Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it is a pretty boring thread. Same old people saying the same old things... Time to move on.

I guess not, since you keep posting here.

 

[tas8831]

Well it is a pretty boring thread. Same old people saying the same old things... Time to move on.

Typical creationist cop-out. Pity that the most certain can rarely support their certainty.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Parts of Darwinism are devoid of science. That's the point. They rely on guesswork, not evidence.

Thank you for reinforcing my point for me.

Also, what's Darwinism?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for reinforcing my point for me.

Also, what's Darwinism?

I would suggest it is the study of the man and not a scientific theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would suggest it is the study of the man and not a scientific theory.

That's what it sounds like.

 

[tas8831]

I don't believe in fairy tales either, although they are more realistic than darwinism.

You write things like that, yet can never offer anything of substance.

 

[tas8831]

What I learn everyday has nothing to do with these discussions usually.
Exception would be things I learn from nature... That convince me more and more than we live in a designed universe.

Really?
Give an example please.

 

[tas8831]

I've already studied all that junk years ago and have moved on to other things.

Given your posting history, that is clearly a false claim - both the part about studying and the part about moving on.

 

[YoursTrue]

I like this analogy very much. Thanks for posting.

We all have opinions. The analogy of language progression is not like biologic evolution theory. It's almost like saying that architecture evolved per the Darwinian model. (Hardly.) As pointed out, human language is still human language.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, I've had the odd discussion with creationists on here that was useful for me. I'm interested in the minds of other people I suppose.

Me, too.

I've found that when I'm not hostile that most people can be quite pleasant to talk with and when I don't begin by calling them ignorant, irrational fools that a chat can go surprising places. And it's ok if it goes nowehere; I'm just a bored chap with questions in his head and a lazy weekend recovering from my covid jab to fritter away.

I have essentially stopped talking to those that call me a dummie, lol, ignorant, etc. or using that type of answer. Especially without explaining their side of things in a way that is basically understandable.

 

[rational experiences]

Human applied science as theists. Talking God. Or talking cosmic. Or talking evolution all lie.

Human ego is in a human competition claiming I own the best and most correct human imposed belief system. Science.

So we ask a human equal to a human why and where did the practice theism by humans begin.

Logically as non egotists.

Rational human advice said by a human group was only by an agreed choice.

Rational advice.

Humans are natural first.

Human scientists claim science statements by human define exactly why we live. How we own human form today.

Natural advice says by human sex only.

Rational human advice says first two humans are dead. Before they human died they had human sex. Anyone living today is not the first human whole life began as sperm and an ovary.

Human advice.

Medical biological advice says human sex owns human babies. Medical advice natural observation for humans as humans.

Looks directly at monkeys who too had first just monkey parents who had monkey sex before they died.

Say monkey equals a monkey.

Human theist says I think monkeys had sex and birthed a human baby.

Is just a theory. I think this is how first humans began.

Creationist lives inside same natural atmosphere that planet earth ever owned says I think O planet earth that existed before it's atmosphere did suddenly blasted and owned alight gases.

Instant human life after day six.
How come every day is the exact same day then?

To be a day it states same atmosphere same atmospheric conditions.

No. It's my theory. A human thinking. I believe it true my group teaches the status.

Theists humans who choose to list the ist reasons why we own a human life. All just humans first.

None of you are in reality are my theistic inventor. You are all natural humans like I am.

Ego is the human problem pretending you are by thoughts better than another human by what you speak upon. A topic. A chosen subject.

Intention I am hence better than you are.

Natural human looks at you all and wonders why you all think your story is better in theory in scientific status correct? Just human beliefs.

Correct review depends on how rich and powerful your group is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We all have opinions. The analogy of language progression is not like biologic evolution theory. It's almost like saying that architecture evolved per the Darwinian model. (Hardly.) As pointed out, human language is still human language.

It's actually the perfect analogy.

Human language is composed of tons and tons of different languages; it's not one big language. English, French and Spanish evolved from Latin. But there was never a Latin speaking mother that gave birth to a French speaking baby. Even just the English language alone is composed of so many different dialects, depending on what part of a country a person is from, or even what town they're from. The English language of just 500 years ago is pretty difficult to read for a modern English speaker. Hence the reason we have trouble with Shakespeare, for instance. Irish people speak English, but not the same English I speak in North America. There's a dialect in South Africa that I heard recently that sounds like English, but definitely isn't the English I speak.
I really don't understand why you don't understand such a perfect analogy.
Perhaps it is because you don't understand evolution.

 

[exchemist]

It's actually the perfect analogy.

Human language is composed of tons and tons of different languages; it's not one big language. English, French and Spanish evolved from Latin. But there was never a Latin speaking mother that gave birth to a French speaking baby. Even just the English language alone is composed of so many different dialects, depending on what part of a country a person is from, or even what town they're from. The English language of just 500 years ago is pretty difficult to read for a modern English speaker. Hence the reason we have trouble with Shakespeare, for instance. Irish people speak English, but not the same English I speak in North America. There's a dialect in South Africa that I heard recently that sounds like English, but definitely isn't the English I speak.
I really don't understand why you don't understand such a perfect analogy.
Perhaps it is because you don't understand evolution.

No, it's because she doesn't want to understand it.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's actually the perfect analogy.

Human language is composed of tons and tons of different languages; it's not one big language. English, French and Spanish evolved from Latin. But there was never a Latin speaking mother that gave birth to a French speaking baby. Even just the English language alone is composed of so many different dialects, depending on what part of a country a person is from, or even what town they're from. The English language of just 500 years ago is pretty difficult to read for a modern English speaker. Hence the reason we have trouble with Shakespeare, for instance. Irish people speak English, but not the same English I speak in North America. There's a dialect in South Africa that I heard recently that sounds like English, but definitely isn't the English I speak.
I really don't understand why you don't understand such a perfect analogy.
Perhaps it is because you don't understand evolution.

Perhaps it's because you really don't understand the difference between social evolution and biologic evolution. Maybe someday you might. Have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it's because she doesn't want to understand it.

Perhaps it's because you can't tell difference between social change (accents and words) and biologic evolution. Anyway, you too, have a nice day and enjoy it while possible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps it's because you really don't understand the difference between social evolution and biologic evolution. Maybe someday you might. Have a nice day.

That's funny.

Seriously dude, consider what is being said to you by several people who actually understand evolution and how it operates. We're trying to help you understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's funny.

Seriously dude, consider what is being said to you by several people who actually understand evolution and how it operates. We're trying to help you understand.

What is funny is that you can't even comprehend about morphing. (Slowly, of course... ) Very slowly, according to -- you. And other "evolutionists."

 

[YoursTrue]

That's funny.

Seriously dude, consider what is being said to you by several people who actually understand evolution and how it operates. We're trying to help you understand.

You really think that social evolution is biologic evolution?

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps it's because you can't tell difference between social change (accents and words) and biologic evolution. Anyway, you too, have a nice day and enjoy it while possible.

An analogy does not require the same mechanisms operate, just ones that work in a similar fashion. As I'm sure you know, really, even it suits you to claim the analogy doesn't work.

 

[exchemist]

You really think that social evolution is biologic evolution?

A N A L O G Y.
ANALOGY | Definition of ANALOGY by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of ANALOGY