Questions about Evolution?

[Sunstone]

Sorry but "pretty unremarkable doesn't describe the common ancestor at all. he could have been anything. Tolken did a much better job of describing his main characters than Darwin or any evolutionist does and his story was fiction. So if you claim your story is non-fiction, you need to do a much better job than that.

"There may have been many" means that you have no clue who they were and how many there were.

4 billion years ago? Give or take a million or a billion? The forerunners of man supposedly lived for 4 billion years yet none of their descendants passed along accounts of them when they could speak. I wonder why. Maybe they were ashamed that their ancestors couldn't speak. So which species is considered to be 4 billion years old? Last I heard, the oldest species was 2,000,000 years old. Again, I guess it depends one each individual imagination since your stories keep changing. In fact, like tall tales, they become more exaggerated each time they're told. But the truth never changes or it wouldn't be the truth.

All this misleading talk of stories and fiction aside, do you think you could come up with a criticism of either the concept or Theory of Evolution that is not mere excited babbling on your part? You see, the problem is, very little of what you say actually addresses either the concept or Theory of Evolution. You are only pretending that it does.

For instance, you say, "Last I heard the species was 2,000,000 million years old." That's nonsense. Not a single reputable biologist anywhere in the world has ever said the species was 2,000,000 million years old. You are obviously plucking a number out of thin air and ascribing it to biologists. Is that intellectually honest of you? Are you lying? Or do facts challenge you? Whatever the case may be, you should please refrain from babbling on about things you know nothing about -- the concept and Theory of Evolution.

 

[Carico]

All this misleading talk of stories and fiction aside, do you think you could come up with a criticism of either the concept or Theory of Evolution that is not mere excited babbling on your part? You see, the problem is, very little of what you say actually addresses either the concept or Theory of Evolution. You are only pretending that it does.

For instance, you say, "Last I heard the species was 2,000,000 million years old." That's nonsense. Not a single reputable biologist anywhere in the world has ever said the species was 2,000,000 million years old. You are obviously plucking a number out of thin air and ascribing it to biologists. Is that intellectually honest of you? Are you lying? Or do facts challenge you? Whatever the case may be, you should please refrain from babbling on about things you know nothing about -- the concept and Theory of Evolution.

Aside from the fact that the story of evolution is fantasy, it's easy to dispove it.

1) Humans cannot breed offspring with animals so one cannot be the descendant of the other

2) Hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile because they are dependant on the exact parents to produce them. So they cannot breed large populations of their own. Thus humans cannot be the hybrid of an animal and a human

3) Nothing superior can come from anything inferior because a creation originates in the mind of its creator. Human genes don't come out of thin air in animals who don't carry them

4) The fit and unfit always co-exist in every species and both eventually die. So natural selection is a huge myth.

5) No one knows who the common ancestor is so one can't possibly know what or if he was capable of breeding anything!

6) There are exactly zero accounts from any of the so -called "transitional" descendants of these fictitious beasts even though evolutionists claim those creatures walked on the earth for BILLIONS of years, yet there isn't one account of them.

7) Interpreting a fossil is as subjective as interpreting contemporary artwork

8) No one has yet witnessed an animal breeding a human or turning into a human ever in history or present-day reality.

So the story of evolution is a delusion all the way around since it can't be verified biologically, historically or logically. Only in the imagination can genes or DNA change from one species to another. End of story.

 

[painted wolf]

ok.... can we return this thread to topic... if you want to debate the silly and attack one another do so on another thread.

wa:do

 

[Carico]

ok.... can we return this thread to topic... if you want to debate the silly and attack one another do so on another thread.

wa:do

Actually I'm the only one who's providing explanations for my statements. Those who can't have no choice but to attack those who can. But sorry, attacks don't win a debate. They only prove that one cannot win a debate by facts alone as you have done.

 

[Sunstone]

ok.... can we return this thread to topic... if you want to debate the silly and attack one another do so on another thread.

wa:do

OK. I won't indulge in attacking her in this thread -- out of respect for you, PW.

 

[Sunstone]

Aside from the fact that the story of evolution is fantasy, it's easy to dispove it.

1) Humans cannot breed offspring with animals so one cannot be the descendant of the other

2) Hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile because they are dependant on the exact parents to produce them. So they cannot breed large populations of their own. Thus humans cannot be the hybrid of an animal and a human

3) Nothing superior can come from anything inferior because a creation originates in the mind of its creator. Human genes don't come out of thin air in animals who don't carry them

4) The fit and unfit always co-exist in every species and both eventually die. So natural selection is a huge myth.

5) No one knows who the common ancestor is so one can't possibly know what or if he was capable of breeding anything!

6) There are exactly zero accounts from any of the so -called "transitional" descendants of these fictitious beasts even though evolutionists claim those creatures walked on the earth for BILLIONS of years, yet there isn't one account of them.

7) Interpreting a fossil is as subjective as interpreting contemporary artwork

8) No one has yet witnessed an animal breeding a human or turning into a human ever in history or present-day reality.

So the story of evolution is a delusion all the way around since it can't be verified biologically, historically or logically. Only in the imagination can genes or DNA change from one species to another. End of story.

Nothing that you said addresses evolution, though. You've set up a straw man and are only disproving it -- not evolution.

 

[Carico]

Nothing that you said addresses evolution, though. You've set up a straw man and are only disproving it -- not evolution.

So then I take it evolutionists don't believe that our ancestors were animals. is that correct? If so, then I agree with you 100%.

But that's what happens when people tell a lie. They have to tell a 2nd, 3rd, 4th lie, etc. to explain the first lie until they've either contradicted the first lie or forgotten what the first lie was. And that's what has happened to you. You obviously have no clue what the premise of evolution is. But I already knew that since not even Darwin knew the origin of man.

 

[Sunstone]

So then I take it evolutionists don't believe that our ancestors were animals. is that correct? If so, then I agree with you 100%.

That is not what I was referring to. Again, you have set up a straw man.

But that's what happens when people tell a lie. They have to tell a 2nd, 3rd, 4th lie, etc. to explain the first lie until they've either contradicted the first lie or forgotten what the first lie was. And that's what has happened to you. You obviously have no clue what the premise of evolution is. But I already knew that since not even Darwin knew the origin of man.

Now you're just saying things you cannot back up with evidence.

 

[Inky]

I have two questions!

1. From a link in another thread, I just read a bunch of articles on ring species and speciation, so now I have a better idea of the behavioral stuff that goes into making new species. But how does the genome itself change so that two individuals can't produce fertile offspring with each other, even though their ancestors could have?

2. The one genetic thing I understood was that the two groups can have different numbers of chromosomes, so for example horses and donkeys have different numbers and that's why their offspring are sterile. How does a population start with one number of chromosomes and end up with another? This is especially interesting to me because I've been learning about rose breeding, and roses can have between 16 and 64, or something like that. How does that happen?

 

[camanintx]

Aside from the fact that the story of evolution is fantasy, it's easy to dispove it.

Before one can disprove anything, they must demonstrate that they understand it first, something you have repeatedly failed to do.

Do you think you could define biological evolution in one short sentence? It's not really as hard as you might think.

 

[Carico]

That is not what I was referring to. Again, you have set up a straw man.



Now you're just saying things you cannot back up with evidence.

Well since you didn't explain what part of my post didn't describe evolution, then one is left to guess. So let's see if you can back up what you said and be more specific.

 

[Sunstone]

Well since you didn't explain what part of my post didn't describe evolution, then one is left to guess. So let's see if you can back up what you said and be more specific.

Here's the fact: You have very strong opinions about evolution but you cannot adequately describe even the basics. Here's the bottom-line: If and when you decide to get serious, let me know.

 

[Carico]

Here's the fact: You have very strong opinions about evolution but you cannot adequately describe even the basics. Here's the bottom-line: If and when you decide to get serious, let me know.

Sorry but until you show why my post wasn't talking about evolution, then your comments are meaningless and NWR.

 

[Sunstone]

...your comments are meaningless and NWR.

I assure you, the feeling is mutual.

 

[Carico]

I assure you, the feeling is mutual.

I know because you can't prove my posts wrong. But I already knew that.So since you haven't presented your side, or refuted mine, then I win the debate.

 

[Sunstone]

I know because you can't prove my posts wrong. But I already knew that.So since you haven't presented your side, or refuted mine, then I win the debate.

I'm willing to bet nearly everyone on this board who knows even a little bit about evolution has already seen through you, Carico, and recognizes, like I do, that your knowledge of evolution is remedial at best. That's my bet. You're just about the only one who will read what you've said about evolution and say, "That kid knows what she's talking about."

If you want to believe you haven't been found out on this board, then go ahead and believe that. But my guess is most people here know at least as well as I do that you know little or nothing about evolution.

Call you ignorance "winning a debate" if you want. I'm finished with you in this thread.

 

[Carico]

I'm willing to bet nearly everyone on this board who knows even a little bit about evolution has already seen through you, Carico, and recognizes, like I do, that your knowledge of evolution is remedial at best. That's my bet. You're just about the only one who will read what you've said about evolution and say, "That kid knows what she's talking about."

If you want to believe you haven't been found out on this board, then go ahead and believe that. But my guess is most people here know at least as well as I do that you know little or nothing about evolution.

Call you ignorance "winning a debate" if you want. I'm finished with you in this thread.

Again, people on a Ku Klux Klan forum would think I was ignorant, foolish and deluded as well since I don't think that one race is superior to another. But that wouldn't make me wrong. Since atheists mock God and Jesus, they'll mock those who agree with God and Christ. So sorry, I prefer God's assessment of people over yours because only God has power over me; you don't. You can only scream, rant, rave, and attack people who disagree with you.

 

[painted wolf]

I have two questions!

1. From a link in another thread, I just read a bunch of articles on ring species and speciation, so now I have a better idea of the behavioral stuff that goes into making new species. But how does the genome itself change so that two individuals can't produce fertile offspring with each other, even though their ancestors could have?

Initially with ring species it is that behavioral stuff... what it does, is isolate each population into distinct gene pools. From here a process called genetic drift takes hold. Drift is non-adaptive random change in the genome that normally has no effect on the organism itself. (hair and eye color are examples of drift in humans for example)
If enough drift happens between two populations it builds up to the point that it can produce genetic barriers to reproduction. Such barriers can be simple, such as changes in the proteins that coat the gametes (sex cells) of species.

2. The one genetic thing I understood was that the two groups can have different numbers of chromosomes, so for example horses and donkeys have different numbers and that's why their offspring are sterile. How does a population start with one number of chromosomes and end up with another? This is especially interesting to me because I've been learning about rose breeding, and roses can have between 16 and 64, or something like that. How does that happen?

Polyploidy (an increase in the number of chromosomes) is caused by a 'goof up' in meiosis.
During meiosis the chromosomes are supposed to divide up into two half sets... sometimes this doesn't happen and you end up with a gamete (sex cell) that has a full set of chromosomes.

Plants are highly resistant to changes in ploidy and they can essentially go crazy with chromosome numbers... This may have to do with the fact that upping the number of chromosomes in a cell also increases the size of the cell and plants with their cell walls are better able to cope with that increase.

wa:do

 

[Carico]

Initially with ring species it is that behavioral stuff... what it does, is isolate each population into distinct gene pools. From here a process called genetic drift takes hold. Drift is non-adaptive random change in the genome that normally has no effect on the organism itself. (hair and eye color are examples of drift in humans for example)
If enough drift happens between two populations it builds up to the point that it can produce genetic barriers to reproduction. Such barriers can be simple, such as changes in the proteins that coat the gametes (sex cells) of species.


Polyploidy (an increase in the number of chromosomes) is caused by a 'goof up' in meiosis.
During meiosis the chromosomes are supposed to divide up into two half sets... sometimes this doesn't happen and you end up with a gamete (sex cell) that has a full set of chromosomes.

Plants are highly resistant to changes in ploidy and they can essentially go crazy with chromosome numbers... This may have to do with the fact that upping the number of chromosomes in a cell also increases the size of the cell and plants with their cell walls are better able to cope with that increase.

wa:do

Again, that's another example of jumping to wrong conclusions based on an observation. Man can never understand the complexities of God's design because God created His design and still does. It's God who creates plagues and he knows how to do it. But when people deny God, they try to figure it out themselves which always ends up is seeing exceptions to every 'rule" that humans find. That's why scientists always look foolish when they try to outwit or deny God.

 

[Autodidact]

Why can't you promise any answers to every question if evolution is a fact?

Well, evolution is a fact, but the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is always being revised and improved.

I mean if it explains the way the word works perfectly, then it should be no problem to answer every question because one can only build on the truth. God does answer every question perfectly.

What Theory of Evolution are you talking about? I'm talking about the one in Biology that explains why we have so many different kinds of organisms and why they are so nifty.

So here are some questions:

1)Who is the common ancestor?

Cheryl. Cheryl the one-celled organism.

2) How many were there?

One.

3) What did they look like?

Kind of like this: .

4) When did they live?

Somewhere around 3-4 billion years ago.

5) Why have we never heard about them from their first descendants who could speak?

Because she lived around 3.5 billion years ago, and their first ancestors who could speak didn't know anything about her.

for starters. But if you don't know who the common ancestors were, then of course, you can't know what kind of descendants they were capable of breeding.

Well, we know what kind of descendants she in fact did breed: yeast, redwood trees, wooly mammoths, mosquitoes, potatoes and you.