Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Evolution Science Or Religion?

evolution biology charles darwin genetics

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#18 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:44 AM

Pure speculation, citation please!

 

Interesteing. First you haven't researched this area but you already know it is speculation,??????????????????

 

Interesting, very interesting, mate. And a bit dumb I must say.



#19 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:45 AM

I would suggest you back that up with a citation please..

 

 

No problem at all. Point is, it is a bit off topic, mate. So, I won't do that here so I respect the people here.



#20 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:07 PM

That is a cheap shot,, mate!
 
Why do you say that?
 
I really mean every word I write here!


Meaning it and backing it up are two separate things...

#21 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:10 PM

And yes, science is really just a disguised religion to control the masses!
 
Once religion was used to control the masses, but when that didn't work very good anymore, the same
 
people that invented the religions invented........science!
 
 
Why did you fall for this rubbish? Probably because at school they told you indirectly to follow this religion, right?


Again, you make an assertion about science please back it up!
 
 

Nope, that is NO EVIDENCE, you gave a DESCRIPTION
 
A far as I know is a DESCRIPTION not the samen as EVIDENCE
 
Please show me E V I D E N C E, you just very simply can't.

 
Again you ignore the facts in favor of your own baseless assertions, please back this up!
 

No, there isn't any for macro evolution. OR show me!
 
 
Duh????
 
 
It doesn't OR show me the evidence. Writing that there is evidence is different from showing evidence
 
And then there is THIS
 
 
 
 
 
And This:
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Duh???
 
 
Genetic mutation leads to destructiveness, NOT a better adopted way! AND you are mixing up macro and micro evolution!
never a new animal will be produced!
 
 
 
Again, you are mixing up micro and macro evolution. I am only talking about macro evolution as having no evidence.
 
 
You are again mixing up the two. btw natural selection doesn't add anything!


Again please back up these baseless assertions with evidence!

#22 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:25 PM

How silly you are

 

EVIOLUTION should back this up! It simply can't.

 

if there is no proof there is NO (macro) EVOLUTION!!

 

Too simple eh?



#23 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • 813 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 01:54 AM

Tell me where you get lost.

 

Step 1 - Mutation
Random mutation can lead to new traits that are either an advantage or a disadvantage to the carrier.

 

Step 2 - Natural Selection
Those that carry a mutation that is a disadvantage are less likely to reproduce than those without that mutation, while those that carry a mutation that is an advantage are more likely to reproduce than those without that mutation.

 

Step 3 - Survival Of The Fittest
Advantageous mutations tend to thrive while those that are a disadvantage tend to get eliminated from the gene pool leading to a gradual improvement of species, in that they become more adapted to their environments over time, which in the short term causes refinements to individual species and in the long term causes multiple species to evolve from a common ancestor.



#24 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 02:40 AM

Tell me where you get lost.

 

Step 1 - Mutation
Random mutation can lead to new traits that are either an advantage or a disadvantage to the carrier.

 

Step 2 - Natural Selection
Those that carry a mutation that is a disadvantage are less likely to reproduce than those without that mutation, while those that carry a mutation that is an advantage are more likely to reproduce than those without that mutation.

 

Step 3 - Survival Of The Fittest
Advantageous mutations tend to thrive while those that are a disadvantage tend to get eliminated from the gene pool leading to a gradual improvement of species, in that they become more adapted to their environments over time, which in the short term causes refinements to individual species and in the long term causes multiple species to evolve from a common ancestor.

 

 

Sounds good eh? However, I will aks again, I need E V I D E N C E 

 

 

There is NONE

 

So far, it is ONLY in the IMAGINATION of the evolutionist.


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 22 July 2015 - 02:43 AM.


#25 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • 813 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 03:08 AM

The evidence is all around us, in the way that species become adapted to their environments. I gave you the example of species that have been isolated in caves and have evolved to use chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis but there's lots of examples, especially in the rain forest. There's a nerve in giraffes necks that goes all the way down and back up again. There's no reason for it to go the long rout unless giraffes used to have short necks. You're just being irrational and ignoring all the blatant evidence that shows gradual changes over time.

 

Besides, advantages will thrive while disadvantages are eliminated. This is obvious and that has to cause improvements over time. There's no dividing line between different species other than arbitrary ones we invent. Macro evolution is micro evolution if you wait long enough. If you want to refute evolution then you need to come up with a mechanism that prevents it because without one it simply has to happen.



#26 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 03:12 AM

The evidence is all around us, in the way that species become adapted to their environments. I gave you the example of species that have been isolated in caves and have evolved to use chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis but there's lots of examples, especially in the rain forest. There's a nerve in giraffes necks that goes all the way down and back up again. There's no reason for it to go the long rout unless giraffes used to have short necks. You're just being irrational and ignoring all the blatant evidence that shows gradual changes over time.

 

Besides, advantages will thrive while disadvantages are eliminated. This is obvious and that has to cause improvements over time. There's no dividing line between different species other than arbitrary ones we invent. Macro evolution is micro evolution if you wait long enough. If you want to refute evolution then you need to come up with a mechanism that prevents it because without one it simply has to happen.

 

Oh my! Again, you are mixing up micro with macro evolution.



#27 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • 813 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 03:32 AM

No I'm not.

There's no dividing line between different species other than arbitrary ones we invent. Macro evolution is micro evolution if you wait long enough.

There is no dividing line between micro and macro evolution. When two branches diverge from a common ancestor you get two different species if you wait long enough.



#28 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 05:00 AM

No I'm not.

There is no dividing line between micro and macro evolution. When two branches diverge from a common ancestor you get two different species if you wait long enough.

 

Oh man o man, no dividing line? well. ok, now...prove it!!!

 

If you wait long enough??? that isn't science mate, that is science fiction!



#29 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 05:33 AM

Oh man o man, no dividing line? well. ok, now...prove it!!!
 
If you wait long enough??? that isn't science mate, that is science fiction!


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck troll boy...

#30 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • 813 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 08:34 AM

I don’t need to prove it, it’s common sense. Lions and tigers can cross breed so are they different species or different breeds of the same species? Boas don’t lay eggs. The classification of plants and animals is something that we invented based purely on similarity of traits.

 

When a species branches out in two different directions they will tend to become more and more different over time because of random mutation and natural selection. Wait long enough and you get all the variety of life that we observe.

 

Life forms that evolve in some isolated environments are not the same species that were there before they became isolated, evidence by stuff like no longer needing photosynthesis to survive. That’s a big change.



#31 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 09:26 AM

I don’t need to prove it, it’s common sense. 

 

Say what???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Of course you have to prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

BUT you can't, so now you have to rely on your 'common sense'

 

 

Don't have to prove it??? Your laughable!!!



#32 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8920 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 09:56 AM

How silly you are

 

You're just ranting dear. If you actually want to provide some sort of counter argument to existing evidence, you need to provide it. Calling people names will just get you banned. And not because we're trying to "hide the truth" or abridge your "free speech" (which you really don't have around here), but because you're just being obnoxious.

 

EVIOLUTION should back this up! It simply can't.

 

if there is no proof there is NO (macro) EVOLUTION!!

 

There's lots of evidence dear. Before you ignorantly parrot what you heard at the Intelligent Design conference, you might actually want to do some research. And only then maybe you'll be prepared to do the science to get to the realization that yes Virginia, there is macro-evoloution. 

 

Here's some reading to do before you post again: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

If you want to try to deconstruct any of this evidence here, you're welcome to try, but saying that there's "no evidence" proves nothing but your (probably willful) ignorance.

 

 

Confidence is ignorance. If you're feeling cocky, it's because there's something you don't know, :phones:

Buffy



#33 Ryndanangnysen

Ryndanangnysen

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 10:03 AM

Buffy, I really see a lot of prjection going on from you.

 

Anyway
 

 

There's lots of evidence dear

 

 

SHOW ME That is ALL I ask!

 

 

 

Nobody seems to be able to!

 

 

oh and stop calling me DEAR! will you?! otherwise I will start calling you names as well!

 

 

who the ****iing hell made this idiot admin???????????????????????????????????????????????


Edited by Ryndanangnysen, 22 July 2015 - 10:06 AM.


#34 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8920 posts

Posted 22 July 2015 - 10:11 AM

 

SHOW ME That is ALL I ask!

 

 

No, educate yourself. I am not responsible for your ignorance.

 

I posted a link that you will find edifying. If you do not click it and read it (and you responded far faster than it would be possible to read and understand any of it), then you are indeed willfully ignorant.

 

And before you call that hypocritical, I'd point you to your rant on Vedic Math, where you don't really explain a thing: you completely leave out any explanation of how you can simply jump to combining denominators.

 

One more chance, dude.

 

 

Living is easy with eyes closed, :phones:

Buffy