[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[VirginShallConceive]

If "natural section" occurred on an African to become a European, then African is less evolved than European who recently evolved.
No one needs to be a PhD to understand this.

Clever wording and politically correct statements does not hide the fact that Evolutionary theory is racist.

It seems that a change in environmental surroundings can lead to physical adaptations that are more noticeably different in an evolved species than if the environment changed little or if there was no noticeable change in the environment.

Tell me if my above statement is racist.

 

[lordkalvan]

Evolution is "natural section" for which "survival of the fittest" is the core. i.e, "Europeans" are "naturally selected" from "Africans" through evolution in becoming the recent and modern R haplogroup.

More recent =/= more evolved.

If not, someone can prove humans evolved into microbes (or) an European evolving into an African.

What?

If "natural section" is taken out of the equation, then there is no evolution.

But as you can't 'take it out if the equation', it follows....?

I think you are not aware of what evolution really teaches.

Well, so far in this thread I have seen little evidence that you are.

 

[felix]

It seems that a change in environmental surroundings can lead to physical adaptations that are more noticeably different in an evolved species than if the environment changed little or if there was no noticeable change in the environment.

Tell me if my above statement is racist.

Those are variations within a species that has nothing to do with Evolution.
Anyway, when you mentioned "evolved species", you indirectly referred to "Europeans". Is in't it? Why should a human "evolve" to adapt environments. Those variations are not evolution but adaptations.
You can sandwich your words to look politically correct but the underlying fact is: Evolution is "pure" racism.

 

[lordkalvan]

Those are variations within a species that has nothing to do with Evolution.

Why not? What does it have to do with, then?

Anyway, when you mentioned "evolved species", you indirectly referred to "Europeans". Is in't it? Why should a human "evolve" to adapt environments. Those variations are not evolution but adaptations.

Can you tell us where this tipping point between variations/adaptations and evolution lies?

You can sandwich your words to look politically correct but the underlying fact is: Evolution is "pure" racism.

You keep asserting this, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Are we simply to take your word for it?

 

[felix]

More recent =/= more evolved.

What?

But as you can't 'take it out if the equation', it follows....?

Well, so far in this thread I have seen little evidence that you are.

You know what? Evolution even says, Christians who are conservatives are inferior than athiests and liberals who are "highly evolved".

Refer: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100303-liberals-atheists-smarter-evolution-evolved/

 

[felix]

Why not? What does it have to do with, then?

Can you tell us where this tipping point between variations/adaptations and evolution lies?

You keep asserting this, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Are we simply to take your word for it?

Because, there is no evidence that one species became another which is called macro-evolution.
Variations within species are called "micro-evolution" which no one denies.

You see, even the words selected and what is included is very clever to have evidence of one to prove another. Taking evidence of "micro-evolution" to prove "macro-evolution" is not scientific. "micro-evolution" should not be even called so at the first place.

 

[lordkalvan]

You know what? Evolution even says, Christians who are conservatives are inferior than athiests and liberals who are "highly evolved".

Refer: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100303-liberals-atheists-smarter-evolution-evolved/

Unfortunately, other than the headline, there appears to be nothing in the body of the article cited that supports its overly simplistic claim. 'Stupid' is just as evolved as 'smart', but unfortunately it is less of a survival disadvantage than perhaps it used to be. Even the researcher acknowledges the less than perfect nature of his data.

 

[lordkalvan]

Because, there is no evidence that one species became another which is called macro-evolution.
Variations within species are called "micro-evolution" which no one denies.

So having spent many posts denying evolution at all, you now acknowledge it after all? Can you tell us what biological mechanism prevents micro from becoming macro, how it functions and how it can be identified? Can you further explain how and why the evidence that shows new species emerging where they did not exist before is better explained by one account better than evolution?

You see, even the words selected and what is included is very clever to have evidence of one to prove another. Taking evidence of "micro-evolution" to prove "macro-evolution" is not scientific. "micro-evolution" should not be even called so at the first place.

So what should it be called and why?

 

[felix]

So having spent many posts denying evolution at all, you now acknowledge it after all? Can you tell us what biological mechanism prevents micro from becoming macro, how it functions and how it can be identified? Can you further explain how and why the evidence that shows new species emerging where they did not exist before is better explained by one account better than evolution?

Nope. As I said, micro-evolution is just a variation not fit to be called so as evlution, a clever way to deceive people using words.

Using variation evidence as evidence for macro-evolution by itself is deception and cheating - a pseudoscience.

Micro-evolution should be called adaptability as it is within a species which has nothing to do with evolution nor it results in any evolved being.

There is no evidence shown for any species evolving back into it's predecessor. However, it is shown in studies that light pigmented humans become visibly darker if they live in hotter climates for more than 500 years.

 

[lordkalvan]

Nope. As I said, micro-evolution is just a variation not fit to be called so as evlution, a clever way to deceive people using words.

Evolution is evolution. All you are doing is thrashing around to avoid admitting it. Evolution is simply change over time, which encompasses variation.

Using variation evidence as evidence for macro-evolution by itself is deception and cheating - a pseudoscience.

Evolution is evolution. The evidence for what you call macroevolution is wide and varied and does not depend on what you call microevolution. I note you are still unable to tell us what biological mechanism prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, how it functions and how it can be identified.

Micro-evolution should be called adaptability as it is within a species which has nothing to do with evolution nor it results in any evolved being.

Call it what you like, it's still evolution.

There is no evidence shown for any species evolving back into it's predecessor.

And if you can show that evolutionary theory proposes or expects any such thing, I would be astonished. So beating up on strawmen of your own making does not make a very convincing argument.

However, it is shown in studies that light pigmented humans become visibly darker if they live in hotter climates for more than 500 years.

Can you cite these studies? What conclusion do you draw from them in regard to this discussion?

 

[felix]

Evolution is evolution. All you are doing is thrashing around to avoid admitting it. Evolution is simply change over time, which encompasses variation.

Evolution is evolution. The evidence for what you call macroevolution is wide and varied and does not depend on what you call microevolution. I note you are still unable to tell us what biological mechanism prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, how it functions and how it can be identified.

Call it what you like, it's still evolution.

And if you can show that evolutionary theory proposes or expects any such thing, I would be astonished. So beating up on strawmen of your own making does not make a very convincing argument.

Can you cite these studies? What conclusion do you draw from them in regard to this discussion?

There is not a single evidence for macroevolution. You can beat up on strawmen and cheat people by calling it whatever you like, but that nope. no evidence.

It is like a man having a neutrino bomb and warning people that he can blow it, except the fact that no one can test him because, if tested, no one would survive. Such cleaver tricks had been used throughout history in the name of religion and traditions. Such un-testables are "theories" which is why, evolution is just a "theory" and not a fact. Only testable/repeatable/experimentable facts become science. Theories remain the "opinions" and "conclusions" of the author, which another author can built upon based on the same assumptions as the former.

 

[felix]

Unfortunately, other than the headline, ...

That's enough to show what they what to say and think and how they want to deceive.

 

[Grazer]

That's enough to show what they what to say and think and how they want to deceive.

I find institutes like Christian concern are not adverse to this kind of tactic either, it hardly proves your point.

 

[felix]

I find institutes like Christian concern are not adverse to this kind of tactic either, it hardly proves your point.

I do not know who "Christian concern" is.
How about a news with headline: Grazer the devil, and yet nothing on it's content.

 

[Grazer]

I do not know who "Christian concern" is.
How about a news with headline: Grazer the devil, and yet nothing on it's content.

Just because you don't know who they are, doesn't negate my point. I As for the headline, I already am to some people lol but its what the article goes on to say thats key.

 

[felix]

Just because you don't know who they are, doesn't negate my point. I As for the headline, I already am to some people lol but its what the article goes on to say thats key.

I wonder why you come from nowhere and reply to a totally unrelated conversation ? It wasn't even addressed to you, nor is it related to any of which you posted. It is not even "on the topic".

 

[lordkalvan]

There is not a single evidence for macroevolution.

There is plenty of evidence. You can disagree with it and offer your account if the evidence that better explains it than does evolutionary theory, but what you can't do is deny it exists.

You can beat up on strawmen and cheat people by calling it whatever you like, but that nope. no evidence.

What strawman is it that you suggest I am beating up on?

It is like a man having a neutrino bomb and warning people that he can blow it, except the fact that no one can test him because, if tested, no one would survive. Such cleaver tricks had been used throughout history in the name of religion and traditions. Such un-testables are "theories" which is why, evolution is just a "theory" and not a fact. Only testable/repeatable/experimentable facts become science. Theories remain the "opinions" and "conclusions" of the author, which another author can built upon based on the same assumptions as the former.

This is so contrary to the case that, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, it's not only not right, it's not even wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

That's enough to show what they what to say and think and how they want to deceive.

And the idea that what sub-editors choose as headlines is evidence of how scientists 'think and how they want to deceive' how, exactly?

 

[lordkalvan]

I wonder why you come from nowhere and reply to a totally unrelated conversation ? It wasn't even addressed to you, nor is it related to any of which you posted. It is not even "on the topic".

In public forums anyone is free to comment on posts as they wish. You are not obliged to reply.

 

[felix]

There is plenty of evidence. You can disagree with it and offer your account if the evidence that better explains it than does evolutionary theory, but what you can't do is deny it exists.

What strawman is it that you suggest I am beating up on?

This is so contrary to the case that, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, it's not only not right, it's not even wrong.

No evidence. If so, let me know and I can experiment and create that species.

Is that even science which you can't experiment?