Sad, America, just Sad.

[heymrdj]

Im not a teacher, and im not really good at expaining it, but what i am reffering to IS evolution, a single animal does not evovle, but if it has an advantageous characteristic -- that will be passed to its offspring, who will in turn have the same thing, and whos offspring will also have the same thing, THEN they will start to be the ones who survive to mate and THEN the genetic characteristics will be amplified. dont forget, in the BILLIONS of years the earth has been around, evolution has had a lot of time to do its magic.

If you want the best explanation, talk to a teacher , or a biology PHD, and ask them to properly explain the concept of evolution to you , what it is, how it works, and then comment on whether it should be thoroughly discounted as a theory for the origin of species,

i personally find it much harder to believe that each and every species was individually created, even if they were, their environments will change over many millions of years, so either they go extinct, as many have , or they adpat as many also have, this process of adaption over many generations is evolution. the concentration and amplification of advantageous characteristics in some members of a species living in an un ideal climate,

if you want to have evolution proved to you, look at the Galapagos islands, i spent a month doing a case study there, and if you can, after knowing about a place like that, deny some form of evolution, then your never going to except it and we may as well stop now

Best regards,
AMC

I've seen the galapagos island thing....didn't see where all that much proof of anything was there.

Your definition still doesn't explain how we went from kind to kind, your explaining species withing species.

Also in my view the earth isn't billions of years old. If you looked at the links, (cough) Mr. Johnson (cough), you can see the flawed research and evidence used to date the earth.

EDIT: WOOOT I'm an NLC .

 

[AMC]

ok, lets look at the rate of expansion of the atlantic ( just in case you hadnt guessed im reffering to the pangea theory)

If you look at the current rate of expansion of the atlantic ocean ( in other words the rate at which south america and africa are growing apart) and then measure the width of the atlantic ocean from any one point of the one continent to the other.

and divide that figure by the yearly rate of expansion yyou come up with a figure MUCH larger than 10,000 years --

Furthermore, i still fail to see how you see fit to argue with hundreds of the cleverest men on the planet with access to far greater knowledge and research to those authors of the old testament from thousands of years ago that you follow so virulently, these men, scientists i might add are far cleverer than you or I

 

[heymrdj]

ok, lets look at the rate of expansion of the atlantic ( just in case you hadnt guessed im reffering to the pangea theory)

If you look at the current rate of expansion of the atlantic ocean ( in other words the rate at which south america and africa are growing apart) and then measure the width of the atlantic ocean from any one point of the one continent to the other.

and divide that figure by the yearly rate of expansion yyou come up with a figure MUCH larger than 10,000 years --

Furthermore, i still fail to see how you see fit to argue with hundreds of the cleverest men on the planet with access to far greater knowledge and research to those authors of the old testament from thousands of years ago that you follow so virulently, these men, scientists i might add are far cleverer than you or I

Genesis easily provides the explanation. The flood separated the parts of the land, which also explains many of the quircks, such as animals in the artic with food still in their mouths, the fault lines, reversed geological strata and more.

 

[Johnson]

You have refused to answer my questions

Which ones?

 

[heymrdj]

Which ones?

I told you make a full thesis on the origin. Explain out the theory you have from Day 1 to Day present, how we got to where we are now. You seem so defined in it, you apparently know how. So lets hear your answers.

 

[stuffradio]

Genesis easily provides the explanation. The flood separated the parts of the land, which also explains many of the quircks, such as animals in the artic with food still in their mouths, the fault lines, reversed geological strata and more.

That doesn't answer the question

 

[iBrightDev]

heymrdj seems to be a bible thumper, and you just cant win with those types, so, i suggest just leaving it alone before it gets blow into a huge argument. and on that note, Carl, CANADA SUCKS!. man, i love that avatar.

 

[Johnson]

I told you make a full thesis on the origin. Explain out the theory you have from Day 1 to Day present, how we got to where we are now. You seem so defined in it, you apparently know how. So lets hear your answers.

Those weren't questions and you never answered mine.

 

[themoose]

I told you make a full thesis on the origin. Explain out the theory you have from Day 1 to Day present, how we got to where we are now. You seem so defined in it, you apparently know how. So lets hear your answers.

You want him to write a book..?

I hardly think that's fair, the questions he asked you weren't even essay answers.

 

[influct]

Read my post again. You'll see my post has nothing to do with the question I asked AMC. Do you know the difference between species and kinds influct? I mean your post is WAY out of the ballpark of what I asked.

If you want to get into genes, then we can also get into the point that if its long neck is a recessive trait, its chances for a longneck are less than 1/16, and if both are recessive longnecks, well lets not even do that math. A quick try at it in my head would put it at about 1/256, but I think thats just one side of the equation.

were assuming its recessive, it could be dominant, it could even be co-dominant.
the fact is that regardless it gets passed on, we have the genes inside us necessary to fly (no bull) but they are turned off.

 

[heymrdj]

You want him to write a book..?

I hardly think that's fair, the questions he asked you weren't even essay answers.

I said a thesis, not a book. I couldn't care less how long it was, but since he needs to cover 10 billion years of stages, he's gonna need some space.

were assuming its recessive, it could be dominant, it could even be co-dominant.
the fact is that regardless it gets passed on, we have the genes inside us necessary to fly (no bull) but they are turned off.

And what happens when some of these genes activate? 99% of the time we die, thanks to our bodies own mutational defense system. Alot of miscarriages are caused by that system you know.

 

[themoose]

I said a thesis, not a book. I couldn't care less how long it was, but since he needs to cover 10 billion years of stages, he's gonna need some space.

I doubt anybody's going to waste that much time on you. You wouldn't respond to it anyway.

 

[influct]

And what happens when some of these genes activate? 99% of the time we die, thanks to our bodies own mutational defense system. Alot of miscarriages are caused by that system you know.

yay, thank you for falling into that
so surely the peoples who mutate successfully survive and so do these mutations, in the process surviving to pass on these mutations. those who dont - die. wham, evolution.

 

[heymrdj]

yay, thank you for falling into that
so surely the peoples who mutate successfully survive and so do these mutations, in the process surviving to pass on these mutations. those who dont - die. wham, evolution.

Actually the pleasures all mine because your theory, again, is fluked.

Great you successfully gave birth to a snake with a beak rather than a snout. It will now shortly die because it can't eat.

Whats this, this closed circulatory system animal has a hole in its veins for it to slowly become an open circulatory system...whoops...it died of internal bleeding.

A rat with webbed feet? Cool, too bad it can hardly walk, so it got eaten by a predator.

A bird with fur rather than feathers. Well, too bad it never did mate, no plumage to attract a female.

Any other holes in that chain of yours?

 

[Johnson]

heymrdkhead, you do know that evolution doesn't happen overnight, don't you? Fish don't just grow legs with one birth.

Anyways, the comedy of your posts are wearing off, taken over by your pretentiousness and ignorance. I'm no longer posting in this thread, and unlike you, I actually mean it.

 

[Adam]

The success of a genetic mutation on a large scale depends on the current population of the species. If the local population of a given species was 1000 that mutation would have little chance of surviving because the current population still carries a diversely dominant gene pool. If the local population dropped to below 20 then the mutation would have a better chance of surviving into the next generation due to a lack of mating possibilities and serious isolation of the species.

Fish keepers do this all the time. They find mutations in the fish they keep and isolate that mutation using a single pair. This forces the mutation to be passed on to the next generation of offspring. But only a very small portion of these offspring will carry the mutation. So then to strengthen this mutation they mate the father back to the daughters in order to establish a line. This would take several crosses between the father of the mutation and each generation of the offspring as well as mating brother to sister numerous times. Problem with this is by crossing among siblings you dilute the gene pool and eventually other undesired mutations occur. So occasional back crosses are required to keep the gene pool diverse.

Chances of this happening in the wild are rather slim. The mutations usually die off within its current lifetime. The mutations that do survive are passed on to the next generation but are more often retained as a recessive gene and a very insignificant fraction of the species will actually display the mutation.

 

[influct]

Actually the pleasures all mine because your theory, again, is fluked.

Great you successfully gave birth to a snake with a beak rather than a snout. It will now shortly die because it can't eat.

Whats this, this closed circulatory system animal has a hole in its veins for it to slowly become an open circulatory system...whoops...it died of internal bleeding.

A rat with webbed feet? Cool, too bad it can hardly walk, so it got eaten by a predator.

A bird with fur rather than feathers. Well, too bad it never did mate, no plumage to attract a female.

Any other holes in that chain of yours?

my theory is fluked?:S

anyway, you just proved me right again, due to survival of the fittest my snake with a beak dies, and the snake with a snake mouth survives! yay! and so the fittest survives to pass on its lack of beakness

 

[bigperm]

Yep, heymrdj, you just explaned to us how evolution works. Thanks.

 

[themoose]

Actually the pleasures all mine because your theory, again, is fluked.

Great you successfully gave birth to a snake with a beak rather than a snout. It will now shortly die because it can't eat.

Correct. Not all mutations are for the good.

Whats this, this closed circulatory system animal has a hole in its veins for it to slowly become an open circulatory system...whoops...it died of internal bleeding.

It obviously doesn't happen like that. And I'm not a scientist so I won't answer it, but I'm sure there are many that can. Positively sure.

A rat with webbed feet? Cool, too bad it can hardly walk, so it got eaten by a predator.

No, it can't walk - but it can swim. Much faster than the other water animals because it has webbed feet. Faster than it's supposed predators. It survived long enough to breed.

A bird with fur rather than feathers. Well, too bad it never did mate, no plumage to attract a female.

Feather's don't mutate into fur in one mistake.

Any other holes in that chain of yours?

The "other" doesn't quite fit in this sentance - you havn't bought up any valid ones.

heymrdj, I think you should read up PROPERLY on evolution & mutation - just assuming what you think it says isn't going to work.

 

[heymrdj]

Correct. Not all mutations are for the good.



It obviously doesn't happen like that. And I'm not a scientist so I won't answer it, but I'm sure there are many that can. Positively sure.


No, it can't walk - but it can swim. Much faster than the other water animals because it has webbed feet. Faster than it's supposed predators. It survived long enough to breed.



Feather's don't mutate into fur in one mistake.



The "other" doesn't quite fit in this sentance - you havn't bought up any valid ones.

heymrdj, I think you should read up PROPERLY on evolution & mutation - just assuming what you think it says isn't going to work.

What you're doing is making exceptions to my proofs, trying to give yours base.

No a rat could not survive with one webbed foot. No, all his feet wouldn't be webbed. Remember people, SLOW!!!. It is only a hinderence, not a blessing.

Influct, are you so dumb to actually think I proved you right? How do you get from reptiles to birds if a snake doesn't get a beak. Put some thought into your answers. Take an animal we have today, mutate a vital, life dependent part of his body, and think to yourself, will he survive.

In fact, lets see if your imaginations are working correctly. Make a scenario. Lets see how much you know about anatomy, and the use of a systems vital organs, that you apparently could be skipped for a million or two years till he got better ones.