Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by chair View Post
    Please explain how "evolutionists" think it works. Not what you think it is. How it works, according to "evolutionists".
    I did.

    Do you not agree that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      They think all cats are descended from a common cat population by means of random mutations and natural selection.
      How does that work? Do individual cats change?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by chair View Post
        How does that work?
        It doesn't

        Do individual cats change?
        The idea is that mutations in individuals provided a reproductive advantage so that natural selection favoured their offspring above others, dragging the "more fit" genomes into the ascendency.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by chair View Post
          Let's try this:

          Will one of you creationists please explain how you think evolution works?
          Give an example.

          Thanks,

          Chair
          Since, by your word, "evolution", you do not mean anything, therefore, anything there is that works is something you do not mean by your word, "evolution". Why don't you try actually asking a question, instead of continuing to resort to your meaningless word games?

          What you just said is essentially no different than saying, "Will you please explain how you think gyring and gimbling in the wabe works?" What you have said is nonsense, and whatever is nonsense is no question; you've asked no question. Will you please explain how you think potato often quits snulfing before it would? Maybe some with which?

          Arthur Brain, like a broken record, in this very thread, has repeated, over, and over, and over, something along the lines of, "The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And, all I can do is respond to him by saying, "Hey, man, you're preachin' to the choir, here. I agree that what you call 'the theory of evolution' is not about the origin of life, because what you call 'the theory of evolution' is sheer nonsense, and sheer nonsense isn't about anything, period."

          If you want what you wrote--"Will one of you creationists please explain how you think evolution works?"--to actually be a question, you're gonna have to mean something by your word, "evolution". Slapping a question mark at the end of a line doesn't magically turn what you write into a question. And, as you, Arthur Brain, The Barbarian, and many others in this thread, and elsewhere, have consistently demonstrated, you don't mean a bloomin' thing by your word, "evolution". That's the secret of your language game, as Darwinists.
          What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

          MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
            Since, by your word, "evolution", you do not mean anything, therefore, anything there is that works is something you do not mean by your word, "evolution". Why don't you try actually asking a question, instead of continuing to resort to your meaningless word games?

            What you just said is essentially no different than saying, "Will you please explain how you think gyring and gimbling in the wabe works?" What you have said is nonsense, and whatever is nonsense is no question; you've asked no question. Will you please explain how you think potato often quits snulfing before it would? Maybe some with which?

            Arthur Brain, like a broken record, in this very thread, has repeated, over, and over, and over, something along the lines of, "The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And, all I can do is respond to him by saying, "Hey, man, you're preachin' to the choir, here. I agree that what you call 'the theory of evolution' is not about the origin of life, because what you call 'the theory of evolution' is sheer nonsense, and sheer nonsense isn't about anything, period."

            If you want what you wrote--"Will one of you creationists please explain how you think evolution works?"--to actually be a question, you're gonna have to mean something by your word, "evolution". Slapping a question mark at the end of a line doesn't magically turn what you write into a question. And, as you, Arthur Brain, The Barbarian, and many others in this thread, and elsewhere, have consistently demonstrated, you don't mean a bloomin' thing by your word, "evolution". That's the secret of your language game, as Darwinists.
            You are shutting your eyes and ears because you are afraid of what you might hear or see.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by chair View Post
              You are shutting your eyes and ears because you are afraid of what you might hear or see.
              chair's manifest calling:
              Professional Fortune Cookie Author



              Fortunately, my eyes and ears are wide open, which is how I know that you mean nothing by words like "evolution" and "evolve". If you meant something by them, you'd be able and eager to speak coherently regarding them. Perhaps you're eager to do so, but, as you've consistently demonstrated, you're incompetent to do so, just as all your colleague Darwin cheerleaders have consistently demonstrated that they are equally incompetent to do so.
              What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

              MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                chair's manifest calling:
                Professional Fortune Cookie Author



                Fortunately, my eyes and ears are wide open, which is how I know that you mean nothing by words like "evolution" and "evolve". If you meant something by them, you'd be able and eager to speak coherently regarding them. Perhaps you're eager to do so, but, as you've consistently demonstrated, you're incompetent to do so, just as all your colleague Darwin cheerleaders have consistently demonstrated that they are equally incompetent to do so.
                Pathetic

                Comment


                • Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
                  the theory of evolution was a fantasy some dude named darwin
                  came up with not knowing about DNA coding

                  It was excusable believing evolution then ,but now
                  it is just aggressive ignorance.
                  Darwin didn't know about Mendelian genetics, possibly because Mendel published in an obscure Natural Society journal in German, papers which weren't translated into English until later. Mendel knew about evolution by natural selection because he bought German translations of Darwin's books for his monastery's library.

                  Darwin had wrong ideas about how variation happens, which would have been corrected had he known about Mendel. But the problem for your post is that each new discovery that has anything to do with how life works has perfectly aligned with Darwin's main idea of new species arising because natural selection works on natural variations, which happen by various means.

                  Darwin didn't need to know about DNA coding for his theory to become established as the best explanation for how there is such a variety of species. Mendel didn't need to know about DNA coding to discover the particulate nature of inheritance. And much more was known about evolution by natural selection before the discovery of the base code that is the mechanism for inheritance, in 1953.

                  If evolution was wrong, the whole chain of discoveries would have hit a serious brick wall by now. Since Darwin published in 1859, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy have all been revolutionised by discoveries that have caused radical rethinks. But Darwin's idea, essentially, is still right 160 years later, and no evidence has ever disproved it.

                  Stuart
                  Last edited by Stuu; October 25, 2019, 09:30 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    It doesn't



                    The idea is that mutations in individuals provided a reproductive advantage so that natural selection favoured their offspring above others, dragging the "more fit" genomes into the ascendency.
                    The Holy Wikipedia, on evolution, begins like this:

                    Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.


                    (For readers interested in a less technical introduction there is this).

                    So, let's roughly agree with you Stripe. What you write is pretty much what science has concluded.

                    What's wrong with it? (I'll come to your Nobel Prize ceremony and cheer for you!)

                    Stuart

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                      What's wrong with it?
                      Try reading.

                      I'll come to your Nobel Prize ceremony and cheer for you!
                      Right. You don't care. You're happy believing what you believe, and have only mockery and derision for anyone who dares challenge you.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chair View Post
                        Pathetic
                        Be a little more charitable chair. The question "what do you mean by 'evolution'" is a valid one.

                        And answers like "change in allele frequency in a population over time" or shortened versions thereof mean nothing since we both already agree this happens.

                        Could you stick with a definition of "evolution is the belief that every living thing we find today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of mutation plus natural selection"?
                        Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                        Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Unfortunately for you, science has a very specific definition, while the creationists constantly revise what they think the word means.
                          Below is the specific definition of science.
                          Please explain which parts of it you believe creationists are changing.

                          Science
                          SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.]

                          1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

                          2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.

                          A principle in science is a rule in art.

                          3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.

                          Science perfects genius.

                          4. Any art or species of knowledge.

                          No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.

                          5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

                          Learn to read what is written.

                          _____
                          The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                          ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by chair View Post
                            Pathetic
                            What? You don't agree that what you wrote reads quite as though it had been written expressly to go inside a fortune cookie? I guess you don't eat as much Chinese takeout as I do.
                            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                            MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                              What? You don't agree that what you wrote reads quite as though it had been written expressly to go inside a fortune cookie? I guess you don't eat as much Chinese takeout as I do.


                              Maybe you eat too much chinese takeout?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                ...each new discovery that has anything to do with how life works...
                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                Define 'life'.

                                Stuart
                                While you're at it, define "works".
                                What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                                MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X