Is evolution a fact?

[Mr_Wilford]

LMAO

I can't not prove that what you want me prove not without u telling me wat tree u want me to prove does not exist in reality!!

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Okay, pretending to be this stupid hurts

I can't go on!!!!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Special frog

Can you tell me what non biological evolution is?

The use of "evolution" outside biology is essentially metaphoric. So forget the metaphor and stick the to definition to which you have already agreed.

So either respond to my tree of life model that you pestered me to describe, explain what you think "complexity" means or move on to actual evidence. Like the archaeopteryx.

 

[red]

Okay, pretending to be this stupid hurts

I can't go on!!!!

You have evolved.
QED
(I hope Bernie was watching.)

 

[DutchLiam84]

Bernard, can we play a little game to make this thread a bit more fun?

So I have these 3 numbers, that follow a rule, you have to guess what my rule is. If you think you know what my rule is, give me 3 numbers that you think fit the rule and tell me what the rule is, understood?

These are the numbers: 4, 8, 16

What is my rule?

You don't have rules... Which is good because if you did, with that beard and glasses, it would be counter productive as Dawkins explains we " are meat machines for propagating DNA"

It's just a game dude.

 

[DutchLiam84]

red and itsdemtitans
:lol:

 

[red]

red and itsdemtitans
:lol:

We both now appreciate the difficulty which comes with maintaining - for more than a few hours - a level of stupidity commensurate with cretinism.
Our respect for Bernie is unfathomable.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

red and itsdemtitans
:lol:

I'll be here all week!

 

[Rumraket]

By the way, you should read the discussion that follows the small part I just quoted. It completely and utterly fucks up the "common design" ad-hoc rationalization. In fact I have never ever seen any creationist or design proponent even attempt to tackle the facts discussed there in a knowledgeable and honest manner.

Prediction: You will not be the first to do so.

Well your correct. I plan on ignoring you for the time being with the exception of this comment.

Why? I'm actually directly providing what you ask for.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

You don't have rules... Which is good because if you did, with that beard and glasses, it would be counter productive as Dawkins explains we " are meat machines for propagating DNA"

It's just a game dude.

In what way is that supposed to be an insult? It just sounds like gibberish

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do you disagree with evolution being defined as " simple to complex" ?

I have answered this several times. If you don't like my answer you can tell me why but repeating the question won't get you a new one.

Will you explain your point in demanding I describe the current tree of life models?

 

[DutchLiam84]

In what way is that supposed to be an insult? It just sounds like gibberish

Kinda like this:

 

[SpecialFrog]

Well your correct. I plan on ignoring you for the time being with the exception of this comment.

Why? I'm actually directly providing what you ask for.

Bernhard doesn't seem to want what he asks for. Demands evidence but doesn't want to talk about evidence.

 

[red]

Special frog.

I don't ask you to describe tree of life models. Like you claim they are all incomplete.

I am just asking if you agree there is a tree of life, in the evolution sense, common descent,

And if you did agree there is in fact a tree of life, which one do you agree with.


The fact you answered there are no complete trees, is already evasion but don't worry, as an evolutionist that is the only way you can remain an evolutionist. So your safe.

Just don't ask me to believe your evolutionary garbage. you admit it's incomplete, so don't use incomplete data to make points.
Or don't demand that evolutionary garbage be taught.

A) you claim fossil record does not show Fossils going from simple to complex, you argue there is no simple to complex, in fact asking me to explain it, shows you certainly cannot. So therefore all claimed transistionals you effectively toss in the trash.
B) you argue there is no complete tree of life, in fact you can't even agree there is a tree of life. So another dump truck load of bullshit in e garbage.

So really can you explain to me what exactly makes you an evolutionist? Your kind of unique in dumping the fossil record and the tree of life.

Which part did you not understand from the previous answers offered to you, which make your post so puerile - to the point of being comedic?
When you write the nonsense you do, what makes you believe you deserve the attention you actually get?
If I was your parent, I would be sending you off to get some lessons in comprehension and writing so that you had a chance in life.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, you are having a conversation with an imaginary person. If you want to respond to what I actually said at some point let me know. It would also help if you stopped pretending that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and that the entire field of biology is wrong to disagree with you.

Seriously, if you read and understood the Wikipedia article on evolution you would understand the subject 100 times better than you do.

Then you might be able to raise sensible objections. They would still be wrong but they would be less wrong.

 

[red]

Bernhard, you are having a conversation with an imaginary person. If you want to respond to what I actually said at some point let me know. It would also help if you stopped pretending that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and that the entire field of biology is wrong to disagree with you.

Seriously, if you read and understood the Wikipedia article on evolution you would understand the subject 100 times better than you do.

You realise you are claiming 100 x 0 = > 0 ?
Exaggerating an already exaggerated claim is exponentially foolish!

Then you might be able to raise sensible objections. They would still be wrong but they would be less wrong.

Where was the smiley face?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

If I was your parent, I would be sending you off to get some lessons in comprehension and writing so that you had a chance in life.

:lol:

What are you talking about? [sarcasm]The troll is already a scientist.[/sarcasm] What more of a chance does it need?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

If I was your parent, I would be sending you off to get some lessons in comprehension and writing so that you had a chance in life.

:lol:

What are you talking about? [sarcasm]The troll is already a scientist.[/sarcasm] What more of a chance does it need?

A middle school spelling and grammar course couldn't hurt

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, "simple to complex" is a over-simplification for an observed trend - it doesn't mean that it's literally simple-to-complex.

Equally, the "tree" is a simple analogy for speciation - the fact that it's now seen as a "banyan" rather than an "oak" doesn't beggar the analogy: it's still a "tree".

Demanding that SimpleFrog either confirm or deny that he accepts either a "banyan" or an "oak" is a pointless false dichotomy - he, and others here, accept a "tree" as a simple analogy for speciation.

Equally, accepting a general trend of "simple-to-complex" does not mean that it's written in stone - evolution can go either way, depending on the environment. [I've mentioned parasitism before, where a organism gains an ability to tap into another organism's energy supply, thus no longer requiring its own, thus the species loses it over time.]

Please stop wasting everyone's time with these cul-de-sacs and address the main talking points.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

You forget to explain why you are an evolutionist.

If you actually read what I wrote you could probably find an answer to the non-inane aspects of this question already.