How we know that evolution is real

slimeball said:
Im arguing that farm animals demonstrate the passing of genes to their children to produce species greatly different to their ancestors - i.e. living proof of evolution.

Also now I think that you are trolling.
Click to expand...

The bible pointed that out thousands of years ago
 
TheComebackKid said:
So what you have is observable examples for natural selection but none for macro evolution? That is all you had to say man.
Click to expand...
No, they're examples of speciation. That's what you asked for.

Now, it is entirely possible that you're using personal definitions of these terms and that your personal definitions are entirely divorced from the scientific definitions but that's your problem, not mine.

In what fucking world is allopolyploid speciation "natural selection". These terms have meanings. Learn those meanings before trying to debate anything.
 
Dochter said:
Frankly it isn't obvious that they are. I've had undergraduate majors in biology make similarly stupid arguments. Long ago I even had a young earth creationist fail their final (resulting in her failing the class) in a capstone evolution course required to graduate with a BSc in Biology by choosing to give nonsense creationist answers. Even if one were a biblical literalist her interpretation of how the flood fit in with Kimura's neutral theory was nonsensical.

They might be trolls but it is impossible to tell because there are people with these exact views out there.
Click to expand...

LogicalInsanity said:
Rip is clearly a troll and has revealed himself as such several times.

Tck...don't think he is. Although it would explain a lot.
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, but if TCK has ever argued with anyone in good faith, I haven't seen it. But, I suppose it is still useful to sort them out if others legitimately think that way.

AmbivalenceKing said:
It might be that their agenda is to actually learn everything there is to know about evolution without breaking a sweat by provoking knowledgeable posters with ludicrous assertions.
Click to expand...

Aha! As a laymen myself on this subject maybe I should be thanking them. I usually learn something.

ripskater said:
I know, why do I and TCk even try arguing with you idiots;)
Click to expand...
Already answered this. You're trolling.
 
Dochter said:
No, they're examples of speciation. That's what you asked for.

Now, it is entirely possible that you're using personal definitions of these terms and that your personal definitions are entirely divorced from the scientific definitions but that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Speciation results from natural selection. But speciation =/= new kinds of animals. So all you're left with is examples of natural selection.
 
sickc0d3r said:
Already answered this. You're trolling.
Click to expand...

I'm trolling because I have Christian beliefs? Some times I smacktalk with you guys. That is what happens in the War Room sometimes. And if you pay attention usually it's my enemies firing the first shots. But somehow it's always the Christians who are trolling?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheComebackKid said:
Speciation results from natural selection. But speciation =/= new kinds of animals. So all you're left with is examples of natural selection.
Click to expand...
Your post: 2+3-8=potato

You don't understand the words you're using. Speciation is the process of a new species being developed. Speciation is, by definition, "new kinds of" organisms. The examples I provided were examples of speciation. Many explicitly did not involve natural selection, which is also a term you seem to fail to understand.
 
Again:
In what fucking world is allopolyploid speciation "natural selection". These terms have meanings. Learn those meanings before trying to debate anything.
 
Dochter said:
Again:
In what fucking world is allopolyploid speciation "natural selection". These terms have meanings. Learn those meanings before trying to debate anything.
Click to expand...

Well it sure isn't one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.
 
ripskater said:
Well it sure isn't one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.
Click to expand...
Except it is.


(well, that example was a plant but that's irrelevant)
 
ripskater said:
I'm trolling because I have Christian beliefs? Some times I smacktalk with you guys. That is what happens in the War Room sometimes. And if you pay attention usually it's my enemies firing the first shots. But somehow it's always the Christians who are trolling.
Click to expand...
Smack talk isn't trolling. Playing a character in every discussion and reciting the same poorly designed arguments over and over again, is. Then again, maybe I am wrong and you're just as dedicated to your crusade as you seem to be. In any case, I am entertained by this, so please carry on friend.
 
LucasWithLidOff said:
One animal doesn't turn into another. It's descent with modification.
Click to expand...
That's more subtle than these folk can grasp. Speciation often is a gradual process of descent with modification--that's actually why many species definitions are problematic, we're attempting to put discrete labels on a continuous process. There are, however, many examples where near complete reproductive isolation emerges from one generation to the next; i.e. one XXXX turning into another.

What's funny about creationists is that they've looked at discussions about descent with modification and recognized that such a process will take longer than can be observed. They then, ignorantly, thought that was a gotcha moment and said "See, you can't show me speciation!".
Unfortunately for them hybrid and polyploid speciation is incredibly important for angiosperms (one of the most specious groups in the world) and also has clearly played a role in fish (e.g. salmonids) and many herps (e.g. NA tree frogs). That's actually a type of speciation that occurs in a discrete manner and one which we can and have regularly observed. Their gotcha moment was actually one that is easily discredited.
 
What I loved about the article is that the point is not 'our ancestors were apes' and the plebs howls 'oh, no fucking way my ancestor was an ape!!1!' but rather 'our original ancestors were microbes'.
 
Can a person believe in creationism and evolution? Like can a person believe there is a god but also believe in evolution? I'm not speaking to any particular religion but the idea that there is a god. Do evolutionists have to be atheists?
 
JDragon said:
What I loved about the article is that the point is not 'our ancestors were apes' and the plebs howls 'oh, no fucking way my ancestor was an ape!!1!' but rather 'our original ancestors were microbes'.
Click to expand...

Like that's an upgrade /rofl /jk : - ]
 
Wow, it is painful to read the back and forth between a Phd and a moron regarding evolution. It's like trying to explain how a car engine works to a 3 year old.

Why don't some of you guys read and learn about evolution before embarrassing yourselves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,671
Messages
55,433,270
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top