Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 10:23 AM)kirkvin Wrote:  Have you ever seen a cat turn into a lion or tiger? Or a dog turn into a wolf? Or a goat turn into a cow?

Vegas? *shrugs*





Wait, that's a girl into a tiger! And it was a trick?!! Not real magic? Okay, I'm sold, buddy! I'll pull out my Book of Mormon and tell ol' Joseph Smith I was sorry. Wait, if man did that...not magic...there's no god still because it was man that was smart enough to pull that off instead of there being magical forces....hmm...I have plenty to think about here Consider

[Image: notagain.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Miss Suzanne's post
27-04-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
By the way, I have seen a cat turn in to a lion, and I've seen one turn into a tiger.

Just start with the type of cat that is a lion, give it and infinitesimally small about of time and you have a lion. You can do the same for they type of cats that are call tigers, too.

Really easy to do!

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 03:23 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  By the way, I have seen a cat turn in to a lion, and I've seen one turn into a tiger.

Just start with the type of cat that is a lion, give it and infinitesimally small about of time and you have a lion. You can do the same for they type of cats that are call tigers, too.

Really easy to do!

Have you seen the evolution of a housecat? Whenever the night comes, my cat turns into an asshole.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Logisch's post
27-04-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 03:32 PM)Logisch Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 03:23 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  By the way, I have seen a cat turn in to a lion, and I've seen one turn into a tiger.

Just start with the type of cat that is a lion, give it and infinitesimally small about of time and you have a lion. You can do the same for they type of cats that are call tigers, too.

Really easy to do!

Have you seen the evolution of a housecat? Whenever the night comes, my cat turns into an asshole.

He never asked about "housecats". he just said "cat. Tigers and lions are already cats so...already done!

My own cat is super sweet, and way too nice for being a cat. If anything I need her to love me just a little bit less...

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 10:23 AM)kirkvin Wrote:  Have you ever seen a cat turn into a lion or tiger? Or a dog turn into a wolf? Or a goat turn into a cow?

You people claim things similar like these had taken place over billions of years ago, but i have not observe any of these now taking place and the "Big Scientific Claim" is that "Science is Base On Observation", so have you observed or observe any of these happening? If yes, please be specific and detailed in your answer. Thanks.

Shoo fly!

(goodness it's been a while since I've said that. Felt good)


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
27-04-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 10:23 AM)kirkvin Wrote:  Have you ever seen a cat turn into a lion or tiger? Or a dog turn into a wolf? Or a goat turn into a cow?

You people claim things similar like these had taken place over billions of years ago, but i have not observe any of these now taking place and the "Big Scientific Claim" is that "Science is Base On Observation", so have you observed or observe any of these happening? If yes, please be specific and detailed in your answer. Thanks.

DO YOU THINK THAT WRITING SOMETHING IN BIG FUCKING LETTERS THAT I CAN SEE FROM SPACE WILL MAKE WHAT YOU HAVE TO WRITE MORE INTERESTING OR TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Germans are coming's post
27-04-2014, 06:23 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 10:23 AM)kirkvin Wrote:  Have you ever seen a cat turn into a lion or tiger? Or a dog turn into a wolf? Or a goat turn into a cow?

You people claim things similar like these had taken place over billions of years ago, but i have not observe any of these now taking place and the "Big Scientific Claim" is that "Science is Base On Observation", so have you observed or observe any of these happening? If yes, please be specific and detailed in your answer. Thanks.

IS this a sock of the last moronic asshole who posted incoherent bullshit in large type?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2014 08:14 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 10:23 AM)kirkvin Wrote:  Have you ever seen a cat turn into a lion or tiger? Or a dog turn into a wolf? Or a goat turn into a cow?

You people claim things similar like these had taken place over billions of years ago, but i have not observe any of these now taking place and the "Big Scientific Claim" is that "Science is Base On Observation", so have you observed or observe any of these happening? If yes, please be specific and detailed in your answer. Thanks.

This is a question about evolutionary science. It has little to nothing to do with atheism or theism. It properly belongs in the Creationism or Science forums on this site.

I am not a scientist in any related field, but I'll give this my best lay response.

First, evolution does not suggest that a cat will turn into a lion or a tiger, or a dog into a wolf, or a goat into a cow, or any existent species into any other existent species. If anything like these were to actually happen, it would fly in the face of current scientific understanding and the entire theory would need to be revisited. That you should ask this question shows that either that you are so woefully uneducated in what you are attempting to criticize that you can't even understand what a coherent criticism would be, or that you are being deliberately dishonest. I will do you the favor of assuming the former, and I will recommend that you undertake a genuine study of the field before you attempt to punch holes in it. I will also recommend that you not derive this education from fundamentalist, creationist sources, as most are deliberately dishonest -- bearing false witness, to use the religious vernacular -- and the rest (such as, I am charitably presuming, you) repeat long-debunked criticisms without the slightest hint of the skepticism they heap on evolutionary theory. That they approach these sources unequally shows their fundamental disinterest in what is actually true, and is what makes them so gullible. For your own research, this looks like a decent place to start. I'm sure other posters can recommend other places you can go, some of which might not be obscene.

Science must indeed be based on observations, but they need not be direct observation or immediately performed. Indeed, it is usually impossible to make direct or immediate observations... even things we see with our own eyes come to us indirectly by way of photons, slightly delayed by the finite speed of light. In a detective story, the police may make observations about a crime scene -- the distribution of the blood splatter, the location and caliber of shell casings, and so on -- long after the crime in question occurred, using only fragmentary evidence, to construct an accurate narrative of what happened. The post-hoc evidence includes: A self-consistent model, genetic codes, fossil evidence, distribution patterns, homologies. We also have examples of evolution that do occur on a human timescale.

I will start with the model itself, since you seem to be ignorant of it, having instead bought into the sort of straw man attacked by the typically dishonest theist apologist. Here's a (lay version of) the real model. Evolution occurs when we have three elements: Inheritance, variation, and selection. A forth element, isolation, leads to the divergence of originally homogenous populations into separate species. Inheritance simply means that an organisms descendents' will be like the organism itself, inheriting many of the original organism's traits. Variation means that the descendents will not be exact copies of the original organism, and that new traits can manifest in descendents. Selection means that some element -- human preference, environmental pressures, whatever -- culls certain sets or combinations of traits from the gene pool, either before they can reproduce or before they can reproduce in as great a number as their competitors, or otherwise increases and favors the reproduction of those traits or combinations of traits. "Natural" selection simply refers to selection that occurs by means other than human preferences. Finally, isolation refers to situation in which two populations do not interbreed, usually because of physical separation but sometimes through individual preference. Those are the ingredients required for the model. Given these ingredients, new traits arise (variation), prove either advantageous to their own reproduction or disadvantageous (selection), and are passed on to the descendents in disproportionately higher or lower quantities, respectively (inheritance). Over the course of many generations, the introduction of newer, more advantageous traits sweep through the general population, while disadvantageous traits are eliminated, resulting in a change in the species. When two populations of a species are isolated, the increasing differences between these populations (caused by the first three elements) eventually makes breeding between the populations impossible, resulting in separate species. Viewing this, as we do now, from the present, we may look at the separate species, infer that they share common ancestry, and go looking to see of the evidence holds this up.

As an example, consider a population of rabbits with genetic traits for both brown and white coats... that is, variation. In grasslands, the brown rabbits will have a distinct survival advantage. The white rabbits will stand out, making them easy prey, while the brown rabbits will make them look like nothing more than a bare patch of dirt or some dry grass. Some white rabbits will survive to adulthood to breed and even breed often, and some brown rabbits will be killed before they can reproduce, but by and large far more brown rabbits will reproduce than white rabbits. That is the selection element. The brown rabbits will tend to have offspring that are also brown, and the white rabbits will tend to have offspring that are white. That is the inheritence element. It doesn't take long to conclude that the white rabbits will die off and the brown rabbits will prosper, and that there will be very few rabbits that are white. But suppose that the same original species (the one with both white and brown coats) were to find itself in an arctic environment instead. Here, the white coats would blend in with the snow, and the brown coats would stand out, resulting in a population of rabbits with predominantly white fur. We can imagine other traits that would manifest in one population but not the other: tolerance for temparature extremes, paws better suited for burrowing in snow or in dirt, large litter sizes requiring a bounty of grass versus small litters requiring only what can be scrounged from under the snow, and so on. As these populations became too distinct to interbreed, they would become separate species.

It should be noted that the gaps in the evidence -- some of which we will eventually fill in, and none existing where the theory suggests there should not be a gap -- are actually beneficial. In addition to being based on observation, science is predictive... not always in what will happen, but in what we will discover. We look at the body of observations we have, construct a theory based on that body, and then make predictions based on that theory about what new observations will occur in the future (even if they are observations OF things which occurred in the past). Those gaps are how we check the theory. If the future observations do not match the theory, then the theory (or at least our understanding of its implications) must be either revised or abandoned. This has happened several times with evolutionary theory. As one example, Darwin's original version of the theory suggested that the rate of change was gradual and steady. Fossil evidence showed that it was actually bursts of change followed by epochs of stasis, what is known as "punctuated equilibrium". The "gradual and steady" part was eliminated from the theory, but the rest of the theory held together very well even in light of this new evidence, so it was retained. As another example, the discovery of chromosomes as a mechanism for inheritance, and mutation in chromosomes as a mechanism for variation, seemed to give strong definition to the theory, and they were wrongly identified as the agents of inheritance and mutation. But since then, other modes of inheritance and especially variation have been discovered, and the part of the theory which identified chromosomes as the primary agents has been eliminated. They are now just one actor among many. Now, suppose your own example (if it IS your own example, which I doubt) of a goat magically transforming ITSELF into a cow were to happen. Evolutionary theory predicts that this would NOT happen. If it did, then the theory would have to be revised, if it could be somehow salvaged in face of this new evidence. More likely, it would have to be scrapped entirely. But this has not happened. The theory itself has survived and flourished with only these minor changes like those I've described required.

While it does need to be tested against reality, the theory itself can also be tested in the abstract. We can construct simulations in which we have variation, selection, isolation, and inheritance, and discover that evolution is indeed the consequence of this. There is even a branch of computer programming, called genetic algorithms, which constructs very sophisticated, powerful, and accurate AIs using a method that is basically evolution. They're actually breeding software, and it WORKS. The proof's in the pudding.

So that's what evolutionary theory actually says. Let's talk about the evidence that it is actually occurring in the world.

First, the prerequisites (inheritance, variation, selection, and isolation) are clearly present. Offspring tend to take after their parents, but new traits do arise, or old traits can be eliminated or gain increased emphasis. Individual survival can be influenced by these traits, resulting in increased or decreased number of offspring... selection. And populations of the same species can exist in isolation. So if evolution is a logical consequence of these four prerequisites, then it should be occurring.

The first body of evidence is observed evolution. The theory predicts that it takes many generations for this to occur, so we should ideally go looking for it in species that have a rapid cycle from birth to reproduction. More generations in less time should mean more evolution for us to observe. The most rapidly evolving organisms that we have are bacteria, though these are complicated because they have considerably different modes of inheritance than larger organisms. Nevertheless, bacteria HAVE been observed to evolve, and often to our detriment, resulting in species that are resistant to multiple antibiotics and a serious threat to our lives... as well as more benign specimens capable of, for example, eating nylon once that food source was introduced into the environment. Viruses are no longer considered living things (because of a change in semantics, rather than a change in what we know about them), but then neither is software, and virus evolution has also been observed. Insects have evolved resistances to poisons and changed coloration, species-wide, to blend into their environments, and on the scale of megafauna we have observed the skeleton of the cheetah, as one example, changing in a sort of arms race of speed in a (losing) attempt to keep pace with the gazelle. Also, we see ring species like the Green Warbler. This species seems to have begun on the south side of the Himalayas, and spread out to the east and west around it. Each population can breed with its immediate neighbors, forming a chain of commonality stretching around the Himalyas, which would suggest that they are all one species. However, where the two ends of the chain meet, the breeds at either end are so different that they cannot interbreed at all. If some disaster -- a massive meteor strike or megavolcano, perhaps -- were to wipe out the populations at the center of the chain, the survivors at either end of the chain would clearly be two different species.

Another body of evidence is artificial breeding. This is still evolution, and well-recorded evolution, but the selection is artificial rather than natural. Nevertheless, we have produced crops which are wildly different from their natural originals (bananas and corn, for example) and which cannot interbreed with the original species, making the domestic varieties new species. On the animal side, consider the wide variation of breeds of dogs. Common ancestry is fairly well documented, thanks to breeder records dating back for centuries. We don't see a wolf turning into a dog, but we do see one type of dog turning into several hundred types of dog. Not in our lifetimes, granted, but as a centuries-long process with strong historical documentation most steps of the way. Now consider two types of dog: The chihuahua and the St. Bernard. For hopefully obvious reasons, these two cannot interbreed. Chemically, it might be possible to hybridize them, but physical copulation would be an insurmountable hurdle. (Er, no pun intended.) If humanity, for whatever reason, were to cull the entire population of domesticated dogs EXCEPT for the St. Bernard and the Chihuahua, they would now be two different species. For now, they're simply extremes of the same species, much like the two ends of the Green Warbler's ring.

Next, homology. Homologies are common characteristics derived from a common ancestor. For example, mammary glands (ie, nipples for nursing) are unique to mammals... hence the name mammal. Also common to mammals are the array of bones in the appendages -- always four appendages, ending in hands or feet with five rays of small bones. There is considerable variation in this. For example, humans have five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot, while dogs instead have a footpad consisting of three toes, a back-segment of the pad which is analogous to a fourth toe, and something called a "dew claw" (if it is not amputated at an early age, which most breeders do). Fish do not have these traits. So, what about sea mammals? Let's look at whales in particular. They've got mammary glands, so under the theory of common ancestry we would expect them to also have that skeletal structure. On first glance they do not -- they have two flippers and large tails, but are missing feet and toes. But the skeleton shows us otherwise. There are actually vestigial remnants of the pelvis and legs -- something which has no evolutionary advantage in the present, but which hints at a heritage which is slowly being eliminated in the face of modern pressures. The forward flippers, rather than being single bones, or the radial webbed claws of birds, actually have distinct ulnas, radiuses, and phalanges. Their skeletons have ARMS and HANDS, and it's the flesh that makes them flippers. There are millions of homologies like this. Birds are the only class of creature with feathers, for example, and all vertibrates have nervous systems. If we were to ever see a mammal with feathers.... that wasn't the result of gene splicing... then evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble. But we don't. These are more observations supporting the theory of evolution.

We also have genetic evidence. I won't go into the details, but closely-related genetic codes indicate a recent common ancestor, and very different genetic codes indicate a very distant common ancestor. This is true both within species and between different species.

And then... there's the fossil evidence. We can observe in modern times how geology lays down sedimentary layers and how long it takes. We can carbon date, and argon date, and use many other techniques for dating sedimentary layers. All these techniques match up. We can compare chemical signatures in rock that are signs of what was happening in the atmosphere when that layer was laid down, to similar signatures in tree rings and ice core samples, and those techniques match up too. On and on. All of this lets a competent geologist get a pretty good date for how old a layer of rock is. And most of those layers of rock have fossils in them. Those fossils do a pretty darn good job of filling in the tree of life, if not from the very beginning, then at least from the advent of the trilobite. It's not complete (nor, given the vagueries of chance which dictated which bones or imprints got fossilized, would we expect it to be), but as we fill in the gaps, the new evidence either conforms with expectations, or requires only minor modifications. We see fairly transitions from single, ancient common ancestors into varieties of modern descendents, vindicating evolutionary theory. We do not see anything that would violate evolutionary theory, such as a rabbit in the Jurassic period. (A common Creationist counter-argument is that all these fossil layers were laid down during Noah's flood. This does not, pardon the term, hold water. One would expect at least as many rabbits to have lived and died before such a Flood ever occurred, as were killed in the Flood itself. Yet we do not find a single rabbit skeleton anywhere where we find dinosaurs much less below them.)

But the biggest piece of evidence for evolution is not the pieces of evidence for evolution. It is the whole. It is the way that this multitude of evolutionary bodies comes together and matches up in every way possible. Evolution is not only proven... it's been proven through many, independent chains of evidence, work shown, notes given, citations offered, counterarguments properly examined and considered, and a cut-throat, trial-by-fire peer examination every single step of the way. There is not a single competing theory that can honestly make anywhere near the same claim.

EDIT: To everyone else, yes, I know, this explanation is totally wasted on the OP, who probably won't even stick around to see replies and probably doesn't give a damn about anything other than aggravating people. But it's good to have at least one reasonable counter to every bullshit post for the third parties to read.... and every now and then, we might actually snag some brainwashed sap who's open to hearing the truth.

EDIT 2: As mentioned above, I'm not an expert in the field. I invite any corrections from people who are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
27-04-2014, 07:38 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
(27-04-2014 06:23 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  ...
IS this a sock of the last moronic asshole who posted incoherent bullshit in large type?

Nope. I did an IP check before approving it?

I just figured that you needed a new chew-toy since you had destroyed all the other ones around here.

I didn't want you getting bored.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-04-2014, 07:55 PM
RE: Some Question to all evolutionists or Atheists.
[Image: hKeQZmN.gif]

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Logisch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: