What i can't understand about evolution....

quote:

---

Oh for fuck's sake, unwad your panties. I never said you "must be lying." I simply said it sounds suspiciously like a lame excuse for not responding to substance. What's more, your sarcastic response does little to disabuse me of my suspicions since you again failed to provide a substantive response to the other

---

lol.You must have an all seeing eye.Tell me can you tell me the lottery ticket numbers for next week?Ill tell you another thing you got wrong.Im not wearing any panties.Hmmmmm not a trustworthy all seeing eye.

quote:

---

And Huntard, RAZD, and nearly every other regular poster here has come across countless cdesign proponentists who've trotted in spouting nonsense followed by assurances that they would provide substantive responses to those who reply to them, only to watch them fade away back into teh interwebs, leaving nothing behind but drivel

---

Cheerleader alert.I can write you off as someone to avoid here.Thanks for wasting my time which could of been better spent reading.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Hi, Seefirthedom. This is a good example of what AdminNosy was talking about.I'm going to try my best to explain this (again). Forgive me if I fail to make it clear (again). But, for the sake of everybody's sanity, please carefully read and digest what I'm about to write, because I'm pretty sure this will be the third time I have written it now, and it apparently still has not sunk in yet.Science is not a single, universal theory. There are many, many theories, and each individual theory is about something different. The Theory of Evolution, in its basic form, is only the scientific principle of descent with modification (i.e., the principle "offspring are different from their parents"). You can use this theory to trace all life back to a single ancestor, but this is just an add-on: it is not a fundamental part of the theory. If life instead proves to be traceable to six original ancestors, and not to a single ancestor, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) can still be real.Have you got it yet?Let me beat this mortally-wounded horse one more time just for the sake of thoroughness:God could design 100 completely different organisms and put them on a planet, and they could still evolve. Likewise, life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.The evidence we have right now indicates that there was only one initial ancestor. But, we may uncover something that overturns this. In that case, we would not throw up our hands and say, "evolution is false." Rather, we will say, "life on earth evolved from multiple initial organisms."Do you see how the number of initial "kinds" does not effect whether evolution happens?----- But, it isn't real to me. Not yet, anyway. Nobody I know has any idea what the organism was, beyond the common-sense notion that it was a simple, single-celled organism. There are a lot of data that lead us to theorize that this organism exists and that there are a number of characteristics that it likely had, but, the question of its exact identity is still up in the air.We're not perfect, Seefer: please don't expect us to be. Please allow us to be fallible humans, and please treat our decades and decades of hard, meticulous (and incomplete) work with a least a modicum of respect. Please?----- Um, Seefer, people with "Admin" in their name are the site's moderators (i.e., bosses). Admins do not participate in debates: if you get a message from one, it's because he is telling you what the rules are. That is, he's warning you. It makes sense to allow them to post that kind of stuff. You're not supposed to respond to them, though: there's a thread for discussion problems (right here) that I think is the place they prefer you to respond to their messages and actions.-----And, finally, a personal request: would it be possible for you to push the long, skinny key at the bottom of your keyboard after you type a period? Your posts are not easy to read.Also, you're responding to yourself in a lot of these. There's a "reply" button at the bottom of every message: push the one at the bottom of the message you're responding to.Edited by Mantis, : ClarificationsEdited by Mantis, : No reason given.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

thank you for the on topic post mantis

quote:

---

The evidence we have right now indicates that there was only one initial ancestor.

---

Permit me to utterly annilihate the horse im riding on.I feel bad once again emphasing that evolutionary supporters make assertions like this.You cant show me this in the fossil record.You cant show me this in the natural world.Nothing is even remotely like this animal.You cant even replicate it using the smartest biologists and the greatest minds.The only place it exists is in evolutionary textbooks. I understand the human fallibilty element that you are claiming and im trying to show respect despite not being shown much because of my beliefs .However evolutionary science by its very definition totally removes any chance of an intelligent designer.Unlike you guys im actually quite relaxed about the possibilty that yall could be right and that darwin and dawkins will be names lauded to time indefinate.However i dont honestly think you guys like the idea that people like me could be right.Occams razor you say.Yeah you bet.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : spelling because being told to get off comp

WTF! By your reasoning, if you can't 'replicate' your great great great ... grandfather (or mother), then they never existed. You need to go educate yourself first about the theory of evolution prior to posting here unless you want to keep making an absolute fool of yourself here.

Hi, Seefer. Apparently, I failed.Please reread Message 212 carefully.Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?If not, will you at least explain why you will not acknowledge this?Edited by Mantis, : I wrote "Bluejay," which isn't my screen name anymore (I didn't even spell it write, anyway).

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Occams razor cuts both ways.You come here full of "gotcha" questions. Let me ask a couple of questions of my own so we can get some idea of where you are coming from.

​
• What is the age of the earth?
  ​
• Would any scientific evidence convince you that your belief in creationism is incorrect?

Once I get an answer to these questions, I will know how to proceed.Thanks.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It seems this level of conversation is moving a bit too fast for you.Please do NOT post to this thread until next weekend. Take the time to read over the replies you have been given very carefully and then spend some time thinking about them before you respond again.If you have trouble with this you may ask questions in Suggestions and Questions.If you ignore this request I'll have to suspend you.

If you or any one could show that there was an intelligent designer or a creator with positive evidence then I would be happy to jump on such a "band-wagon," but as of now no one has offered any.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Two tangencial points1. That message was a reply to yourself. That makes it hard to figure who the message was actually intended to.2. You are still using the expression "could of been" instead of the proper "could have been". That's very distracting for the readers.ABE: one more tangencial point.could you please use the space bar after periods? It's hard to read your posts when you don't do that.Edited by fallacycop, : No reason given.

firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory?2ndly, the primoridal soup idea...where is the evidence for it? What physical proof of the soup do we have that can physically be examined and tested?

If you are referring to evolution, it's both. You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you? It began with the Urey-Miller experiment. There have been other experiments after that. Though I only know the basics for these.

---

I hunt for the truth

you might need to explain it to meIf evolution is founded upon events (primordial soup) that no humans witnessed...can it really be called a 'fact'?Have scientists observed mutations”even beneficial ones”that produce new life-forms?Have they witnessed the spontaneous generation of life?Has anyone produced protein and DNA in the laboratory?

Ok. It isn't based upon that "fact". It's based upon the fact the alelle frequency in a population changes with time. They have observed mutations. but not ones that produve new life-forms, unless you want to call every new born life-form a new one, since it has mutations in it that the parents don't have. They have witnessed the spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life. This is still an ongoing study. Not to my knowledge. Though this doesn't change the fact of evolution.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

WTF! By your reasoning, if you can't 'replicate' your great great great ... grandfather (or mother), then they never existed.

---

This example has been used before.Please dont compare your human great great grandfather with single celled organisms.That comparison is hard to fathom.I guess your superior education has also given you a much larger imagination.

quote:

---

Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?

​

If not, will you at least explain why you will not acknowledge this?

---

I acknowledge it.In fact you might have noticed i firmly believe its impossible.This has been re-emphasised by the various replies given varying from "you're an idiot" to "lets talk about habilis instead".I understand that life could of arisen from differing organisms.Thats another topic and when you think about it requires some even more science suspending events to have happened.Thank you once again for staying on topic.