OMG, I think I understand now!!! If I have a Fork and a Spoon, then naturally evolution must be true because I've also seen a SPORK!!!!! That's amazing evidence.
Evolutionists like to assume all the difficult things away by going "Millions of years!!!" The fact of the matter is that in those 4 populations there has to be a step at some point where parents produce offspring (2 of them mind you) that can not reproduce with their parents (not that they'd want to, but you get the point). This is a new species. Obviously I can breed dogs to have different traits like big ears and long legs etc, but still each can interbreed with other dogs despite their new traits. However at some point there must be a MASSIVE leap where a dog gives birth to non dog, and not only that there needs to be two of these non dogs so they can reproduce with each other.
Also explain how we went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. Good thing the penis and vagina evolved at the same time huh? Man was that lucky!!!!! Oh and not only that, the entire reproductive system behind the scenes has to come in one generation as well otherwise there are no further iterations, no survival of the fittest.
If you want to believe in evolution fine, but don't assume people who don't haven't considered the obvious. Trust me, we've all heard the explanations for evolution, we're not living in caves. It's always made out that we're the ones who don't think and just accept everything we're told when the fact is that we're the ones who have our beliefs constantly challenged and are always forced to think. You're the ones who will accept anything someone with "Scientist" on their resume says.
Sorry if that came off pretty harsh, but do forgive me, I'm a big IDiot after all.
55 comments
"Sorry if that came off pretty harsh, but do forgive me, I'm a big IDiot after all."
It's not sarcastic when it's true.
Also explain how we went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. Good thing the penis and vagina evolved at the same time huh? Man was that lucky!!!!! Oh and not only that, the entire reproductive system behind the scenes has to come in one generation as well otherwise there are no further iterations, no survival of the fittest.
No it doesn't. Slugs reproduce sexually despite not having different genders. Fail.
"OMG, I think I understand now!!! If I have a Fork and a Spoon, then naturally evolution must be true because I've also seen a SPORK!!!!! That's amazing evidence."
That's not evolution, that's evidence of your survival being dependent on McDonald's.
Learn to prepare your own healthier food.
There are no massive leaps. Evolution is not a transition from a generation able to reproduce amongst one another and then a sudden member that can no longer reproduce with the others. Evolution is when dozens, to hundreds, to thousands of generations in an isolated group pass, and the newest generations are unable to reproduce with neighboring groups of the same species and/or with the original members of the species that founded their population. The new generations have changed significantly relative to the initial population, but are not changed much compared to the last few generations, and could still interbreed with them.
The reason why sexual reproduction occurs is because it optimizes evolutionary adaptation. Oh, and PLANTS MOTHERF*#@#R!! Sex isn't always penis-in-vagina. Your questions regarding sexual reproductive systems evolving can be explained by simply realizing that it occurs over time (i.e. testes did not just spontaneously appear on an ape eons ago), and that some organisms can reproduce through both sexual and asexual means (meaning that it could have evolved the sexual means of reproduction alone, and passed it along to offspring without requiring another organism to develop it independently).
I cannot help but laugh at the idea that you are somehow "forced to think" in order to adopt the Creationist position. How hard is it to take the word of your pastor over your science teacher? The rest of us may be accepting what scientists say, but, goddamn it, so do you on every subject that you don't feel harms your precious religious beliefs. Don't try to play this like you are some kind of well-informed visionary rebelling against the status-quo. You are just a person who has some trifling and easily explanable argument against evolution, and uses it as a justification to dismiss it in favor of your preconceived notions.
But, anyway, at least you seem to be one of the smarter IDiots. I guess that is a compliment...sort of...
"we're the ones who have our beliefs constantly challenged"
Yeah, science and reality have that effect.
... there has to be a step at some point where parents produce offspring (2 of them mind you) that can not reproduce with their parents (not that they'd want to, but you get the point). This is a new species.
No there doesn't have to be such a step. In the ensatinas of Oregon and California, we have a chain of salamanders. Each can interbreed with its immediate neighbors, but the salamanders at the end of the chain don't interbreed with the ones at the start of the chain. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, etc., but A doesn't breed with X. As they extended their range, they gradually changed until the end result was a new species.
" If I have a Fork and a Spoon, then naturally evolution must be true because I've also seen a SPORK!!!!! That's amazing evidence. "
Well sure.
Right after you also show that forks and spoons are alive and reproduce.
Till then you just look like an ignorant asshole.
Also...
You're the ones who will accept anything someone with "Scientist" on their resume says.
Oh, really? Then why don't we believe "Dr." Kent Hovind?
Also explain how we went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. Good thing the penis and vagina evolved at the same time huh? Man was that lucky!!!!! Oh and not only that, the entire reproductive system behind the scenes has to come in one generation as well otherwise there are no further iterations, no survival of the fittest.
Fish.
@Joe-Bob
I am tired of telling these people that if you keep adding 0.0001 to 3 you will eventually get to 4. I know, a completely different number. wow.
3 + 0.0001 <enter>
3.0001
darnit.
3 + 0.0001 <enter>
3.0001
darnit.
3 + 0.0001 <enter>
3.0001
darnit.
3 + 0.0001 <enter>
3.0001
darnit.
3 + 0.0001 <enter>
3.0001
darnit.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Creationists don't understand that real researchers are simply correlating their findings when they speak, and not pulling some stupidity out of their asses, like creationists have been doing all along.
well at least he knows he's an idiot. Also, we like to force you to think in hopes that one day you'll be good at it. You're clearly not there yet since you seem to think that massive leaps in evolution happen sometime between conception and birth and that one species gives birth to another. As far as one species diverging into another, it happens in a gradual way, like all of evolution. Imagine a gray scale going from black on one side to white on the other. If you move only one shade over it's not much of a difference. Over time, however, you're going to move far enough away from where you started that what you now have is distinctly different (ie black rather than white).
"I'm a big IDiot after all. "
Yes, it shines through in every sentence. That part where you think inanimate objects can reproduce is classic IDiot.
The fact of the matter is that in those 4 populations there has to be a step at some point where parents produce offspring (2 of them mind you) that can not reproduce with their parents (not that they'd want to, but you get the point)
..
However at some point there must be a MASSIVE leap where a dog gives birth to non dog, and not only that there needs to be two of these non dogs so they can reproduce with each other.
Wrong, no big leaps (as someone else already said)
Lets assume we depopulate Madagascar and we deport all christian fundamentalists imn america to this island, give them only medieval tools to survive and take care that there is no contact between the fundamentalist inhabitants of Madagascar and the rest of the world.
Now we wait maybe 1-10 million years (upholding the blockade during this time and also taking care that no modern technology is developed on Madagascar) and, after this time, send a biological expedition who collects some specimens from the fundamentalist population of Madagascar.
Chances are high that the fundamentalist population from Madagascar will show significant phaenotypical differences from the human rest of the world.
There may be also good chances that the genetical differences between the fundamentalist madagascans and the rest of the world are big enough, to prevent the madagascans from having fertile offspring with persons from the rest of the world. I.e. the fundamentalist madagascans would have turned into a different hominid species ;)
The fundamentalists madagascans would however, during all the time of their development into another species, be able to breed with other fundeamentalist madagascans.
I agree with everyone here that Zachiatrist is probably retarded. One thing that strikes me however about the responses presented here, is that most seem to agree that evolution is always gradual, and that a species never gives rise to another species in a single or a few generations.
I am not sure why those arguing against ID don't use examples of evolution from the plant kingdom more often, but plants speciate in a generation (or a few generations) all the time. We can SEE and document "macroevolution" taking place.
While I don't have time to get into it in much detail (because that would require volumes), this kind of speciation is generally not attributable to diversifying selection, but rather stochastic chromosomal changes (in number and structure), that result in polyploidy, and sexual incompatibility among chromosomal variants. Further plants speciate through hybridization; hybrids are often partially infertile when backcrossed with parental species.
If anyone is interested, I have stacks of references regarding these kinds of evolutionary events, and could post some of them.
Good lord, man! Forks crossed with spoons? Those are incredibly dangerous! Just one of those things wiped out the ancient tribes of the Himalayan Mesa! Thousands of people dead! And you've unleashed the terror here! Does your madness know no bounds?
(Confound you, Mr. Smith! You beat me to it!)
"OMG, I think I understand now!!! If I have a Fork and a Spoon, then naturally evolution must be true because I've also seen a SPORK!!!!! That's amazing evidence."
That's crossbreeding you dolt. Sporks are infertile.
Tallon:
Here are a some references on a few of the cooler systems:
Baumel, A. et al. 2003. Genetic evidence for hybridization between the native Spartina maritima and the introduced Spartina alterniflora (Poaceae) in South-West France: Spartina × neyrautii re-examined. Plant systematics and evolution 237: 87-97.
Soltis, D.E. and P.S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany 76(8) 1119-1124.
Soltis, D.E. and P.S. Soltis. 1999. Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(9):348-352
Gross, B.L. and L.H. Rieseberg. 2005. The Ecological Genetics of Homoploid Hybrid Speciation. Journal of Heredity 96(3): 241-252.
Werth, C.R. et al. 1985. Electrophoretic Evidence of Reticulate Evolution in the Appalachian Asplenium Complex. Systematic Botany 10(2):184-192.
Alternatively, you could google the word speciation and one of the following:
Spartina
Tragapogon
Helianthus
Clarkia
Asplenium
Mimulus
polyploidy
hybridization
"Evolutionists like to assume all the difficult things away by going "Millions of years!!!" "
No, creationists like to assume all the overwhelming evidence away by going "six thousand years!!!". That's the main reason young-Earth thinking got resurrected: they couldn't refute all the different lines of evidence for evolution, so they dug up Bishop Ussher's 17th century chronology, which had otherwise been largely forgotten, in order to get rid of the "millions of years" that are necessary for all the biodiversity we see today. Never mind that it creates a whole slew of other problems for them to explain away, they're sold on it now.
Speciation doesn't come from one generation to the next, but from parallel populations like horse and donkey, or wolf and dog, that diverge so far away from each other that they are no longer able to reproduce. Horse and donkey are almost there, they can sometimes produce offspring, but the offspring is usually infertile. Wolf and dog have a couple of thousand years more to go. No massive leaps.
Sexual reproduction is not only PIV, but stamens and pistils in plants, for example.
Are you really this stupid or are you just play-acting?
We don't believe in evolution any more than we believe in photosynthesis. They are both natural processes that have been observed time and time again, both in Nature and in laboratories. To not "believe" in evolution is like not believing in a spherical Earth.
Yes, you're a big idiot.
Idiotic straw men of science, by an idiot, for idiots. Science doesn't work with appeal to authority idols, there's discovery, observation, evidence, hypothesis forming and testing, explanatory models, scientific theories, all only making conclusions due to evidence, thus also a scientific consensus. Biology doesn't claim that you should see two animals produce a third kind, that's also your straw man. Sexual reproduction goes way back before mammals, the most common reproduction type in eukaryotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent for more easily accessible free clues...
The nickname and behavior reminds me of the crazy psychiatrist trope in fiction.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.