Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evol...

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Please, with all due respect, do not respond to me. Your reams of inane, pointless gibberish, entwined with a chasm-sized subtlety deficit (both your recognition of it and in your application) irritates me no end, despite extended attempts to tolerate it, and I have put you on my ignore list to avoid having to talk with you further; we're just not compatible.
To put it another way, it's me not you.

Mod note:
We particularly don't like unsolicited hostile personal attacks. This is a fine example of something that is both off topic and unnecessary.

Don't do it again (which I imagine shouldn't be any sort of a problem for you, with the ignore list and all).

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.

You'd get a better answer if you defined what a "new structure" is, other than "I know it when I see it".

Can ANYONE defend this arguement?

Yes.

So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite?

No one thinks bacteria evolve into mites anymore than people think that humans evolve into sharks, or that giraffes evolve into cockroaches.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.

Can ANYONE defend this arguement? It's the most rediculous thing I've ever head if my life and isn't supported by science in the least bit.

So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite? And there's no structural differences between a bacteria and a human? Or no structural differences between an elephant and a human, and no structural differences between a chimp and a human? Afterall, I believe chimps have 300 bones(correct me if the number is wrong), and humans have 206. So where are these transitions showing chimps slowly losing these bones and evolving into humans?

Show me one observable example of this.

Hmm... Can you tell me where the "new color" in this image of white morphing into black is?

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

And so the bullshit tidal wave continues.

I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.

Bullshit, pure and unfetted. I stated that non-derived structures were not needed for evolutionary change. I asked you to provide a single instance, in any fossil, anywhere, ever, that would require a non-derived structure forming. You can't find it because it doesn't exist, it's not a part of nature, it's not a part of evolutionary theory and until you get that through your deluded and idiotic ideas of evolutionary theory you have fuck all chance of escaping the woowoo shite that has been fed to you from the pedlers of BS, aka, religious leaders.

So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite?

Not saying that

And there's no structural differences between a bacteria and a human?

Never said that

Or no structural differences between an elephant and a human

Never said that

and no structural differences between a chimp and a human?

Never said that, though amusingly by the "definition" of kind you kept peddling there aren't.

Afterall, I believe chimps have 300 bones(correct me if the number is wrong), and humans have 206. So where are these transitions showing chimps slowly losing these bones and evolving into humans?

Who said a chimp evolved into a human? You're not stupid enough to think that we think a chimp evolved into a human, are you?

Micah, you're through. Educate yourself.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.

Can ANYONE defend this arguement? It's the most rediculous thing I've ever head if my life and isn't supported by science in the least bit.

So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite? And there's no structural differences between a bacteria and a human? Or no structural differences between an elephant and a human, and no structural differences between a chimp and a human? Afterall, I believe chimps have 300 bones(correct me if the number is wrong), and humans have 206. So where are these transitions showing chimps slowly losing these bones and evolving into humans?

Show me one observable example of this.

(First, to everyone else: Let's keep it nice, but also, let's try to keep it simple, because it is evident that micah is asking about some of the fundamentals about evolution here.)


micah, so basically, you want to know how, say, a leg evolved in the first place?

 

[micah1116]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

I keep getting comments from people trying to tell me that new structures are not needed for evolutionary change, and this is exactly what Squawk said as well.

Can ANYONE defend this arguement? It's the most rediculous thing I've ever head if my life and isn't supported by science in the least bit.

So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite? And there's no structural differences between a bacteria and a human? Or no structural differences between an elephant and a human, and no structural differences between a chimp and a human? Afterall, I believe chimps have 300 bones(correct me if the number is wrong), and humans have 206. So where are these transitions showing chimps slowly losing these bones and evolving into humans?

Show me one observable example of this.

"So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite?"

That's not what he's saying in the slightest. Of course they need new structure for that (not that bacteria evolve into mites anyway, but I see your point), but evolution can occur without structural change.
An example:

The first one is a false-color image of Staphylococcus aureus, while the second one is a picture of an antibiotic-resistant strain of the same bacteria. Notice the lack of morphological change even though it has evolved to resisting antibiotics.

In one sentence you said a bacteria and a mite are structurally different, and then the next sentence you said evolution doesn't require structural change! You guys crack me up :lol:

Why can't you guys just provide what I've asked for, maybe it's because is doesn't exist, could that be it? Please explain how new structures do not need to arise for evolution to occur. Are you saying that molecules can evolve into every phylum of life, without needing new structures. What you guys are proposing borders on total insanity, and that's putting it nicely. So how can changes to existing structures, create structures, when you have to have structures to begin with? Can you guys not think critically?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

"So are you telling me that a bacteria doesn't need new structures to evolve into a mite?"

That's not what he's saying in the slightest. Of course they need new structure for that (not that bacteria evolve into mites anyway, but I see your point), but evolution can occur without structural change.

In one sentence you said a bacteria and a mite are structurally different, and then the next sentence you said evolution doesn't require structural change! You guys crack me up :lol:

Reading comprehension fail. :facepalm:

Why not address the point I made here. By addressing this, you will give everyone here a better understand of what you are asking.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

In one sentence you said a bacteria and a mite are structurally different, and then the next sentence you said evolution doesn't require structural change! You guys crack me up :lol:

Why can't you guys just provide what I've asked for, maybe it's because is doesn't exist, could that be it? Please explain how new structures do not need to arise for evolution to occur. Are you saying that molecules can evolve into every phylum of life, without needing new structures. What you guys are proposing borders on total insanity, and that's putting it nicely. So how can changes to existing structures, create structures, when you have to have structures to begin with? Can you guys not think critically?

Look, micah... if you're not gonna read what we're actually saying, I think you should just drop this right now.

It's one thing that you don't understand this stuff, but then to laugh at us as we are the ones who are the problem is really, really sad and pitiful. Please go read about Dunning-Kruger on Wikipedia, and then a little bit about evolution, and then come back with a bit an honest and open attitude, and a healthy dose of humility, then I think we can actually have a constructive conversation.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Why can't you guys just provide what I've asked for, maybe it's because is doesn't exist, could that be it?

Because what you ask for is nonsensical bullshit based on your own inability and unwillingness to even learn what it is you think you're asking for. It's been demonstrated time after time that you haven't got the first clue what evolution is, what it entails and what the evidence points to. You wouldn't know what evolutionary theory states if the entire biological science community beat you with peer reviewed evidence carved into wooden clubs that left the evidence forever indented in your skull.

You are wrong, you will always be wrong until you acknowledge you're wrong and then seek knowledge to stop being wrong. You have not found a weak link in evolutionary theory, you've just done what all creationists do and point at something you don't understand and claim it's a problem. It's not a problem for anyone but you and your ilk.

Do as Gnug suggested, read up on Dunning-Kruger and stop pretending you know anything about anything.

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Why can't you guys just provide what I've asked for, maybe it's because is doesn't exist, could that be it?

YES!!!

Please explain how new structures do not need to arise for evolution to occur.

Evolution, defined to you in my first post as "Descent with inherited modification in a reproducing population". A definition which will satisfy any biologist, and one which demonstrably has no requirement of structural change. If you have an issue with my definition present it, or accept that you are not arguing with evolutionary theory.

Are you saying that molecules can evolve into every phylum of life, without needing new structures.

New structures by your definition? Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. New structures as defined the way I mentioned though, derived from precursors. Those are required. You might like to google exaptation.

What you guys are proposing borders on total insanity

And yet a peeping tom sky daddy who communicates via burning fauna and punishes those who do think critically is sane? Imaginary friends for adults: You has one.

So how can changes to existing structures, create structures, when you have to have structures to begin with?

I challenged you in the debate to show evidence of a single non derived structure anywhere in the tetrapod lineage. You failed, spectacularly, despite repeated assertions that such structures are predicted by evolutionary theory. You cited the birds wing, and it was explained to you. Are we really going to regress all the way back to abiogenesis? Is your position that weak?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

burning fauna

Isn't it burning flora? I haven't heard of burning animals before in the bible.

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

burning fauna

Isn't it burning flora? I haven't heard of burning animals before in the bible.

HA!. Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm leaving the typo though, for the funneh.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

burning fauna

Isn't it burning flora? I haven't heard of burning animals before in the bible.

Someone hasn't been reading their Bible.

Exodus 3:12-13
"And lo, Moses stepped into the cave, and before him was a burning bunny, running around screaming in agony, and God spoke through it... loudly... so as to overpower the screaming bunny."

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

In one sentence you said a bacteria and a mite are structurally different, and then the next sentence you said evolution doesn't require structural change! You guys crack me up :lol:

Why can't you guys just provide what I've asked for, maybe it's because is doesn't exist, could that be it? Please explain how new structures do not need to arise for evolution to occur. Are you saying that molecules can evolve into every phylum of life, without needing new structures. What you guys are proposing borders on total insanity, and that's putting it nicely. So how can changes to existing structures, create structures, when you have to have structures to begin with? Can you guys not think critically?

Why can't you just provide what I asked for? Where's the new color in this image? Or are you claiming black and white are the same color? Can you not think critically?

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Guys, Micah is wasting your time. He knows that we are correct; but he's purposefully saying that he doesn't get it. Don't you think it's much better to ignore his replies at this point?

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Guys, Micah is wasting your time. He knows that we are correct; but he's purposefully saying that he doesn't get it. Don't you think it's much better to ignore his replies at this point?

Personally, no. It takes me less than a minute to reply.

 

[Squawk]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Guys, Micah is wasting your time. He knows that we are correct; but he's purposefully saying that he doesn't get it. Don't you think it's much better to ignore his replies at this point?

Nargh, it now just amuses me.

 

[WarK]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Guys, Micah is wasting your time. He knows that we are correct; but he's purposefully saying that he doesn't get it. Don't you think it's much better to ignore his replies at this point?

Yeah, I agree that he knows we are correct. He knows that "new structures" are just a strawman of evoulution. Why else hasn't he provided any examples? It should be so easy for him to point out a species and what he thinks is an example of magically created "new structure" that is absent in ancestor species.

 

[micah1116]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

Why can't you guys just provide what I've asked for, maybe it's because is doesn't exist, could that be it?

YES!!!

Please explain how new structures do not need to arise for evolution to occur.

Evolution, defined to you in my first post as "Descent with inherited modification in a reproducing population". A definition which will satisfy any biologist, and one which demonstrably has no requirement of structural change. If you have an issue with my definition present it, or accept that you are not arguing with evolutionary theory.

Are you saying that molecules can evolve into every phylum of life, without needing new structures.

New structures by your definition? Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. New structures as defined the way I mentioned though, derived from precursors. Those are required. You might like to google exaptation.

What you guys are proposing borders on total insanity

And yet a peeping tom sky daddy who communicates via burning fauna and punishes those who do think critically is sane? Imaginary friends for adults: You has one.

So how can changes to existing structures, create structures, when you have to have structures to begin with?

I challenged you in the debate to show evidence of a single non derived structure anywhere in the tetrapod lineage. You failed, spectacularly, despite repeated assertions that such structures are predicted by evolutionary theory. You cited the birds wing, and it was explained to you. Are we really going to regress all the way back to abiogenesis? Is your position that weak?

You've not provided evidence that this process you think occurs, actually does. You are unable to show me an observable example of evolution occuring without structural change. So everything looks exactly the same, has the same number of bones, and same number of organs?

And I'll answer your last question. Do fish have legs? Ofcourse not, so how did amphibian tetrapods come to be without fish evolving a new structure?

How did dinosaurs evolve wings and feathers? I've showed you that scales cannot become feathers, it's biologically impossible. By the way, modern birds are found below dinosaurs in the "fossil record", so that poses quite a problem, but I'm sure you'll deny that it does, since you deny real observable science every minute of your life.

And since you claim I don't understand evolution, why don't you show me an example of evolution, so I can see exactly what your talking about. Whatever you insist evolution is, show me an example that we have observed.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo

You've not provided evidence that this process you think occurs, actually does. You are unable to show me an observable example of evolution occuring without structural change. So everything looks exactly the same, has the same number of bones, and same number of organs?

And I'll answer your last question. Do fish have legs? Ofcourse not, so how did amphibian tetrapods come to be without fish evolving a new structure?

How did dinosaurs evolve wings and feathers? I've showed you that scales cannot become feathers, it's biologically impossible. By the way, modern birds are found below dinosaurs in the "fossil record", so that poses quite a problem, but I'm sure you'll deny that it does, since you deny real observable science every minute of your life.

And since you claim I don't understand evolution, why don't you show me an example of evolution, so I can see exactly what your talking about. Whatever you insist evolution is, show me an example that we have observed.

Micah, is black the same as white? Of course not, so how can black come from white without a new color? Where is the new color in this image micah?