Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,938 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 466,868
Pageviews Today: 613,334Threads Today: 157Posts Today: 2,979
04:06 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/16/2017 11:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
...


its one of the main questions that get answered over and over and over

and over
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066


Yes with color pencil sketches of imaginary transitional 'fossils' because 'evolution is a science fiction hoax not science.


every fossil is a transitional fossil

there are no missing links, evolution is not linear

those 2 misconceptions are from a religious theory that had nothing to do with the theory of evolution



THEORIES-----you are trying to legitimize a THEORY...no one in science has ever proved this to be anything but that.

When
 Quoting: DGN
eone tried to do this, it's always under the guise of 'disproving' the historical reference to God's existence.

Religion has a historical solidification to it.

Not just in one cul
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066
ut in MANY cultures.

And the fact that science cannot disprove everything we know and hinges on man-made experiments, proves there is no observable science to quantify what they 'consider'.

If I see a 'transitional being' than of course it would change my perspective.

But we are unique. There is no way we are by accident or by a cuzillion years of transitory mutations.

Explore the human body and you will reflect on the complicated nature of our existence and why we owe it to an intelligent force---and I don't mean ALIENS!


cool2


And what would a transitional being look like to you????


Evolution is not linear. Its basically a bush. Or a tree. Lots of different branches, some that go extinct and some that survive. Creating different variations of animals. Like all the different types of birds, or on a larger scale all the different types of mammals. On a smal
 Quoting: 1guynAz
e, all the different types of beetles. The further you go into the bush the less like those at the tips of the tree, which is what we see in the fossil record. All the mammals are one branch. On that branch are other smaller branches. Like carnivora. Tons of carnivores went extinct. before humans even existed. Dogs get less dog-like the further you go into the bush. All the carnivores begin to get more similar the further you go into the bush.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/16/2017 11:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


Yes with color pencil sketches of imaginary transitional 'fossils' because 'evolution is a science fiction hoax not science.
 Quoting: DGN


every fossil is a transitional fossil

there are no missing links, evolution is not linear

those 2 misconceptions are from a religious theory that had nothing to do with the theory of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066



THEORIES-----you are trying to legitimize a THEORY...no one in science has ever proved this to be anything but that.

Whenever someone tried to do this, it's always under the guise of 'disproving' the historical reference to God's existence.

Religion has a historical solidification to it.

Not just in one culture...but in MANY cultures.

And the fact that science cannot disprove everything we know and hinges on man-made experiments, proves there is no observable science to quantify what they 'consider'.

If I see a 'transitional being' than of course it would change my perspective.

But we are unique. There is no way we are by accident or by a cuzillion years of transitory mutations.

Explore the human body and you will reflect on the complicated nature of our existence and why we owe it to an intelligent force---and I don't mean ALIENS!


cool2
 Quoting: 1guynAz


And what would a transitional being look like to you????


Evolution is not linear. Its basically a bush. Or a tree. Lots of different branches, some that go extinct and some that survive. Creating different variations of animals. Like all the different types of birds, or on a larger scale all the different types of mammals. On a smaller scale, all the different types of beetles. The further you go into the bush the less like those at the tips of the tree, which is what we see in the fossil record. All the mammals are one branch. On that branch are other smaller branches. Like carnivora. Tons of carnivores went extinct. before humans even existed. Dogs get less dog-like the further you go into the bush. All the carnivores begin to get more similar the further you go into the bush.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/16/2017 11:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
...


its one of the main questions that get answered over and over and over

and over
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066


Yes with color pencil sketches of imaginary transitional 'fossils' because 'evolution is a science fiction hoax not science.


every fossil is a transitional fossil

there are no missing links, evolution is not linear

those 2 misconceptions are from a religious theory that had nothing to do with the theory of evolution


Really, strange only specific species are observed rather than an endless transitional blur then and now. Even the color penci
 Quoting: DGN
ionists know that much.
stoner


What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066
 Quoting: DGN
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/16/2017 11:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


Yes with color pencil sketches of imaginary transitional 'fossils' because 'evolution is a science fiction hoax not science.
 Quoting: DGN


every fossil is a transitional fossil

there are no missing links, evolution is not linear

those 2 misconceptions are from a religious theory that had nothing to do with the theory of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066


Really, strange only specific species are observed rather than an endless transitional blur then and now. Even the color pencil evolutionists know that much.
stoner
 Quoting: DGN


What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74895299
United States
05/16/2017 11:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
Don't be too hard on the evolutionists.
Their theory is a bust and Darwin himself
would have the integrity to admit it, if
the Lord would raise him from the dead.

IT IS ALL THE ATHEISTS HAVE though,
except the even more ridiculous theory
that life was "seeded" here by aliens.
(where they came from originally, who knows?
I guess they were seeded by some earlier
brilliant race of beings. They dare not carry
this to its logical conclusion)
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74902470
Canada
05/16/2017 03:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


every fossil is a transitional fossil

there are no missing links, evolution is not linear

those 2 misconceptions are from a religious theory that had nothing to do with the theory of evolution
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74882066


Really, strange only specific species are observed rather than an endless transitional blur then and now. Even the color pencil evolutionists know that much.
stoner
 Quoting: DGN


What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/17/2017 12:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


Really, strange only specific species are observed rather than an endless transitional blur then and now. Even the color pencil evolutionists know that much.
stoner
 Quoting: DGN


What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43950435
United States
05/17/2017 12:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
You're the posterchild for the Kruger Dunning effect.

With top ten worse karma on the site.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73269883
Belgium
05/17/2017 03:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
 Quoting: DGN



Millions and billions of sub-species and millions of years, how awesome, please continue.

Where exactly can all of those millions of sub-species be found in the fossil record?
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74909066
United States
05/17/2017 04:22 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
 Quoting: DGN

In other words.... there are no transitional fossils what so ever, Professor Darwin totally hoaxed the scientifically illiterate and baptized them into his Church of Evolution with fairy tales from the Premordial Soup Wizard.

Last Edited by DGN on 05/17/2017 04:23 PM
Deadpool Loves You
Make Chimichangas Great Again

User ID: 65456342
United States
05/17/2017 05:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
harbulary
Deadpool Loves You comments are meant for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed to reflect the feelings and opinions, implied or expressed, of the author.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/18/2017 02:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
 Quoting: DGN



Millions and billions of sub-species and millions of years, how awesome, please continue.

Where exactly can all of those millions of sub-species be found in the fossil record?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No,

Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.
 Quoting:


was meant for the simple mind of creationists. It was meant to make it easier to understand in a hypothetical way. A sub-species of a sub-species would just be a new sub-species of the whole species, but this gets complicated with ring species.

If a species had 2 sub-species

A and B


Sub-species A can split into multiple populations, and after enough change a population would be considered a new sub-species while still having the original subspecies in the original population. If this keeps happening:


Lets say sub-species A had 10 sub-species in its lineage. If sub-species A1-9 go extinct but the 10th still exists, and the 10th sub-species cannot reproduce with sub-species B, they would be completely different species to the sub-species B and its descendants with no living links to them. They would still technically be new species even if 1-9 did not go extinct but if they go extinct then they have zero links to sub-species B.

This has been shown with the Ensatina Salamanders. Original salamander population separated and circled around the San Joaquin Valley and by the time the salamanders got back to the original point, they had evolved into lots of sub-species around the valley and the sub-species that got back to the original point, they were too genetically different to reproduce with the original sub-species so are different species.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74900650
Australia
05/18/2017 02:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
 Quoting: DGN

In other words.... there are no transitional fossils what so ever, Professor Darwin totally hoaxed the scientifically illiterate and baptized them into his Church of Evolution with fairy tales from the Premordial Soup Wizard.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No, in real life every fossil is transitional
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74915590
United States
05/18/2017 10:54 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
 Quoting: DGN

In other words.... there are no transitional fossils what so ever, Professor Darwin totally hoaxed the scientifically illiterate and baptized them into his Church of Evolution with fairy tales from the Premordial Soup Wizard.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No, in real life every fossil is transitional
 Quoting: DGN


Because they couldn't be intelligently designed so every one has to be an accident? What did Professor Darwin tell the Church of Evolution about 'transitional' fossils? Did he find one?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73114755
Australia
05/18/2017 11:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
List of transitional fossils:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73269883
Belgium
05/18/2017 02:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...



There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)
 Quoting: DGN



Millions and billions of sub-species and millions of years, how awesome, please continue.

Where exactly can all of those millions of sub-species be found in the fossil record?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No,

Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.
 Quoting:


was meant for the simple mind of creationists. It was meant to make it easier to understand in a hypothetical way. A sub-species of a sub-species would just be a new sub-species of the whole species, but this gets complicated with ring species.

If a species had 2 sub-species

A and B


Sub-species A can split into multiple populations, and after enough change a population would be considered a new sub-species while still having the original subspecies in the original population. If this keeps happening:


Lets say sub-species A had 10 sub-species in its lineage. If sub-species A1-9 go extinct but the 10th still exists, and the 10th sub-species cannot reproduce with sub-species B, they would be completely different species to the sub-species B and its descendants with no living links to them. They would still technically be new species even if 1-9 did not go extinct but if they go extinct then they have zero links to sub-species B.

This has been shown with the Ensatina Salamanders. Original salamander population separated and circled around the San Joaquin Valley and by the time the salamanders got back to the original point, they had evolved into lots of sub-species around the valley and the sub-species that got back to the original point, they were too genetically different to reproduce with the original sub-species so are different species.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883


Love how you start out with 2 fully formed complex organisms, followed by an epic scenario with.

Could you be bothered to explain how you got your original pair (which happen to be x and y) in the first place?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74850488
United Kingdom
05/18/2017 03:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
And all this happened 5,777 years ago?
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74915590
United States
05/18/2017 06:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
List of transitional fossils:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73114755


"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2]ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitio​nal_fossils"

Last Edited by DGN on 05/18/2017 06:46 PM
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74915590
United States
05/18/2017 09:17 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
And all this happened 5,777 years ago?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74850488


That only traces back to the creation of Adam long after dinosaurs were gone.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73114755
Australia
05/19/2017 05:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
List of transitional fossils:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73114755


"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2]ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitio​nal_fossils"
 Quoting: DGN


So you understand there are transitional fossils. Good. Now you can stop asking Mr Darwin for 'just one' every day.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73041738
Australia
05/19/2017 05:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
List of transitional fossils:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73114755


"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2]ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitio​nal_fossils"
 Quoting: DGN


If you do not understand what that means then you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73041738
Australia
05/19/2017 06:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...



Millions and billions of sub-species and millions of years, how awesome, please continue.

Where exactly can all of those millions of sub-species be found in the fossil record?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


No,

Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.
 Quoting:


was meant for the simple mind of creationists. It was meant to make it easier to understand in a hypothetical way. A sub-species of a sub-species would just be a new sub-species of the whole species, but this gets complicated with ring species.

If a species had 2 sub-species

A and B


Sub-species A can split into multiple populations, and after enough change a population would be considered a new sub-species while still having the original subspecies in the original population. If this keeps happening:


Lets say sub-species A had 10 sub-species in its lineage. If sub-species A1-9 go extinct but the 10th still exists, and the 10th sub-species cannot reproduce with sub-species B, they would be completely different species to the sub-species B and its descendants with no living links to them. They would still technically be new species even if 1-9 did not go extinct but if they go extinct then they have zero links to sub-species B.

This has been shown with the Ensatina Salamanders. Original salamander population separated and circled around the San Joaquin Valley and by the time the salamanders got back to the original point, they had evolved into lots of sub-species around the valley and the sub-species that got back to the original point, they were too genetically different to reproduce with the original sub-species so are different species.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883


Love how you start out with 2 fully formed complex organisms, followed by an epic scenario with.

Could you be bothered to explain how you got your original pair (which happen to be x and y) in the first place?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


lol what??? original pair????

fully formed??? what???? why would they not be fully formed??? why would there be only 2??? evolution is about populations evolving over time through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and mutations. you really should not be trying to debunk evolution when you don't have a single clue about it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74921118
United States
05/19/2017 06:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
why would they not be fully functional? is your brain a peanut?



The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation[1] was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record.[2][3] Lasting for about the next 20[4][5]–25[6][7] million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.[8] Additionally, the event was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.[note 1] Prior to the Cambrian explosion,[note 2] most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 to 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[11] Almost all present animal phyla appeared during this period.[12][13] There is strong evidence for species of Cnidaria and Porifera existing in the Ediacaran[14] and possible members of Porifera even before that during the Cryogenian.[15] Bryozoans don't appear in the fossil record until after the Cambrian, in the Lower Ordovician.[16]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12807594

Is this the craftsmanship of a master molecular biologist or train wreck deformed dysfunctional mindless mutations that just, lucked out, trillions x trillions of times in a row, x thousands of species?

 Quoting: DGN


Yes. A master molecular biologist. His name is Nature.

Positive mutations are not an absolute thing like some negative mutations are. Its all to do with the environment for it to be a positive mutation. Most mutations are neutral, as in they have no effect on their chances of reproduction or surviving. But at some point those mutations CAN be positive or negative, neutral mutations get passed on to the offspring and spread slowly through out the gene pool over long periods of time. Changing the appearances of animals physically or just in their DNA, which is how speciation occurs when a species splits into multiple populations. They get more and more different over time due to mutations building up separately meaning they can no longer reproduce with the other populations, so they will continue to become more and more different, those populations will eventually split into more populations creating more variation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12807594


Chaos doesn't produce order.
It's like the mathematical analogy
of life spontaneously arising by chance
to the tornado that hits a junk yard
and leaves a fully assembled, working
Space Shuttle in its wake.

Evolution is PREPOSTEROUS,
but its all the atheists have.


"Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools." ROMANS 1
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74915590
United States
05/19/2017 10:02 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
List of transitional fossils:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73114755


"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2]ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitio​nal_fossils"
 Quoting: DGN


If you do not understand what that means then you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73041738


stoner
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73269883
Belgium
05/19/2017 11:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


No,

...


was meant for the simple mind of creationists. It was meant to make it easier to understand in a hypothetical way. A sub-species of a sub-species would just be a new sub-species of the whole species, but this gets complicated with ring species.

If a species had 2 sub-species

A and B


Sub-species A can split into multiple populations, and after enough change a population would be considered a new sub-species while still having the original subspecies in the original population. If this keeps happening:


Lets say sub-species A had 10 sub-species in its lineage. If sub-species A1-9 go extinct but the 10th still exists, and the 10th sub-species cannot reproduce with sub-species B, they would be completely different species to the sub-species B and its descendants with no living links to them. They would still technically be new species even if 1-9 did not go extinct but if they go extinct then they have zero links to sub-species B.

This has been shown with the Ensatina Salamanders. Original salamander population separated and circled around the San Joaquin Valley and by the time the salamanders got back to the original point, they had evolved into lots of sub-species around the valley and the sub-species that got back to the original point, they were too genetically different to reproduce with the original sub-species so are different species.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883


Love how you start out with 2 fully formed complex organisms, followed by an epic scenario with.

Could you be bothered to explain how you got your original pair (which happen to be x and y) in the first place?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


lol what??? original pair????

fully formed??? what???? why would they not be fully formed??? why would there be only 2??? evolution is about populations evolving over time through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and mutations. you really should not be trying to debunk evolution when you don't have a single clue about it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883



lol

again


You postulate a whole scenario of evotardism.

I'm asking you where you get your props for your scenario and you simply state they fall from the sky and need no explanation.

That's like I would explain to a child how a baby is born and I casually leave out daddy and mommy.

First of all, time does not create anything, never have, never will.

Second, natural selection does not create anything, it is a selective mechanism, they would have named it natural creation if it actually had those properties.

Geneflow, genetic drift and mutations, ouch only 3 more hiding possibilities.

Third, geneflow, genes have richely flowed all over the globe, plenty of more mutated humans have been created, but no new information has ever been added to the genome.

Fourth, genetic drift, really, another chance and luck algorithm/argument, how scientific on your behalf.

Fifth, mutations, yeah mutations, plenty of animals and humans have mutated but they remain exactly the same.
Again, no new genetic information, no upgrades.

Just to spice this epic discussion, you are confident that beneficial mutations actually do exist?
Do you agree or disagree that currently mapped genomes have set outcomes, ergo limits exists. Or do you just ignore this willfully?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73041738
Australia
05/19/2017 01:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

...


Love how you start out with 2 fully formed complex organisms, followed by an epic scenario with.

Could you be bothered to explain how you got your original pair (which happen to be x and y) in the first place?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74900650


lol what??? original pair????

fully formed??? what???? why would they not be fully formed??? why would there be only 2??? evolution is about populations evolving over time through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and mutations. you really should not be trying to debunk evolution when you don't have a single clue about it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73269883



lol

again


You postulate a whole scenario of evotardism.

I'm asking you where you get your props for your scenario and you simply state they fall from the sky and need no explanation.

That's like I would explain to a child how a baby is born and I casually leave out daddy and mommy.

First of all, time does not create anything, never have, never will.

Second, natural selection does not create anything, it is a selective mechanism, they would have named it natural creation if it actually had those properties.

Geneflow, genetic drift and mutations, ouch only 3 more hiding possibilities.

Third, geneflow, genes have richely flowed all over the globe, plenty of more mutated humans have been created, but no new information has ever been added to the genome.

Fourth, genetic drift, really, another chance and luck algorithm/argument, how scientific on your behalf.

Fifth, mutations, yeah mutations, plenty of animals and humans have mutated but they remain exactly the same.
Again, no new genetic information, no upgrades.

Just to spice this epic discussion, you are confident that beneficial mutations actually do exist?
Do you agree or disagree that currently mapped genomes have set outcomes, ergo limits exists. Or do you just ignore this willfully?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73041738


Evolution is descent with modification. Populations and gene pools change over time. There is never only 2 individuals in 1 species unless they are about to go extinct or plants that have polyploid mutations creating new species.

Natural selection adapts populations of species to their environment changing the overall DNA of the population. Mutations create the variations for it to select on. When 2 populations of species merge back together, they add new information to each others gene pools.

In the 10 lizards they put on a new island, in 30 years they adapted to the new environment and new food source by evolving a larger head, stronger bite force and a new organ to help digest the new food they started eating.(If they brought those lizards back to their original location that would be introducing new information to the original population of those lizards) That is evolution in a nut shell. And thats just in 30 years. Gene duplication makes it possible to add "information" as it still keeps the original gene but the duplicated gene can now be subject to mutations and create new functions/uses. Mutations that caused lactose tolerance in adulthood is new information in humans. Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein that connects another defunct protein onto that one, the result is their cells are protected from retroviruses like HIV. That is new information, new function.

Technically isn't a bigger head and stronger bite force an upgrade? If it helps them in their new environment it is an upgrade, at least scientifically. And that mutation in humans that causes extreme strength would be considered an upgrade if it was useful. Back in the day it would be extremely useful, today its only use is sexual selection which is still beneficial which is what evolution is all about.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74804615
United States
05/19/2017 02:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
Son I have seen your post for quite awhile on GLP, and I hate to break it to you but Mr. Darwin is dead.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73041738
Australia
05/19/2017 02:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
When did the fusion of our 2nd chromosome take place in the eyes of creationists??


Neanderthals also have this fusion and so do the denisovans.
DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74915590
United States
05/19/2017 02:53 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
Son I have seen your post for quite awhile on GLP, and I hate to break it to you but Mr. Darwin is dead.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74804615


No way he's making a come back, it's just that he has to start from way back, you know mud monsters, the whole thing.

DGN (OP)
Revelation in real time

User ID: 74915590
United States
05/19/2017 02:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?
When did the fusion of our 2nd chromosome take place in the eyes of creationists??


Neanderthals also have this fusion and so do the denisovans.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73041738

All chromosomes were made concurrently together or they would be as dysfunctional as a blueprint with missing specs.
"And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul. 8 Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad." Ge2:7


News