shown how biological organisms came into being without design so you have failed again.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@Darwimp100
Please show how dr weisenberg's words were taken out of context, You made the allegation but failed to do it, You also made the claim against pat here, You have 0 credibility and use that quote mine crap as a rhetorical ploy because you cannot back up your assertions, Why did you lie about dr weisenberg's words being taken out of context?
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheist
"If you want to argue against design then you have to argue against life occuring on its own in a natural enviroment without design"
So, in order to argue AGAINST design (which I'm not - theres just no evidence FOR design - or, at least, you have presented none) I need to argue AGAINST life occuring WITHOUT design? How does that work? If I show that life cannot occur naturally WITHOUT design, haven't I just shown evidence FOR design?
Design and evolution are exclusive
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
" There's just no evidence FOR design"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
lets see what is scientific and who is rejecting science, You accuse others of rejecting science but you seem to be projecting.
What is a known scientific law?
The law of biogenesis that life only comes from previous life, Never once violated in all of recorded history, You believe in abiogenesis which violates this thus you have rejected Science.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
So if life cannot arise in a natural enviroment on its own without design then it must have been designed, Scientists are working hard using their intelligence to create life, They are not waiting around hoping that one day a living organism will arise by itself in a natural enviroment, thus what you believe is not part of the scientific process.
Cont:
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@tirua100
" Do you want to have a theory on abiogenesis as well? Happy to oblige but from your first effort it would appear you are as confused about this as you are about evolution"
There you are projecting your own ignorance again, You don't think abiogenesis is evolution.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
abiogenesis is chemical evolution you dunce.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And a centre for abio research is called "The centre for chemical evolution."
You dunce!
HAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
You should become a comedian.
IDiot a couple of comments ago
"biological evolution is an argument for what happens once you already have existing life you dumbass"
IDiot now
"You don't think abiogenesis is evolution." - "abiogenesis is chemical evolution you dunce."
Which is it IDiot?
Just for the record. Chemical evolution is NOT biological evolution. i.e. abiogenisis is not part of the theory of evolution.
You honestely get funnier the longer this gos.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
Look at you trying to shift the goalposts
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You said:
"Happy to oblige but from your first effort it would appear you are as confused about this as you are about evolution"
You didn't say confused about biological evolution, You said " about evolution"
You thought that abiogenesis is not evolution.
You honestly are retarded that you did not know abiogenesis is evolution.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@Dunce100
Let's remind the loud mouth dunce100 again:
"Flying pigs? lol, do you think that evolution predicts something like that? You REALLY need an education."
Dr. Weisenberg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps." There you go dumbshit. He claims that anything can turn into anything.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
I've told you before. DO NOT LIE TO ME. Quote mining is a pointless lie that I can, and will, happily ignore.
If you really beleive that an evolutionist thinks that a flying pig is a possible outcome then you have some serious problems.
tirua100 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
I would also say that no new beneficial structures is not quite correct. Maybe no structures but they have procuced low o2 tolerant populations, populations with different dietary requirements (producing speciation) and many other results consistent with evolution.
tirua100 1 month ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
The problem is that you have nothing to back up your delusional faith that given enough time you can get things like flying pigs. Your entire argument collapses with your delusional excuse for the failure of the fruit fly experiments.
You have 0 evidence for the genetic principle of like begets like being violated in experiments or observed to occur naturally.
You are going against what is known to occur in nature, The burden of proof thus falls on you.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
Flying pigs? lol, do you think that evolution predicts something like that? You REALLY need an education.
There is no "excuse" (let alone "delusional excuse") for "failures" of Drosophila experiments (exp). I was simply pointing out that you were totally and completely (utterly as well) wrong about the expected outcome of the exp's. All the exp's were a success in thier own fashion, they all helped understand genetic mutation and hence evolution.
cont...
tirua100 1 month ago
@tirua100
" Flying pigs? lol do you think that evolution predicts something like that? You REALLY need an education."
You don't understand your own fucked up theory.
"Dr. Weisenberg, evolution 'scientist' said, "Given enough time you can turn anything into anything. Yeah, it's true. It's true. Alright, I have proof, it's proven. You have the fossil record, shows all of the steps." There you go dummass. He claims that anything can? turn into anything."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
But he does not think a pig could develop wings and start flying. He doesn't think this because if it developed wings it would no longer look anything like a pig and indeed would not be a pig, but some other type of animal alltogether. Your total lack of understanding of the theory of evolution is obvious to all.
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Look at you getting all defensive because you do not understand your own fucked up theory.
He said " Anything into Anything"
You are really messed up to believe in such a retarded evo theory, You dunce.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Look at you getting all defensive because you do not understand your own fucked up theory.
He said " Anything into Anything"
You are really messed up to believe in such a retarded evo theory, You dunce.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@tirua100
"There is no excuse"
Yes you were making excuses Darwimp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Not only were you wrong as usual but you contradicted yourself, What they do help us understand is that fruit flies will never become anything other than fruit flies.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
You really lack compehesive skills, don't you?
I was pointing out where you were, obviously, wrong in your interpratation of Drosophila experiments. That is not an excuse.
"What they do help us understand is that fruit flies will never become anything other than fruit flies."
I doubt any scientist would make this ridiculous claim, only an IDiot would be this illogical.
There are no "thousands of years" in Drosophila experiments. (let alone millions)
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
You obviously have comprehension problems darwimp, I was pointing out that you were making excuses for the failure of those experiments, Get over it crybaby.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tirua100
"I doubt any scientist would make this ridiculous claim"
What you think is not important Darwimp, you do not even understand your own fucked up evo theory.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
"There are no thousands of years in drosphila experiments ( let alone millions)"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You dumbshit, the reason that scientists use fruit flies is because they go thru many generations rapidly, They do not need to wait thousands or millions of years to test mutations and what evolution they can produce you dumbshit.
And all you can do is whine and complain because those experiments failed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
The reason scientists use Drosophila is because they only have 4 chromosomes which are, now, completely mapped. They are v-common, easy and cheap to breed. they also only have a breeding cycle of about 2 weeks.
"they go thru many generations rapidly"
BULLSHIT! They go through one generation every 2 or so weeks.1 generation every 1 generation - bumdass.
There is no "speeding up" - dumbass.
Thousands of years worth of evolution would take thousands of years - DUMBASS!!
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp
"There is no "speeding up" dumbass"
They were exposed to radiation to increase normal mutation rates.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"thousands of years worth of evolution would take thousands of years of evolution"
You don't know the difference between years and generations.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Even after 600 generations of fruit flies there is no evidence that fruit flies can become anything other than fruit flies, No wonder you keep making excuses.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
"They were exposed to radiation to increase normal mutation rates"
We've covered this one. Irradiating Drosophila, or anything for that matter, would not simulate evolution. If you thought about it for a second you would realise what a ridiculus idea that is. To simulate evolution you would need to isolate a population and give it some kind of environmental (dietary) change that would push evolution in a particular direction. Then leave them for thousands of years.
tirua100 1 month ago
@Darwimp100
I am not interested in your excuses for the failed fruit fly experiments, get over it darwimp.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheist
"You don't know the difference between years and generations."
I'm afraid it is you that does not know the difference. Take a look at the comment I was responding to. I believe you will read the following
"They do not need to wait thousands or millions of years to test mutations"
Is that not you mentioning years? Why would I respond with generations when you are talking years? I'm happy to switch to generations if you wish, its all the same.
tirua100 1 month ago
Comment removed
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheis
"Even after 600 generations"
Ohhhh, you should have said. 600!!! wow, we certainly should have seen a few cows evolving by now, I mean 600 is close to infinity, its more generations than I could have ever imagined - but still no cows!!! Dog must have done it, I concede
Even with a couple more 0's it is meaningless. None of the experiments on Drosophila are EXPECTED to produce a new species, actually I think you mean "kind" and not actual speciation (which we've seen)
tirua100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
The fruit fly experiments have been so extensive , that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created is equivalent to the millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. cont:
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100 Furthermore you have scientists who acting as the “selecting agent,” speed up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and selection really could happen then , we should see that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from being a fly into other kinds of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
But still you have faith in the failed experiments.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darwimp100
Pierre Grassé zooologist and former chair of evo biology in paris said “The fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
cont...
It is impossible to perform an experiment where the expected outcome would be a new species. Time does not permitt it.
However, if you look at the fossil record you will see a huge amount of evidence for this. Tell me, I've always been curious, how does ID explain the fact that no human fossils are found before about 1mil years ago, but species of ape like animals (that are now extinct) that are v-similar to humans are? Never the 2 are mixed?
tirua100 1 month ago
@tirua100
"Time does not permit it"
hahahahahahahaha first you were arguing that 35 years is enough to observe your faith and when the fruit flie experiments fail and no new beneficial morphological traits appear then it is because there is not enough time.
You are funny with your lame excuses Darwimp.
FSApetheist 1 month ago
@FSApetheist
There are no "failed" frui