Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic - . It has been said, and I do believe the following: that evolution per small changes leading to distinctly different forms is a belief highly defended by many in the scientific community.
So where is observable evidence for what is called macroevolution? You can argue that I'm ignorant, but where is the evidence beyond fossils and conjecture from fossils that fish evolved to apes? Or rather the Unknown Common Denominator of animals called apes. Even while there are similarities in composition, what reason enables you to think that it happened by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"? Since you say I'm ignorant, please explain how you believe that fish definitely evolved to become humans? Was it a group of fish that moved towards the ground, or maybe one fish, or maybe two fishes? Or maybe their offspring?

 

[YoursTrue]

I constantly point out to creationists that no only are fossils not the only evidence for evolution. They are not even the best evidence for evolution. They are merely the easiest evidence for an absolute amateur to see and understand. Show a creationist an article about ERV's and they will not have a clue.

just like you use the term creationist which can embrace many differing viewpoints, so do atheists and those religionists who accept the theory of evolution embrace various viewpoints. That do not make sense to me. But if these make sense to you and others -- EVEN THOUGH there is no cogent explanation for it in reference to the theory of macroevolution.,

 

[Subduction Zone]

just like you use the term creationist which can embrace many differing viewpoints, so do atheists and those religionists who accept the theory of evolution embrace various viewpoints. That do not make sense to me. But if these make sense to you and others -- EVEN THOUGH there is no cogent explanation for it in reference to the theory of macroevolution.,

No, "creationist" is a well defined term. I use the original definition.

And what do you mean when you claim that there is no cogent explanation? That is what the theory is. It is a cogent explanation of how life got to its present state. Your inability to understand it does not alter this fact.

Also if you want to claim that the burden of proof would be upon you. How are you going to show that there is no cogent explanation?

 

[exchemist]

Peoples beliefs differ, it's life/human nature and doesn't bother me in the slightest. There is far worse out there, religions that protect paedophiles, religions that encourage terrorism, religions that split up family and friends... They're the ones I'm wary of.

Quite.

And, as a matter of fact, nobody here has got the least bit "upset" when asked to explain how they reconcile Christian belief with evolution. On the contrary, it has been explained, certainly by me, with a fair degree of enthusiasm. YT just wants to cultivate the myth that trying to do so creates psychological problems, when in fact the reverse is true: it is denying science that gives people psychological problems - unless of course they are too stupid to see the conflicts it creates.

 

[exchemist]

No, "creationist" is a well defined term. I use the original definition.

And what do you mean when you claim that there is no cogent explanation? That is what the theory is. It is a cogent explanation of how life got to its present state. Your inability to understand it does not alter this fact.

Also if you want to claim that the burden of proof would be upon you. How are you going to show that there is no cogent explanation?

What bemuses me about statements like YT's is the delusional arrogance of thinking that hundreds of thousands of specialist scientists, educators and students, all over the world, would accept without demur an explanation that is supposedly not "cogent", whereas the members of some little sect, comprising people discouraged from getting educated in the field concerned, can somehow, uniquely, see the flaws in it that no one else can spot.

It's almost funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What bemuses me about statements like YT's is the delusional arrogance of thinking that hundreds of thousands of specialist scientists, educators and students, all over the world, would accept without demur an explanation that is supposedly not "cogent", whereas the members of some little sect, comprising people discouraged from getting educated in the field concerned, can somehow, uniquely, see the flaws in it that no one else can spot.

It's almost funny.

And sad. The members of that sect show up to a nuclear war with a spoon. And they wonder why they are often laughed at.

 

[John53]

You might try the ignore function. I hardly ever, but finally did in a couple of cases where I determined that trying to engage in a rational dialogue was a wasted effort.

It doesn't bother me that much, I get grumpy about the nonsense sometimes but that's my problem. Usually I find it amusing.

 

[John53]

I do not know if this is true of all ducks, but male mallard ducks are quite often rapists. Usually two males will pair up and forcibly copulate with a female that already has a mate.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4534287

Ain't evolution grand. Or is this an example of a creationist God hard wiring perversions into creatures?

The Australian Fairywrens I mentioned earlier in a failed attempt to show YT that saying "birds are still birds" is a ridiculous/meaningless statement have a very bizarre sex life. They form pair bonds and defend a territory but the females leave in the early hours of the morning and have secret liaisons with males from other groups. It probably makes sense because they live in small family groups and it would avoid inbreeding. Also the non breeding males moult and take on the colour of females, they also act like females when in non breeding colours, the early European settlers called them Mormon Birds because they thought it was one male with several wives. This also makes sense because they assist with caring for the young which increases their chance of survival. Evolution or did God create this strange group of loose women and girlie men?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ain't evolution grand. Or is this an example of a creationist God hard wiring perversions into creatures?

The Australian Fairywrens I mentioned earlier in a failed attempt to show YT that saying "birds are still birds" is a ridiculous/meaningless statement have a very bizarre sex life. They form pair bonds and defend a territory but the females leave in the early hours of the morning and have secret liaisons with males from other groups. It probably makes sense because they live in small family groups and it would avoid inbreeding. Also the non breeding males moult and take on the colour of females, they also act like females when in non breeding colours, the early European settlers called them Mormon Birds because they thought it was one male with several wives. This also makes sense because they assist with caring for the young which increases their chance of survival. Evolution or did God create this strange group of loose women and girlie men?

I constantly try to show her how meaningless that statement is by pointing out that she is still a monkey. She doesn't seem to understand that fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't bother me that much, I get grumpy about the nonsense sometimes but that's my problem. Usually I find it amusing.

It isn't something I normally do, but sometimes a problem needs a big hammer.

You are correct though. It is amusing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ain't evolution grand. Or is this an example of a creationist God hard wiring perversions into creatures?

The Australian Fairywrens I mentioned earlier in a failed attempt to show YT that saying "birds are still birds" is a ridiculous/meaningless statement have a very bizarre sex life. They form pair bonds and defend a territory but the females leave in the early hours of the morning and have secret liaisons with males from other groups. It probably makes sense because they live in small family groups and it would avoid inbreeding. Also the non breeding males moult and take on the colour of females, they also act like females when in non breeding colours, the early European settlers called them Mormon Birds because they thought it was one male with several wives. This also makes sense because they assist with caring for the young which increases their chance of survival. Evolution or did God create this strange group of loose women and girlie men?

Interesting. I can see how something like that might evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not know if this is true of all ducks, but male mallard ducks are quite often rapists. Usually two males will pair up and forcibly copulate with a female that already has a mate.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4534287

You'd never see rabbits doing that. Duck Season!

 

[YoursTrue]

Ain't evolution grand. Or is this an example of a creationist God hard wiring perversions into creatures?

The Australian Fairywrens I mentioned earlier in a failed attempt to show YT that saying "birds are still birds" is a ridiculous/meaningless statement have a very bizarre sex life. They form pair bonds and defend a territory but the females leave in the early hours of the morning and have secret liaisons with males from other groups. It probably makes sense because they live in small family groups and it would avoid inbreeding. Also the non breeding males moult and take on the colour of females, they also act like females when in non breeding colours, the early European settlers called them Mormon Birds because they thought it was one male with several wives. This also makes sense because they assist with caring for the young which increases their chance of survival. Evolution or did God create this strange group of loose women and girlie men?

That really has nothing to do with the huge, all-embracing concept of the theory of evolution. It has to do with genetic differences, that may or may not have mutated from some "Unknown Common Ancestor." Do you have anything to suggest what the "Common Ancestor" of these birds with their distinct differences was? With huge birds might you think they evolved from very large size dinosaurs?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Peoples beliefs differ, it's life/human nature and doesn't bother me in the slightest. There is far worse out there, religions that protect paedophiles, religions that encourage terrorism, religions that split up family and friends... They're the ones I'm wary of.

Absolutely. Me too.

 

[YoursTrue]

It doesn't bother me that much, I get grumpy about the nonsense sometimes but that's my problem. Usually I find it amusing.

I enjoy mentioning too that there is really no verification for the theory beyond fossils. I'm not suggesting that because the theory cannot be verified by actual proof of seeing macroevolution that someone should believe otherwise.

 

[John53]

That really has nothing to do with the huge, all-embracing concept of the theory of evolution. It has to do with genetic differences, that may or may not have mutated from some "Unknown Common Ancestor." Do you have anything to suggest what the "Common Ancestor" of these birds with their distinct differences was? With huge birds might you think they evolved from very large size dinosaurs?

You really really need to Google a definition of ToE.

 

[John53]

I enjoy mentioning too that there is really no verification for the theory beyond fossils. I'm not suggesting that because the theory cannot be verified by actual proof of seeing macroevolution that someone should believe otherwise.

DNA

 

[Subduction Zone]

I enjoy mentioning too that there is really no verification for the theory beyond fossils. I'm not suggesting that because the theory cannot be verified by actual proof of seeing macroevolution that someone should believe otherwise.

And that only confirms that you are incredibly ignorant about all of the sciences.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ain't evolution grand. Or is this an example of a creationist God hard wiring perversions into creatures?

The Australian Fairywrens I mentioned earlier in a failed attempt to show YT that saying "birds are still birds" is a ridiculous/meaningless statement have a very bizarre sex life. They form pair bonds and defend a territory but the females leave in the early hours of the morning and have secret liaisons with males from other groups. It probably makes sense because they live in small family groups and it would avoid inbreeding. Also the non breeding males moult and take on the colour of females, they also act like females when in non breeding colours, the early European settlers called them Mormon Birds because they thought it was one male with several wives. This also makes sense because they assist with caring for the young which increases their chance of survival. Evolution or did God create this strange group of loose women and girlie men?

kinda like some people, huh? Except birds have what they call birdbrains, maybe some people do too? Whatcha think? Did some people evolve from bird-brains? Where they keep chirping about things they don't know why but say it anyway?

 

[YoursTrue]

You really really need to Google a definition of ToE.

Don't trust me, why should you? But I have googled it many times. Asked many questions. Guess it's kinda hard for you to explain in your own words, although the study of cells and molecules, including brain structure can be detailed, requiring a lot of research. there's more, I'll wait. Thanks. Meanwhile, the combination of religion and belief in evolution is tackled by some with reasonable responses. Another time.