100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[RoboTimbo]

Do you understand that wishing something to be true doesn't really make it true, in spite of how foolish your imagination makes it?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Do you believe your understanding of evolution to be the same as David Henson's, greater than his, or less than his?

 

[paximperium]

So there is none, and everything must conform to the operating assumption or be mocked and rejected.

Yes there is none. Since there is none, what is there to reject except the delusional ranting of some ignorant nutters who don't even understand what they are talking about?

 

[paximperium]

I'm curious.
Do our Creaotards have actual criticisms of the Theory of Evolution or are they just busy attacking their own ignorance and exceptionally stupid version of it?
I can wholeheartedly agree that their version of "evolution" is exceptionally stupid.

 

[154]

At present nothing. Evolution is pretty much fact. The details are what's being worked on at the moment.

Nonsense, but you are faithful. What is your reward for such strong faith?
Have you ANY critical skepticisms? Any?

 

[technoextreme]

Nonsense. Almost all mutations are a scrambling of information that is counter-productive in result. No mutations add improved information.

So how do you explain Richard Lenski's results. Its pretty obvious that the mutations that he observed resulted in a population of bacteria being able to process a source of food that they don't normally utilize and is one of the defining traits of said species of bacteria.

 

[154]

Have did the non-living spring to life, Paxgenius? Give me your best understanding.

 

[excaza]

Nonsense, but you are faithful. What is your reward for such strong faith?
Have you ANY critical skepticisms? Any?

Are you skeptical of gravity? Magnetism?

Have did the non-living spring to life, Paxgenius? Give me your best understanding.

For the million billionth time ORIGIN OF LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION
It's like someone asking "yeah well what made the Earth" as an argument against gravity. Completely, totally irrelevant.

 

[John Jones]

"Evolution" is not "reproduced."
The "empirical evidence" is very limited far short of what unbelievers have imposed upon it in assumption.

"Predictive value" is essentially prophecy. Man's is nothing. God's is perfect. Yours I couldn't care less about since these distinctions seem to be news to you.
"Peer review" is men seeking the approval of men. Men are subject to all the limitations of mere men.
"Science" may be a "discipline" but "scientists" are not much more disciplined than you.

I guess someone pushed 154's buttons.

 

[154]

So how do you explain Richard Lenski's results. Its pretty obvious that the mutations that he observed resulted in a population of bacteria being able to process a source of food that they don't normally utilize and is one of the defining traits of said species of bacteria.

Of course, I'm sthoopid. I don't know about his highness Richard Lenski.

 

[technoextreme]

Of course, I'm sthoopid. I don't know about his highness Richard Lenski.

You said something that I know is false. I was just asking how you reconcile what you said with Richard Lenski's results. I wasn't calling you stupid. I wasn't calling you an idiot. I was just asking a question hoping to get an answer but all I got is a logical fallacy.

 

[154]

Are you skeptical of gravity? Magnetism?

No.

For the million billionth time ORIGIN OF LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION

Says you. Why says you? And fine,whatever, so how do YOU say the non-living became alive?

 

[excaza]

Says you. Why says you? And fine,whatever, so how do YOU say the non-living became alive?

What does it matter? It's irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

Why aren't you skeptical of gravity or magnetism? Can you provide scientific alternatives?

 

[Olowkow]

So what is the "scientifically" tenable alternative to the theory of evolution?

"Natural selection" is just a fact. My favorite analogy is the way the sand on a beach is selected and deposited according to grain size. It is very unlikely that there is any "tenable alternative" to it. That is why it is such a remarkable idea. You use the term "theory of evolution" and "tenable alternative" in the same sentence in such a subtly odd way that even I as a layman find it to be an uncomfortable juxtaposition of terms.

I should think any ideas/hypotheses which, by their inclusion in or addition to present theory, would be an improvement on the theory of evolution by natural selection, are fair game for the new research. It is hard for me to wrap my head around "alternative", just as "things fall", what is an alternative to this theory of gravity? Improvement, yes, alternative? Well...

 

[paximperium]

Nonsense, but you are faithful. What is your reward for such strong faith?

I'm sorry. Your delusion does not jive with reality. There is no current alternative to evolution. Would you care to present one? Any?

Have you ANY critical skepticisms? Any?

I'm sorry. This statement is word salad and unintelligible. Please try again.

Have did the non-living spring to life, Paxgenius? Give me your best understanding.

I'm sorry. That is not the Theory of Evolution.
Are you sure you understand the topic being discussed or is it based on your continued proud stupidity and ignorance?
Do you have a valid criticism? Any?

Of course, I'm sthoopid. I don't know about his highness Richard Lenski.

Yes. You are stupid.

Would you please present some valid criticisms or are you continuing to prove how ignorance and stupid you are?

 

[154]

It's irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

That's easier than admitting you have no clue and NO MAN can explain it.

 

[paximperium]

Says you. Why says you? And fine,whatever, so how do YOU say the non-living became alive?

At present that answer is unknown.
Do you have an actual criticism of evolution?

At present one can easily conclude that you have no criticisms at all.

 

[technoextreme]

That's easier than admitting you have no clue and NO MAN can explain it.

Yooohooo.... I asked a question. Never did get a response. I got an sarcastic admission of stupidity but that wasn't what I wanted.

 

[excaza]

That's easier than admitting you have no clue and NO MAN can explain it.

So instead of saying "we don't know yet," you say God did it.

And I ask again, what does that have to do with evolution?

 

[154]

I'm sorry. Your delusion does not jive with reality. There is no current alternative to evolution. Would you care to present one?

GOD

 

[X]

There seems to be a lot of confusion among certain participants in this thread regarding species and speciation.

Earlier, I asked David Henson to define what makes species distinct.
Sadly, my post (and other asking equivalent questions) have been ignored. A pity, but not discouragingly so.


Undaunted, I will attempt to alleviate some of the confusion certain posters are exhibiting.

--- --- --- --- ---

Mr. Henson and 154:

You both appear to view "species" as a concrete term. For you, it seems that an animal either is or is not of a specific "kind" (a term neither you or Kent Hovind has ever defined, allowing you to twist it any number of ways and thereby rendering it useless for meaningful discussion). You have no allowance for variation or subtle differences. Because of this, you appear to hold the ridiculous notion that speciation involves one "kind" of animal giving birth to another "kind". An example of this is your comment about dogs always giving birth to dogs, not cats (I'm going to use cats instead of corn, because, well, let's just say I'm giving you the credit of assuming you were using hyperbole, and weren't actually serious about the corn thing).

The problem that arises here is that evolution does not say dogs give birth to cats. Dogs give birth to dogs, but every individual of a species is different.

Example: You don't look exactly the same as your parents, nor do they look exactly the same as their parents. You look even less like their parents than they do. Your children don't look exactly like you, and similarly resemble their grand-parents and great grand-parents even less than you do. But you all share common ancestors.​

So each dog is different. Over time, these differences accumulate. They are small, but they are legion. And this accumulation is slow. It is measured in generations.

Allow me to create an analogy:

When you were 2 months (0.17 years) old, you were an infant.
When you were 24 months (2 years) old, you were a toddler.
When you were 120 months (10 years) old, you were a child.
When you were 168 years (14 years) old, you were an adolescent.
When you were 240 months (20 years) old, you were an adult.
When you reach 720 months (60 years) old, you will be an old man (or woman, if a sex change is what milks your Guernsey).​

I presume you agree with the above. Now, consider this:
How many months old were you when you stopped being a toddler and became a child?
Changed from being an adolescent to an adult?
At what age (in months) will you become an old man (or woman) instead of an adult?

Think about the above questions for a few moments, then continue reading.

Done? Good.

Now, I have something to confess to you. The questions are dishonest.
I know perfectly well that you can't pin down a specific month between toddler and child. I was originally tempted to ask for days, but the numbers got too big. So, it was dishonest of me to ask a question that I knew to be nonsense.

The issue here isn't that you transitioned from infant to toddler, toddler to child, child to adolescent, and so-on.

It happened. You are, after all, and adult, aren't you?

But asking when is meaningless. You were just as much an adult yesterday as you were today, is that no so? You were just as much an adult last month as you are today, is that also not so?

In any 2 consecutive months, you are effectively unchanged. Human growth doesn't occur rapidly enough for substantial changes to occur in only 1 month. Sure, you might grow an inch one month, and get a few more chin hairs the next, and maybe your voice cracks the following month. But those changes don't change you from being an adolescent the first month to being an adolescent the middle month to being an adolescent the last month.

But eventually, with enough of those small changes building one-upon-the-other, you became an adult.

The problem with my questions, the reason they are dishonest, is simple:
THE WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE THE STAGES OF LIFE ARE CONCRETE, BUT THE LIFE STAGES THEY REPRESENT ARE ANYTHING BUT!

Reality is somewhat more fuzzy than language generally conveys. Languages like solid definitions. Why, if words were pliable they would become meaningless (read: "kinds"). For most things, this works just fine. A machine either works or is broken. A knife is either sharp or it is dull. An airplane is either in the air or on the ground.

But when it comes to figuring out which month of your life represents the change from toddler to child, you run into the problem with fuzziness head on. Any 2 consecutive months, you are the same. A toddler one month is a toddler the month after. A child one month was a child the month before. Yet at 2 years you are a toddler, and at 10 you are a child. Somewhere in-between, things get blurry.

What you are demanding, in your quest to discredit evolution, is the equivalent of my asking which month you became a child.

You are demanding a concrete instant for a gradual change.

Evolution doesn't work that way. And the only people who say is does are the ones who have been mislead by lying con-artists, and sorely mis-educated about the fact and theory of evolution.




Below is a video of exactly the thing I'm talking about. At what point (you can give the nearest second in the video) does the little girl change from infant to toddler?




There is no such instant, is there? Not as a discrete time point. But if you look at a large enough range...


This instant, David and 154, is what you are claiming evolution says happens. But it doesn't. It never has.

Evolution acts across a range. A long range. Imagine each day as a few generations, and you might start to get it.

Small changes, accumulating over long periods of time. What emerges at the end is never the same as what was there at the beginning.




And stop listening to Hovind. The man (along with Cameron/Comfort and Ken Ham) is a moron, a con-artist, and a deluded liar.

You have already been given links to websites and books explaining far more eloquently than I ever could what evolution actually says, and just what the evidence is that led scientists (notably Darwin) to conclude that species change over time.