PE debunks darwinism

FullBloodArab said:
So I tell you again and again and again. There is no (adaption) change to SURVIVE as an requirement. And no change because of misbehaviour (an error) of the dna so that a mutation happen who will survive further as an requirement.

There are changes happening (in this fairytale) without having anything to do with this two.
Click to expand...
What I think you're saying: A trait doesn't need to be necessary for survival in order for the species to evolve to have it. A mutation is also not required for trait to appear and spread. The theory of evolution, which is a fairytale, provides for evolution without mutations and also for the emergence of new traits that are not necessary for survival.

My response:

1) I'll say it again. You are correct that a species can evolve a new trait even if that new trait was not necessary for survival. I never said anything even kind of like that. On the contrary, I gave an example of a trait appearing and spreading which was not necessary for survival. (Polar bears, post #10). If you disagree, I challenge you to find where I said a new trait could only appear and/or spread if it were necessary for survival and quote it back to me.

Consider, in addition, that even if you met my challenge, it wouldn't undermine anything I've said. That's because nothing I've said depends on the idea that a trait can only appear and/or spread if it's required to survive.

2) Actually... to some extent you are correct about the necessity of mutation. It has been recently discovered that certain genes can "activate" or "deactivate" after birth in response to environmental factors. So our genotype can actually alter without passing a mutation to the next generation. Is that what you're thinking about?

That does NOT mean, however, than an entirely new trait will suddenly spring out of nowhere in response to our desire for that trait. Unless we all already have deactivated genes for "10 inch penis" in us, we will not suddenly have the genes for that within our own lifetimes, and the next generation will not have the genes for that (because we don't have them to pass on) unless a mistake is made. That's what a mutation is.

FullBloodArab said:
Read the tittel of the thread again
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that "Darwinism" has already been debunked. The "nerds" in the universities are aware that Darwin didn't get it right. He discovered the basic idea of evolution, but the details weren't quite accurate. Which is fine. We could say the same about Newtonian physics! That's the process of learning and growing.

The problem is that it isn't wrong for the reason you're suggesting, which is why you haven't yet actually addressed the theory of evolution. You've set up a straw man theory of your own and attacked that mercilessly.

This entire thread, we haven't actually discussed the theory of evolution. I've been trying to tell you what the theory is, and I mean establishing a basic, fundamental understanding of it. I'm not a biologist. I haven't gotten into the details or finer points, and I haven't said anything even remotely controversial.
 
DLD said:
This is correct that christianity is not wholly in line with evolution. Most Christians believe in science and all the new discoveries they feel they have made. I personally need much more proof than the proof I have been given. And we all should have that concern. Remember Darwin said if there’s any gap in any of my work the work is worthless. There are gaps all over the place. With these discussions should be done with respect and humor as no one knows the truth of it all. So having differing opinions should not put people against one another but help one another I understand the parts they are confused about. When were able to talk things through civilly we see that we have much more in common then we don’t.
Click to expand...
I totally agree about the importance of having these discussions, and about them being carried out respectfully. Having different opinions is incredibly important because we don't know it all! We could be wrong about something, or see only part of the whole, and talking with others who disagree helps us learn and grow.

I don't know if Darwin actually said what you claim he did, but if he did he was certainly wrong about that. (And he was wrong about other things as well, including how he thought evolution worked). If I think the moon is reflecting light from the sun, and is made of cheese, we don't disprove my first proposition (reflecting sunlight) by disproving the second (made of cheese). And I'm talking about more than a gap here, I'm talking about a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the moon!

Skepticism is also very important. Not a very Christian value though, ya big Doubting Thomas! :D
 
Brawn Johnson said:
What I think you're saying: A trait doesn't need to be necessary for survival in order for the species to evolve to have it. A mutation is also not required for trait to appear and spread. The theory of evolution, which is a fairytale, provides for evolution without mutations and also for the emergence of new traits that are not necessary for survival.

My response:

1) I'll say it again. You are correct that a species can evolve a new trait even if that new trait was not necessary for survival. I never said anything even kind of like that. On the contrary, I gave an example of a trait appearing and spreading which was not necessary for survival. (Polar bears, post #10). If you disagree, I challenge you to find where I said a new trait could only appear and/or spread if it were necessary for survival and quote it back to me.

Consider, in addition, that even if you met my challenge, it wouldn't undermine anything I've said. That's because nothing I've said depends on the idea that a trait can only appear and/or spread if it's required to survive.

2) Actually... to some extent you are correct about the necessity of mutation. It has been recently discovered that certain genes can "activate" or "deactivate" after birth in response to environmental factors. So our genotype can actually alter without passing a mutation to the next generation. Is that what you're thinking about?

That does NOT mean, however, than an entirely new trait will suddenly spring out of nowhere in response to our desire for that trait. Unless we all already have deactivated genes for "10 inch penis" in us, we will not suddenly have the genes for that within our own lifetimes, and the next generation will not have the genes for that (because we don't have them to pass on) unless a mistake is made. That's what a mutation is.

The funny thing is that "Darwinism" has already been debunked. The "nerds" in the universities are aware that Darwin didn't get it right. He discovered the basic idea of evolution, but the details weren't quite accurate. Which is fine. We could say the same about Newtonian physics! That's the process of learning and growing.

The problem is that it isn't wrong for the reason you're suggesting, which is why you haven't yet actually addressed the theory of evolution. You've set up a straw man theory of your own and attacked that mercilessly.

This entire thread, we haven't actually discussed the theory of evolution. I've been trying to tell you what the theory is, and I mean establishing a basic, fundamental understanding of it. I'm not a biologist. I haven't gotten into the details or finer points, and I haven't said anything even remotely controversial.
Click to expand...
You've said "out-compete".
You mean by that extinction of the other? Did they extinct in a couple of decades? No, it took very long.

So the brown bear did survive for 40.000 years on ice and snow for example.

So the white bear who was suddenly born with white tints until white, didn't extinct the brown bear.

So tell me how did the big group of brown bear died? Because they to survived without dying of hunger of course. (Their speed is 35mph they outrun bearded seals etc, so no color advantage, and fishing in a crack in the ice etc no colour advantage their.

Otherwise they would turn bleu (background of the sky)

How did the (biggest) brown group died? Because of the female that choose white over brown? What was it? Not the temperature not the hunger (otherwise the whole species wouldn't have time to evaluate, because they all die directly
 
Ah, I think I see where we've had a misunderstanding.

Right, over time the white bears out-compete the brown bears (in the Arctic environment). In that sense, and if you're thinking of them at that point as two different races, the brown bears 'go extinct.' I'll address both of those points.

First, to say that an adaptation is necessary to survive could mean the species needs it to survive, or an individual needs it to survive. Two different meanings. For example a mutation that gave you super powers but also made you infertile would be the end of the species if suddenly every individual in a generation had that mutation, but it would be great for each individual who now had super powers. We've been talking about "survival" in the second sense, and my polar bear examples didn't need white fur to survive in the second sense of the word.

To demonstrate, I'll point out your example of humans losing fur. You brought this up as an example of a change that wasn't necessary for survival. (Post #16 of this thread). You were correct, because individual humans with fur were still able to get along just fine. If we had been talking about survival of the species (and regarded furry and non-furry humans as different species, more on that in my second point) then your example would have been incorrect, because today humans no longer have fur. (The "furry species" died out). So we need to decide on one definition of "need to survive" and stick with it in order to have a coherent conversation.

Second, one of the weird things about evolution is that there is never a point at which one species suddenly becomes another. The changes are so gradual that they're often hard to see -- in complex creatures anyway -- except over HUGE time spans. From generation to generation, it's always the same species. It's only when you go back god-knows-how-many generations that you realize a human today couldn't possibly mate with whatever-came-before-humans-and-chimps. If your greatx1,000,000 grandmother were revived, you wouldn't recognize her as human, and you wouldn't be able to successfully mate. Probably no loss there. :)

In my polar bear example, that means no species ever went "extinct," and so white fur wasn't necessary to survive in the first sense of the word, either. The brown and white polar bears were both polar bears. The little white cub is still the same species as her brown parents. Just like if you have a daughter, and she has a mutation that gives her two different colors of eyes, she isn't suddenly not human. She's just a human with a new trait. If heterochrormia turns out to be useful or attractive enough, maybe one day all humans will have it. That doesn't mean humans went extinct, it means we evolved!

EDIT: I'll point out that these last couple of posts are taking us wildly off track of the original discussion. Yes, that's because I challenged you to quote me, so it's my fault. But we probably shouldn't worry too much about this because we put a silver, blessed stake through this "necessary to survive" vampire in posts #16-21. We definitely agree that a trait doesn't need to be necessary to survive in order to appear or spread!
 
Last edited:
Brawn Johnson said:
Ah, I think I see where we've had a misunderstanding.

Right, over time the white bears out-compete the brown bears (in the Arctic environment). In that sense, and if you're thinking of them at that point as two different races, the brown bears 'go extinct.' I'll address both of those points.

First, to say that an adaptation is necessary to survive could mean the species needs it to survive, or an individual needs it to survive. Two different meanings. For example a mutation that gave you super powers but also made you infertile would be the end of the species if suddenly every individual in a generation had that mutation, but it would be great for each individual who now had super powers. We've been talking about "survival" in the second sense, and my polar bear examples didn't need white fur to survive in the second sense of the word.

To demonstrate, I'll point out your example of humans losing fur. You brought this up as an example of a change that wasn't necessary for survival. (Post #16 of this thread). You were correct, because individual humans with fur were still able to get along just fine. If we had been talking about survival of the species (and regarded furry and non-furry humans as different species, more on that in my second point) then your example would have been incorrect, because today humans no longer have fur. (The "furry species" died out). So we need to decide on one definition of "need to survive" and stick with it in order to have a coherent conversation.

Second, one of the weird things about evolution is that there is never a point at which one species suddenly becomes another. The changes are so gradual that they're often hard to see -- in complex creatures anyway -- except over HUGE time spans. From generation to generation, it's always the same species. It's only when you go back god-knows-how-many generations that you realize a human today couldn't possibly mate with whatever-came-before-humans-and-chimps. If your greatx1,000,000 grandmother were revived, you wouldn't recognize her as human, and you wouldn't be able to successfully mate. Probably no loss there. :)

In my polar bear example, that means no species ever went "extinct," and so white fur wasn't necessary to survive in the first sense of the word, either. The brown and white polar bears were both polar bears. The little white cub is still the same species as her brown parents. Just like if you have a daughter, and she has a mutation that gives her two different colors of eyes, she isn't suddenly not human. She's just a human with a new trait. If heterochrormia turns out to be useful or attractive enough, maybe one day all humans will have it. That doesn't mean humans went extinct, it means we evolved!

EDIT: I'll point out that these last couple of posts are taking us wildly off track of the original discussion. Yes, that's because I challenged you to quote me, so it's my fault. But we probably shouldn't worry too much about this because we put a silver, blessed stake through this "necessary to survive" vampire in posts #16-21. We definitely agree that a trait doesn't need to be necessary to survive in order to appear or spread!
Click to expand...
You don't have to learn me about 'huge time spans" because I wrote
"suddenly born with white tints until white"

I gave you am example of 10/20.000years above.

The latest research suggests that micro evolution is 500.000 times faster then previously thought. So I have to bring that down ☺

First it became white 'tints' until white as a whole. Is what I wrote.

So I've protected myself there very well, for the person that bring the argument of time.

But still you brought that argument.
 
FullBloodArab said:
You don't have to learn me about 'huge time spans" because I wrote
"suddenly born with white tints until white"

I gave you am example of 10/20.000years above.

The latest research suggests that micro evolution is 500.000 times faster then previously thought. So I have to bring that down ☺

First it became white 'tints' until white as a whole. Is what I wrote.

So I've protected myself there very well, for the person that bring the argument of time.

But still you brought that argument.
Click to expand...
:confused:

FullBlood. I take it you are trying to argue my point about "new species" not occurring from generation to generation. This is the first time this point has ever come up in the entire conversation. Change the time scale and the point is unaffected.

AND even if you were right, and the second point in my post above were wrong, it wouldn't actually mean that you'd quoted me saying traits only appear/spread if they're required for survival.

AND even if you had quoted me saying that, it wouldn't actually undermine anything I'd said to you regarding how evolution works. We have agreed, explicitly, many times, that a trait doesn't need to be "necessary for survival" in order to appear or spread. Just as I pointed out in the edit to post #24. I don't know if you're not reading what I write, or just ignoring it. Either way, at this point "shame on me." ;)

I'm clearly not going to change your mind here, and I'm happy to let this thread stand for anyone who comes along to read it.
 
Brawn Johnson said:
:confused:

FullBlood. I take it you are trying to argue my point about "new species" not occurring from generation to generation. This is the first time this point has ever come up in the entire conversation. Change the time scale and the point is unaffected.

AND even if you were right, and the second point in my post above were wrong, it wouldn't actually mean that you'd quoted me saying traits only appear/spread if they're required for survival.

AND even if you had quoted me saying that, it wouldn't actually undermine anything I'd said to you regarding how evolution works. We have agreed, explicitly, many times, that a trait doesn't need to be "necessary for survival" in order to appear or spread. Just as I pointed out in the edit to post #24. I don't know if you're not reading what I write, or just ignoring it. Either way, at this point "shame on me." ;)

I'm clearly not going to change your mind here, and I'm happy to let this thread stand for anyone who comes along to read it.
Click to expand...


I've quoted you several times that is prove that I DO read your replies.

Do you read mine? Because I've wrote

"The female would choose the appearance over the other" a factional prove that this is a sub part (not the main parts) of the evolution theorie.

Still they choose a 5 inch penis. Evolution debunked.

Yeah let them read this (in context)
 
I believe this is all adaptation, women mate with the strongest ,fittest male and the genes are passed on so that the offspring has a better chance of survival. People did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys were created as monkeys, humans created as humans from the beginning. If people had evolved from monkeys why is it that the monkey population is still here today but all the forms between monkeys and humans are nowhere to be found, if these half human half monkey forms evolved from monkeys and the monkeys are still here these half human half monkeys should be everywhere today. Supposedly with evolution the past forms die off and the new form survives and continues on to create new superior forms. Instead what we see is adaptation. Animals, humans, insects all adapt to their surroundings. It's like throughout the year when it gets cold people get cold and uncomfortable that feeling causes them to find a solution to make life better,more comfortable, more enjoyable so they put on more clothes, turn on the heat, they have adapted to the situation. throughout the year it gets hot, they take off the heavy clothes, they feel cooler but they are still hot, so they turn on the air conditioning. All of these things are ways people adapt to their environment. For evolution to be true we would have to have what is called a change of kinds. One species changing into another completely like bacteria in a puddle of water over years turning into fish or tadpoles which eat from the water , and then over years turning into something that crawls out of the water onto land and eats from the land, then that land animal turning into something eventually that flies and eats from the air. This would be evolution. There has never been a change of kind. No animal has turned into another species or type of animal no matter the period of time given. A dog cannot turn into a cat, a monkey cannot turn into a human. Personally I believe the bible fully and completely and to me it makes perfect sense, I do not believe that the earth is millions of years old at all, I believe it is about 7000 years old, humans were created with intelligence from the very beginning, they did not need evolution to become what they are today. The bible tells us that humans souls can be saved and that man only dies once and our souls return to the creator and if we are saved we will never experience the second death, and it tells us animals souls when they die return to the earth. Many people do not believe the bible but to me personally it doesn't make sense that we would have evolved from creatures in the beginning who were not capable of being saved, into humans which are able to be saved.
 
Last edited:
 
Forgive my stupidness here, and yes I have read through the thread but I dont understand the topic?
 
Shit I forgot the popcorn
 
OK let me try to get this popcorn machine going again!?

-There are no such thing as dinosaurs
-NASA is a cartoon company
-Evolution is a lie
-The Earth is flat
-The world is about 6000 years old
-The stars are in a ocean of water
-The sun & moon are local

Get out the popcorn! ?
 
Randolpho said:
When someone gets on an evolution rant, I love to say, 'God created evolution'. Makes their heads spin! They don't what to say. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

❤️❤️❤️❤️

I love pointing out to Christians that God created the earth flat with a dome above it. They laugh at the very word of God. They also laughed about Adam and Eve, but now science has proven we came from the same two parents they believe. Wow science is so advanced! I’m pretty sure Daddy told us this in Genesis. Daddy was right from the beginning and He will continue to be right until his Son comes back!

But I have prepared lots of popcorn because I think things are gonna get pretty crazy in this thread. And remember I love drama!
 
And remember I love drama!
Click to expand...

That's the Italian in you (cwl) but the English in me is saying, dont let the thread change into a circus act (movember)
 
DLD said:
OK let me try to get this popcorn machine going again!?

-There are no such thing as dinosaurs
-NASA is a cartoon company
-Evolution is a lie
-The Earth is flat
-The world is about 6000 years old
-The stars are in a ocean of water
-The sun & moon are local

Get out the popcorn! ?
Click to expand...

1) religion has no issue with dinosaurs, the mainstream way they came in to existence is.
2) NASA claims that 90% of there images are not directly seen images but via computer edited images. Images, that are directly seen images, is the moon etc. A cheap telescope can do that to.
3) evolution is a several times debunked theory of atheists doing there best to explain there choice, that nothing is created, of why they choose atheism.
4) flat: if there is prove that NASA&co has lied or not credible (see nr2) then they are the only one who provided us the spherical images of the earth. All other explanations (at schools companies etc) are made by calculations. If a flat earther (or any other shape) has its calculations right, then the debate is only fought by means of the calculations, but never an image of the earth or NASA's info. The debate has to rule out NASA entirely.
5) religion has no issue of how old the earth is, and what's in it. But how old mankind is.
6) see number 4
7) see number 4

☺
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
PE Newbie - Hoping it works.. and time is not wasted.
Replies
8
Views
452
DLD
DLD
DLD
B
a few specific questions for girth
Replies
1
Views
198
49-er
49-er
49-er
John Matrix
Dilemma choosing between stretchers
Replies
9
Views
579
DLD
DLD
DLD
S
How to prevent your penis from thinking it’s a turtle?
Replies
4
Views
264
DLD
DLD
DLD
92tmorgan
5x5x3 before sex and the ACHIEVEMENT
2
Replies
21
Views
487
squirt_inducer_man
squirt_inducer_man
squirt_inducer_man
Back
Top Bottom