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

[Wildswanderer]

Theses are interesting questions. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic.

Or you could answer my questions. Or not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have not answered anything, you only keep repeating " you're wrong. " Kinda pointless.

He literally just explained to you how natural selection operates. Geesh.

Here, this should help:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?

If you have nothing to add, perhaps just go away. .

 

[Wildswanderer]

2. didn't even understand the footnote point. No, one does not "have to transition" to another. In evolution, this does not happen! Speciation is a vertical process. The descendants of mammals, will be mammals and subspecies of mammals - which will still be mammals. The descendants of canines will be canines and subspecies thereof - which will still be canines.

Then it's impossible to get all species from a single starting point.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have not answered anything, you only keep repeating " you're wrong. " Kinda pointless.

You are wrong by the matter of fact of sound reliable knowledge of science. You need to respond to the thread I posted on the nature of randomness in the other thread.

Your questions are answered numerous times in the references provided in this and other threads.

You can get more information on the internet yourself simply google evolution.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

If you have nothing to add, perhaps just go away. .

How about a coherent response with scientific references to support your assertions based science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you have nothing to add, perhaps just go away. .

Why won't you answer the question?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then it's impossible to get all species from a single starting point.

You make a lot of claims of impossibility.

Can you share your calculations as to how you've determined these things are "impossible."
Please show your work.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You make a lot of claims of impossibility.

Can you share your calculations as to how you've determined these things are "impossible."
Please show your work.

By their own logic, it's impossible. You can not claim both that we all descended from one organism and that all have different family trees.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are wrong by the matter of fact of sound reliable knowledge of science. You need to respond to the thread I posted on the nature of randomness in the other thread.

Your questions are answered numerous times in the references provided in this and other threads.

You can get more information on the internet yourself simply google evolution.

Still waiting . . .

Still waiting for you to answer anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By their own logic, it's impossible. You can not claim both that we all descended from one organism and that all have different family trees.

No, no, no. You've made a claim that something is impossible. In order to claim something is impossible, you must have done some math.
Let's see it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then it's impossible to get all species from a single starting point.

Not if every subsequent living organism shares a phyla with the single starting point. Which we do.

Eukaryotes produce eukaryotes. Vertebrates are a version of eukaryotes. Mammals are a version of vertebrates. Humans are a version of mammals. All are eukaryotes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Still waiting for you to answer anything.

This is odd for you to accuse others of, since you have failed to answer any of my very basic questions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By their own logic, it's impossible. You can not claim both that we all descended from one organism and that all have different family trees.

They never claimed we all have "different family trees". I am not sure how you could possibly have misunderstood what they've said to mean that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, no, no. You've made a claim that something is impossible. In order to claim something is impossible, you must have done some math.
Let's see it.

There are currently 1,258 genera, 156 families, 27 orders, and around 5,937 recognized living species of mammal.

According to evolution they are came from one single celled organism.
And that is just the mammals.
Laughable, really.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are currently 1,258 genera, 156 families, 27 orders, and around 5,937 recognized living species of mammal.

According to evolution they are came from one single celled organism.
And that is just the mammals.
Laughable, really.

Is this really the best argument you can make?

Pure denial?

 

[Yerda]

Or you could answer my questions. Or not.

It's good practice to start a thread when you have questions that are tangential. If you start the thread I'll participate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm pretty sure a jet doesn't have any unicycle parts in it, but regardless, he knew exactly what I meant when he made the claim.

Parts can be repurposed.
That's precisely the point you are missing. Or one of them anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Adaptation is possible because of the information already present. It's not change to a different kind of animal.

Changing into a "different kind" of animal, does not happen in evolution.

A raccoon has thicker fur the further north you go, for example. That's not what creationists mean by " evolution."

I know that's not what they mean, because creationists strawman evolution.

As far as actual evolutionary biology is concerned, raccoons up north having thicker fur is exactly what evolution does. Gradually optimize species for the habitat they are in. Like growing thicker fur in colder climates - or rather, as the environment cools (either because of migration to cooler regions or because of general change in weather patterns). That's what natural selection is.


So essentially, you have just acknowledged a central strawman of creationist propaganda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then it's impossible to get all species from a single starting point.

No, it isn't.