A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[7djengo7]

A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

The unmitigated stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

On TOL, I've observed despisers of the Bible who are Darwin cheerleaders saying that there never was a time when there was only one human on earth (Adam), and that there never was a time when there were only two humans on earth (Adam and Eve). They go on to say things like that--ever since the time when there ceased being zero, zilch, zip humans on the earth--there has never been a time at which there has been less than some unspecified "far greater than two"-number of humans on the earth. One such Darwin cheerleader on TOL told me that, since the time when there stopped being zero humans on the earth, there has never been less than "about 10,000" humans on the earth.

The insanity of these Darwin cheerleaders is such that, when you confront them by directing their attention to the obvious fact that they are thereby telling you that the history of the earth until now is such that it is divisible into two periods of time mutually exhaustive of the whole:

1. a period of (earlier) time during which there was never more than 0 humans on the earth
2. a period of (later) time during which there has never been a number of humans less than at least "far more than just two" humans on the earth

--when you confront them with this fact--the fact that they are making the number of humans on the earth to have instantaneously increased from 0 to "far more than just two"--they have no recourse but to angrily pretend to deny this fact, and to try to direct attention away from it, because they know that they cannot deal with it. Obviously, somebody who goes around professing such astonishing stupidities like, "All the time during which there has been more than 0 humans on the earth, there has never been less than about 10,000 humans on the earth", is not in the least going to want to be called on to try to harmonize such things as that with his/her other stupidities, like, "Humans did not spontaneously appear on the earth, but only gradually appeared over a period of millions of years." Nobody wants to be burdened with the impossible task of having to try to explain how the number of humans on the earth can gradually increase from 0 to "far more than 2" without first having increased from 0 to 1, and without first having increased from 0 to 2.

Only an abject idiot could say, in all seriousness, "I can accelerate my car from 0 to 60 mph without first accelerating it from 0 to 1 mph, and without first accelerating it from 0 to 2 mph." But, the same sort of stupidity is what Darwin cheerleaders are trying to get us to accept when they tell us that the number of humans on the earth went from 0 to "far more than 2" without having first gone from 0 to 1, and without having first gone from 0 to 2.

 

[ok doser]

A stupidity of Darwinism

Isn't that a redundancy?

or a tautology?

 

[Idolater]

So what you're saying is that rather than Genesis-believing Christians having to explain the propagation of mankind to include incest, it's those who believe in evolution who must accept that. Since, if God created Adam and Eve, and since the Scripture doesn't say that He did not create other humans, He could just as well have created other humans, to marry the offspring of Adam and Eve. But meanwhile there is no possibility under the idea of evolution that human specimens appeared in basically anything more than the absolute minimum of two, specifically a male and a female, which all by itself is so unlikely, that if it did occur, that it's probably more likely that evolution's "Adam and Eve" were full siblings, i o w, or rather viz. that they were twins, born at the same time, affected by the same conditions that caused the mutation in both of them. In which case the propagation of mankind under the idea of evolution began in incest. And if instead two unrelated and independent mutations occurred, each of which generating a genetic human being, one male and one female, who happened to be local to one another (no such thing as cars or airplanes when this would have happened under evolution) along with living at the same time, where the fertile period for the female overlapped with the fertile period for the male, then while evolution's "Adam and Eve" weren't incestuous, their children were, either with themselves, or with one of their parents. For the idea of evolution, it simply must be one of these scenarios. The only alternative, that there were somehow more than basically two humans at our genesis, lends far more credence to the idea of Genesis, than it does to the idea of evolution.

 

[chair]

Gentlemen & Ladies, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding evolution (and no- not from anti-evolution sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

 

[ok doser]

Gentlemen & Ladies, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding evolution (and no- not from anti-evolution sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

If you believe that you understand evolution, please, correct the mistakes you see

 

[chair]

If you believe that you understand evolution, please, correct the mistakes you see

Wiser and more patient people than I have tried repeatedly, and met a brick wall of stupidity and ignorance.
Go read a book.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Gentlemen & Ladies, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding evolution (and no- not from anti-evolution sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

I could say the exact same thing, but that wouldn't make what I say true.

And because it doesn't make what I say true, then you doing it doesn't make what YOU say true, either.

Chair, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding Creationism (and no- not from anti-creationist sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

See how that works?

Wiser and more patient people than I have tried repeatedly, and met a brick wall of stupidity and ignorance.
Go read a book.

Wiser and more patient people than I have tried repeatedly to point out the errors in Evolution, and met a brick wall of stupidity and ignorance.
Go read a book on Creationism. (I recommend "In the Beginning")

See how that works? It's easy to make arguments that beg the question of your position. Try maaking an actual argument next time.

 

[chair]

I could say the exact same thing, but that wouldn't make what I say true.

And because it doesn't make what I say true, then you doing it doesn't make what YOU say true, either.

Chair, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding Creationism (and no- not from anti-creationist sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

See how that works?



Wiser and more patient people than I have tried repeatedly to point out the errors in Evolution, and met a brick wall of stupidity and ignorance.
Go read a book on Creationism. (I recommend "In the Beginning")

See how that works? It's easy to make arguments that beg the question of your position. Try maaking an actual argument next time.

If this was in a vacuum, and it had never ever been explained on this forum- you'd be right. But it has been explained COUNTLESS times.

I will give it a quick try, but I won't waste a whole lot of time of it.

The basic misconception that this thread is based on is that evolution happens in sudden steps. One day there are apes, the next day there are also humans. On Tuesday there are wolves, and on Wednesday also dogs. Thus there must have been a point at which there was a single pair of humans (just like in the Bible), and a single pair of dogs. But evolution happens gradually, over populations. Not suddenly with individuals.

Let's take animal breeds as an example. Was there ever a time were there was just one pair of German Shepherds? One pair of Merino sheep? One pair of poodles?

 

[ok doser]

But evolution happens gradually, over populations. Not suddenly with individuals.

That is the assumption made by evolutionists based on extrapolations made from individuals in the fossil record

 

[chair]

That is the assumption made by evolutionists based on extrapolations made from individuals in the fossil record

That is what theory is, like it or not. To start asking questions about the "first two humans" is simply ignorant of what the theory is.

 

[chair]

Was there ever a time were there was just one pair of German Shepherds? One pair of Merino sheep? One pair of poodles?

A straight answer to this question would be appreciated.

 

[ok doser]

A straight answer to this question would be appreciated.

I don't have the time right now to go into why it's wrong to conflate presumably random evolutionary changes with deliberate forced breeding like that done by Stephanitz

 

[chair]

I don't have the time right now to go into why it's wrong to conflate presumably random evolutionary changes with deliberate forced breeding like that done by Stephanitz

It's not just forced breeding. Many breeds developed "naturally" because men were more likely to eat sheep with shorter wool, for example.

In any case- where's the Straight Answer?

 

[Idolater]

Was there ever a time were there was just one pair of German Shepherds?

But this implies a false parallel. I am only introductory in biology, so perhaps I am wrong in saying, that a species that reproduces sexually, is specifically where a male and a female can reproduce progeny that can themselves reproduce. So a mule for instance is the product of a horse and a donkey, but mules cannot reproduce, so mules are not a species in the sense that all breeds of dog are one species. All dog breeds can reproduce progeny that can reproduce, all dogs are the same species. And so i t t, human beings are only those specimens who can reproduce progeny who can also reproduce.

And that is a hard line, there isn't any way around that in order for mankind to propagate, there must have been at some point two specimens who were able to reproduce progeny who could also themselves reproduce.

 

[Right Divider]

But evolution happens gradually, over populations. Not suddenly with individuals.

It's funny every single time.

 

[7djengo7]

Gentlemen & Ladies, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding evolution (and no- not from anti-evolution sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

Another substance-less, angry reaction from one of TOL's favorite weepy, attention-begging sad sacks: chair. You wouldn't write such a post as you just wrote, if you could actually deal with what I wrote in the OP of this thread, chair. See, now you've gone and (as is your custom) made your entrance into this new thread by using your first post in it for no other purpose, and to no other effect than simply to advertise, loudly and clearly, that you know very well that you cannot rationally defend the particular Darwinist stupidity that I have pilloried in the OP.

Please stop spamming this thread. Try to deal with the specific Darwinist stupidity to which I have drawn attention by creating this thread, or just get lost, you decrepit, grumbly troll.

By your constantly chanting meaningless slogans like, "You just don't understand evolution!", rather than actually trying to address any of the many, many, incisive, rational, Darwinism-damning questions that have been leveled against the rank stupidity promulgated by Darwin cheerleader clowns such as yourself, you are never going to make the questions disappear.

Why can't you deal with what I wrote in the OP, chair?

 

[Yorzhik]

Gentlemen & Ladies, if you would invest a little time in actually understanding evolution (and no- not from anti-evolution sites), then you wouldn't write such nonsense.

I understand what you call "evolution" better than you. Just like I understand it better than most laymen that support what you call "evolution". That's why it is better called "common descent" than "evolution". And if you think you know "evolution" as good as you think you do, you'd know this already.

Therefore, since I can explain what you call "evolution" better than you can, and you can't explain creationism as well as I can, it means your premise that if we'd just "invest a little time in actually understanding evolution" wed believe in what you call "evolution" is just you projecting.

 

[7djengo7]

Darwin cheerleaders tell us that, for as long as there have been humans on earth, the number of humans on earth has been no less than some number, n, where n > 2. Thus, as can be clearly seen from this timeline constructed from the Darwin cheerleaders' own data, all time up to the present can be divided into two divisions, such that at no point in the earlier division (A) were there any humans on earth, and such that at no point in the later division (B) has there been less than n humans on earth.




Thus, according to Darwin cheerleaders, an event of the instantaneous advent of the first humans--a number of humans greater than 2, and no less than n--sharply divides time into the two divisions, (A) and (B), seen above.

Thus, Darwin cheerleaders are telling us out of one side of their mouth not only that the number of the first humans on the earth was greater than 2, and greater than 1, but also, they are telling us that the advent of those n first humans on earth was instantaneous, and not gradual. Of course, all the while, out of the other side of their mouth they are angrily, mindlessly shouting "No! Gradual!"

You don't like the timeline I made using your own data, Darwin cheerleaders? Then, by all means, construct a timeline, yourself, so as to try to show what you imagine is wrong about the one I have constructed. Yeah, construct a timeline, yourself, to show us what you "really" mean when you say that for as long as there have been humans on earth, the number of them has never been less than n, where n > 2. Have fun with that, Darwin cheerleaders!

 

[ok doser]

If this was in a vacuum, and it had never ever been explained on this forum- you'd be right. But it has been explained COUNTLESS times.

I will give it a quick try, but I won't waste a whole lot of time of it.

The basic misconception that this thread is based on is that evolution happens in sudden steps.

punctuated equilibrium

has that been discarded lately? 'cause I didn't get the memo

But evolution happens gradually, over populations.

intra-species evolutions, yes

inter-species? :nono:


Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.^[3]

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladogenesis

 

[Idolater]

punctuated equilibrium

has that been discarded lately? 'cause I didn't get the memo




intra-species evolutions, yes

inter-species? :nono:


Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.^[3]

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladogenesis

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or evidence.