Why male and female?

Originally posted by lemon lime
There was nothing there to suggest I think Darwins theory consists entirely of common ancestry. You pulled that rabbit out of your own hat.

Your language suggested it. You said:

Darwin was attempting to find a link between natural selection within a species and his theory.

It was very hard to figure out what you were saying the first few times, but the above implies that you think 'his theory' is 'common ancestry'. If not, then what exactly were you saying he needed a link between, because as per usual you were extremely vague, then you get upset when people don't understand you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
"Except it is not possible to 'disprove evolution'.
That evolution takes place is true by definition."

Except it is not possible to 'disprove creation'.
That creation took place is true by definition.

(Same logic, different conclusion)

No, its not the same logic.
What is the definition of creation, and how is it true by definition?

I don't think you followed my logic at all. Let me explain:
Evolution, is the change of a the genetic content of a species over time. That the genetic content of a species changes over time is a direct result of the way genetics works.
So a similar analogy would be 'the flowing of a river is the movement of water in a river'. It is true by definition. It is a descriptive term for something that is factual and not in dispute.

Originally posted by humy

humy made an important observation about evidence

which was...?

"Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs."

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, its not the same logic.
What is the definition of creation, and how is it true by definition?

I don't think you followed my logic at all. Let me explain:
Evolution, is the change of a the genetic content of a species over time. That the genetic content of a species changes over time is a direct result of the way genetics works.
So a similar anal ...[text shortened]... rue by definition. It is a descriptive term for something that is factual and not in dispute.

so what you mean by “true by definition” in this context is that it must logically be true given BOTH certain facts about the physical world that are not in dispute AND the definition.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your language suggested it. You said:

Darwin was attempting to find a link between natural selection within a species and his theory.

It was very hard to figure out what you were saying the first few times, but the above implies that you think 'his theory' is 'common ancestry'. If not, then what exactly were you saying he needed a link be ...[text shortened]... as per usual you were extremely vague, then you get upset when people don't understand you.

I'm not responsible for your short attention span.

Originally posted by lemon lime
"Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs."

So you actually agree with that assertion then!!?
and yet you HAVE just ignored the evidence for evolution I just gave you in that very last post that you have just responded to here! Just exactly as I said you would!
reminder of that part of my post:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

“...
In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.
A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis.
The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.
Tragopogon micelius was found by Owenby in 1950 to have originated in through various hybridizations.
An attempt by Russian scientist Karphchenko to cross a radish with a cabbage resulted initially in the creation of hybrid plant that was sterile. However, the seeds of those plants became fertile with the parent species, creating the new plant Raphanobrassica.
Hemp nettle was a new species of plant created by the hybridization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa.
...”
...
...No doubt, you will ignore this evidence ...
...
...and we all know why.
...

didn't you notice that you just ignored that evidence shown above and that evidence is against your current beliefs?
So, what does this tell you about yourself given "Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs" being true?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, its not the same logic.
What is the definition of creation, and how is it true by definition?

I don't think you followed my logic at all. Let me explain:
Evolution, is the change of a the genetic content of a species over time. That the genetic content of a species changes over time is a direct result of the way genetics works.
So a similar anal rue by definition. It is a descriptive term for something that is factual and not in dispute.

I didn't need to follow your logic, I just needed to look at your opening premise. An opening premise can determine what follows. It assumes evidence for evolution.

At one time I argued from your point of view, or did you forget that too? Do you remember me saying I was weary of trying to defend a theory that walks on no legs, flys with no wings, and lays eggs with nothing in them?
You might need to explain to humy what that means.

I'll explain what it means to you if you don't understand it. Or you could ask RJ, he's smart enough to figure out what it means. And if you've already forgotten what I'm talking about, I was talking about being weary of trying to defend a theory that walks on no legs, flys with no wings, and lays eggs with nothing in them.

And before you get a chance to misinterpret "I'll explain what it means to you...", it means I will explain to you what that statement means. It does NOT mean I will explain to you what it means to you. What anything means to you, or what you believe is being conveyed to you, is not something I am able to explain.


I changed my mind... I'm not going to try explaining it to you. I'm weary of trying to explain anything to you or your cohorts.

Originally posted by humy
So you actually agree with that assertion then!!?
and yet you HAVE just ignored the evidence for evolution I just gave you in that very last post that you have just responded to here! Just exactly as I said you would!
reminder of that part of my post:
[quote] http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

“...
In 1905 de Vries fou ...[text shortened]... ourself given "Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs" being true?

That is all a bunch of crap. I want to see a monkey turn into a man. Show me.

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you sure you're not just "finding evidence" of evolution happening today because you believe it has happened in the past?

Yes. Evolution depends on the following factors.

- The existence of some reproducing agent (DNA).
- A way for that agent to change (mutation).
- Some sort of interaction between the environment of the agents and the agents (natural selection).

Everything follows trivially from this. So to disprove evolution, you shouldn't look at the fossil record, but rather show that either:
- DNA does not exist (which has been observed many times).
- DNA does not mutate (which has been observed many times).
- DNA does not affect the phenotype (which has been observed many times).

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't need to follow your logic, I just needed to look at your opening premise. An opening premise can determine what follows. It assumes evidence for evolution.

No, it doesn't. Next time try to follow the logic, and try to read my post to the end before saying something stupid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is all a bunch of crap. I want to see a monkey turn into a man. Show me.

The Instructor

as usual, show a Creationist good evidence for evolution and he just simply demands more and, in this particular case, totally irrelevant evidence at that because the theory of evolution doesn't predict that a monkey would ever "turn into a man" and that is just a stupid comment. We and modern primates share a common ancestor. Obviously, species X and Y sharing a common ancestor Z does NOT logically imply X can credibly now start evolving into Y. Got it now?

And, just like lemon lime, you ignore the evidence presented here because that evidence conflicts with your current beliefs. That means, just like him, your have a delusional mind.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes. Evolution depends on the following factors.

- The existence of some reproducing agent (DNA).
- A way for that agent to change (mutation).
- Some sort of interaction between the environment of the agents and the agents (natural selection).

Everything follows trivially from this. So to disprove evolution, you shouldn't look at the fossil reco ...[text shortened]... bserved many times).
- DNA does not affect the phenotype (which has been observed many times).

Good point. Evolution logically SHOULD happen given those three facts that are not disputed -not even disputed by these religious nuts!

Originally posted by lemon lime
At one time I argued from your point of view, or did you forget that too? Do you remember me saying I was weary of trying to defend a theory that walks on no legs, flys with no wings, and lays eggs with nothing in them?

Initially I actually believed you when you said that. However it has become obvious over the course of the thread that you have religious reasons for disputing evolution and your skepticism is not based on any actual issues with the theory itself.

Originally posted by humy

when you say "observing that evolution happens" this is an observation of the theory, not an observation of what actually happened.

"observing that evolution happens" would generally mean “observation of what actually happened” but cannot mean “ observation of the theory” no matter how you try and twist it because, in any language, "the t ...[text shortened]... ence for evolution, and that's one of the main differences between us and Creationists.

You can observe only what you see in the here and now, you assign the
meaning to it that pleases you, it does not mean what you think is in front
of actually means everything you believe about it is true. Observing small a
change in the here and now does not mean small changes over long
periods of time can take a single cell creature and through random
mutations with natural selection causes its descendants to be a jelly fish,
a dog, or a rose. So I'm not sure what you are observing you'd have to be
a little more forth coming on it and why you think you are seeing evolution
in action.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can observe only what you see in the here and now, you assign the
meaning to it that pleases you, it does not mean what you think is in front
of actually means everything you believe about it is true. Observing small a
change in the here and now does not mean small changes over long
periods of time can take a single cell creature and through random
a little more forth coming on it and why you think you are seeing evolution
in action.
Kelly

You can observe only what you see in the here and now,

and I can remember what I observed in the past before the here and now.

you assign the meaning to it that pleases you

NO, I do NOT. What “pleases” me has nothing to do with my interpretation of what I observe but rather logic or reason does.

Observing small a
change in the here and now does not mean small changes over long
periods of time can take a single cell creature and through random
mutations with natural selection causes its descendants to be a jelly fish,
a dog, or a rose.

-and obviously nobody is claiming nor believing here that MERELY observing a small observed change to a species now logically and necessarily means there was a large change in the past.
Obviously, the mountain of evidence for evolution consists of vastly more that just merely the observations of some small recent changes and it is that mountain of evidence, NOT just merely the observation of those small changes, that means we know for sure that macroevolution can happen and has happened in the more distant past.

So I'm not sure what you are observing you'd have to be
a little more forth coming on it and why you think you are seeing evolution
in action.

what I am 'observing' is the undisputed existence of the many credible records of other people's observations (scientific observations to be more precise) that indicate evolution.
I gave just one tiny sample of that in yesterdays post only for that to be predictably ignored by the Creationists here because they always ignore such evidence. Reminder:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

“...
In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.
A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis.
The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.
Tragopogon micelius was found by Owenby in 1950 to have originated in through various hybridizations.
An attempt by Russian scientist Karphchenko to cross a radish with a cabbage resulted initially in the creation of hybrid plant that was sterile. However, the seeds of those plants became fertile with the parent species, creating the new plant Raphanobrassica.
Hemp nettle was a new species of plant created by the hybridization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa.
...”