EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Eddy Daze]

Yup. And that's exactly what we see.

How is it observed as there would be evidence in that some would not be able to breed with each other?

For instance with the foxes and the colour analogy where are the shady individuals of each set, the ones that cannot breed but look nearly identical? If those came from the same species there appears to be a clear split.

 

[painted wolf]

I think that is confusing the matter a bit, as the colour blend was used as an anology of evolution, or one species becoming another, the fact that some creatures become albinos (or lose their pigment)does not mean they are evolving into new species, also a black object can become bleached but does this make it a new object?

I'm not talking about albinos.... that set of changes can stand in for any trait. Height, Beak size, Diet, Wings... whatever.

I'm sorry if it was confusing to you... but that is the most scientifically accurate and strait forward explanation you are going to get. It's based on how the genetics would work in this case.

If you want really complex you should actually study genetics... getting into muli-locus, multi-allele traits and accounting for crossing over and other factors get's really fun.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

How is it observed as there would be evidence in that some would not be able to breed with each other?

The easiest way it to check for 'zones of hybridization'.
You can also compare genetics for compatibility.

For instance with the foxes and the colour analogy where are the shady individuals of each set, the ones that cannot breed but look nearly identical? If those came from the same species there appears to be a clear split.

you are not always going to get 'shady individuals' of each set. Genetics isn't like blending paint.

wa:do

 

[Arkwort]

i hope we all learn something (evolution is not real, what a releife :beach.

Sorry if this has been asked before but......

If evolution is not real, if it is a lie,
what's your alternative explanation on how all the plants and animals got here?

Arkwort:run:

 

[Sunstone]

Genetics isn't like blending paint.

Post-Mendalist!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"i hope we all learn something (evolution is not real, what a releife :beach."

If that were true (it isn't but arguendo) WHY would that be a relief?

 

[Gharib]

Sorry if this has been asked before but......

If evolution is not real, if it is a lie,
what's your alternative explanation on how all the plants and animals got here?

Arkwort:run:

god created us. a much more logical explanation. don't you recon so?

 

[Gharib]

If that were true (it isn't but arguendo) WHY would that be a relief?

oh i just said that. cos i don't believe in evolution anyways.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

An actual verifiable fact or two might be useful. Have any?

You skipped right past that question to your mythology about your invisible friend.

Why did you do that?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"god created us. a much more logical explanation. don't you recon so?"

Actually, no. Where did your "god" come from? And where is it now?

 

[Gharib]

"god created us. a much more logical explanation. don't you recon so?"

Actually, no. Where did your "god" come from? And where is it now?

well seing that god is uneque to everything else, that means he has no begining and has no end.

god is in heaven.

was the other post of yours directed at me?

 

[Autodidact]

Are all evolutionists so ignorant that it would take posting a question 4 times to get them to answer it? Question basis=0

What on earth is an "evolutionist?" Did you mean perhaps, "Biologist?" Or maybe, "person who accepts scientific explanations?" Have you asked me a question I have failed to answer? I'm sorry, what was it?

So by your repeated failure to answer my question, I assume that (1) you do not want to learn what ToE actually says (2) you still reject it (3) you don't want to admit that you're opposing a theory you don't even understand. Is that right?

***

​

<snip irrelevant digression into free will. If you want to discuss this philosophical question, I suggest you start a thread. It has nothing to do with the subject of this one.>

On the contrary my friend. Aren't you assuming that your knowledge is 100% but forgetting that evolution is a theory?

No, and no. I don't assume that my knowledge is 100%. On the contrary, our scientific knowledge is tiny. It is also the greatest we have. And before you make yourself look like even more of an ignoramus, I suggest you learn what a theory is. I'm tired of explaining it to ignorant creationists who have no interest in reducing their ignorance.

I would be the first to say that Allah know's best; for He knows what we do not.

Fascinating and irrelevant. Do you have any interest in talking about science at all? Do you reject and oppose all science, or only Biology?

Peace be upon you.
---------
Whatever written of Truth and benefit is only due to Allah&#8217;s Assistance and Guidance, and whatever of error is of me. Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

Please stop preaching; it's against forum rules. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that is confusing the matter a bit, as the colour blend was used as an anology of evolution, or one species becoming another, the fact that some creatures become albinos (or lose their pigment)does not mean they are evolving into new species, also a black object can become bleached but does this make it a new object?

No and no.

Eddy: You have no idea what ToE is. Before we can talk about whether it is true or not, we need to establish what it says. Are you interested in finding out, or do you want to continue to rail against something you don't understand?

 

[Autodidact]

How is it observed as there would be evidence in that some would not be able to breed with each other?

For instance with the foxes and the colour analogy where are the shady individuals of each set, the ones that cannot breed but look nearly identical? If those came from the same species there appears to be a clear split.

Not for the first time I mention that your posts are very hard to understand. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm guessing it comes from the confusion in your mind. I don't know what you're asking. How about we start over and describe what ToE says, O.K.?

 

[Autodidact]

god created us. a much more logical explanation. don't you recon so?

Please stop the noise in your head and listen for a moment. Yes, God created us. We agree on that. O.K.? No one's arguing about that. Got it? The only question that science can try to answer is, how? Did He create us by magic poofing (your explanation) or by setting up a system described by the ToE.

This is an example of what I mean by stating that you don't know what ToE is. You are confusing it with atheism, which is something else completely. ToE is a scientific theory. As such, it does not, and cannot, try to answer anything about God, including whether He created us. It does not, and cannot, assert that God did not create us. So we can assume that He did, and still accept ToE. These two statements do not contradict each other. They can both be true.

If you don't understand something as basic as this, it is impossible to discuss whether ToE is right or wrong. You're arguing against something else completely.

And, sadly, you have no interest in learning what this theory is, so you are powerless to argue against it. You are arguing against atheism, which will never get at what you claim you oppose, ToE.

 

[Gharib]

Please stop the noise in your head and listen for a moment. Yes, God created us. We agree on that. O.K.? No one's arguing about that. Got it? The only question that science can try to answer is, how? Did He create us by magic poofing (your explanation) or by setting up a system described by the ToE.

no not magic poofing. you've assumed that without asking, have i told you that it is wrong to assume things?

ok listen, we have been created gradualy, and by gradualy i mean the same process as the child in it's mothers woumb, not the process of ToE. there are a few 'ingredients' that Allah (swt) speaks of in the quran about the human body formation and maybe the all the other worldly creatures, but they are not important, they are just mindless sheep.

the 'ingreedients' are; water, clay and blood. i think they are the only 'ingreedients'. oh and maybe sperm or something, i'm not too sure on sperm though.

and as far as i know science states that the 'ingreedients' mentioned in the quran are part of our body, like our body mas being 90% water.

This is an example of what I mean by stating that you don't know what ToE is. You are confusing it with atheism, which is something else completely. ToE is a scientific theory. As such, it does not, and cannot, try to answer anything about God, including whether He created us. It does not, and cannot, assert that God did not create us. So we can assume that He did, and still accept ToE. These two statements do not contradict each other. They can both be true.

we will see about that. but yes i have been throwing a few questions that are related to atheism.

If you don't understand something as basic as this, it is impossible to discuss whether ToE is right or wrong. You're arguing against something else completely.

yeah i know. ok i will stop doing that.

And, sadly, you have no interest in learning what this theory is, so you are powerless to argue against it. You are arguing against atheism, which will never get at what you claim you oppose, ToE.

there are way too many theories in my head at the moment, i don't plan on studying about evolution as much until it is actually proven or has some solid proof for one of it's claims.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

". . .i don't plan on studying about evolution as much until it is actually proven or has some solid proof for one of it's claims. "

Well thank you for that confession of willful ignorance.

(btw, proof is for math formal logic and whiskey. Science never "proves" anything.)

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"well seing that god is uneque to everything else, that means he has no begining and has no end.

god is in heaven."

And your evidence for this is . . . ?

 

[Gharib]

"well seing that god is uneque to everything else, that means he has no begining and has no end.

god is in heaven."

And your evidence for this is . . . ?

gods own words.

 

[Gharib]

i don't know if it is stated in the quran though that god lives in heaven, only he knows the secrets of the universes he has created and of all other things in existence.