Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

An "Unknown" Common Ancestor as attributed by ... scientists, lol, well many of them anyway. Have a good one, y'all.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, well insofar as I have seen, gorillas, bonobos, and other type similar looking animals do not "mix" with interbreeding. Despite the surmisal of a "common ancestor."

Well of course. That's what species are -- non interbreeding communities, occupying different niches; different lifestyles.
What does a common ancestor have to do with this?

Do you understand how evolution works?

An "Unknown" Common Ancestor as attributed by ... scientists, lol, well many of them anyway. Have a good one, y'all.

Huh?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well of course. That's what species are -- non interbreeding communities, occupying different niches; different lifestyles.
What does a common ancestor have to do with this?

Do you understand how evolution works?
Huh?

Let me explain, since you don't understand. See--it's not *known* what is the "common ancestor" that apes branched out from -- including humans called now *homo sapiens.* OK, now do you understand? NO KNOWN COMMON ANCESTOR. OK? Got it? No known common ancestor. None.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well of course. That's what species are -- non interbreeding communities, occupying different niches; different lifestyles.
What does a common ancestor have to do with this?

Do you understand how evolution works?
Huh?

Something had to "mix" somewhere.. to so-called produce all those different types of apes -- from, of course, that "unknown" so-called common ancestor. Now do you understand? They gotta come from somewhere according to the legend, I mean, theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which brings to another biggie question for you advocates of Darwinism plus further with the amendations. Do you think or believe that because similar type DNA is present in living things that it all came from a "common ancestor"? Maybe two or three "common ancestors?" You think?

 

[Valjean]

Something had to "mix" somewhere.. to so-called produce all those different types of apes -- from, of course, that "unknown" so-called common ancestor. Now do you understand? They gotta come from somewhere according to the legend, I mean, theory.

From a yet-to-be-discovered common ancestor, obviously.
How else would we all have evolved?

The "mixing" was simple reproduction, producing non-identical offspring. These then went out into the world and did the best they could with what they had.
Some of their non-identical features were better suited to their environment than others, and individuals with those features tended to be more reproductively successful. The features were passed on to their offspring, gradually increasing in the general population. Over thousands of generations, this reproduction with variation and adaptation --mixing -- produces new types in the various habitats.

 

[Valjean]

Which brings to another biggie question for you advocates of Darwinism plus further with the amendations. Do you think or believe that because similar type DNA is present in living things that it all came from a "common ancestor"? Maybe two or three "common ancestors?" You think?

DNA isn't the only source, and it's not the "type" of DNA, but the gradual evolution of the programming sequences, that reflect the changes in primate forms that produced the various species that exist today.

And what the heck is a "Darwinist?"
Biologists don't go around citing Darwin, or base their opinions on his discoveries, any more than engineers go around citing Archimedes or physicians cite Galen. Neither do they base their opinions on these.

What's this obsession you have with Darwin? Noöne but historians and creationists pay any attention to him, nowadays.

 

[cladking]

Do you understand how evolution works?

That is exactly the question here. Who does understand how evolution works since Darwin didn't?

Biologists don't go around citing Darwin, or base their opinions on his discoveries, any more than engineers go around citing Archimedes or physicians cite Galen. Neither do they base their opinions on these.

But they don't go around saying Darwin was wrong much either and they still believe in "survival of the fittest".

 

[Valjean]

Please explain what you mean by "survival of the fittest."
I suspect we may have different understandings of the term.

 

[gnostic]

Please explain what you mean by "survival of the fittest."
I suspect we may have different understandings of the term.

He, @cladking , still hasn't answer your questions yet?

Why am I not surprise?

 

[cladking]

Please explain what you mean by "survival of the fittest."
I suspect we may have different understandings of the term.

Again!!!! "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are Darwin's terms. I don't believe either of them exist because all individuals are equally fit.

It is Darwin and his believers who believe that if you dump enough cyanide into a cage full of something to kill half of them then the other half are fitter or have been naturally selected.

Now you can tell me it's more complex than that but no matter how you define it I don't believe it.

Surely you could have predicted this answer from things I've said before just as I can predict the responses that will be semantics.

You can keep defining and redefining "survival of the fittest" until you're blue in the face and I still won't believe in it.

Every individual is conscious and every individual is different. None are less fit though some require less cyanide before they hit the garbage can. Some can jump farther or hear better. There is no such thing as species because all life is individual and of the group they can mate with each are different and each is conscious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again!!!! "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are Darwin's terms. I don't believe either of them exist because all individuals are equally fit.

It is Darwin and his believers who believe that if you dump enough cyanide into a cage full of something to kill half of them then the other half are fitter or have been naturally selected.

Now you can tell me it's more complex than that but no matter how you define it I don't believe it.

Surely you could have predicted this answer from things I've said before just as I can predict the responses that will be semantics.

You can keep defining and redefining "survival of the fittest" until you're blue in the face and I still won't believe in it.

Every individual is conscious and every individual is different. None are less fit though some require less cyanide before they hit the garbage can. Some can jump farther or hear better. There is no such thing as species because all life is individual and of the group they can mate with each are different and each is conscious.

Nope. Darwin did not coin or use that phrase. It is not used today because various dishonest people abuse it. Sound familiar? If you use a phrase that is not used by biologists you need to define what you mean by that phrase.

 

[YoursTrue]

From a yet-to-be-discovered common ancestor, obviously.
How else would we all have evolved?

The "mixing" was simple reproduction, producing non-identical offspring. These then went out into the world and did the best they could with what they had.
Some of their non-identical features were better suited to their environment than others, and individuals with those features tended to be more reproductively successful. The features were passed on to their offspring, gradually increasing in the general population. Over thousands of generations, this reproduction with variation and adaptation --mixing -- produces new types in the various habitats.

you say we evolved by natural selection or something like that. Upon looking at it more clearly after I began researching the theory and positions, I no longer believe the myth of natural selection or survival of the fittest as if genetically one outclasses or evolves from the other. Nope. I think certain species like big dinosaurs went extinct. That's it. No proof whatsoever in real time real like that they evolved to birds. No common ancestor as yet lurks on the ground in imagination or reality for that which spawned (evolved) gorillas, monkeys, and humans of any supposed sort.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you say we evolved by natural selection or something like that. Upon looking at it more clearly after I began researching the theory and positions, I no longer believe the myth of natural selection or survival of the fittest as if genetically one outclasses or evolves from the other. Nope. I think certain species like big dinosaurs went extinct. That's it. No proof whatsoever in real time real like that they evolved to birds. No common ancestor as yet lurks on the ground in imagination or reality for that which spawned (evolved) gorillas, monkeys, and humans of any supposed sort.

Once again, when you say "proof" in a scientific debate you show that you have no understanding about the subject of any of the sciences at all. And if you deny that there is evidence for evolution then you are either lying or have no clue about evolution at all.

It is time to go over the basics of science again.

 

[YoursTrue]

From a yet-to-be-discovered common ancestor, obviously.
How else would we all have evolved?

The "mixing" was simple reproduction, producing non-identical offspring. These then went out into the world and did the best they could with what they had.
Some of their non-identical features were better suited to their environment than others, and individuals with those features tended to be more reproductively successful. The features were passed on to their offspring, gradually increasing in the general population. Over thousands of generations, this reproduction with variation and adaptation --mixing -- produces new types in the various habitats.

So what's a "creationist"? Since you question what a darwinist is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what's a "creationist"? Since you question what a darwinist is.

That's easy. A creationist is someone that denies reality because they want to believe a book of myths.

 

[cladking]

Nope. Darwin did not coin or use that phrase. It is not used today because various dishonest people abuse it. Sound familiar? If you use a phrase that is not used by biologists you need to define what you mean by that phrase.

And I already posted a link PROVING he used it. He said it was his preferred term.

All believers have is gainsaying and semantics. No experiment, just lots of words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I already posted a link PROVING he used it. He said it was his preferred term.

All believers have is gainsaying and semantics. No experiment, just lots of words.

I doubt it you did. But if you did once, you should be able to do so again.

 

[John53]

you say we evolved by natural selection or something like that. Upon looking at it more clearly

The "something like that" cleared it up for you?

 

[cladking]

I doubt it you did. But if you did once, you should be able to do so again.

You could search this thread.