A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[wxtornado]

Well? How was it idiocy?

You answered this question in your own post - see if you can find it.

 

[This_person]

You answered this question in your own post - see if you can find it.

How is it idiocy? If you take a monkey back up the "evolutionary tree", wouldn't it eventually hit sponge? I realize it's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I'm not trying to imply a single generation change (I presumed you understood that). I'm trying to say that first was no life, then was single celled life, then a few generations later a sponge, then a lot of stuff in between, then a monkey. And, a tree. And, the cold virus. And, a mosquito. All from the ancestry of the sponge.

So, it that's the correct answer, there should be a test that demonstrates a daughter species that is higher evolved, significantly more complex than the parent species.

As I showed before, the "new" species was not more complex than the parent species, and therefore does not address the question at hand.

:shrug:

 

[wxtornado]

Precisely.

 

[This_person]

Precisely.

So, you're saying it's not idiocy, it was your misunderstanding of the point?

Okay, maybe you can help with the question then, which was - has there ever been a repeatable, testable, peer reviewed scientific experiment that demonstrates a daughter species of significant higher complexity than the parent species? One which would show how life as complex as it is today could have mutated (through many millenium of mutations - so you know I understand that's the claim) from a singled celled life form? One that helps us understand how the theory is that a species would die out from too small of a genetic pool; yet, all of the 100 times more life than exists today came from a single cell of life?

 

[wxtornado]

.... has there ever been a repeatable, testable, peer reviewed scientific experiment that demonstrates a daughter species of significant higher complexity than the parent species? One which would show how life as complex as it is today could have mutated (through many millenium of mutations - so you know I understand that's the claim) from a singled celled life form? One that helps us understand how the theory is that a species would die out from too small of a genetic pool; yet, all of the 100 times more life than exists today came from a single cell of life?

I have no idea. Biologists probably don't expect to find such a species either. If we found such a species, it would be a good claim *against* evolution.

 

[This_person]

I have no idea. Biologists probably don't expect to find such a species either. If we found such a species, it would be a good claim *against* evolution.

How would finding proof that evolution could be the answer be an unexpected find, and against evolution?

 

[wxtornado]

How would finding proof that evolution could be the answer be an unexpected find, and against evolution?

What you're describing is not evolution - it isn't even close. Seriously TP, there are probably thousands of websites that explain this.

 

[This_person]

What you're describing is not evolution - it isn't even close. Seriously TP, there are probably thousands of websites that explain this.

Clearly, my knowledge is deficient then.

Help me understand how humans came to exist, from the evolutionary point of view. I thought I understood it to be a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift - the end result being a species different from the original species. Thus, we start with an astronomically improbable, but possible (we suppose) single celled form of life, which - generation by generation of mutations later - became plants and mosquitos and dogs and humans and bacteria.

Where am I misunderstanding this?

 

[wxtornado]

Clearly, my knowledge is deficient then.

Help me understand how humans came to exist, from the evolutionary point of view. I thought I understood it to be a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift - the end result being a species different from the original species. Thus, we start with an astronomically improbable, but possible (we suppose) single celled form of life, which - generation by generation of mutations later - became plants and mosquitos and dogs and humans and bacteria.

Where am I misunderstanding this?

Now, compare this paragraph to the question you keep trying to get an answer for and tell me if you can see a difference.

 

[This_person]

Now, compare this paragraph to the question you keep trying to get an answer for and tell me if you can see a difference.

Nope, not even a little one. But, you do, and you imply with your question here that this wording suits your understanding, so I'll use it as the foundation of my reworded question.

Has there ever been a repeatable test/experiment, peer reviewed, which shows evolution to exist by demonstrating a significant change in the gene pool such that the resultant species is significantly more complex - on the order of daughter species being of different genuses? One that would demonstrate that more than one entire genus of species can result from a single celled organism - thus demonstrating that evolution may actually be how mankind became mankind?

 

[wxtornado]

Has there ever been a repeatable test/experiment, peer reviewed, which shows evolution to exist by demonstrating a significant change in the gene pool such that the resultant species is significantly more complex - on the order of daughter species being of different genuses?

Probably not. Again, that would be a good case against evolution. We're going in circles here, aren't we?

 

[This_person]

Probably not. Again, that would be a good case against evolution. We're going in circles here, aren't we?

HOW is an explaination of evolution against evolution?

 

[wxtornado]

HOW is an explaination of evolution against evolution?

HOW have you explained evolution?

 

[This_person]

HOW have you explained evolution?

In the question:

"...a significant change in the gene pool such that the resultant species is significantly more complex - on the order of daughter species being of different genuses? One that would demonstrate that more than one entire genus of species can result from a single celled organism..."​

HOW does my question not support evolution?

 

[wxtornado]

HOW does my question not support evolution?

You're implying that "the resultant species is significantly more complex". Where did you get that?

 

[This_person]

You're implying that "the resultant species is significantly more complex". Where did you get that?

Isn't it intuitive? If life began as a single celled life form, pretty much ALL other life is more complex than that. Somewhere along the lines, that single cell became a human, if evolution is correct. Now, I'm not saying a single generation, obviously. But, somewhere along the lines, a tadpole became the amphibious land creature which became the ..... which became the human, and that's quite a feat, if you ask me. Especially when we can't demonstrate ANY of that, let alone all of that. So, if evolution is correct, a single cell has to be mutatable to animals, insects, fish, bacteria..... all the current genus of life from a single cell, diverse genetic material included.

So, for the third try, how does my question lead to proof AGAINST evolution?

 

[wxtornado]

So, for the third try, how does my question lead to proof AGAINST evolution?

For the third try, your statements aren't consistent with how evolution works -they are consistent with sophistry. You keep insisting that a daughter species will be "significantly more complex" than it's parent species. I asked you where you got that idea, you said it was intuitive, and again I'll tell you - google how evolution works, because you don't seem to even understand what you oppose.


To answer your question one more time, finding a daughter species that is "significantly more complex" than it's parent species would be a case AGAINST EVOLUTION because

that's
not
how
evolution
works.

All this stems from your "belief" in microevolution, but not in macroevolution - may I ask how your draw the line? Why do you "believe" some evidence, but not others?

 

[PsyOps]

For the third try, your statements aren't consistent with how evolution works -they are consistent with sophistry. You keep insisting that a daughter species will be "significantly more complex" than it's parent species. I asked you where you got that idea, you said it was intuitive, and again I'll tell you - google how evolution works, because you don't seem to even understand what you oppose.


To answer your question one more time, finding a daughter species that is "significantly more complex" than it's parent species would be a case AGAINST EVOLUTION because

that's
not
how
evolution
works.

All this stems from your "belief" in microevolution, but not in macroevolution - may I ask how your draw the line? Why do you "believe" some evidence, but not others?

How can anyone claim they KNOW how evolution works? It's a theory. It's something you have to believe in.

 

[This_person]

For the third try, your statements aren't consistent with how evolution works -they are consistent with sophistry. You keep insisting that a daughter species will be "significantly more complex" than it's parent species. I asked you where you got that idea, you said it was intuitive, and again I'll tell you - google how evolution works, because you don't seem to even understand what you oppose.


To answer your question one more time, finding a daughter species that is "significantly more complex" than it's parent species would be a case AGAINST EVOLUTION because

that's
not
how
evolution
works.

All this stems from your "belief" in microevolution, but not in macroevolution - may I ask how your draw the line? Why do you "believe" some evidence, but not others?

evolution, concept that embodies the belief that existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual, continuous change from previously existing forms. This theory, also known as descent with modification, constitutes organic evolution. Inorganic evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with the development of the physical universe from unorganized matter. Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms.

Evidence that evolution has occurred still rests substantially on the same grounds that Darwin emphasized; comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. But additional recent evidence has come from biochemistry and molecular biology, which reveals fundamental similarities and relations in metabolism and hereditary mechanisms among disparate types of organisms. In general, both at the visible level and at the biochemical, one can detect the kinds of gradations of relatedness among organisms expected from evolution.

Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual's or species' survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment—such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish), where there may be more food and fewer predators.

This is saying pretty much exactly what I'm saying. What about what I'm saying don't you understand? What about what I'm saying is
not
how
evolution
works?

 

[This_person]

How can anyone claim they KNOW how evolution works? It's a theory. It's something you have to believe in.

All real scientists agree (hence, if they don't agree, they're not real scientists) that it works however you don't explain it, see?