The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours

[Champion_Standing]

Evolution is Gods plan, discuss.

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by Tradesonred [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and what do you guesstimate Day 1's date? 2 thousand years ago? Ballpark it for us

No clue nor does it matter. It was a very long time ago and nobody knows exactly.

Luminari do you believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted?

Irrelevant. Whether they did or didn't doesn't change the fact that one type of creature can't become another.

Evolution is Gods plan, discuss.

Then why has nobody in all of history ever seen it occur?

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Luminari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then why has nobody in all of history ever seen it occur?

Firstly, God moves in mysterious ways. If you believe in God you can't question his plan like this.

Secondly evolution is described as a process that happens in small increments over many generations. Hypothetical example, God wanted dinosaurs to replace bees. What wouldn't happen was one day a dinosaur laid an egg containing a baby humming bird.

Instead what would happen were near countless apparently random changes across the generations (including many dead ends) until eventually there was a tiny flying dinosaur (bird) variant that would pollenate the plants instead of bees.

Being a process that takes longer than the lifespan of a human means it is not something a single person can 'see', unlike evolution in the pokemon games where the entire change happens to one specimen instantly. There are ways to look for evidence of evolution (oh look, the creatures slowly change thru the fossil record to become smaller, more feathery and more nectar loving), but such an approach requires inference "perhaps some dinosaurs evolved into humming birds and these fossils represent intermediately stages?".

[Itap]

This guy is REALLY mad. Please don't mace anybody

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Firstly, God moves in mysterious ways. If you believe in God you can't question his plan like this.

Secondly evolution is described as a process that happens in small increments over many generations. Hypothetical example, God wanted dinosaurs to replace bees. What wouldn't happen was one day a dinosaur laid an egg containing a baby humming bird.

Instead what would happen were near countless apparently random changes across the generations (including many dead ends) until eventually there was a tiny flying dinosaur (bird) variant that would pollenate the plants instead of bees.

Being a process that takes longer than the lifespan of a human means it is not something a single person can 'see', unlike evolution in the pokemon games where the entire change happens to one specimen instantly. There are ways to look for evidence of evolution (oh look, the creatures slowly change thru the fossil record to become smaller, more feathery and more nectar loving), but such an approach requires inference "perhaps some dinosaurs evolved into humming birds and these fossils represent intermediately stages?".

This is literally impossible. There's something called the genetic code. Each code is unique to each individual creature. That's why all living things can only produce more copies of what they already are. Something that isn't a bird can't turn into one. Something that isn't a bee can't turn into one.

This is the exact reason why extinction occurs in the first place. Why are there no more dodo birds? The reason is because the only thing that can make a dodo bird, IS a dodo bird. There isn't anything evolving into one nor did they evolve into anything else. They are all dead and therefor no more dodo birds, ever.

Rhino's are on the verge of extinction. Why? Because the only thing that can make a rhino IS a rhino. There isn't anything evolving into a rhino. Once they're all dead, that's it, no more rhino's, ever again. Until of course someone comes along and figures out how to make the genetic code for one and recreates them. Just like they were created in the first place.

It's like the question of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Well, you need chickens to make chicken eggs and you need a chicken egg to even get a chicken. Their existence is a paradox. The only logical explanation is that one had to be created for the process to begin and their origin has to be supernatural since it's a literal impossibility for their origin to have a natural cause.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Luminari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is literally impossible. There's something called the genetic code. Each code is unique to each individual creature. That's why all living things can only produce more copies of what they already are.

You DO realize that the more you write the more you reveal an apparent lack of education, right? I'd rather believe you were a semi-skilled troll simply arguing for the sake of it. I'd say the same to any other biblical creationist that denies macro-evolution. It's much easier for you to accept that some old dude in the sky who watches you masturbate waved his bony fingers and "poof" everything was there. Only one book anybody needs, right?

Either way the arguments you bring up don't even credit a response, simply because they're so fundamentally and provably wrong, especially by recent advances that have been made in science. But it's not my job to educate you...and people like you don't want to be educated because it terrifies you.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Luminari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is literally impossible. There's something called the genetic code. Each code is unique to each individual creature. That's why all living things can only produce more copies of what they already are. Something that isn't a bird can't turn into one. Something that isn't a bee can't turn into one.

Yes, but what if the mechanisms by which organisms create copies of their genetic code is 'flawed'? Meaning at times errors creep in to the copies. Most of the time these errors are either unimportant or are damaging to an organism. Creatures carrying such errors will tend to die in vitro or before reproduction. Occasionally errors can actually lead to inadvertent improvements. Perhaps a slightly more efficient enzyme that makes a process easier for the organism to carry out. Organisms with these beneficial 'errors' have an advantage over other organisms of their type, meaning these organisms are more likely to reach sexual production and pass on these 'beneficial errors'.

Originally Posted by Luminari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is the exact reason why extinction occurs in the first place. Why are there no more dodo birds? The reason is because the only thing that can make a dodo bird, IS a dodo bird. There isn't anything evolving into one nor did they evolve into anything else. They are all dead and therefor no more dodo birds, ever.

Rhino's are on the verge of extinction. Why? Because the only thing that can make a rhino IS a rhino. There isn't anything evolving into a rhino. Once they're all dead, that's it, no more rhino's, ever again. Until of course someone comes along and figures out how to make the genetic code for one and recreates them. Just like they were created in the first place.

Agreed, only a Dodo can make a dodo. The reason extinctions happen because organisms are unable to reproduce at a rate that meets the rate at which they die and if they all die out there is no way to create new ones.
Note, although it is suggested that evolution can produce similar creatures (some of the ancient sea reptiles have some physical similarities to modern sea mammals such as dolphins) the similarity is superficial. The chance for any one species to evolve is so remote that for it to evolve a second time in a genetically compatible way is close enough to impossible so I suppose we also agree that there is no way extinct animals can come back into existence by 'evolving again'. At best a fairly similar looking/functioning animal might evolve.

Originally Posted by Luminari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's like the question of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Well, you need chickens to make chicken eggs and you need a chicken egg to even get a chicken. Their existence is a paradox. The only logical explanation is that one had to be created for the process to begin and their origin has to be supernatural since it's a literal impossibility for their origin to have a natural cause.

Eggs aren't exclusive to chickens. If anything, the eggistence of eggs is an argument towards shared lineage of creatures.

An evolutionist would argue that creatures slowly evolved solutions to protect their young, resulting in what we call 'eggs' and this solution was so effective it was preserved by most of their descendent species.

[paulgiamatti]

Seems like as good of a time as any to revisit this Louis CK outtake.

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You DO realize that the more you write the more you reveal an apparent lack of education, right? I'd rather believe you were a semi-skilled troll simply arguing for the sake of it. I'd say the same to any other biblical creationist that denies macro-evolution. It's much easier for you to accept that some old dude in the sky who watches you masturbate waved his bony fingers and "poof" everything was there. Only one book anybody needs, right?

Either way the arguments you bring up don't even credit a response, simply because they're so fundamentally and provably wrong, especially by recent advances that have been made in science. But it's not my job to educate you...and people like you don't want to be educated because it terrifies you.

I guess you think Sir Isaac Newton is a moron too as well?

"“How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts?
Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?”
― Isaac Newton, Opticks

Fucking retard.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Luminari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess you think Sir Isaac Newton is a moron too as well?

"“How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts?
Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?...and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent...?”
― Isaac Newton, Opticks

Fucking retard.

Oh gee, you just decked me with some quote from an 18th century physicist.

Chromosome 2, pal. Go for it. Let's see what you know.