Boston Marathon explosions......

[PearlWatson]

There is no difference between "macro and micro" evolution. They are one and the same. It takes some impressive mental acrobatics to pretend that mutations can only accumulate to a certain point, but not to the point where a splinter group will have underwent too much change to maintain the ability to reproduce with its ancestor. This is like someone observing a baby over 48 hours, and then deciding the changes were too small to produce the eventual adult, and that the baby's "growth" is only restricted to tiny adaptations that don't stray from babyness.

Darwiniacs calling adaptions on things that already exist “micro evolution” is like the Flat Earth Society pointing to the Salt Flats and calling it the “micro flat-Earth.” Just because one part of the Earth is flat doesn’t mean the entire thing is.
The problem with your baby analogy is that you Darwiniacs catapult your way from a one-celled organism to the “ape-like” ancestor you can’t even produce for “observation.” While Darwiniacs may carry the intelligently designed drawings of this story in their wallets, they forgot to scrapbook up the amoeba to the ape stage. Call us God-believers up when you can adequately do that. Until then keep your crazy *** stories to yourself.

 

[MVP]

If you look at the concept behind “survival of the fittest”, wisdom teeth and the appendix don’t do much for the theory of “natural selection” either. How does a survival of the fittest system evolve an organ that kills the host organism? Why hasn’t “natural selection” evolved the appendix away? How does “natural selection” evolve unnecessary teeth that come in sideways and cause pain?
An obvious sign that your “scientific” theory is in trouble: When you argument against an opposing theory also disproves your own.

You totally got that all mixed up upside down. Wisdom teeth, apendix and tail bone are vestigial organs or perfect example of evolution working in the way of dismissing unnecessary parts ( some can add back hair lol). They are not yet completely gone ( althought there are individuals who are born without wisdom teeth already) but it is inevitable that they will disappear completely ( you are expecting it to be complete in few thousand years only?? Patience my friend! ). In fact if you think how our feeding habbits are changing throughout 400.000 years since first homo sapiens appeared it is very likely we as species will have no teeth by another 100.000 years or so. We might be feeding on liquid diets only and thus all teeth may become vestigial. I can't believe you even arguing about it when comparision of human skeletons now and from thousands years ago already shows changes ( current human jaws smaller thus no place for wisdom teeth). Think bigger - hundreds of thousands years or millions.
Have you seen WALL-E? Did you see what happened to humans in USA in the future)))?

 

[Siro]

Darwiniacs calling adaptions on things that already exist “micro evolution” is like the Flat Earth Society pointing to the Salt Flats and calling it the “micro flat-Earth.” Just because one part of the Earth is flat doesn’t mean the entire thing is.
The problem with your baby analogy is that you Darwiniacs catapult your way from a one-celled organism to the “ape-like” ancestor you can’t even produce for “observation.” While Darwiniacs may carry the intelligently designed drawings of this story in their wallets, they forgot to scrapbook up the amoeba to the ape stage. Call us God-believers up when you can adequately do that. Until then keep your crazy *** stories to yourself.

So you have to go all the way back to the Precambrian to find your crutch?

Evolution is nothing like your fantasy of perfectly adapted species. It is a fact that more than 99% of all the creatures that emerged on this planet are now extinct. So much for your clumsy bioengineer god.

It's really so simple that even you should be able to see it. There is no escaping the fact that species that survive eons of mutations will be very different from where they started. You don't need science to understand that. You don't even have to look at the incredibly obvious observation that animals are closely related to other animals (or perhaps the intelligent designer is clumsy AND lazy?). If mutations occur, then species change. There is absolutely no rational justification to the claim that species can only change until they meet your threshold for divine intervention. You may believe whatever you want, of course. But don't expect anyone to take your personal emotional attachment to an arbitrary religious principle seriously, unless they already share your ideology.

 

[MVP]

they forgot to scrapbook up the amoeba to the ape stage. Call us God-believers up when you can adequately do that. Until then keep your crazy *** stories to yourself.

We are talking grade 7-8 class science here, are you really serious?
Nature is full of examples of intermediate species. Lancelets, mudskippers, amphiumas and sirens, platypus or echidnas for example. That we in our your short life did not observe lancelet turning into fish or mudskipper into amphibian directly it does not mean it will not happen in million years. Fossils show it happened before on regular basis, not sure whats there to argue about.

 

[Siro]

You totally got that all mixed up upside down. Wisdom teeth, apendix and tail bone are vestigial organs or perfect example of evolution working in the way of dismissing unnecessary parts ( some can add back hair lol). They are not yet completely gone ( althought there are individuals who are born without wisdom teeth already) but it is inevitable that they will disappear completely ( you are expecting it to be complete in few thousand years only?? Patience my friend! ). In fact if you think how our feeding habbits are changing throughout 400.000 years since first homo sapiens appeared it is very likely we as species will have no teeth by another 100.000 years or so. We might be feeding on liquid diets only and thus all teeth may become vestigial. I can't believe you even arguing about it when comparision of human skeletons now and from thousands years ago already shows changes ( current human jaws smaller thus no place for wisdom teeth). Think bigger - hundreds of thousands years or millions.
Have you seen WALL-E? Did you see what happened to humans in USA in the future)))?

There is no final product that evolution is driving toward. A hairy ape is not "less evolved" than a hairless one. The claim that Homo sapiens' body hair is a left over from a previous ancestor is also suspect. The more likely scenario is that Homo erectus had already lost their body hair, and that it reappeared in our species. That better explains some facts, like the existence of separate species of lice for human's head and body hair.

 

[MVP]

And the final point for evolution is this - simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).
If that does not prove that more complex organisms developed from simpliest then I not sure what can. You just can't ignore such overhelming evidence PW. Unless you want to argue that your "intelligent designer" was creating those organisms somewhere in space and dropping more and more complex species on earth every few millions of years or so .... think it is less "crazy *** story" then evolution?

 

[MVP]

There is no final product that evolution is driving toward. A hairy ape is not "less evolved" than a hairless one. .

But you can argue that evolution is driving towards better product. Even amongst us humans we have racial differences which can be used as argument for evolution and adaptation to living environment, climate and other conditions through thousands of years. Is one or the other less evolved? I am for sure less evolved to live in hot climate then for example black person. My skin would burn everyday and I will get skin cancer within few years. Why some races are less lactose tolerant? Maybe because in their evolution they did not use milk as food source. Examples of evolution are everywhere, you just need to see them.

 

[Siro]

But you can argue that evolution is driving towards better product. Even amongst us humans we have racial differences which can be used as argument for evolution and adaptation to living environment, climate and other conditions through thousands of years. Is one or the other less evolved? I am for sure less evolved to live in hot climate then for example black person. My skin would burn everyday and I will get skin cancer within few years. Why some races are less lactose tolerant? Maybe because in their evolution they did not use milk as food source. Examples of evolution are everywhere, you just need to see them.

Being adapted to an environment does not make you more or less evolved. A fair skinned person is more adapted to living in Scandinavia than a dark skinned one (the latter would need to make sure s/he is getting enough vitamin D), but a polar bear is far more adapted to polar weather than a fair skinned human. Is a polar bear more evolved than a human? Is it more evolved as far as cold climate is concerned? As I hope you can see, this is a very silly way of looking at things.

A case can be made that evolution tends to move in a direction of increased complexity. That is not always the case. But it is true in general. I suppose you can argue than a more complex organism is more evolved than a less complex one. But measuring complexity in a meaningful objective way is quite difficult. So why bother with these constructs at all?

 

[MVP]

Being adapted to an environment does not make you more or less evolved. A fair skinned person is more adapted to living in Scandinavia than a dark skinned one (the latter would need to make sure s/he is getting enough vitamin D), but a polar bear is far more adapted to polar weather than a fair skinned human. Is a polar bear more evolved than a human? Is it more evolved as far as cold climate is concerned? As I hope you can see, this is a very silly way of looking at things.

Not sure why you comparing human to bear. Polar bear is better adopted to polar conditions then grizzly. Inuit is better adopted to it then pygmy. My point is that even small adaptation like that is a living proof of evolution which PW so stubbornly refusing to accept.

 

[PearlWatson]

Wow, it has evolved into a Darwiniac on Darwiniac debate purely by accident.

I'm joining in again. It is a fruitless endeavor trying to argue against your culty faith but fun has been accidentally had.

 

[PearlWatson]

You totally got that all mixed up upside down. Wisdom teeth, apendix and tail bone are vestigial organs or perfect example of evolution working in the way of dismissing unnecessary parts ( some can add back hair lol). They are not yet completely gone ( althought there are individuals who are born without wisdom teeth already) but it is inevitable that they will disappear completely ( you are expecting it to be complete in few thousand years only?? Patience my friend! ). In fact if you think how our feeding habbits are changing throughout 400.000 years since first homo sapiens appeared it is very likely we as species will have no teeth by another 100.000 years or so. We might be feeding on liquid diets only and thus all teeth may become vestigial. I can't believe you even arguing about it when comparision of human skeletons now and from thousands years ago already shows changes ( current human jaws smaller thus no place for wisdom teeth). Think bigger - hundreds of thousands years or millions.
Have you seen WALL-E? Did you see what happened to humans in USA in the future)))?

Questions posed to you: How does a survival of the fittest system evolve an organ that kills the host organism? Why hasn’t “natural selection” evolved the appendix away?

Your answer to the second question: The appendix existed (with or without a purpose?) for our “ape-like” ancestors and now “natural selection” is in the process of evolving it away. So “natural selection” is negative force.

So what is your answer to the first question? How do you account for the appendix in the first place?

ID theory says “intelligence/nature” is a positive force to create the appendix in the first place.
But then again they don’t assume it was vestigial from “hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.”
They assume it was designed for a purpose. They look into this possibility:

A God-believer named William Parker(a professor of surgery @ Duke University) who thinks life is for “Well… Basically for benefiting the fellow man and getting closer to God,” discovered that the appendix “acted as a good safe house for bacteria essential for healthy digestion, in effect re-booting the digestive system after the host has contracted diseases such as amoebic dysentery or cholera, which kill off helpful germs and purge the gut.”
Turns out that “this function has been made obsolete by modern, industrialized society; populations are now so dense that people pick up essential bacteria from each other, allowing gut organisms to regrow without help from the appendix.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...oes-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277.html

Darwiniacs everywhere: Natural Selection strikes again!
ID Theorists: You nutjobs! You probably still believe the appendix was the result of a brazillian separate random mutations coming together for a “co-option” event.

WALL-E was an intelligently designed cartoon about an intelligently designed cannibal robot.

 

[PearlWatson]

You culties don't even have the same doctine. You must follow separate prophets.

AKMVP thinks “natural selection” is a negative force acting on accidentally evolved systems.

One Brow thinks “natural selection” is a positive force acting on some mysterious MET mechanisms.
The ironic thing is that One Brow is an ID theorist disguised as an METer.

I don’t know what this “chemical selection” Siro is going on about involves. It sounds like he thinks it can be both a positive and a negative force.