Evolution is a joke pt XI

This thread is to discuss how evolution is a joke. It’s a religion and how some people have “faith” that what was told to them is actually science. Which evolution is not. Evolution is a faith based religion people believe in and “call” it biology. There is nothing within evolution that points to it being nothing more than faith based religion.

If you feel differently I will be more than happy to hear your opinion…

(Truthfully, I tried to discuss in the other threads, but there are far too many idiotis to have a decent discussion... I now praise those who I used to think were disruptive - Grasping I apologize, RS - I apologize, and all those who I have ever said was in the Peanut Gallery!!! I will now welcome your discussion without judgement... until you post something retarded )

LET THE GAME BEGIN!!!

 

You apologize? Oh man, I was unprepared for this... do you mind if we try to start from the beginning this time? I would be morethan welcomed to start from the beginning and try this again if you are. If we agree to have a decent conversation, I'm in.

 

Agreed.

What is your definition of evolution?

 

I would say that the most prominent definition of evolution would be one that you consistently didn't agree with

The problem with getting into specifics is that things get very confusing very fast. But, I would say that the layman's definition would be something along the lines of descent with modification over successive generations due to natural selection "choosing" (I put quotes to make sure that you know I am not suggesting any intelligence behind natural selection) genetic variation among individual organisms.

And, I would define descent with modifcation as the change in genetic composition of a population.

So, basically the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations due to natural selection "choosing" genetic variations that increase survivability.

 

I don't know how anyone can NOT believe in evolution. Creationism is the joke.

 

You opened the thread and in everyone of these stupid threads you personally have been made a fool of.

Evolution is a process of combining for a new. From combining knowledge to combining two colors to make the 3rd evolved color from the previous

If MORONS want to argue about definitions, then the joke is on the idiots that are debating definitions, not evolution.

You are a bored government employee (self professed), that sits on this forum arguing this same stupid thread title while on public funding (your paycheck is by me/us).


I take it personal that you personally have misrepresented this argument and debate since I have been in this section. Your position is to debate how little you know and that since the sciences have not perfected the description to the molecular level, you continue to rant that evolution is wrong.



These threads are all the be stupidity of a bored government employee that is so obsolete that you can't even keep yourself busy during normal business hours.

Personally, I think you should be fired!

 

Before I say anything I want to know specifically what aspects of evolution you believe are faith based. I'll list a few things, if you think any of them are based on faith rather than science then we'll go from there:

Natural Selection
Decent with modification
Mutation
Mendelian Inheritance (Law of Segregation & Law of Independent Assortment)

 

Another thread? Really? That bored at the Government clerk position today?

 

Human Chromosome 2

Why doesn’t the OP show his knowledge on Evolution, by asking why doesn't the rest of the Grape family have Chromosome 2A and 2B fused together like humans do.

 

Evolution
Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

 

Close enough to the definition that I posted that I can take that….

Now, we need to define what people get mixed up with evolution.

Define if you would please, Speciation and Adaptation.

 

This isn't a thread about Creationism, it's about Biology...

 

Natural Selection and Macro-evolution… Micro-evolution is basically adaptation…

 

But you're a creationist calling evolution a joke, are you not? I just don't get how anyone could deny evolution. I mean, you can observe it every day. There's no faith involved.

 

I take back my apology to you... You obviously cannot resist posting childish banter… That is for your previous post.

Chromo 2 means nothing since the rest of the animal planet does follow the same suit. The example I will give is the American Beaver and Euro Beaver. They look exactly the same, unlike us and the other apes, but they have a different amount of chromosomes with no evidence of what you say is evolution. Therefore, since I provided evidence that Chromo 2 is a bunch of crap why don’t you provide other evidence of it being true…

Lot’s of like species out there that have common ancestors… like ALL OF THEM!!! Should be pretty easy!!! How about mice and rats? Wolves and foxes… Rabbits and Hares… species of frogs… species of trout or salmon… species of anything you want! Show us how you can post this with evidence that can pass the scientific method. OR – DISAPPEAR LIKE YOU USUALLY DO!!!!

Because you know your crap question is simply… guess what? Crap…

 

No... I am a BIOLOGIST calling evolution a joke... You obviously haven't studied biology. As I always do, I suggest you take a course - here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Read up since we will be refering to this site OFTEN!!! It help and hurts both sides, but getting them to read Molwick isn't going to happen...

 

Okay, so you support homosexuality and transgenderism, but you oppose the theory of evolution.

Are you a Log Cabin Republican?

 

Ok, so let's start here.

In order to believe this is faith based you'd have to reject the notion of fitness and it's impact on survivability and that certain adaptations do not promote survival and decrease the odds of predation. Additionally, you'd also have to reject the notion of sexual selection and that certain traits make it more likely for an organism to find a mate and reproduce successfully.

The above is able to be measured, we can observe a population of a period of time in which multiple traits exist and then compare the two (or more) groups likelihood to survive sequential generations and reproduce successfully. Do you reject the data that supports this or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Don't lie. Unless you've had a career change...

 

Speciation - Evolution occurs and eventually gives rise to a new species.
Adaptation- I hate this word since it has so many different meanings in biology. But, the distinction between evolution and the process of adaptation is this: the process of propogating a certain adaptation (which is created through evolution) through a population.

 

I think this is an important note, exactly what degree did you graduate with?

 

He means that he took biology in 8th grade.

 

I'm not great with biology, to be honest. So I'll give you my idea of why evolution is not a joke, without dropping the science.

300 million years ago, mammals didn't exist, but other animals did.
Somewhere between 300 million years ago and 200 million years ago, mammals started existing. (My numbers may be off a little, but you get the gist)

Something caused this change to happen, and other changes like it. Whatever that cause was, we can call it evolution. (even if it happens to have been a supernatural cause)

 

Just want to make an important statement on micro vs. macro evolution...

Macro-evolution doesn't really exist. That is to say, it's not an actual physical process like micro-evolution. Rather, it is simply the aggregate of a large number of micro-evolutionary changes.

The term "macro-evolution" is sometimes used by biologists in reference to this difference in time-span, but it is most often used by those fighting against evolution to create an illusionary division that they are somehow separate processes - they are not.


In other words, there is no physical or biological difference between micro and macro evolution. The only difference is timescale.

 

To disrespect evolution I do not have to NOT believe in survivability… That’s adaptation… I believe in adaptation. I believe sexual selection. Which brings up a good notion. Who has sex? The brightest colors or the most fit for survival… Riddle me that one…

Nope… Still work for the Department of Interior – all day every day…

 

Do you have an example of the creation of new species from Speciation? Because I thought that it was just adaptation and when the species were reintroduced, per experimentation, as the site on Berkeley shows, they can still mate and make babies…

Please give a species which follows your definition.