Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Onlyfans. Not related to mating. Unbelievable.Onlyfans accounts are mating behaviours? Since when is Onlyfans a dating site?
EDIT: I could have sworn Onlyfans was a "Send Nudes" "Pay me" site.
Onlyfans. Not related to mating. Unbelievable.Onlyfans accounts are mating behaviours? Since when is Onlyfans a dating site?
EDIT: I could have sworn Onlyfans was a "Send Nudes" "Pay me" site.
Is anyone on Onlyfans to maybe get married? Anyone at all?Onlyfans. Not related to mating. Unbelievable.
Is bunk. It's not a scientific theory in the least, unlike evolution, which has plenty of evidence to support it, no matter how much you or anyone else wants to deny it.Irreducible complexity
Uh... Mules?So....give me an example of a species changing so much it can't breed with its predecessor?
Those are sterile, not incapable of crossbreeding. Well, the males are totally sterile, the females are like 1 in a million fertile.Uh... Mules?
They are incapable of breeding period. They are a genetic deadend.Being sterile makes them incapable of crossbreeding, though, right?
That wasn't specified, though, was it?They are incapable of breeding period. They are a genetic deadend.
Again. Twenty years. Twenty. You do your argument no favors by being hyperbolic about the scale and depth of these experiments. Twenty years of selection pressure are negligible on the claimed timescale evolution operates under.
Is bunk. It's not a scientific theory in the least, unlike evolution, which has plenty of evidence to support it, no matter how much you or anyone else wants to deny it.
From the disturbed contents of the world, one can find it hard to believe that it is the work of a singular and perfect creator. There are suggestions that some, or all of it, was created for malevolent reasons. I think that this is disrespectful to both God and the creations, and contradictory to the implications in Genesis 1:31 that all Creation was good. But the world is not just God's fancy, it was made for Us, who took transience in a transient world for Our eventual perfection. If it was made for Us, why would We have no influence on its creation? And would yet-perfected spirits make good decisions or even stick to them, hence the extinctions.How many times exactly has God handcrafted every species over again after a Meteor or too much Oxygen generation, or Volcanism or w/e.
We can point to several points where 90%+ of everything just died. If Evolution isn't a thing... then why is it that immediately after these points we see all sorts of stuff that then just fades out and gets replaced?
The reason people keep insisting Evolution is real is because no one has a better explanation for the pattern with mass extinction.
That the current state cannot function with further reductions does not provide any logical proof that a process of iteration cannot generate it. Carving arches into solid stone comes to mind, wind and water can do this as nothing but simple mechanical outcomes of physical laws.It's not that irreducible complexity is bunk, it's that there's no response to it
Evolution does not actually regress to origins, though. Its statement is that current variety exceeds original variety, which is incredibly obvious in a great many areas of animal husbandry, botany, and agriculture. They're all predicated on traits arising that were not inherited.evolution as a theory of origins
These are cool btw. A+B is a viable breeding pair, B+C is a viable breeding pair, C+A is not a viable breeding pair. A nice simple three way example.Ring species
No, it does not.That the current state cannot function with further reductions does not provide any logical proof that a process of iteration cannot generate it. Carving arches into solid stone comes to mind, wind and water can do this as nothing but simple mechanical outcomes of physical laws.
Evolution can still occur if the complexity continues function when modified, or if there are things that can be added without fatal loss of function. "Irreducible complexity" is not a disproof because you do not have to be able to reduce it for it to mutate.
I have not said that at all. In fact, I gave you a proposed experimental design. I think at our current level of technology, the political and financial context of scientific research, and the extreme difficulty of creating a test environment over the time scales we'd need to properly test the theory it's unlikely that we'll be able definitely falsify.And here you're showing just how strongly you've absorbed their propaganda.
You're outright saying 'it's impossible to do the type of testing needed to prove whether this is real or not.'
If we can't do a test study on it, how can it be considered scientific?
On top of all of this, the fact that multiple key parts of life-critical systems are not found in any other part of the organism mean that it must have been some sort of long, involved process to 'evolve' into being, except that the first generation without a functional version of this is the last generation of the species.
For one, the timeframe there is over a billion years, for another, there actually are such traces. Or have you never heard of parthenogenesis? The advantage of sexual reproduction is specifically that it offers more opportunity for variance, and the intermediary is bacterial horizontal gene transfer.creatures like mammals, birds, and reptiles don't just have only one reproductive system, they have no trace whatsoever of any other reproductive system.
'Incapable of reproducing' or 'incapable of surviving' were the examples I gave, not 'sickle cell anemia,' 'Down's syndrome,' or any other seriously debilitating but not instantly fatal disease.There's a lot of things that can be profoundly fucked up without actually ending a population, because evolution is actually survival of the good enough. It tends towards increased fitness because such has higher reproductive success, but less-fit organisms do not automatically die.
Perthenogenesis is only relevant to species that make use of that. There's a great wealth of species that don't, but it would only take one to functionally disprove evolution.For one, the timeframe there is over a billion years, for another, there actually are such traces. Or have you never heard of parthenogenesis? The advantage of sexual reproduction is specifically that it offers more opportunity for variance, and the intermediary is bacterial horizontal gene transfer.
This is a classic deflection that evolutionists have been using for decades. 'Absurdly unlikely' is understating it."Any one thing that proves it wrong" requires it actually prove it wrong. All your arguments are that it is absurdly unlikely. Evolving a complete metabolic pathway for an entirely new source of nutrition is absurdly unlikely. Happened quite abruptly because the precursor mutations were mostly do-nothing.
Another strawman. I've already demonstrated how you don't actually have a long enough time scale (and I don't know if you're old enough to remember how evolutionists kept increasing the timescale back in the 20th century because they realized they hadn't given themselves long enough), but it's not 'I don't know therefore God.'Your argument is literally "I don't know, therefor God". That because the theory has large unknowns in particulars, it thus cannot be right. Except that evolution is driven by the Law of Truly Large Numbers. That on long enough time scales, individually unlikely events become likely.
This does not accurately reflect strict creationism, and is just demonstrating a 'looking for confirmation' rather than 'looking for possible falsification' mentality.The entire point is that it takes observable patterns in domesticated organisms, and extends it backwards to explain why variance is present to begin with. The variety of dog breeds do not make sense in strict creationism, and very nearly every possible mechanism is a way for evolution to exist.
And here we get to the root of it. You are requiring the people prove a negative in order to remove evolution from the religious canon of atheism. One of the most fundamental aspects of science is that you can never prove a negative, just prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.You may as well deny all theories of stellar formation save God placing them in the sky because we cannot observe them because the Genus Homo has not existed long enough. Deep Time science has to work with modeling and estimates because direct experimentation can't happen.
Edit: That there are questions does not disprove a theory. Disproving a scientific theory demands showing it is literally impossible, not merely astronomically unlikely, particularly when dealing with things like evolution where "astronomically unlikely" is a rather normal part of running the numbers.
The odds of a single base pair mutating is something like 10^-10. Since the human genome is around 6.3^10, it happens several times per mitosis event. Add in the way haploid generation works and you end up with "astronomically unlikely" happening with extreme regularity. Hence the gene-repair.
Evolution has some support from ready observations, and produces explanations we can actually use. Creationism is attractive because it allows one to say "because God" to nearly any question of the natural world, making it profoundly useless because it predicts nothing and gives us nothing to do.
Do the wolves you claimed speciated due to behavior get married? Or is there more to mating behavior than where you've moved the goalposts to?Is anyone on Onlyfans to maybe get married? Anyone at all?
Parthenogenesis still requires a fully developed set of sexual organs to create and grow the embryo/egg. It's not some halfway point between sexual and asexual reproduction, and not possible with an only-partial reproductive system installed.There's a lot of things that can be profoundly fucked up without actually ending a population, because evolution is actually survival of the good enough. It tends towards increased fitness because such has higher reproductive success, but less-fit organisms do not automatically die.
For one, the timeframe there is over a billion years, for another, there actually are such traces. Or have you never heard of parthenogenesis? The advantage of sexual reproduction is specifically that it offers more opportunity for variance, and the intermediary is bacterial horizontal gene transfer.
The point I'm making is that this bar is actually incredibly low. You can, in fact, have a considerable amount of resources wasted on developing new clotting mechanisms before losing previous ones that became redundant. Redundant reproduction producing increased variety leading to that variety eventually losing the previous mode is not at all excluded.'Incapable of reproducing' or 'incapable of surviving' were the examples I gave
Komodo Dragons have fully-featured backup parthenogenesis to restart sexual reproduction from no surviving males. Also vestigial parthenogenesis in birds. It exists, there's not a single recorded case of it actually working. Valid intermediaries do, in fact, exist, with some that can survive off one of the two and the "earlier" option having a non-functional version.There's a great wealth of species that don't, but it would only take one to functionally disprove evolution.
Chromosomes, to be stable, require multiple packing mechanisms that require stable unpacking to read on-demand, to say nothing of the pileup around telomeres... All of which are wholly unnecessary for bacteria, as they use a loop of DNA. You are literally saying it's impossible because a mechanism that can be reduced is too unlikely.The probability of getting one correct completed chromosome of DNA
What is the evidence in favor of your alternative beyond the "absurd" mainstream? What is your alternative explanation for the purpose of all these horrifying mutations and wasteful functions? To say nothing of the sheer omnipresence of spectacular brutality, of course. It's actually uncommon for predators to wait for prey to finish dying before eating them.The more we understand about the complexity of life, the more absurd any explenation for such a sophisticated system other than an intelligent designer becomes.