I asked because you almost have to be a Young Earth Creationist to believe evolution doesn’t/hasn’t occurred. What are your beliefs?
- That's the sad state we live in today, it won't last long though. The same was thought of myths like Eugenics, it's just a matter of time. In truth, the evolutionary myths have mostly been discarded, just hastily replaced by new myths every time, giving the impression of persistence & consistency.
Eugenics is an ethical issue, not a practical one.
Species is the lowest rank on the taxonomical tree.
Of course two closely related species are interfertile.
- You're begging the question.
I’m just going by common definitions.
Also keep in mind the Galápagos Islands is essentially one biome.
Little evolutionary pressure apart from the various foods they eat such as fruit, seeds, nectar, etc.
- The five continents are one biome for humans... [insert the rest of what you said]
It isn’t because Earth’s inhabited lands are one biome for humans. It’s only possible for you to say that with a straight face due to modern technology. Ask yourself why aren’t modern humans that diverse? The only large/wide difference population wise is skin pigmentation and that’s not saying much. It’s because the finches have been separated for millions of years, modern humans have not. Yes, I know it’s hard to comprehend big numbers.
What do you think of ancient humans/hominids such as homo erectus and further back australopithecus?
- Not in the sense of new species being non-infertile with existing ones.
You have your own definition of what constitutes species.
Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?
- Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.
So humans have been around for 3.5 billion years?
- No habla English no more?
How long have modern humans been around?
All mutations are harmful? Like becoming lactose tolerant? You can see this in the human genetic/migratory record. This is natural selection.
- Another one of their tricks: equivocation. They call variants & snips mutation to give the impression of "randomness". These evolutionationists are really hopeless. Pathetic!
I personally don’t equate mutation with randomness.
You gave me a link that doesn’t support any of that.
- Lmao! It's your OWN link & its sources that says those things. Oops... that's embarrassing.
I admit, I couldn’t be bothered reading through what you said.
You’re saying any species that can breed with each other are not different species, correct?
- Under a strict definition of species, yes.
Under your own definition of species?
From a quick google search this is the definition google gave me:
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.
You’ve moved the goalpost from apes to great apes yet humans still full into that category.
- False. It depends on the context. They use 'apes' generally to refer to great apes, sometimes inclusive of humans, sometimes more generally to gibbons as well, depending on the context.
What I’m saying is you’re making the inclusive circle smaller going from apes to great apes. You’re starting to sound like one of those “evolutionists.”
You’re saying species can’t be interfertile, correct? Or are you using your own definitions?
- By now, you should realize that the this is not about the postulates of evolution, rather about the tactics of evolutionationists in using ambiguous definitions & equivocating between different meanings to allow for their mythology to exist.
Sure bud.
This is one piece of supportive evidence you asked for which you said would be sufficient.
- In your dreams. Do the work then, build the argument from 'fossil record' to 'evolution by natural selection'. It may be a waste of time, because it's an impossible feat.
An impossible feat to convince someone as wilfully ignorant as you maybe.
Do you want to go into genetics now?
- As long as you bring a single supportive actual evidence, you could use Homer's Iliad for all I care.
Of course that would be for all you care.
If you don’t believe in evolution and you’re not a Young Earth Creationist, what do you believe?
- That's a false dichotomy. I don't have to believe either.
I wasn’t asking which one you believed, asked what you believed
It’s reasonable for me to conclude you think animals just pop into existence in the course of 100s of millions of years.
- That's a double false dichotomy. First of all, evolutionary theory =/= evolution. It's possible that animals have evolved from one another; in case this is true it still does not entail that the theory of evolution, which is just a claim, is true too. In the same way that the truth of objects falling because of gravity does not entail the truth of any theory attempting to explain it, for instance Aristotle's elements-attracts-elements theory -which we know is BS. Regardless of the truth gravitation, Aristotle's theory is BS. Likewise, regardless of the truth of evolution, the evolutionary theory is BS. Second of all, no evolution occurred does not necessarily mean pop-into-ion occurred. The two are equally unlikely occurrences from a natural perspective. In the fossil record, animals appear & disappear as is.
It’s a good thing we don’t just rely on the fossil record to explain evolution then.
If you have the truth, I want to know about it.
- Have you been listening? I don't believe we are even capable of explaining Life at this point. In their attempts to explain the cosmos the Greeks resorted to astrology: conspiratorial anecdotal ad-hoc accounts for lack of sufficient understanding & information about the cosmos. The evolutionary theory is the astrology of Life, a bunch of conspiratorial anecdotal ad-hoc accounts for lack of sufficient understanding & information about Life.
I’m pretty sure animals don’t just pop into existence though.
First: What do you mean not everything that changes and moves doesn’t evolve in evolutionary terms?
- Exactly what it says. To "evolve" in the evolutionary sense is to "become various different species from common ancestor by way of natural selection & random mutation".
Okay, I agree. Changing and moving doesn’t necessarily entail evolution, such as when I move my arm.
Second: What do you mean viruses are not self-sustaining and self-reproducing?
- Exactly just that. Do you even know what a virus is? A parasite to the cell.
You can consider that to any organism the sustains itself through other organism or even chemical compounds and radiation absorbed.
But why does this matter?
No organism is if they don’t have energy to consume/produce.
- Which the virus doesn't, unlike the cell.
Both the cell and virus require energy.
Third: What do you mean there’s no such thing as speciated bacteria? Scientists speciate bacteria all the time in the lab.
- No such thing. Speciation does occur in the definition of "speciate" though...
That’s nice.
Fourth: Cyanobacteria are prokaryotic which means their evolution is difficult to study. Though scientist are starting to apply more techniques.
- Lmao! Isn't this just wonderfully pathetic. With this much faith you have in this mythology you could've been a high priest in Shamanism.
Lmao! It’s better than believing animals just pop into existence in the course of 100’s of millions of years.
But I guess it makes you closer to Allah (your magical sky daddy). Pathetic!
Do you want to carry on using this toxic language?
Well you don’t consider adaptation as evolution. So there’s no point
- That's 27 fallacies in one sentence. I could list them, but I may lose half my brain in the process.
Well I was replying directly to what you said.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how evolution occurs.
P1. If Evolutionary Theory, then Evolution.
P2. Evolution.
C. Therefore, Evolution.
I only see your strawman.
- Do you now? Try one more time, see if it is.
That was part of my explanation of how scientific theories work.
Your turn.
- You can't use your words? We've been through this. "here is a link, therefore it's true" is a fallacious argument.
Are you saying my words are more trustworthy than the links I share? Think that through.
- Strawman. "here is a link, therefore it's true" is an invalid argument.
Strawman. “here is my word, therefore it’s true” is an invalid argument as well.
You still need to think it through.
What’s the reality if not evolution?
- Maybe we'll figure that out in 500 years, maybe not. It took a millennia & a half to go from Aristotle's 'gravity = element attraction' to al-Biruni's 'gravity = force inversely proportional to distance between two massive objects'; & another millennia to get to Einstein's 'gravitation = curvature in space-time proportional to momentum of contained mass'. You, & your evolutionationist masters, are being grossly presumptuous in thinking their "element-attraction" approach to Life is no more than a farce.
Yes, humanity will learn more and explain evolution better. I agree.
So people online who aren’t experts.
- Evolutionationists = Richard Dawkins & his evolutionary biologist class.
So just one guys who you don’t like for his militant atheism?
It goes to show It’s because of your feelings you don’t believe in evolution.
What makes you feel good is all that you care about.
I’m sure your perspective of evolution would be different if someone you felt positive of taught you about it.
