Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

[Enai de a lukal]

Your welcome. I am laughing too.

... like the person who laughs just to give the appearance that they got the joke when in fact they really didn't.

Comparing the evolution supporting evolution with the (largely non-existent) "evidence" for the existence of God is like comparing a mosquito with an elephant. Talk about a ludicrous comparison.

 

[Falvlun]

Those are good examples. I did think of hunting. Sword fighting I can go with because it requires multiple counter moves. Catching a baby and spearing an animal is one thing. The ancestors of jet pilots are sword fighters. Mystery solved! Thank you. No frubal for you.

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that flying a jet plane is the greatest possible measure of reaction time that nothing else can possibly compare with.

Regardless, I would like your answer too to my question to michaelfranklin: Why do you think that the fact that some people are faster, stronger, or mentally quicker than other people is evidence against evolution?

 

[savagewind]

Except the stuff in my book actually happened. I could even replicated it myself if I felt so inclined.

This is what I was referring to;

We spent a couple of weeks on that topic alone.

Gene pool, environmental niche, bottle necks, pressure selections, and so much more, were all part of doing that. It's all built upon each other. Genetic drift, genetic segregation, I can't remember it all. I would have to open up the books, but the answer to your claim there is that it explains it to a very large extent and very deeply too.

There are things still in evolution theory that lacks proper explanations, but the general picture and even to many areas with detail, it's evident and very clear that evolution is true.

A couple of weeks huh? I have been on my topic for a few decades. There are still things about The Kingdom of God that lacks proper explanation too.

 

[Alceste]

That is another good example but I am not talking speed. I am talking reaction time. Mind not muscle.

Same thing. The ability to observe -> think -> act rapidly is an advantage for any physical activity, from escaping predators to getting dinner to playing the trombone (although the latter will probably not increase your mating opportunities as much as the first two would )

You should let go of all your technology-based arguments, IMO. The fact is, we invented the jets, and we specifically built them to be able to be flown by human beings. So it's no great mystery that human beings are able to fly jets. Eagles are still better than we are at flying. Did you know they actually mate in the air?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Possibly. (There is the likelihood that there are other fast reactioners in the general populace that chose to go into different professions.)

But I don't see why this should be considered an issue for evolution.

Well if you're talking about evolution then you should point out that it happens in a population.

That when he's saying what causes Jet Pilots, or Poets, he's talking about individuals with traits that are still present in the population but they have slight distinct advantages.

So when "what advantage is there for people to fly fighter jets" it wouldn't hold any weight because the general populace does not fly fighter jets. Under his idea any one of us could fly a fighter jet, but there's obviously a test put in place to determine that and not everyone makes the cut.

 

[savagewind]

Same thing. The ability to observe -> think -> act rapidly is an advantage for any physical activity, from escaping predators to getting dinner to playing the trombone (although the latter will probably not increase your mating opportunities as much as the first two would )

You should let go of all your technology-based arguments, IMO. The fact is, we invented the jets, and we specifically built them to be able to be flown by human beings. So it's no great mystery that human beings are able to fly jets. Eagles are still better than we are at flying. Did you know they actually mate in the air?

That is wonderful. I think I did not know that.

 

[Falvlun]

Well if you're talking about evolution then you should point out that it happens in a population.

That when he's saying what causes Jet Pilots, or Poets, he's talking about individuals with traits that are still present in the population but they have slight distinct advantages.

So when "what advantage is there for people to fly fighter jets" it wouldn't hold any weight because the general populace does not fly fighter jets. Under his idea any one of us could fly a fighter jet, but there's obviously a test put in place to determine that and not everyone makes the cut.

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. :sorry1:

Evolution doesn't say that every single individual will have the same abilities.

Nor does it say that some abilities that have been adapted for can't be used for other things. I'm sure evolution didn't select for our dextrous hands so that we can play instruments, but the fact that we have dextrous hands allows us to play instruments.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. :sorry1:

Evolution doesn't say that every single individual will have the same abilities.

Nor does it say that some abilities that have been adapted for can't be used for other things. I'm sure evolution didn't select for our dextrous hands so that we can play instruments, but the fact that we have dextrous hands allows us to play instruments.

I'm saying that's the case he's making.

He's implying that all humans can fly fighter jets, which is clearly untrue if you look at the population.

Under his idea since I can't fly a jet, I'm not human.

 

[LuisDantas]

Needed = Useful for survival. Oh no it doesn't. My bad math.

No, your bad listening. Mutation and selection are different things. The first is random, the second is directed by suitability to the environment.

 

[savagewind]

Selection which is not random but is governed by natural forces causes a change in the organism. I think the change is called a mutation. (The changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations)

 

[LuisDantas]

Selection which is not random but is governed by natural forces causes a change in the organism. I think the change is called a mutation. (The changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations)

Selection only happens after the mutation. You seem to believe that it causes the mutation instead, which is absurd.

 

[savagewind]

Selection only happens after the mutation. You seem to believe that it causes the mutation instead, which is absurd.

OK That makes more sense. Mutations are not random. If all mutations are random, what do you think the ratio between mutations that are selected and mutations that are not selected is? It is obvious by observing human trial and error which is accompanied by intelligent planning, that there must be many more mutations that fail than mutations that are "selected". Think of how many selected mutations would have had to occurred in the 100 million species so far. OK? Now how many more failed. Have you ever wondered what the ratio is?

 

[Falvlun]

Selection which is not random but is governed by natural forces causes a change in the organism. I think the change is called a mutation. (The changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations)

You've got that backwards.

Imagine you have Genes A, B, and C. C mutates into X. So now you have A, B, and X. Gene X turns out to make the organism slighly more fit to survive, and it is passed on to the next generation. Slowly, over the course of time, organisms with Gene X dominate over those with Gene C, until Gene C completely dies out.

There's another scenario, with no mutation required. Say Genes A and B are alleles in the population. About half the population has Gene A and the other has Gene B. Neither is particularly favored.

But then the environment changes. Let's say it gets colder. Gene B gives a slight advantage in the cold over Gene A. So Gene B becomes dominant in the group. Over time, it may completely wipe out Gene A.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK That makes more sense. Mutations are not random.

Far as anyone can really tell, they are indeed random.

If all mutations are random, what do you think the ratio between mutations that are selected and mutations that are not selected is?

Whatever the environment allows. It may change according to the time and place, as well as to the mutation itself. Quite a few are hardly ever advantageous.

It is obvious by observing human trial and error which is accompanied by intelligent planning, that there must be many more mutations that fail than mutations that are "selected".

That is indeed so.

Think of how many selected mutations would have had to occurred in the 100 million species so far. OK? Now how many more failed. Have you ever wondered what the ratio is?

More than you did, apparently.

 

[savagewind]

I think having a fast hold on believing evolution is all that created the world requires an amazing faith that most mutations have been good efficient and fast.

Has anyone calculated the number of selected mutations just one organism required?

 

[Ouroboros]

That is another good example but I am not talking speed. I am talking reaction time. Mind not muscle.

There are always a tradeoff between one thing or another.

For instance, one experiment showed that if your teeth were better and resistant to decay, your bones would be more brittle. You pay on one end for the gain of another.

So quicker reaction time would cost in endurance. Humans have one of the best long distance muscles. That's one area where our body is better than the tiger, lion, eagle, or whatever animal. The majority of animals have extreme reaction times. Some animals could break your bones in one hit by speed alone. But... humans can run for a longer time. We can do a marathon, and dogs, cats, etc, can't. (If I remember it right) And it's because of our ability to sweat. We can cool down, and we have more long fibre muscles (I think it is). So a tradeoff would be your endurance for quickness.

 

[savagewind]

More than you did, apparently.

I don't think so. You admit many more mutations are unsuccessful and I agree. The successful mutations must be trillions. Then the unsuccessful ones are too numerous to count. All this in how many years?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think having a fast hold on believing evolution is all that created the world requires an amazing faith that most mutations have been good efficient and fast.

Which, again, implies that you have never bothered to look at the evidence. Or maybe you just don't understand it.

No one who understands the basics of evolution believes that mutations are usually fast or advantageous.

Has anyone calculated the number of selected mutations just one organism required?

There are whole professional categories that do just that as part of their work, you know.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think so. You admit many more mutations are unsuccessful and I agree. The successful mutations must be trillions. Then the unsuccessful ones are too numerous to count. All this in how many years?

In which scope exactly? Bacteria go through lots of generations in a minute. And life is fairly ancient as of now.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think having a fast hold on believing evolution is all that created the world requires an amazing faith that most mutations have been good efficient and fast.

The speed of evolution is not as disputed as you suggest.

Even if you would believe in Noah's ark, you would have to believe in extremely quick mutations. All dog breeds we have today didn't exist back in those days, neither did horses, or chicken, or many other species. But on the other hand, there are many fossils of many different kinds of animals that do not exist today. They disappeared, and others appeared. No single point in time of all showing up.

Has anyone calculated the number of selected mutations just one organism required?

About every second human being has at least one unique mutation in their genes, statistically. Statistically, everyday when you go to the bathroom and do a #2, there are hundreds of different new mutated lifeforms in your excrement. (I think the source of that one was one of my anthropology teachers. LOL!)

There's been many experiments where the DNA has been sequenced and the new generations too, and the mutations have been recorded.

Currently, there are organizations you can send your blood to and they can trace your lineage based on the mutation markers in your DNA.

And on another note, if DNA didn't mutate, we all would have the same DNA. That would be a devastating blow to the court system and identifying suspects using DNA.