-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
More Evolution Help
- Thread starter Collecemall
- Start date
abelcainsbrother
New Member
Viruses were brought up so viruses are evidence that life does not evolve because no matter how the virus adapts and survives it always still remains a virus it proves adaptation and natural selection have no effect on life.The Aids virus,etc never evolves it only adapts to survive just like a eskimo adapted to live in a very cold environment and yet never evolved. Viruses prove life never evolves.
abelcainsbrother said:
This, in my opinion, is the best indicator that someone does not understand evolution. What did you expect the Virus "evolves into", a hippopotamus?
That's not how evolution works and that's not the way any scientist explains evolution.
abelcainsbrother said:
Errr, what? This is just plain ridiculous. We have strains of bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics, which is one of the reasons Doctors should be careful about prescribing them.
Read the first two lines on the MRSA bug: It's a Staphylococcus strain that has become virtually immune to most antibiotics. How is this not evolution?
abelcainsbrother said:
No, that's not quite right.
The AIDS-virus definitely underwent certain genetic changes and these changes are hereditary. The Innuits, as far as I know, are not substantially different in their genetic makeup than we are. What they did was technical adaptation, what life does is genetic adaptation also known as evolution.
You're just showing that you have no idea what evolution is all about.
Prolescum
New Member
There's no point trying to explain it to him either, Inferno. ACB believes that evolution is a lie and scientists are also liars, therefore any accurate definition you give is either a goal-post shift or lying for the sake of face. His spurious definition is the only one he will ever consider, because pitting his wits against straw is ego-affirming. His unwillingness to discuss anything with genuine curiosity or honest appraisal of facts is a damning, and sadly common, example of how utterly preposterous fundamentalist thinking really is.
sent from my Commodore Amiga 500
sent from my Commodore Amiga 500
abelcainsbrother
New Member
Inferno said:
No I know about evolution and the evidence that backs it up and you want to teach dinosaurs evolved into birds,then deny it and say evolution is change over time,fine nobody denies change but without macro-evolution all you have is variation amongst the kinds and no evolution.
abelcainsbrother
New Member
Prolescum said:
Evidence will change my mind but I'm not going to assume life evolves based on adaptation and micro-evolution like evolutionists do.I already have the bible to believe by faith and don't need another faith.
Evolution is one of the few areas of science where the vetting process does not work.Like an example the 2nd law of thermodynamics we cannot see the law but we do not have to just believe scientists and take their word for it while they hide behind peer review because we observe everyday around us entropy at work and man putting energy into slowing it down.
I am not saying the 2nd law prevents evolution my point is it is observable aroud us as most jobs every day are putting energy into slowing entropy down because we know things don't last as long unless we do maintenance on things we own,yet when it comes to evolution we have to rely on what scientists say and must be educated to look at the evidence for evolution like they do and believe them by faith but not so with the 2nd law we know it is true and observe it every day around us so it requires not much faith to believe and there are other examples too.
Collecemall
Member
That sounds an awful lot like the "Why do we still have monkeys?" argument to me. But as I repeatedly point out I'm not real smart.
He still didn't really address my question either but at least he didn't do like AIG and distract me with puppies.
He still didn't really address my question either but at least he didn't do like AIG and distract me with puppies.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Isotelus said:
abelcainsbrother
New Member
I did not mean to derail but viruses were brought up and so I just pointed out how viruses prove and demonstrate life does not evolve and I was challenged about it so I was just defending my position about it and making a point about science.It wouldn't be good to just say it without an example too. I'm not trying to derail the thread but I always try to back myself up with evidence when I can.
abelcainsbrother
New Member
Mugnuts said:
You should know already.Also you ignore the evidence I give eventhough I'm telling you the truth and giving evidence.Also I'm not a young earth creationist and would agree with you on alot of science except evolution,which I reject for reasons I have given.
abelcainsbrother
New Member
Collecemall said:
How did I not address your question?You brought up viruses and I am a creationist so I would think my point is valid unless you only want atheist ideas about viruses.Also No it is not the same as "why do we still have monkeys?"
When I think of viruses from reading evolution web-sights and actually examining the evidence that is what pops in my mind when I think about viruses. Evolutionists think life adapting is the same thing as life evolving but I don't.
I know life can can adapt as viruses do and life all around us has to which I could give examples but they never evolve and this is what the evidence shows us so there is no reason to assume or say the virus evolved when it didn't evolve ,yet they say it did.
abelcainsbrother said:
Ignorance would be applicable if I did not read your links, or not do some research into your claims and assertions. I've done that, and asked you direct questions about them.
The ignorant title is yours to bear, and boy do you wear it proudly
abelcainsbrother
New Member
Inferno said:
I don't want to be accused of hijacking a thread but Life adapting is life adapting to a hostile environment but remaining the same kind of life. Life evolving is a dinosaur evolving into a bird or a primate evolving into a man,etc.
Evolution is a dinosaur evolving into a bird while adaptation is just life of a certain kind adapting to exist in a hostile environment and surviving it.
Like for example bacteria you give a person anti-biotics knowing before you even give it the bacteria is going to adapt to the hostile environment caused by the anti-biotics and then be immune to it after it adapts, it still never evolves as it remains bacteria.
Now I know that you have been taught adaptation is a mechanism of evolution but if it is there is no evidence in science that I know of that demonstrates life evolves so I believe word games are being played on you and others who accept and assume life will evolve when it only adapted.No reason to assume.The evidence shows us the virus remains a virus and this is important that should not be overlooked.
Their definition of evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
However if you go by their definition of what they say evolution is and then examine the evidence they use to prove and demonstrate it,you cannot have dinosaurs evolving into birds,primates evolving into man,etc. The evidence really hurts their definition of what evolution is but they are stretching the evidence to cover this definition, it is just assumption and what they want it to show,but doesn't.
Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.They say this change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.
But this is just variation of the kinds and the evidence they present as evidence actually proves some of this wrong like natural selection for instance the evidence they present as evidence demonstrates that natural selection has no effect on life.But yet they tell us all the things it can do.
But bottom line is this is not dinosaurs evolving into birds regardless and you cannot have evolution based on this even if you believe in mutation,natural selection,gene flow and genetic drift.This is still not a dinosaur evolving into a bird or a primate evolving into a man,etc.It is just variations of the kinds and it is misleading IMO to call it micro evolution.
So then you must ignore the lack of evidence and go by fossils,genetics,speciation,the evolution tree,etc in order to keep believing life evolves eventhough none of this means much if you cannot demonstrate life evolves like you teach it does.
It does not prove life evolves just because all life is related and you've assumed life evolves and built all of this evidence around the idea life evolves yet you have no way to demonstrate it does evolve.Science normally does not work this way but it does when it comes to evolution.
Rumraket
Active Member
There is no definition of "kind" used in biology. The process by which organisms adapt is evolution. It doesn't matter that a species of dog with short hair, which adapts to the cold by evolving long hair over many generations, is still a dog. The species still evolved, that's how it adapted. That is the mechanism responsible for the adaptation. Organisms can adapt because they can evolve.abelcainsbrother said:
No, that's just macroevolution. Microevolution is also evolution.abelcainsbrother said:
No, that's macroevolution, defined as evolution above the species level.abelcainsbrother said:
And how does it adapt? By evolving through mutation and natural selection. That is how adaptation happens, so it's still evolution.abelcainsbrother said:
Dinosaurs evolving into birds are still animals. This useless insistence that the evolved organism still belongs to the bacterial domain is just that, useless. It is just as idiotic as the retort that fish evolving into terrestrial tetrapods is STILL JUST AN ANIMAL. Or even worse, and more like what you just said: It's still just an Eukaryote.abelcainsbrother said:
The bacterial domain is the most diverse of all. It is utterly meaningless to say it is still just a bacterium. It is just about as stupid as saying "yeah but, they're still just cells".
Even though Rumraket already responded, I want to make some things clear:
Rumraket already pointed out that this is not what scientists say at all.
I want to make an even more damning point:
A human is already a primate, so how can a primate "evolve into" a human? It makes no sense.
A bird is already a dinosaur, so how can a dinosaur "evolve into" a bird? It makes no sense.
And before you blatently misunderstand me again, let me clarify:
This is a ballpoint pen. It was made by a generic company.
This is also a ballpoint pen. It was made by BIC and is generally referred to as a "biro".
A biro is a ballpoint pen, but not all ballpoint pens are biros.
This is a dinosaur. I could have picked any, but I chose Compsognathus.
This is also a dinosaur. Specifically, it's a parrot.
A parrot is a dinosaur, but not all dinosaurs are parrots.
When you show me how a biro can become a ballpoint pen (note: it already is) then I will show you how a dinosaur can "evolve into" a bird.
The actual story of how birds descended from theropod dinosaurs and what cousins they share (like Compsognathus, T. Rex and Archaeopteryx) is one I hope to discuss in a blog post when I've got a bit more free time.
Again I would like to point out that your understanding of evolution is flawed. Creationists typically assume that modern species will "evolve into" other modern species, like cats giving birth to dogs or crocodiles and ducks having offspring or other absurdities no serious scientist would promote. This is not how evolution works and I'll try to explain it by way of a metaphor.
My family name is Lernhart. My brother is a Lernhart, my sister is a Lernhart, my mother is a Lernhart and my Father is a Lernhart. I am a Lernhart.
Before my mother married my father, her family name was Brunner.
When she married my father, did she stop being the daughter of her father or mother? Did she stop being her brothers sister simply because she now has a different name? Or in other words: Did she become something completely different, something she was not before?
No, of course not. Her ancestors stayed the exact same: Her father is still her father, her mother is her mother and so on.
In almost exactly the same way, you can't escape your ancestry in evolution. A random Bacteria (Bacteria glucosis, to invent a name) is in a laboratory. It feeds on glucose and lives in a warm, moist environment. The conditions are changed and now it feeds on citric acid. The bacteria is now called Bacteria acidis, just for larks. It is still a bacteria.
Billions of years pass. The strain of bacteria has undergone slight changes and over time, it has become a large (5cm), green organism that looks remarkably like a slug. It is now called Biggus dickus. Has it stopped being a bacteria?
No, of course not. Its ancestors have stayed the exact same: The original ancestor is still Bacteria g. and the one after that is still Bacteria a. Biggus d. is a bacteria, has been a bacterium and will remain one until its strain dies out. Even though it now looks totally different and has evolved by any account, it is still a bacterium. If it were something else, that would violate at least one law of evolution.
You also believe that science is a huge conspiracy and that magic happens, so I won't take your word for it.
Instead, I will learn the correct definitions, not the bizzare ones you have learnt.
If I were to claim that Christianity is the belief that giant mutant mushrooms roamed the earth and sacrificed Jesus so they could have bread and wine, you would call me an idiot. You would tell me to shut up, read some books on the topic and come back when I'm more informed.
You claim that evolution is something it's not, something that's equally ridiculous as the mushrooms I mentioned. I will therefore tell you to (shut up and) listen, read some proper books on the subject and come back when you're more informed.
Are you aware that there are two rather excellent papers by P Senter (number one and number two) that explore evolution using the methods and ideas of creationists? Guess what, it still confirms that evolution happens and that birds are definitely dinosaurs.
You place "evidence" apart from fossils, genetics, speciation and the evolutionary tree. Are you telling me that fossils are not evidence? That genetics is not evidence?
This is why I always tell people to read at least a few books on the subject. Read at least one book on the philosophy of science, perhaps Popper ("Logic of scientific discovery" or "realism and the aim of science" or "science as falsification"). Read at least one book on how science actually works, perhaps Berkley's science 101 or something to that extent. (Maybe others will have better ideas.) I would also recommend you have taken at least some course in tertiary education, but that last one is optional.
When you've read at least these two texts, you'll have some understanding of what scince is. It certainly isn't going to make you an expert, but at least you will understand why your ideas sound so incredibly ludicrous.
Actually, yes it does. If all life is related, then creationism is certainly wrong and evolution must be correct.
Except for the hundreds of thousands of papers written on the subject, explaining the evidence in great detail. Simply because you ignore it does not mean it's not there.
Ablecainsbrother said:
Rumraket already pointed out that this is not what scientists say at all.
I want to make an even more damning point:
A human is already a primate, so how can a primate "evolve into" a human? It makes no sense.
A bird is already a dinosaur, so how can a dinosaur "evolve into" a bird? It makes no sense.
And before you blatently misunderstand me again, let me clarify:
This is a ballpoint pen. It was made by a generic company.
This is also a ballpoint pen. It was made by BIC and is generally referred to as a "biro".
A biro is a ballpoint pen, but not all ballpoint pens are biros.
This is a dinosaur. I could have picked any, but I chose Compsognathus.
This is also a dinosaur. Specifically, it's a parrot.
A parrot is a dinosaur, but not all dinosaurs are parrots.
When you show me how a biro can become a ballpoint pen (note: it already is) then I will show you how a dinosaur can "evolve into" a bird.
The actual story of how birds descended from theropod dinosaurs and what cousins they share (like Compsognathus, T. Rex and Archaeopteryx) is one I hope to discuss in a blog post when I've got a bit more free time.
Ablecainsbrother said:
Again I would like to point out that your understanding of evolution is flawed. Creationists typically assume that modern species will "evolve into" other modern species, like cats giving birth to dogs or crocodiles and ducks having offspring or other absurdities no serious scientist would promote. This is not how evolution works and I'll try to explain it by way of a metaphor.
My family name is Lernhart. My brother is a Lernhart, my sister is a Lernhart, my mother is a Lernhart and my Father is a Lernhart. I am a Lernhart.
Before my mother married my father, her family name was Brunner.
When she married my father, did she stop being the daughter of her father or mother? Did she stop being her brothers sister simply because she now has a different name? Or in other words: Did she become something completely different, something she was not before?
No, of course not. Her ancestors stayed the exact same: Her father is still her father, her mother is her mother and so on.
In almost exactly the same way, you can't escape your ancestry in evolution. A random Bacteria (Bacteria glucosis, to invent a name) is in a laboratory. It feeds on glucose and lives in a warm, moist environment. The conditions are changed and now it feeds on citric acid. The bacteria is now called Bacteria acidis, just for larks. It is still a bacteria.
Billions of years pass. The strain of bacteria has undergone slight changes and over time, it has become a large (5cm), green organism that looks remarkably like a slug. It is now called Biggus dickus. Has it stopped being a bacteria?
No, of course not. Its ancestors have stayed the exact same: The original ancestor is still Bacteria g. and the one after that is still Bacteria a. Biggus d. is a bacteria, has been a bacterium and will remain one until its strain dies out. Even though it now looks totally different and has evolved by any account, it is still a bacterium. If it were something else, that would violate at least one law of evolution.
Ablecainsbrother said:
You also believe that science is a huge conspiracy and that magic happens, so I won't take your word for it.
Instead, I will learn the correct definitions, not the bizzare ones you have learnt.
If I were to claim that Christianity is the belief that giant mutant mushrooms roamed the earth and sacrificed Jesus so they could have bread and wine, you would call me an idiot. You would tell me to shut up, read some books on the topic and come back when I'm more informed.
You claim that evolution is something it's not, something that's equally ridiculous as the mushrooms I mentioned. I will therefore tell you to (shut up and) listen, read some proper books on the subject and come back when you're more informed.
Ablecainsbrother said:
Are you aware that there are two rather excellent papers by P Senter (number one and number two) that explore evolution using the methods and ideas of creationists? Guess what, it still confirms that evolution happens and that birds are definitely dinosaurs.
Ablecainsbrother said:
You place "evidence" apart from fossils, genetics, speciation and the evolutionary tree. Are you telling me that fossils are not evidence? That genetics is not evidence?
This is why I always tell people to read at least a few books on the subject. Read at least one book on the philosophy of science, perhaps Popper ("Logic of scientific discovery" or "realism and the aim of science" or "science as falsification"). Read at least one book on how science actually works, perhaps Berkley's science 101 or something to that extent. (Maybe others will have better ideas.) I would also recommend you have taken at least some course in tertiary education, but that last one is optional.
When you've read at least these two texts, you'll have some understanding of what scince is. It certainly isn't going to make you an expert, but at least you will understand why your ideas sound so incredibly ludicrous.
Ablecainsbrother said:
Actually, yes it does. If all life is related, then creationism is certainly wrong and evolution must be correct.
Ablecainsbrother said:
Except for the hundreds of thousands of papers written on the subject, explaining the evidence in great detail. Simply because you ignore it does not mean it's not there.