Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you agreeing or disputing? I'm very confused now LOL...
You seem very angry lmao
Oh thank you for also illustrating that people will swallow research without a shred of scientific evidence....kind of like...you do!
Even worse you propagate it!!! For your own bitter, bitter witch hunt
Sure.... your point was "there is no missing link" Riiiiight. Read your own post again....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
There was no "ape to man" evolution....there was, supposedly, a common ancestor. And it makes perfectly logical sense...they have found these genetic drifts in tons of other lifeforms.
But there is no "smoking gun" yet in regards to the missing link. They are trying to present "Ida" as "it" and based on the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution....you are expected to just believe it's the end all, be all.
and only a day or so ago...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
The only fact is that evolution SHOULD be challenged. Evolution is still a theory... so is gravity but you can observe gravity in real time. HUGE difference. Evolution is not the smoking gun you (and millions of others) make it out to be.
You're a funny dude.
So.... about those "genetic drifts they have found in tons of other lifeforms." Care to explain what you meant by that?
Thank you for doing the grunt work building Jaymaxs strawman...
She thanks you
Nope. Never claimed all IDer's are "Creationists". (Although the ones who tried to push Intelligent Design into the Dover area school district science classrooms certainly were).
Some ID'ers are just intellectually lazy and look at things like the golden ratio and go ''ooooh look! It's a pattern!" Or "Oooh look! It's really complex!" "Therefore some Intelligent Designer thing must have designed it!"
Sure.... your point was "there is no missing link" Riiiiight. Read your own post again....
and only a day or so ago...
You're a funny dude.
So.... about those "genetic drifts they have found in tons of other lifeforms." Care to explain what you meant by that?
Yes, evolution SHOULD be challenged...I TOTALLY understand why you DON'T want it challenged. Me? I think some scientific breakthroughs are fascinating and I don't make any moral prescription based on it, you do.
This is your whole gimmick on CD in a nutshell...it's so easy to size you up....
You have some serious interest in human sexuality...a HUGE portion of it invested in homosexuality. So, your mission is two fold...
Part 1 - attack the one institution that condemns the existence of homosexuality. Which has been done thoroughly...so, God is clearly out the way... Why you still feel the need to ridicule folks? I have no idea... Maybe because you are a shameless propagandist...which you are 1000% over...
which brings us to...
Part 2 - You are left with now proving that homosexuality inherent. And you have absolutely NO scientific evidence of this but yet you STILL administer your swill, happily I may add... Smugly, even.
But the importance here..is you headbeat people with this total body of work embedded in confirmation bias....Get it?
One portion of your crusade is backed by science...and anybody who rails against it? You fight thoroughly behind the scientific method...when it comes to your homosexual high tea discussions??? WHAT scientific method?
Do you NOT see the irony?? You are a flaming hypocrite. Not that it matters, it totally doesn't. Be one... But just realize that you are as transparent as a politician with the dung kicked out of them.
As far as genetic drift...
Quote:
Genetic drift refers to the expected population dynamics of neutral alleles (those defined as having no positive or negative impact on reproductive fitness), which are predicted to eventually become fixed at zero or 100% frequency in the absence of other mechanisms affecting allele distributions.
Large scale mutation, based on chance...over a long period of time.
They have explained this in virtually every living species on the planet...except the bombardier beetle.... (call me a creationist AGAIN)
Now, am I wrong? Or are you begging now?
Oh yea, how about you address my question about my article challenging your soupy planet garbage? Are you going to debunk it? Or just say "Oh yea but the cool kids said PBBBTTTTTT"???
I did respond to the post, but one would hope that it is tongue in cheek. Although, it is not the first time that I've come across a post such as this and I tend to believe that some might actually be in earnest.
Going by some of the poster's other comments, I think you are right. He/she is actually serious.
It is possible that in many millions of years present day apes could evolve into some other humanlike species. It is, however, very improbable. First of all, humans did not evolve from any of the species we know as apes today. At some point 5 to 8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the two separate lineages we know today. The species at the end of these lineages are a result of a very specific combination of selection pressures and genetic mutations over millions of years. This same combination is highly unlikely to occur ever again.
When did evolution stop? The way this answer is framed, evolution must have halted at some point long ago, which leaves us with the un-evolving Billions of species we now have. Got any reference material defining this halting of evolution? Because if evolution didn't stop, and it was a continuous and ongoing process, we should see not only transitional species, but new species appearing all of the time.
Yes, evolution SHOULD be challenged...I TOTALLY understand why you DON'T want it challenged. Me? I think some scientific breakthroughs are fascinating and I don't make any moral prescription based on it, you do.
Where have I ever said it shouldn't be challenged? Scientific theories are constantly challenged and refined and so they should be. My point is, that evolution is being constantly 'challenged' by people who don't even bother to try to understand it - often because of their dogmatic religious views, or just pure intellectual laziness.
You were the one who started by saying 'evolution is still a theory'. That shows you didn't understand either evolution very well or what a scientific theory was. You then made a comment about 'laws' of evolution... then later you said you accept natural selection and genetic drift as fact. You seem to be learning bit by bit... and change the goal posts as you do. So I guess challenging your bombastic posts has served some useful purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
This is your whole gimmick on CD in a nutshell...it's so easy to size you up....
blah blah rant rant blah blah
Sized you and your ego up long ago....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
As far as genetic drift...
Large scale mutation, based on chance...over a long period of time.
Quote:
Genetic drift refers to the expected population dynamics of neutral alleles (those defined as having no positive or negative impact on reproductive fitness), which are predicted to eventually become fixed at zero or 100% frequency in the absence of other mechanisms affecting allele distributions.
They have explained this in virtually every living species on the planet...except the bombardier beetle.... (call me a creationist AGAIN)
Now, am I wrong? Or are you begging now?
Yes, you are 'wrong' in the way that you used the term 'genetic drift' incorrectly in your post. Which showed you didn't know what it meant. Do you have a better understanding now? If so, great. Maybe you've learned something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
Oh yea, how about you address my question about my article challenging your soupy planet garbage? Are you going to debunk it? Or just say "Oh yea but the cool kids said PBBBTTTTTT"???
Did you even read your article yourself or watch the video I posted? What "soupy planet garbage"? What did you want to debate? I think the idea of hydrovents being a driving force is an interesting one. But you seem to be missing the whole point of your article or the video I posted, that it can be explained how 'life' began on this planet. No 'intelligent designer' or a 'creator' required.
When did evolution stop? The way this answer is framed, evolution must have halted at some point long ago, which leaves us with the un-evolving Billions of species we now have. Got any reference material defining this halting of evolution? Because if evolution didn't stop, and it was a continuous and ongoing process, we should see not only transitional species, but new species appearing all of the time.
New species should be appearing if it were not for man tearing down their habitats to build new homes or roads
Where have I ever said it shouldn't be challenged? Scientific theories are constantly challenged and refined and so they should be. My point is, that evolution is being constantly 'challenged' by people who don't even bother to try to understand it - often because of their dogmatic religious views, or just pure intellectual laziness.
And I am not one of them..
Quote:
You were the one who started by saying 'evolution is still a theory'. That shows you didn't understand either evolution very well or what a scientific theory was. You then made a comment about 'laws' of evolution... then later you said you accept natural selection and genetic drift. You seem to be learning bit by bit... and change the goal posts as you do. So I guess challenging your bombastic posts has served some useful purpose.
Sized you and your ego up long ago....
Because it IS a theory. There is still a difference between theory and fact. No shifting of the goal posts here.
Gravity is a theory too...should that be challenged? Yes...but I'd say evolution draws much farther reaching conclusions.
Quote:
Yes, you are 'wrong' in the way that you used the term 'genetic drift' incorrectly in your post. Which showed you didn't know what it meant. Do you have a better understanding now? If so, great. Maybe you've learned something.
How was it wrong?
Quote:
Did you even read your article yourself or watch the video I posted? What "soupy planet garbage"? What did you want to debate? I think the idea of hydrovents being a driving force is an interesting one. But you seem to be missing the whole point of your article or the video I posted, that it can be explained how 'life' began on this planet. No 'intelligent designer' or a 'creator' required.
Yes, I read the article. But....you assumed that I was challenging your video from a creationist stance. And you know that is exactly what you were loading up for. And, you were dumping that video which explains abiogenesis and soup as origins...I don't think you were actually passing it off as fact. And I am surprised you didn't.
2 + 2 is one thing but other things should be discussed as "what it appears". "What seems to be X is X" is a faulty logic.
Your studies on sexuality may be right....but if they have not met the criteria of scientific method then I have no reason to accept them, right? I am totally within the laws of what we accept as knowledge to disregard them. If you trust this in the context of this thread, then why wouldn't you stay consistent on it? I've seen you dig in with both hands on the issue....is that perhaps your beliefs getting the best of you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
