4/4 Texas Lt. Gov. candidates want creationism in classrooms

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Edited by lostrib (35764 posts) -

Have scientist made life from these "gases that existed in earths primitive atmosphere". Not even close!

Miller excluded oxygen in a reduced atmosphere because life could not evolve with oxygen present. Any amino acids that try to combine are "oxidized". He used methane, ammonia, water, vapor and hydrogen. This creates a serious problem, because ammonia is destroyed by UV light. And UV light must be blocked by ozone which is made from oxygen. See the probblem?

Dude, this was testing hypotheses on abiogenesis, not the Theory of Evolution.

#152 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

Have scientist made life from these "gases that existed in earths primitive atmosphere". Not even close!

Miller excluded oxygen in a reduced atmosphere because life could not evolve with oxygen present. Any amino acids that try to combine are "oxidized". He used methane, ammonia, water, vapor and hydrogen. This creates a serious problem, because ammonia is destroyed by UV light. And UV light must be blocked by ozone which is made from oxygen. See the probblem?

Dude, this was testing hypotheses on abiogenesis, not the Theory of Evolution.

:-) read again. This time slower.

#153 Posted by lostrib (35764 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

Have scientist made life from these "gases that existed in earths primitive atmosphere". Not even close!

Miller excluded oxygen in a reduced atmosphere because life could not evolve with oxygen present. Any amino acids that try to combine are "oxidized". He used methane, ammonia, water, vapor and hydrogen. This creates a serious problem, because ammonia is destroyed by UV light. And UV light must be blocked by ozone which is made from oxygen. See the probblem?

Dude, this was testing hypotheses on abiogenesis, not the Theory of Evolution.

:-) read again. This time slower.

Once again, he was testing abiogenesis not the theory of evolution. He was testing how life started, not how different species are created. Evolution is based on the Origins of Species, not the Origin of life. abiogenesis is something that has not been agreed upon by science, and there are multiple models.

#154 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE, He created a poison that is toxic to life and claimed it to be "successful". There are 6 forms of evolution.

They do use this example to this day to explain how life was created on earth while never creating life. What about that don't you understand? lol.

#155 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3817 posts) -
#156 Edited by lostrib (35764 posts) -

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE, He created a poison that is toxic to life and claimed it to be "successful". There are 6 forms of evolution.

They do use this example to this day to explain how life was created on earth while never creating life. What about that don't you understand? lol.

They use it as a possible model, the origins of life have not been proven or agreed upon. And your comment was on the issues of The Theory of Evolution, but then you went on to comment with the issues relating to abiogenesis. If you are a bio major, you aren't a very good one.

#157 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

LOL a model that failed. If life just started out of nothing then life is created. The model failed and showed zero signs of life. They claimed those elements evolved into life. which is the bases of a form of evolution. They did not produce life. What they created was something that is toxic to life and there for can nor start or evolve period.

But since I am talking to a fellow scientist. tell me, have I yet been wrong? Just because "people agree on a theory" does not mean it is science. I used 100% real science and proved there is more theory to the big bang then science.

#158 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17264 posts) -

LOL a model that failed. If life just started out of nothing then life is created. The model failed and showed zero signs of life. They claimed those elements evolved into life. which is the bases of a form of evolution. They did not produce life. What they created was something that is toxic to life and there for can nor start or evolve period.

But since I am talking to a fellow scientist. tell me, have I yet been wrong? Just because "people agree on a theory" does not mean it is science. I used 100% real science and proved there is more theory to the big bang then science.

what you're saying is so insanely stupid, I can't tell if you're trolling or just really stupid.

#159 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

LOL a model that failed. If life just started out of nothing then life is created. The model failed and showed zero signs of life. They claimed those elements evolved into life. which is the bases of a form of evolution. They did not produce life. What they created was something that is toxic to life and there for can nor start or evolve period.

But since I am talking to a fellow scientist. tell me, have I yet been wrong? Just because "people agree on a theory" does not mean it is science. I used 100% real science and proved there is more theory to the big bang then science.

what you're saying is so insanely stupid, I can't tell if you're trolling or just really stupid.

Prove me wrong then, if any of you prove anything I said to be false I will leave.

#160 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17264 posts) -

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@mrxboxone said:

LOL a model that failed. If life just started out of nothing then life is created. The model failed and showed zero signs of life. They claimed those elements evolved into life. which is the bases of a form of evolution. They did not produce life. What they created was something that is toxic to life and there for can nor start or evolve period.

But since I am talking to a fellow scientist. tell me, have I yet been wrong? Just because "people agree on a theory" does not mean it is science. I used 100% real science and proved there is more theory to the big bang then science.

what you're saying is so insanely stupid, I can't tell if you're trolling or just really stupid.

Prove me wrong then, if any of you prove anything I said to be false I will leave.

what you've said is just so insanely stupid, that for possibly the first time on GS, I don't know what to say. I feel like if you're this stupid in your thinking then you will never reach a level of even average intelligence. there is no point in talking to somebody like you because anything and everything will just go over your head. I can only hope that at some point in your life you realize how stupid you are and neuter yourself for the good of future generations.

#161 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@mrxboxone said:

LOL a model that failed. If life just started out of nothing then life is created. The model failed and showed zero signs of life. They claimed those elements evolved into life. which is the bases of a form of evolution. They did not produce life. What they created was something that is toxic to life and there for can nor start or evolve period.

But since I am talking to a fellow scientist. tell me, have I yet been wrong? Just because "people agree on a theory" does not mean it is science. I used 100% real science and proved there is more theory to the big bang then science.

what you're saying is so insanely stupid, I can't tell if you're trolling or just really stupid.

Prove me wrong then, if any of you prove anything I said to be false I will leave.

what you've said is just so insanely stupid, that for possibly the first time on GS, I don't know what to say. I feel like if you're this stupid in your thinking then you will never reach a level of even average intelligence. there is no point in talking to somebody like you because anything and everything will just go over your head. I can only hope that at some point in your life you realize how stupid you are and neuter yourself for the good of future generations.

Show me whats stupid and explain how.

#162 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE,

Wrong.

He was testing one possibility as to how life began.
"How life began" isn't included in the theory of evolution. The two experiments are unrelated.

Come back when you're able to comprehend science.

#163 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE,

Wrong.

He was testing one possibility as to how life began.

"How life began" isn't included in the theory of evolution. The two experiments are unrelated.

Come back when you're able to comprehend science.

It is actually lol, It is a test done by thousands of schools and universities across the world for organic evolution and or the origin of life.

#164 Edited by TheFlush (5533 posts) -

Even if evolution would be false/disproved, that doesn't mean anything for creationism.
It's not that if one thing is disproven, you can just simply insert something else as truth.
It's about what you can prove, not about what you can disprove.

And by definition, creationism simply isn't science and it won't ever be if they don't adhere to the scientific method.

#165 Edited by lostrib (35764 posts) -

LOL a model that failed. If life just started out of nothing then life is created. The model failed and showed zero signs of life. They claimed those elements evolved into life. which is the bases of a form of evolution. They did not produce life. What they created was something that is toxic to life and there for can nor start or evolve period.

But since I am talking to a fellow scientist. tell me, have I yet been wrong? Just because "people agree on a theory" does not mean it is science. I used 100% real science and proved there is more theory to the big bang then science.

Holy shit, i find it hard to believe that you are a bio major or a scientist. You cannot be this stupid. Miller-Urey was testing abiogenesis, the origins of life. The Theory of Evolution, the change in inherited traits over generations, is entirely different. The common use of the word Theory, and a Scientific Theory are completely different.

#166 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7775 posts) -

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE, He created a poison that is toxic to life and claimed it to be "successful". There are 6 forms of evolution.

They do use this example to this day to explain how life was created on earth while never creating life. What about that don't you understand? lol.

Not understanding the difference between abiogenesis and evolution while spouting complete nonsense. I think you've got everything covered.

#167 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

I love when people can't disprove to what your saying, so they just blindly insult you. If you can't win an argument just insult! Its like you v been programmed to only get information from one source, and not to look at alternatives,well I guess the "education" system has successfully done its job then.

#168 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

How dare you have alternative views, your stupid for not believing in what I believe!

#169 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7775 posts) -

I love when people can't disprove to what your saying, so they just blindly insult you. If you can't win an argument just insult! Its like you v been programmed to only get information from one source, and not to look at alternatives,well I guess the "education" system has successfully done its job then.

You're not even good at trolling. I'd just give it up if I were you.

#170 Edited by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

@mrxboxone: Before I delve any further into this post, I need you to explain something. Where do you draw the line between macro and micro evolution? Speaking in terms of biological processes, what is the difference between the two?

#171 Edited by lostrib (35764 posts) -

How dare you have alternative views, your stupid for not believing in what I believe!

what in the hell are you talking about now

#172 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE, He created a poison that is toxic to life and claimed it to be "successful". There are 6 forms of evolution.

They do use this example to this day to explain how life was created on earth while never creating life. What about that don't you understand? lol.

You're equivocating, and you clearly have absolutely no understanding of what the theory of evolution actually covers.

#173 Posted by Brain_Duster (403 posts) -

How dare you have alternative views, your stupid for not believing in what I believe!

No, you're just stupid and that's all there is to it.

#174 Posted by Brain_Duster (403 posts) -

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE, He created a poison that is toxic to life and claimed it to be "successful". There are 6 forms of evolution.

I can't believe I'm reading this shit.

#175 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@Brain_Duster:

lol I was too intoxicated to notice this at first.

Exactly, and he proved it is not only impossible for life to start but EVOLVE

>States that it's not only impossible for life to begin, but for evolution to occur.

There are 6 forms of evolution.

>Agrees there are 6 forms of evolution.

#176 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

In the 2,000 + years humans have been around any animal no one has produced anything other then what it is. Has a dog ever produced anything other then a dog? no.

When you ask for proof we came from apes, they say its simple.... We share a common ancestors. Yet the proof of such ancestors ever being found doesn't exist. Scientist haven't found one single fossil of the ancestor that "evolved" from ape to man. If there was such an ancestor, according to the evolution theory it would take millions of years for this to happen. and once a human is born it would need another mate. so there would need to be MILLIONS of these ancestors. we have yet to find one.

#177 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7775 posts) -

In the 2,000 + years humans have been around any animal no one has produced anything other then what it is. Has a dog ever produced anything other then a dog? no.

Obviously animals aren't going to give birth to offspring of another species, because that's not what evolution would even dictate. If anything it would be proof AGAINST evolution.

Its as fucking dumb as Kirk Cameron suggesting that we should find a crocoduck.

#178 Posted by lostrib (35764 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

In the 2,000 + years humans have been around any animal no one has produced anything other then what it is. Has a dog ever produced anything other then a dog? no.

Obviously animals aren't going to give birth to offspring of another species, because that's not what evolution would even dictate. If anything it would be proof AGAINST evolution.

Its as fucking dumb as Kirk Cameron suggesting that we should find a crocoduck.

But he does have a good point about the Banana, you can't deny that shit

#179 Edited by chaoscougar1 (36791 posts) -

In the 2,000 + years humans have been around any animal no one has produced anything other then what it is. Has a dog ever produced anything other then a dog? no.

When you ask for proof we came from apes, they say its simple.... We share a common ancestors. Yet the proof of such ancestors ever being found doesn't exist. Scientist haven't found one single fossil of the ancestor that "evolved" from ape to man. If there was such an ancestor, according to the evolution theory it would take millions of years for this to happen. and once a human is born it would need another mate. so there would need to be MILLIONS of these ancestors. we have yet to find one.

hahahahaha
Yes, not a one

#180 Posted by Thessassin (1819 posts) -

This thread is a better read than any novel, i laughed and raged so many times in one topic. Feels like im back in OT.

#181 Edited by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@mrxboxone: humans give birth to strange things all the time. Theres a boy in China was born with eyes that reflect light like a cats, letting him see in the dark.

Now, if we were still hunter/gatherer creatures, such a mutation would allow him to hunt/see in the dark, an obvious advantage which may end up being something he passes on to his offspring.

No variations in humans? I think not.

#182 Edited by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan: I'm not even trolling, I should gave up, since it is like talking to a brick wall with some people. Every one is too serious, and if you believe something other than what most people think you get called a troll or stupid.

#183 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone: humans give birth to strange things all the time. Theres a boy in China was born with eyes that reflect light like a cats, letting him see in the dark.

Now, if we were still hunter/gatherer creatures, such a mutation would allow him to hunt/see in the dark, an obvious advantage which may end up being something he passes on to his offspring.

No variations in humans? I think not.

I am glad you bring this up. And it proves my point very easily. Evolution is a theory. Because it is accepted as a logic and understanding from scientist does not make it proven. And I will give you a very simple example.

We still know less then 1% about the earth and universe. That means there is over 99% we know absolutely nothing about. So to take the less then 1% we do know and say that other 99% + will prove our theory on less then 1%, is ridiculous.

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation. In order for human to evolve into a future separate being, he would need to find a mate with separate dna coding from humans. the ods of that happening are over a 900 trillion. To support the evolution theory they need a common ancestor. There is no link or DNA to any ape fossil to prove that such an ancestor exist. it is a BELIEF among scientist.

Cave men where human. and I explained this in my very long very insightful post.

#184 Posted by lostrib (35764 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone: humans give birth to strange things all the time. Theres a boy in China was born with eyes that reflect light like a cats, letting him see in the dark.

Now, if we were still hunter/gatherer creatures, such a mutation would allow him to hunt/see in the dark, an obvious advantage which may end up being something he passes on to his offspring.

No variations in humans? I think not.

I am glad you bring this up. And it proves my point very easily. Evolution is a theory. Because it is accepted as a logic and understanding from scientist does not make it proven. And I will give you a very simple example.

We still know less then 1% about the earth and universe. That means there is over 99% we know absolutely nothing about. So to take the less then 1% we do know and say that other 99% + will prove our theory on less then 1%, is ridiculous.

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation. In order for human to evolve into a future separate being, he would need to find a mate with separate dna coding from humans. the ods of that happening are over a 900 trillion. To support the evolution theory they need a common ancestor. There is no link or DNA to any ape fossil to prove that such an ancestor exist. it is a BELIEF among scientist.

Your stupidity is stunning. Honestly, whatever school you attended should be shutdown

#185 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36791 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone: humans give birth to strange things all the time. Theres a boy in China was born with eyes that reflect light like a cats, letting him see in the dark.

Now, if we were still hunter/gatherer creatures, such a mutation would allow him to hunt/see in the dark, an obvious advantage which may end up being something he passes on to his offspring.

No variations in humans? I think not.

I am glad you bring this up. And it proves my point very easily. Evolution is a theory. Because it is accepted as a logic and understanding from scientist does not make it proven. And I will give you a very simple example.

We still know less then 1% about the earth and universe. That means there is over 99% we know absolutely nothing about. So to take the less then 1% we do know and say that other 99% + will prove our theory on less then 1%, is ridiculous.

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation. In order for human to evolve into a future separate being, he would need to find a mate with separate dna coding from humans. the ods of that happening are over a 900 trillion. To support the evolution theory they need a common ancestor. There is no link or DNA to any ape fossil to prove that such an ancestor exist. it is a BELIEF among scientist.

Cave men where human. and I explained this in my very long very insightful post.

Love it

#186 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone: humans give birth to strange things all the time. Theres a boy in China was born with eyes that reflect light like a cats, letting him see in the dark.

Now, if we were still hunter/gatherer creatures, such a mutation would allow him to hunt/see in the dark, an obvious advantage which may end up being something he passes on to his offspring.

No variations in humans? I think not.

I am glad you bring this up. And it proves my point very easily. Evolution is a theory. Because it is accepted as a logic and understanding from scientist does not make it proven. And I will give you a very simple example.

We still know less then 1% about the earth and universe. That means there is over 99% we know absolutely nothing about. So to take the less then 1% we do know and say that other 99% + will prove our theory on less then 1%, is ridiculous.

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation. In order for human to evolve into a future separate being, he would need to find a mate with separate dna coding from humans. the ods of that happening are over a 900 trillion. To support the evolution theory they need a common ancestor. There is no link or DNA to any ape fossil to prove that such an ancestor exist. it is a BELIEF among scientist.

Your stupidity is stunning. Honestly, whatever school you attended should be shutdown

All you have done is degrade me, but never tried to prove me wrong. Does the common ancestors between ape and human exist? If so have the remains of such a being been recovered?

#187 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation.

Which is all evolution is.

Lets say for whatever reason, a woodpecker is born with a "deformity" (as you're referring to it), where it's beak is duller, and wider.
The reasoning behind it would be purely genetic, and if the "deformity" caused more difficulty in the animals ability to survive, it would die, failing to pass on successful genes.
However woodpeckers with the sharper beaks, which are more efficient in creating holes in trees, dominate, because that's how they get their food and survive.

Now if we were still hunter/gatherers, such a "deformity" that would allow a person perfect night vision, would be very useful. Possibly life saving, as people could respond to any creature that could hunt at night.
Though, currently, humans do not need such a mutation, as even blind humans are able to cope, due to our ability to train seeing eye dogs, and the creation of braille.

#188 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation.

Which is all evolution is.

Lets say for whatever reason, a woodpecker is born with a "deformity" (as you're referring to it), where it's beak is duller, and wider.

The reasoning behind it would be purely genetic, and if the "deformity" caused more difficulty in the animals ability to survive, it would die, failing to pass on successful genes.

However woodpeckers with the sharper beaks, which are more efficient in creating holes in trees, dominate, because that's how they get their food and survive.

Now if we were still hunter/gatherers, such a "deformity" that would allow a person perfect night vision, would be very useful. Possibly life saving, as people could respond to any creature that could hunt at night.

Though, currently, humans do not need such a mutation, as even blind humans are able to cope, due to our ability to train seeing eye dogs, and the creation of braille.

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

#189 Posted by lostrib (35764 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mrxboxone said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone: humans give birth to strange things all the time. Theres a boy in China was born with eyes that reflect light like a cats, letting him see in the dark.

Now, if we were still hunter/gatherer creatures, such a mutation would allow him to hunt/see in the dark, an obvious advantage which may end up being something he passes on to his offspring.

No variations in humans? I think not.

I am glad you bring this up. And it proves my point very easily. Evolution is a theory. Because it is accepted as a logic and understanding from scientist does not make it proven. And I will give you a very simple example.

We still know less then 1% about the earth and universe. That means there is over 99% we know absolutely nothing about. So to take the less then 1% we do know and say that other 99% + will prove our theory on less then 1%, is ridiculous.

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation. In order for human to evolve into a future separate being, he would need to find a mate with separate dna coding from humans. the ods of that happening are over a 900 trillion. To support the evolution theory they need a common ancestor. There is no link or DNA to any ape fossil to prove that such an ancestor exist. it is a BELIEF among scientist.

Your stupidity is stunning. Honestly, whatever school you attended should be shutdown

All you have done is degrade me, but never tried to prove me wrong. Does the common ancestors between ape and human exist? If so have the remains of such a being been recovered?

Because all you say is stupid shit. It's pretty obvious that your understanding of biology is lacking. I'm not even an evolutionary biologist/geneticist and I can see points where you're wrong.

#190 Edited by lostrib (35764 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone said:

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation.

Which is all evolution is.

Lets say for whatever reason, a woodpecker is born with a "deformity" (as you're referring to it), where it's beak is duller, and wider.

The reasoning behind it would be purely genetic, and if the "deformity" caused more difficulty in the animals ability to survive, it would die, failing to pass on successful genes.

However woodpeckers with the sharper beaks, which are more efficient in creating holes in trees, dominate, because that's how they get their food and survive.

Now if we were still hunter/gatherers, such a "deformity" that would allow a person perfect night vision, would be very useful. Possibly life saving, as people could respond to any creature that could hunt at night.

Though, currently, humans do not need such a mutation, as even blind humans are able to cope, due to our ability to train seeing eye dogs, and the creation of braille.

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

You are making no sense

#191 Edited by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
@mrxboxone said:

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

You're either trolling, or you really need to do some reading on evolution before you try to argue that evolution is false.

We do have remains of common ancestors. and you dont need 2 beings with the same DNA to change a race, because the only way to obtain 2 humans (or any creature) with the exact same DNA, is cloning, which would only create more of the exact same.

#192 Posted by lostrib (35764 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

You're either trolling, or you really need to do some reading on evolution before you try to argue that evolution is false.

We do have remains of common ancestors. and you dont need 2 beings with the same DNA to change a race, because the only way to obtain 2 humans (or any creature) with the exact same DNA, is cloning, which would only create more of the exact same.

Well he's a MS troll/fanboy on system wars. So I guess we shouldn't expect much different here. I just hope that he isn't actively part of the scientific community. I'm having trouble enough believing he has a biology degree, or a degree of any sort

#193 Edited by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

You're either trolling, or you really need to do some reading on evolution before you try to argue that evolution is false.

We do have remains of common ancestors. and you dont need 2 beings with the same DNA to change a race, because the only way to obtain 2 humans (or any creature) with the exact same DNA, is cloning, which would only create more of the exact same.

Show me these remains.

#194 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:
@mrxboxone said:

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

You're either trolling, or you really need to do some reading on evolution before you try to argue that evolution is false.

We do have remains of common ancestors. and you dont need 2 beings with the same DNA to change a race, because the only way to obtain 2 humans (or any creature) with the exact same DNA, is cloning, which would only create more of the exact same.

Show me these remains.

Oh, sure I'll come right over, I'll just pop on over to the secure location where they keep ancient fossils so they dont turn to dust, and borrow them with my library card.

There are many websites out there if you want to learn about the topic.

I'm not your biology teacher, I'm just a guy telling you you're misinformed, trolling, or you're simply arguing about something you know nothing about.

#195 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

@lostrib said:

Well he's a MS troll/fanboy on system wars. So I guess we shouldn't expect much different here. I just hope that he isn't actively part of the scientific community. I'm having trouble enough believing he has a biology degree, or a degree of any sort

Yeah,

However this was an entertaining reason for him to believe evolution is false.

As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

Same DNA coding = Clones.

They should make a movie, where all 9 billion people on earth are just clones, until one time while mating, there's a mutation, and a new human is created.

Oh, right, if they all had the same DNA coding, and were clones, they'd all be the same gender, and they'd be unable to mate.

#196 Posted by MrXboxOne (742 posts) -

I want you to understand the progress of the argument. Because its important that people do this all the time and should be aware of it rather you accept it or not. Very often when people argue with you, especially about religion, they attribute their own beliefs to logic and your belief to psychology. So religious people need to believe in something because they need to feel loved or they need a crutch or there weak. But i believe what i believe because its true and scientific. I want you to be aware that you can not actually disprove someones belief by imputing an unworthy motive to it. You actually have to disprove the belief. So dont let anyone pull the psychological wool over your eyes. You can actually be just as worthy or unworthy of love, just as tough minded, just as thoughtful, just as deep and intelligent and knowledgeable of the universe and still believe in god, as most human beings have through out all of human history as if you are atheist.

#197 Edited by wis3boi (31289 posts) -

I want you to understand the progress of the argument. Because its important that people do this all the time and should be aware of it rather you accept it or not. Very often when people argue with you, especially about religion, they attribute their own beliefs to logic and your belief to psychology. So religious people need to believe in something because they need to feel loved or they need a crutch or there weak. But i believe what i believe because its true and scientific. I want you to be aware that you can not actually disprove someones belief by imputing an unworthy motive to it. You actually have to disprove the belief. So dont let anyone pull the psychological wool over your eyes. You can actually be just as worthy or unworthy of love, just as tough minded, just as thoughtful, just as deep and intelligent and knowledgeable of the universe and still believe in god, as most human beings have through out all of human history as if you are atheist.

#198 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

You actually have to disprove the belief.

No, you dont.
You simply have to ask if their belief has a reason.
I believe gravity is correct, because if i drop a pencil, it falls as the theory of gravity suggests it should.
This gives me a reason to believe in that.If someone were to claim there was a floating teapot, orbitting on the opposite side of the sun,so we'd never see it from earth.
I would ask what their reason is for their belief, they might have a believable looking photo, some sort of proof.As always, in science, the onus of proof is on the claimant.
You've made the claim that hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists are incorrect, because

As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

Again, the only way to encounter two creatures with the same DNA coding, is through cloning. No two humans or animals can have the same DNA otherwise.
Two creatures with the same DNA would also be the same gender, and as such they would not be able to mate in the wild.
Without the introduction of new DNA, there would be no alteration in offspring anyways, simply more clones.

The above is my reason for not believing your claim, and my reason to believe that you have no idea what you're talking about.
You've yet to explain how two human clones f***ing would create a completely new creature.

#199 Edited by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

@mrxboxone said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@mrxboxone said:

People are born with deformities all the time. You are not talking about evolution, you are talking about a genetic mutation.

Which is all evolution is.

Lets say for whatever reason, a woodpecker is born with a "deformity" (as you're referring to it), where it's beak is duller, and wider.

The reasoning behind it would be purely genetic, and if the "deformity" caused more difficulty in the animals ability to survive, it would die, failing to pass on successful genes.

However woodpeckers with the sharper beaks, which are more efficient in creating holes in trees, dominate, because that's how they get their food and survive.

Now if we were still hunter/gatherers, such a "deformity" that would allow a person perfect night vision, would be very useful. Possibly life saving, as people could respond to any creature that could hunt at night.

Though, currently, humans do not need such a mutation, as even blind humans are able to cope, due to our ability to train seeing eye dogs, and the creation of braille.

It is a form of evolution that we observed. a fact we know 100%. We have never seen two animals produce anything outside its own kind.

The reason evolution is faulty and unproven is simple. If evolution is indeed fact there would be no apes. Once scientist realized this fact, they said the reason ape and man co-exist is because we came from a common ancestor. My very simple question is where are the common ancestor remains? As I said for beings to evolve they need 2 beings of the same DNA coding to change the race. The odds of this happening are over 900 trillion to one. And for those two to find each other to mate are so remote it will never be calculated.

What you are saying is that you believe that 1+1=2, and 1+1+1=3 but not 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time. Also your 900 trillion to 1 odds are bullshit. You're apparently unaware that we had diploid cells. Did you even take genetics? You clearly don't understand even the most basic concepts of evolution, and the fact that you have a biology degree is disgraceful. Your professors would be ashamed. (this is assuming you aren't lying)

#200 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (17264 posts) -

@mrxboxone: youdont kmow the difference between a theory and a law