Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
There is also a gain of a new function: the ability to interbreed with the new species.
Click to expand...
You call this a gain? The organism is now less adaptable and subject to extinction because of it.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
"The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of evolution… Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.”

What? New species? Please explain!
Click to expand...
Ponder this for a minute. Really ponder it.
Click to expand...
I have. It says that the smallest changes would lead to new species. Directly contradicting almost everything you have ever posted.
 
buffalo said:
You call this a gain? The organism is now less adaptable and subject to extinction because of it.
Click to expand...
The new species is more adaptable because it can breed with itself, which the old species cannot.

And if the new species is Homo sapiens? Would that not be a “gain”?
 
Bradskii said:
I have. It says that the smallest changes would lead to new species. Directly contradicting almost everything you have ever posted.
Click to expand...
wrong wrong wrong - I have never denied speciation. You still are missing the point. Conveniently ignoring this:

"The mechanism that we have discovered must be infinitely more stable and precise. Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.”
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
I have. It says that the smallest changes would lead to new species. Directly contradicting almost everything you have ever posted.
Click to expand...
wrong wrong wrong - I have never denied speciation.
Click to expand...
Then explain this:
buffalo said:
40.png
PhiriTalk:
Do you have any evidence that “macro” evolution doesn’t happen?
Click to expand...
We do not see any. What we are seeing is species are hovering about a mean within the adaptive limits.
Click to expand...
 
Correct. That is variation within… What we are seeing with miicro-evolution aka adaptation.

When there is a deleterious mutation event and end up with two offspring who can no longer reproduce that is loss of a function once had. Our human classification now calls them two different species. As this keeps happening, the offspring keeps getting less capable and is on the road to extinction.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Correct. That is variation within… What we are seeing with miicro-evolution aka adaptation.

When there is a deleterious mutation event and end up with two offspring who can no longer reproduce that is loss of a function once had. Our human classification now calls them two different species. As this keeps happening, the offspring keeps getting less capable and is on the road to extinction.
Click to expand...
So let’s have this out in the open. These are your words:

"Adaptations are the built in capabilty to make changes to fur color, beak size and shape: things like that. No one argues this happens.

Macro is the thinking that a series of these small steps will create new and novel features. It does not happen.

Maybe you missed it. I have never ever denied adaptation (micro-evolution) happens. I have yet to see empirical evidence that is observable, repeatable and predictable evidence of macro-evolution. I will maintain my position until I see it.

You are but don’t yet realize it. You are standing on obsolete science. Evolution is not empirically proven. If it was there would be no argument, by anyone. To be clear no one argues micro evolution, macro is the issue. "

Those words deny that macro evolution occurs. And as we have see so often, macro evolution as far as you are concerned is the formation of a new species. You have denied the emergence of new species constantly maintaining with every example that the changes are only micro evolution.

From your own words above and from the linked pages in your own web page you have now admitted that you do not deny speciation. Which DIRECTLY contradicts every comment shown above.
 
Bradskii said:
Those words deny that macro evolution occurs. And as we have see so often, macro evolution as far as you are concerned is the formation of a new species. You have denied the emergence of new species constantly maintaining with every example that the changes are only micro evolution.
Click to expand...
Your mistake is to think these mistakes add up to more new and novel features. They don’t.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Those words deny that macro evolution occurs. And as we have see so often, macro evolution as far as you are concerned is the formation of a new species. You have denied the emergence of new species constantly maintaining with every example that the changes are only micro evolution.
Click to expand...
Your mistake is to think these mistakes add up to more new and novel features. They don’t.
Click to expand...
Within a few posts you have denied macro evolution, claiming it would result in new species. You have denied links from your own web page showing that new species exist. Then you state that you have never denied speciation.

Depending on one’s mood, this can be viewed as incredibly embarrasing or hugely entertaining.
 
Pattylt said:
I don’t want to bomb you with multiple trains of thought but when you have a chance, can you explain how ID’s designer can be falsified? Or ID itself?

Thanks again.
Click to expand...
So this is what is going on at the Royal Society. They now are attempting to prove natural selection is a design agent with purpose. If they are successful that would pretty much falsify ID.
 
Pattylt said:
40.png
buffalo:
I may be wrong but doesn’t it claim there IS a designer…is that falsifiable?

Thanks
Click to expand...
I don’t want to bomb you with multiple trains of thought but when you have a chance, can you explain how ID’s designer can be falsified? Or ID itself?

Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Don’t disturb him, Patty. He’s trying to work out how to deny that he doesn’t deny macroevolution aka speciation.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
macroevolution aka speciation.
Click to expand...
If you want to now agree what you call macro-evolution is degradation, I will happily go along.
Click to expand...
I don’t need to do anything. You have now agreed that you don’t deny speciation aka macro evolution. That’s something you have been denying for thousands of posts. You have already happily gone along.

Here’s another quote from you:

"Species is a man made classification. I also showed you the wiki definition. DO you agree with this or not? “The evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct or reproductively isolated as species is called speciation”

There ya go. A distinct population which can now interbreed with the new species but cannot with the old. That’s like you being able to have children with any woman you meet. But you cannot with Lucy, or an Austrolopithicus afarensis.

Good luck trying to convince anyone that that’s a bad deal. She’s a little hirsute for my tastes…
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
There ya go. A distinct population which can now interbreed with the new species but cannot with the old.
Click to expand...
Yup - a loss of function.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry. You missed the bit about being able to have children with your new species. You lose the ability to have kids with Lucy and gain the ability to have kids with Beyonce.

And you think that’s a step in the wrong direction? Dear me…

Be honest. Which would you prefer?
 
Last edited:
And just to confirm…

That evolved ability to have kids with Beyonce is speciation which you class as macroevolution. And you have agreed that you don’t deny that happens.

I forget. What was the point of all your posts? About evolution that is. Not entropy. Not that I can find anything at all on your site regarding that particular subject by the way. Any help you can give me will be appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top