toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[7djengo7]

My (MD) wife has a coffee cup that says, “PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR Google SEARCH WITH MY MEDICAL DEGREE. I would advise you to do the same with my ENGINEERING DEGREE.

Like anybody is going to just take your word for it, on line, that you're married.

I'll bet it must be pretty hard to obtain a coffee cup like the gem you just described, eh?

​

 

[7djengo7]

Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.

It is

It "is"?? Not, "It does"??

But, if you really do mean that saying it does make it so, then I'd recommend you hop on the first trolley out of the neighborhood of make-believe and visit us in the neighborhood of truth and logic.

 

[7djengo7]

Shoo, move along. You're unwilling to learn, you're unwilling to think rationally. Please, stop begging for attention in my thread. Thanks.

Can I go now?

By "now", do you mean ten days ago, on 11 October 2019?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Calling “hydroplate theory” total baloney is a closer approximation.

This is an appeal to ridicule.

Try making a valid argument.

The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

Moving the goalposts seems to be a habit with you. First you claim “pressure” is the cause of increased radioactive decay,

Because it is.

and now its “dynamic pressure”

Well, dynamic prpessure is a type of pressure. So both statements are true.

and not only that, it isn’t even the only cause.

Pressure is what caused the overall process. The other things are a result of that pressure.

I thought that was clear.

Listen, am I going to have to put out this many fires with the next part of the argument?

:rotfl:
My (MD) wife has a coffee cup that says, “PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR Google SEARCH WITH MY MEDICAL DEGREE. I would advise you to do the same with my ENGINEERING DEGREE.

Good for you.

Well, no, I didn’t miss anything. I agree isotope decay rates can be manipulated in SMALL samples and under EXTREME, man-made, conditions.

Which shows that decay rates are NOT constant, as you asserted before. Which means that measurements used in radiometric dating are not as reliable as you thought.

What you seem to have missed is, “Most attempts to change decay rates have failed.” Even conditions causing an increase in radioisotope decay rates only cause minimal change (with a few notable exceptions) but these conditions, “are small scale” and “they are expensive and have decontaminated (increased decay rates) only small samples”.

Special pleading.

The fact is some decay rates HAVE been changed. Which means that it's possible to do.

I’m not a materials engineer, but, if memory serves, they will luminesce.

I apologize, I mixed up the question I wanted to ask. Your answer is correct, but it's the question I was trying to ask. It's somewhat related to the topic, but not enough to warrant a discussion on it.

The (better) question I wanted to ask was, "What happens when you apply pressure to quartz?"

VERY minimally[/QUTOE]

:thumb:

Can I go now?

No one is keeping you here. I'm enjoying the discussion, though.

Yeah, let’s look at that.

“However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15 Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16“

The next paragraph is talking about something else; you linked the two together and thought “squeezing” and “stripping” of electrons were somehow associated.

“Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18”

I understand why you were confused but these are two separate processes.

Both of them are part of the big picture I'm trying to show you, SH. More on that in a moment.

These paragraphs discuss the ORIGIN of Earth’s radioactivity. There is nothing here about increased decay rates. Its right there in the title of your link https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html.

That's because we haven't even gotten to the good part yet.

Or did you not realize that the link above was just the beginning of the chapter on the origin of earth's radioactivity? The link goes to an online book, after all, not just an article.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So the question that needs answering:

What happens when one puts pressure on a piece of quartz?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Calling it a theory doesn’t make it a scientific theory, JR. Calling “hydroplate theory” totally bad science is a closer approximation.

This is an appeal to ridicule.

Try making a valid argument.

No, its an appeal to FACT. “Hydroplate” is not a scientific theory and it is bad science.

The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

Moving the goalposts seems to be a habit with you. First you claim “pressure” is the cause of increased radioactive decay,

Because it is.

Not according to your link. According to Wally, pressure is the (indirect) cause of heavy elements, including radioactive isotopes, not radioactive decay.

and now its “dynamic pressure”

Well, dynamic prpessure <pressure> is a type of pressure. So both statements are true.

Prove to me you understand what “dynamic pressure” is and is not? From your posts I don’t think you understand that it doesn’t apply to Wally’s bad science.

and not only that, it isn’t even the only cause.

Pressure is what caused the overall process. The other things are a result of that pressure.

I thought that was clear.

Nope. You said “pressure” increases radioactive decay and are just now getting around to adding that there are additional requirements necessary for that to occur. Either get to the point or don’t, I have better things to do than have a discussion about something you have made clear you don’t understand.

Listen, am I going to have to put out this many fires with the next part of the argument?

You’ve got it backward. I’m growing tired of correcting you.

Well, no, I didn’t miss anything. I agree isotope decay rates can be manipulated in SMALL samples and under EXTREME, man-made, conditions.

Which shows that decay rates are NOT constant, as you asserted before. Which means that measurements used in radiometric dating are not as reliable as you thought.

This is a straw man. Natural decay rates ARE constant. It takes EXTREME, man-made, conditions to even change some (though not all) isotope decay rates more than a fraction of a percent, QED. You have yet to rebut this argument.

What you seem to have missed is, “Most attempts to change decay rates have failed.” Even conditions causing an increase in radioisotope decay rates only cause minimal change (with a few notable exceptions) but these conditions, “are small scale” and “they are expensive and have decontaminated (increased decay rates) only small samples”.

Special pleading.

You can’t call the conclusions of your own sources special pleading.

This is what special pleading looks like:

The fact is some decay rates HAVE been changed. Which means that it's possible to do.

Just because something can be done in the laboratory doesn’t mean those same conditions occur naturally. What is possible in the laboratory isn’t necessarily probable in nature.

I’m not a materials engineer, but, if memory serves, they will luminesce.

I apologize, I mixed up the question I wanted to ask. Your answer is correct, but it's the question I was trying to ask. It's somewhat related to the topic, but not enough to warrant a discussion on it.

The (better) question I wanted to ask was, "What happens when you apply pressure to quartz?"

I believe it is called the piezoelectric (sp) effect.

Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown.

VERY minimally

:thumb:

I wonder why you left out, “and, it seems, within the bounds of the margin of error”? :think:

Can I go now?

No one is keeping you here. I'm enjoying the discussion, though.

I thought there would be milk and cookies later but so far nothing but bad science.

Yeah, let’s look at that.

“However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15 Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16“

The next paragraph is talking about something else; you linked the two together and thought “squeezing” and “stripping” of electrons were somehow associated.

“Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18”

I understand why you were confused but these are two separate processes.

Both of them are part of the big picture I'm trying to show you, SH. More on that in a moment.

Get it done already. The bad science you offer is frustrating to someone who knows better.

These paragraphs discuss the ORIGIN of Earth’s radioactivity. There is nothing here about increased decay rates. Its right there in the title of your link https://www.creationscience.com/onli...activity2.html.

That's because we haven't even gotten to the good part yet.

Or did you not realize that the link above was just the beginning of the chapter on the origin of earth's radioactivity? The link goes to an online book, after all, not just an article.

I skipped to the end already. Nothing but bad science to the final sentence.

So the question that needs answering:

What happens when one puts pressure on a piece of quartz?

I think I answered that.

I’m tired of rabbit trails. Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown. If you don’t reach a conclusion with your reply I am unlikely to return to the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

toldailytopic &quot;Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life&quot;

toldailytopic &quot;Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life&quot;

No, its an appeal to FACT. “Hydroplate” is not a scientific theory and it is bad science.

Not according to your link. According to Wally, pressure is the (indirect) cause of heavy elements, including radioactive isotopes, not radioactive decay.

Prove to me you understand what “dynamic pressure” is and is not? From your posts I don’t think you understand that it doesn’t apply to Wally’s bad science.

Nope. You said “pressure” increases radioactive decay and are just now getting around to adding that there are additional requirements necessary for that to occur. Either get to the point or don’t, I have better things to do than have a discussion about something you have made clear you don’t understand.

You’ve got it backward. I’m growing tired of correcting you.

This is a straw man. Natural decay rates ARE constant. It takes EXTREME, man-made, conditions to even change some (though not all) isotope decay rates more than a fraction of a percent, QED. You have yet to rebut this argument.

You can’t call the conclusions of your own sources special pleading.

This is what special pleading looks like:

Just because something can be done in the laboratory doesn’t mean those same conditions occur naturally. What is possible in the laboratory isn’t necessarily probable in nature.

I believe it is called the piezoelectric (sp) effect.

Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown.

I wonder why you left out, “and, it seems, within the bounds of the margin of error”? :think:

I thought there would be milk and cookies later but so far nothing but bad science.

Get it done already. The bad science you offer is frustrating to someone who knows better.

I skipped to the end already. Nothing but bad science to the final sentence.

I think I answered that.

I’m tired of rabbit trails. Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown. If you don’t reach a conclusion with your reply I am unlikely to return to the discussion.

:troll:

 

[The Barbarian]

That vague and malleable term... ever changing to make sure that the "theory" cannot be falsified.

Creationists have vague and malleable terms for evolution, because new evidence keeps trashing their previous definitions. But the scientific definition has changed once. Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." That's still true, but the rediscovery of Mendel's work allows us to be more precise. The modern scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Which is why creationists don't want to talk about that. As noted before, they either intentionally obfuscate, or confuse things like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution), with evolution, itself.

The majority of those that call themselves "evolutionists" believe that a SINGLE LIVING THING came into being and that all life is a descendant of that wondrous creature.

So the evidence indicates, but one can accept Darwinian theory without making that conclusion. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that consequence of evolution?

"Evolution" cannot begin until there is life

Yep. Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how. And it merely describes how existing life changes over time. Darwin didn't include it in his theory, but expressed a belief about how it began:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence from On the Origin of Species, 1872

and we have no way to verify nor falsify the existence of this SINGLE creature from which all life is supposedly descended.

When the function of DNA was discovered, it allowed scientists to predict that the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist)would be demonstrated in the genetics of all living organisms. That prediction has been verified. And we can test that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.

Believing in common descent from this SINGLE creature is just that... a belief.

"Belief"; that vague and malleable term... ever changing to make sure that any finding can be fitted into it, and any meaning applied:

"I believe in God."

"I believe there are wolves in Yellowstone park."

"Scientists believe the fossil information that shows birds evolved from dinosaurs."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."

It's what creationists do.

:juggle:

Yep.

 

[7djengo7]

Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how.

One of your colleagues has denied that human life began, by telling us that there has never been less than a human population of about 10,000:

There is a way to estimate population size based on the genomic content of the population. Based on that data, the current scientific consensus is humans never got below a population of about 10,000 individuals.

https://biologos.org/articles/serie...uments/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics

If there's never been less than 10,000 humans, then human life has always been, and human life never began. And thus, the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with human life.

 

[ok doser]

One of your colleagues has denied that human life began, by telling us that there has never been less than a human population of about 10,000:



If there's never been less than 10,000 humans, then human life has always been, and human life never began. And thus, the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with human life.

10,000 proto-humans simultaneously evolved into modern humans?

is that the new fairy tale?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Creationists have vague and malleable terms for evolution,

Yet, every time we keep correcting you as to what evolution is really about, it's always the same answer.

I wonder why that is.

because new evidence keeps trashing their previous definitions.

No, rather, it doesn't.

But the scientific definition has changed once.

Because it was proven to be false.

Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." That's still true, but the rediscovery of Mendel's work allows us to be more precise. The modern scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Because no one disagrees that species change over time. Which is to say, you've defined the argument out of existence.

Which is why creationists don't want to talk about that.

You'd rather talk about change (which no one, not even creationists, disagrees with), than talk about what evolution really is.

As noted before, they either intentionally obfuscate,

Like you're doing right now?

Hypocrite.

or confuse things like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution), with evolution, itself.

Nope.

So the evidence indicates,

Except that it doesn't.

The evidence indicates that God created over the process of six days, and that He created birds and sea creatures on day five before land animals and man on day six, and that around 1500-1600 years later, there was a global flood that destroyed all life on earth (save Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark with him).

but one can accept Darwinian theory without making that conclusion. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that consequence of evolution?

What, the evidence that species change over time? Because no one disagrees with that idea.

Yep. Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how.

And yet, it's the "how life began" bit that is the most important part.

Creationists have both how life on Earth began AND .

And it merely describes how existing life changes over time.

See? There you go again, defining the argument out of existence.

NO ONE disagrees that species change over time.

What we disagree with is that all species are descended from a single common ancestor.

Darwin didn't include it in his theory, but expressed a belief about how it began:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence from On the Origin of Species, 1872

Darwin rejected the Biblical explanation of how life was brought into existence.

And he wasn't even the first.

When the function of DNA was discovered, it allowed scientists to predict that the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist) would be demonstrated in the genetics of all living organisms.

Except that the one thing it's done is toss everything up in the air into a scrambled mess for the evolutionists, and hasn't done anything to put anything down solidly.

That prediction has been verified.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Barb.

And we can test that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.

:blabla:

"Belief"; that vague and malleable term... ever changing to make sure that any finding can be fitted into it, and any meaning applied:

"I believe in God."

"I believe there are wolves in Yellowstone park."

"Scientists believe the fossil information that shows birds evolved from dinosaurs."

"I believe I'll have another Guinness."

It's what creationists do.

:troll:

Yep.

:blabla:

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet, every time we keep correcting you as to what evolution is really about

Unfortunately for you, science has a very specific definition, while the creationists constantly revise what they think the word means. But science continues to use the scientific definition, so when you bring up those imaginary creationist meanings, it's always the same answer; "you got it wrong, yet again."

I wonder why that is.

Because science has one consistent meaning. Must drive you guys nuts.

Barbarian observes:
But the scientific definition has changed once. Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." That's still true, but the rediscovery of Mendel's work allows us to be more precise. The modern scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Because it was proven to be false.

You're wrong again. Darwin's was correct, but after genetics, the new one is more precise.

Because no one disagrees that species change over time.

In fact, most creationist websites now admit that new species, genera,and even families of organisms evolve. They just declare that it's "not real evolution", even though it's all just a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. This is why they have to invent new meanings for "evolution", and then insist that scientists have to believe them. It's very transparent. If the creationists retreat just a little farther, they'll have defined the argument out of existence.

You'd rather talk about all those weird notions of evolution (which no one, not even creationists, really believe), than talk about what evolution really is.

Yep. Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how.

Like you're doing right now?

Yep. Like Darwin, I believe God created the first living things. But of course, that's a religious belief, not a scientific theory. It's O.K. to be unscientific when the issue calls for it.

As noted before, creationists either intentionally obfuscate, or confuse things like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution), with evolution, itself.

Hypocrite.

Getting angry and abusive isn't going to make your story more believable. I'm just showing you the difference between evolution(change in allele frequency), agencies of evolution (like natural selection), and consequences of evolution, (like common descent). Your argument depends on conflating these and obfuscation.

Darwin didn't include the origin of life in his theory, but expressed a belief about how it began:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence from On the Origin of Species, 1872

Nope.

Yep, he did. It's in my copy of his book (1872 edition)

The evidence indicates that God created over the process of six days

No, your modern alteration of Genesis says so. But if you accept His word as it is, there's no such thing.

(Barbarian notes that even most creationist websites admit evolution (as scientists define it) is a fact)

What, the evidence that species change over time?

And new species, genera, and sometimes families. Would you like me to show you that? They accept evolution, but they just don't want to call it that.

What we disagree with is that all species are descended from a single common ancestor.

Which, as you learned, isn't evolution; it's a consequence of evolution.

(Barbarian points out that Darwin said God created life)

Darwin rejected the Biblical explanation of how life was brought into existence.

Sorry, most Christians also think God created life. Why is that objectionable to you?

When the function of DNA was discovered, it allowed scientists to predict that the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist) would be demonstrated in the genetics of all living organisms.

Except that the one thing it's done is toss everything up in the air into a scrambled mess for the evolutionists

Nope. As predicted by evolutionary theory, DNA analyses show the same family tree of life that was first discovered long before Darwin. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

JR falls back on creationist talk...

:blabla:

Would it help you, if,instead of "evolution", we just called it by Darwin's term, "descent with modification?" Since you and your creationist websites have admitted that much, it would be a lot simpler to then discuss the details on how it happens. Shall we do that?

 

[Stripe]

Creationists have vague and malleable terms for evolution.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

Darwinists define it as "change."

It's because new evidence keeps trashing their previous definitions, so they settled on something that can never be assailed.

The modern scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

See? They add words to pad it. The "over time" is redundant. "Change in allele frequency in a population" has exactly the same meaning. "In a population" is redundant. Changes in allele frequencies can't happen in individuals. "In allele frequency" is a smokescreen. Darwinists will call anything evolution. I once saw a Darwinist claim that a bird singing a different song was "speciation."

All that leaves is "change." Nobody argues that things don't change, which is the whole point: Evolutionists don't want to have to answer challenges.

As noted before, they either obfuscate or say that natural selection and common descent are not part of evolution itself.

Would you like to learn about the evidence against evolution?

When the function of DNA was discovered, it allowed scientists to predict that the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus would be demonstrated in the genetics of all living organisms. That prediction has been verified.

:darwinsm:

Show us that.

Prediction: He won't.

And we can test that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.

Really? You can take the DNA of family members and show that they all came from the same family, or you can assume that people descended from fish and show that fish turned into people?

Which one? Prediction: Probably both. :chuckle:

It's what Darwinists do.

Yep.

 

[7djengo7]

the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist)

By systematically classifying animals by what he considered to be differences and similarities in their physical characteristics, Linnaeus was saying that all the animals he thereby classified were descendants of a common ancestor??

The Barbarian is yet another Darwinist who, to his embarrassment, cannot distinguish between a family tree, or pedigree, on the one hand, and a tree of porphyry, on the other. The common Darwinist stupidity of regarding the Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species classification system as though it were a family tree is just one more phenomenon that highlights how very averse to, or incapable of analytical thought is the Darwinist mindset.

The Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species classification system has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a progression of time, and thus, much less does it have anything to do with any descent, or inheritance, by organisms from other organisms, for it is no family tree, nor pedigree, and it is certainly no piece of fabricated fairy tale nonsense, like Darwinism's "phylogenetic trees" and "cladograms" are. Rather, it is a tree of porphyry.

The following very helpful passage by philosopher James Franklin gives some hint as to the history of the Porphyrian tree: In medieval education, the standard introduction to Aristotle's works was via Porphyry's Isagoge, and division entered the educated consciousness in the form of 'Porphyry's Tree'. It is not clear that Porphyry himself, in the relevant passage, went any further than Aristotle in recommending division. But his brief comment was developed into the Tree by medieval logicians. It appears in William of Sherwood's Introduction to Logic and is given the name arbor Porphyrii in the most popular medieval logic, Peter of Spain's Summulae Logicales. Linnaeus's system of static and discrete species was simply the result of filling in the abstract Tree with the names of actual species.

It's amusing that, to the Darwinist mind, to see some nodes and branches is always to see a genealogy.

 

[7djengo7]

See? They add words to pad it.

You're so correct, man!

One of Darwinists' frequently resorted-to ploys is to multiply their meaningless jargon in the face of their embarrassment, which embarrassment is due their failure to deal with simple questions about the jargon they were originally asked about. The Darwinist thinks, "I can't answer my opponent's questions about A, so I'll just start saying B, and when he asks questions about B, I'll just start saying C, because I can't answer his questions about B and A, etc." That's why I so frequently point out that the nonsense that Darwinists call "the theory of evolution" is nothing but a pompous language game designed by/for the weasels who, inexorably, make/break their own rules as they go along: every step of the way, the Darwinist is endeavoring to throw sand in his/her opponents eyes.

 

[chair]

10,000 proto-humans simultaneously evolved into modern humans?

is that the new fairy tale?

Individuals don't evolve.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Individuals don't evolve.

So then, the first bit of life on earth didn't evolve? :think:

 

[Stripe]

So then, the first bit of life on earth didn't evolve? :think:

:rotfl:

That's another short answer that destroys a Darwinist talking point.

 

[ok doser]

Individuals don't evolve.

so the first occurrence of modern humans on earth was made up of 10,000 non-evolved individual proto-humans? :freak:

 

[ok doser]

So then, the first bit of life on earth didn't evolve? :think:

not until there were 10,000 of them. And then only the population evolved, a population made up of unevolved individuals :dizzy:

 

[ok doser]

:rotfl:

That's another short answer that destroys a Darwinist talking point.

Darwinism should have been written by Kipling, as one of his "Just So" stories.



Oh My :chuckle:

googled "Just so stories" to refresh my memory and ran across this:

Just-so story From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an unverifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology).

:darwinsm: