Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Glark]

There were. What is so hard to understand? You can show that black moths became much more numerous in Britain during the industrial revolution because trees were getting blacker due to pollution. So they increased in numbers and other moths decreased

What does this have to do with a microbe evolving into a human being, exactly?

 

[Techno2000]

If that DNA, whatever it does (thicker skin, scales, etc.) leads to a survival advantage,

It will be millions of years too late.

 

[Glark]

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis (hard coded limits) and variation within.

… not to mention a distinct lack of transitionals between the major groups (reptile to bird, for example). There should be endless examples of these transitionals - where are they?

 

[Techno2000]

Ie it seems most of human history people have believed in religion. Is this part of natural selection?

Because, God has left the memory of himself in the soul of man.

 

[Glark]

Dude but can’t you see that something like that could lead to new species? What if the other moths had died and only these survived?

How do your create 5 threads about this and still not understand it?

Why is it that humans have been exploiting variations in animals and plants for thousands of years and it never occurred to anyone (until the fairy tale of evolution contaminated the scientific world) that a dog, for example, could turn into a non-dog?

 

[Glark]

You doubt that not being able to reproduce is a loss of function? Surely you jest.

 

[Glark]

For instance, look at all the different breeds of dogs. These came about because some dog somewhere or other had some random mutation.

How do you know it’s a “random” mutation? And some breeds are the resultant of inbreeding, so the mutation is artificial and unnatural, not “random”.

 

[Glark]

You are aware giraffes feed from the ground too?

Oh, in that case, the long neck evolved coz long legs evolved first.

 

[Techno2000]

230-Million-Year-Old Mite Found in Amber

“You would think that by going back to the Triassic you’d find a transitional form of gall mite, but no,” Grimaldi said. “Even 230 million years ago, all of the distinguishing features of this family were there — a long, segmented body; only two pairs of legs instead of the usual four found in mites; unique feather claws.”

230-Million-Year-Old Mite Found in Amber

The miniature spider relatives are one of the oldest creepy-crawlies found preserved in amber yet.

www.livescience.com

 

[Glark]

You make too much sense. Keep it up.

Don’t encourage this man. He is an infidel.

 

[Glark]

. On the contrary, there is empirical evidence, both from fossil and live studies.

The fossil record does not provide empirical evidence for your hypothesis - anymore than “crop circles” provide empirical evidence for aliens. What connects the fossil record to your “tubular skin mutations” hypothesis is nothing more than speculation. Besides that, I would bet my bottom dollar that there are no transitional fossils of dinosaurs that demonstrate the gradual development of “tubular skin mutations”.

And what are these “live studies” that demonstrate that reptiles can grow feathers? The mind boggles.

the earliest fossil feathers were also tubes

You need to understand that real science is not built on spurious claims inspired by fantasy and wishful thinking.

Reptilian, mammal and bird skin is very similar in embryo, and scales, feathers and fur develop from little sites where the epidermal cells are smaller and denser than the rest. In reptiles, the scales develop above the placodes, while feathers develop from them. Occasional examples of scaleless reptiles carry a gene which is also responsible for the failure of fur and feather development. In fur and feathers these placodes develop into tubes, and the earliest fossil feathers were also tubes. Models which explain these and other observations in evolutionary terms both fit, and account for, the observations much better than creationist explanations.

Sounds scientific, but this is really just evo-gibberish.

Models …

Models? LOL!! Models can be rigged to say anything.

200 million years old

When scientists start talking about what they think happened 200 million years ago, I tend to just tune out and fall asleep … zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Techno2000]

those animals which can survive

Animals survive or they don’t…that’s it. Don’t try to add anything else to it.

 

[Glark]

Are you saying evolution can’t provide bigger organs and bones, etc?

Size limits are evident in every form of animal and plant breeding (even pumpkins can get only so big - same with cauliflowers, despite having huge brains and self-awareness).

 

[Glark]

Evolution is nowhere alluded to in Genesis.

But … but … but the Great Truth of Evolution must be alluded to somewhere in the Bible, surely!

 

[Techno2000]

Sounds scientific, but this is really just evo-gibberish.

Exactly …

 

[Glark]

How on earth do people explain where Xmas presents come from if Santa doesn’t exist?

 

[Glark]

If 0.001% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead, the Greens and the mass-media will report that 90% of it is dead. Climate-change “science” is as mendacious and untrustworthy as evolution “science”.

 

[Glark]

Animals survive or they don’t…that’s it. Don’t try to add anything else to it.

That’s not fair - the theory of evolution won’t work if we stick to reality and facts.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

… just filtering out the same-old same-old Creationist security blankets …
“Evolution is speculation, not fact.” Quite so, yes we’ve covered that.
“This evolutionist doesn’t believe in evolution.” We’ve covered selective quotation.
“If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.” Covered.
“Random”. Covered.

Ooh! Found some.
buffalo: “How long can a giraffe’s neck get?”
Me: I don’t know. Is is important?

Yoda: “Traps you into limited knowledge does methodological naturalism .”
Me: I’ve no idea what this means.

Now, a really good one:

If you really want to conquer intelligent design advocates, you’ll have to understand what they actually think, and remedy it with better ideas, better observations, and better science. I’ll begin holding my breath. . . now!

Yes! At last you understand. That’s exactly what we need to do. It’s exactly what we want to do. So why can’t anybody tell us what it is “they actually think”? None of you creationist agree on how long creation took, or how many different kinds there were, or what creation means. A little while ago buffalo got completely muddled about the days of creation and was hopelessly unable to explain whether elephants, lizards and fish appeared together or millions of years apart. None of you has attempted to explain how fruit-trees appeared before marine life. Edwest has twice timidly suggested that he has doubts about geological time, but has no idea what his doubts are.

The evolutionists have been absolutely clear in answering everything you have wanted to know. And you all know we’re correct. You have no answer to anything we say other than flat denial or weak humour.

So come on all you creationists. If you believe something, what is it?

And I’d like to know how and why a dinosaur would evolve a bird respiratory system

No you don’t. If you did you could look it up on the internet. There are hundreds of sites explaining exactly that.

How does cold climate stimulate the growth of feathers (that were previously non-existent)?
How does the present of predators stimulate the growth of the feathers (that were previously non-existent)?

If you were interested you would have read my explanations. It’s all there.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Another genuine question from me:
@hugh_farey
Are ideas and feelings evolutionary?
i.e. it seems most of human history people have believed in religion. Is this part of natural selection?
Why have humans evolved to be so insecure of themselves that they turn to religion?

Thank goodness; a pearl amid the dross.

Before we can explore this, we need to define our terms (as usual). Simplistically, I’ll pick on one facet. Religions involve belief in an overwhelming power which contro]s our lives, with which we must have some relation in order to live successfully. Will that do? Now, how can we recognise that in evolution - either in the fossil record, or among genetically related organisms? This is clearly going to be difficult. Ideas don’t fossilise. Still, lets look at some basic evidence, and some observations.

What does a dog think of its master? Or a sheep of its shepherd? Compared to, say, a pet spider of it’s owner? By observing the behaviour of these animals, we might say that the dog appears to have a sense of the power of its master to do ‘impossible’ things (like open a tin of dog-food), and to direct its life (like deciding where to go on a walk). During a thunderstorm, a dog may seek out its master for comfort, as if somehow the master were responsible for the storm. This is not a religion, or much of an idea of God, but it’s something. Social animals, whose natural tribes have an alpha-male (or female), may extend their ideas beyond their own kind towards a more numinous power. Some extraordinary, and still disputed, chimpanzee behaviour seems to show chimps showing subservience not only to their chief, but also to rain, fire or a specific tree. (Find the papers by Laura Kehoe, Andrew Whiten and Jill Pruetz, by typing in their names and ‘chimpanzees’ into a search engine.)

Only a few thousand years ago, humans seem to have treated immaterial forces, such as the sun, the weather and the sea as if they were personally directed towards us, and needed appeasing, and from a proliferation of competing ‘gods’, it seems that the Jews, at least in Eurasia, were the first to recognise a single over-riding power, with a personality, which could be appeased or angered, but who in general looked after his people.

So yes. From these observations I would say that religious belief has indeed evolved.