Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

BUT Greg my friend.... that sentence had nothing to do with your 'challenge' about function. That sentence has to do with their evolutionary beliefs... which I did mention in my answer.


Now... let's keep playing 'Name the function'. Can we do ear wax next? That one has some cool design features!

Goosebumps do NOTHING. We shiver to warm

 

[Right Divider]

It's not random. The mutations are random. They can be good, though usually they are neutral (will not affect the organisms) or bad (usually results in an organism that is deficient, and dies before reproducing).

Good mutations are preserved bc they help that organism live longer and reproduce more than its peers. Due to being able to reproduce more and have more offspring than its peers, its positive mutation gets spread throughout the population over time. This is something we have observed in real time, a notable example off the top of my head being the moths in Britain. Prior to the industrial revolution they were almost always white in color. But after smog and soot covered London, the dark moths suddenly had the best camouflage. In less than a decade the moths turned completely black

Natural selection is not random. The mutations in DNA are.

You mean the dead moths that they glued to trees?

The genes of the moths did NOT change. SOME of a certain COLOR were EATEN more often because they were easier to SEE by their predators. When the BACKGROUND color that made them easier to see changed, the predators continued to eat the one that they could SEE best.

There were ALWAYS moths of BOTH colors, just like there are NOW.

https://creation.com/goodbye-peppered-moths

 

[Jose Fly]

I suppose at this point I could ask the same question that creationists have always avoided.....

Evil people (Nazis, eugenicists, etc.) have justified, in part, their acts by appealing to Darwinism, therefore.........?

Anyone wanna bet on whether the creationists will answer?

 

[Jose Fly]

The genes of the moths did NOT change. SOME of a certain COLOR were EATEN more often because they were easier to SEE by their predators. When the BACKGROUND color that made them easier to see changed, the predators continued to eat the one that they could SEE best.

Yep, that's natural selection in action, which is what the peppered moths example is typically cited to illustrate.

 

[Right Divider]

I suppose at this point I could ask the same question that creationists have always avoided.....

Evil people (Nazis, eugenicists, etc.) have justified, in part, their acts by appealing to Darwinism, therefore.........?

Anyone wanna bet on whether the creationists will answer?

It's just an example how bad actions follow from bad doctrines.

 

[Right Divider]

Yep, that's natural selection in action, which is what the peppered moths example is typically cited to illustrate.

Predators eating a certain portion of a population does NOT change the genetics of a population.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You mean the dead moths that they glued to trees?

The genes of the moths did NOT change. SOME of a certain COLOR were EATEN more often because they were easier to SEE by their predators. When the BACKGROUND color that made them easier to see changed, the predators continued to eat the one that they could SEE best.

There were ALWAYS moths of BOTH colors, just like there are NOW.

https://creation.com/goodbye-peppered-moths

Of course their genes changed! The phenotypic expression is controlled by alleles! What you just received IS NATURAL SELECTION. The white moths had a disadvantage, and the mutant black moths had an advantage.

You, sir, might need a class or two

 

[Jose Fly]

It's just an example how bad actions follow from bad doctrines.

So if we find evil people justifying their acts by appealing to Christianity, is that an indication that Christianity is "bad doctrine"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Predators eating a certain portion of a population does NOT change the genetics of a population.

??????? Of course it does. If you have a population of moths that is 90% black and 10% white, that means 90% of the population has the allele for black coloration and 10% has the allele for white. If predators start selectively preying on the black moths, over time the genetic composition of the population will shift towards more with the white allele and fewer with the black allele.

Or are you actually arguing that the genetic composition of the population never changes, regardless of what alleles its individuals have?

 

[Right Divider]

Of course their genes changed! The phenotypic expression is controlled by alleles! What you just received IS NATURAL SELECTION. The white moths had a disadvantage, and the mutant black moths had an advantage.

You, sir, might need a class or two

There were BOTH white and black moths before SOME were eaten by predators. The eating of SOME of the moths did NOT change the genes of EITHER color of moths.

BOTH colors of moths live today.

You are the one that needs a class or two.

 

[Right Divider]

So if we find evil people justifying their acts by appealing to Christianity, is that an indication that Christianity is "bad doctrine"?

Many people CLAIM to be Christians.

I'll wait for your example of Christians exterminating millions of people based on Biblical Christian doctrine.

 

[Right Divider]

??????? Of course it does. If you have a population of moths that is 90% black and 10% white, that means 90% of the population has the allele for black coloration and 10% has the allele for white. If predators start selectively preying on the black moths, over time the genetic composition of the population will shift towards more with the white allele and fewer with the black allele.

Or are you actually arguing that the genetic composition of the population never changes, regardless of what alleles its individuals have?

These are NOT TWO DIFFERENT species with different genes. These moths have BOTH COLORS in their genes.

 

[Greg Jennings]

There were BOTH white and black moths before SOME were eaten by predators. The eating of SOME of the moths did NOT change the genes of EITHER color of moths.

BOTH colors of moths live today.

You are the one that needs a class or two.

Yes they still both exist. But the population reversed! Are you thick? Smog regulations cut down on the selective process bc it wasn't a disadvantage to be a white moth again


Look, I know you guys hate it when asked what sort of education you received in reference to evolution, but you are goofing on such basic things (confidently at that ). So I want to know

 

[Jose Fly]

Many people CLAIM to be Christians.

I'll wait for your example of Christians exterminating millions of people based on Biblical Christian doctrine.

So if an evil person appeals to evolution to justify their acts, it's an indication that evolution is "bad doctrine".

But if an evil person appeals to Christianity to justify their acts, it's an indication that they aren't really a Christian.

That's hilarious.

 

[Jose Fly]

These are NOT TWO DIFFERENT species

No one said they were. That's why the peppered moths are cited to illustrate natural selection rather than speciation.

with different genes.

The relative proportion of alleles in the population has changed, correct?

These moths have BOTH COLORS in their genes.

In the overall population, yes. But the relative frequency of alleles in the population has changed.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes they still both exist. But the population reversed! Are you thick? Smog regulations cut down on the selective process bc it wasn't a disadvantage to be a white moth again

Look, I know you guys hate it when asked what sort of education you received in reference to evolution, but you are goofing on such basic things (confidently at that ). So I want to know

I understand that evolutionists cannot understand even the simplest of things, but I will continue to try to explain anyway.

If you have a species of moths that have BOTH white and black variations in their genes, and you kill a whole bunch of LIVING moths of one of the colors..... you have NOT shown ANY change to the genes.

 

[Right Divider]

So if an evil person appeals to evolution to justify their acts, it's an indication that evolution is "bad doctrine".

But if an evil person appeals to Christianity to justify their acts, it's an indication that they aren't really a Christian.

That's hilarious.

Your logic is flawed, just like your beliefs.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I understand that evolutionists cannot understand even the simplest of things, but I will continue to try to explain anyway.

If you have a species of moths that have BOTH white and black variations in their genes, and you kill a whole bunch of LIVING moths of one of the colors..... you have NOT shown ANY change to the genes.

And again, the allele frequencies in a population are what is changed. The ratio changes. That IS natural selection. If the city had stayed smoggy, then all of the white moths would have entirely been eliminated over the decades (or perhaps moved to another, less smoggy locale). Can you not see that?

This is ABC, man. It doesn't get a ton simpler

 

[Right Divider]

No one said they were. That's why the peppered moths are cited to illustrate natural selection rather than speciation.

The natural selection is THIS CASE did nothing to the inheritable characteristics.

Simply killing a bunch of LIVING creature does NOT change the descendants.

The relative proportion of alleles in the population has changed, correct?

No, it did NOT. The alleles for BOTH COLORS were in BOTH COLORS of LIVING moths.

In the overall population, yes. But the relative frequency of alleles in the population has changed.

No, it did not.

 

[Right Divider]

And again, the allele frequencies in a population are what is changed. The ratio changes. That IS natural selection. If the city had stayed smoggy, then all of the white moths would have entirely been eliminated over the decades (or perhaps moved to another, less smoggy locale). Can you not see that?

This is ABC, man. It doesn't get a ton simpler

The alleles contained BOTH colors in all of the moths. Can you not see that?