Those who don't believe in evolution theory. What's your theory?

[The Noose]

This question is directed to the evolutionists, why is this chart linear? If we're talking about a series of random mutations, especially occurring in a global scale, why doesn't the evolutionary chart resemble a spider web?

If i understand you correctly, its because thats how evolution works. Its pathway is dependent on linear time. That human evolution picture depicts a short time frame compared to the overall history of Darwinian evolution.

Best i could find for now.

http://i.imgur.com/EIbub.gif

[soul_survivor]

And provided no reasoning for it.
Its not me who wants to go around in circles.

I provided plenty of reasons in my post. Abiogensis, genetics, the scientific method and what is required etc etc. I'm not going to repeat all that if you're whole point is "well yeah...but".

That is childish. Either bring the science to disprove what I've said or stay quiet.

[soul_survivor]

Mutations can be either good or bad. Only the good remains, and the bad mutations in living things, cause them to die younger or have less chance to reproduce. Which means that mutation won't survive long.

So yes, evolution was cruel all the way. It is what it is.

Silence my balls.

This is the most ridiculous, uneducated response on the topic I've read all thread.

You don't even understand what a mutation is and what type of mutation I was talking about. I said those mutations that have extensive impact on one's phenotype (you can google to find what that word means) are ALL bad.

Mutations that move one away from the species norm, i.e. if a human was born without a tongue, or a trachea, or lungs, a spine, that person would not survive, or if they survived birth, they would not live a normal life. Thus they would not be part of successful natural selection, thus those genes would die out.

Add to that the fact that most major mutations are weeded out long before birth, via miscarriages, some so early the potential mother hasnt even had time to realises she had, at one stage, been pregnant. This is basic, college level genetics.

To apply genetics to natural selection and evolution is to go against the principles of science and ultimately, the reality of science.

Now that I've educated you on that, what do you say about abiogenesis?

[Zaroku]

If i understand you correctly, its because thats how evolution works. Its pathway is dependent on linear time. That human evolution picture depicts a short time frame compared to the overall history of Darwinian evolution.

Best i could find for now.

http://i.imgur.com/EIbub.gif

Noose, find a tree and hang yourself... The soul survivor re whipped that azz... I'm throwing in the towel, the humiliation and intellectual beat down you are taking... You can't win homie. You can't win...

[GGG Gloveking]

If i understand you correctly, its because thats how evolution works. Its pathway is dependent on linear time. That human evolution picture depicts a short time frame compared to the overall history of Darwinian evolution.

Best i could find for now.

http://i.imgur.com/EIbub.gif

My question isn't really related to time, but rather the animals themselves. Why did all the monkeys on the left evolve into the apes? Why didn't some mutate an extra arm, while others in another area mutate an extra tail, or a leg? How is it possible that a global sample of animals all had the same random mutation?

And where is the plant man? Why havent plants evolved beyond trees?

[maracho]

http://journals.plos.org/plospathoge...l.ppat.1000003

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/20/19/2728.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/100/8/4639.full.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10447877

1. Reversible phenotypic plasticiy is not the opposite of evolution. It can occur with continuous adaptation.

2. Epigenetics is not the opposite of evolution.

3. Who said anything about 'advantage'?

4. Read the link i provided.

Thanks for the refs!

Of course its the opposite! Did you not see the following logical response to your last question.

Yes! Basically, when an organism experiences a stressful situation, stress hormones signal sex hormones which enter cells and actually attach to select the correct ancestral phenotype(s) to be expressed for the situation at hand and usually in accord with the balance and harmony of nature.

Now of course, the definitions of evolution are the only things that come close to evolving but evolutionism still asserts that life evolves via random accidental and permanent mutations that just happen to appear at the right time and biological niche, which in turn allow the organism to outcompete and take over its conspecifics. Its slave trade Hitleresque pseudoscientific religion unwittingly worshiping biology's worst enemy--mutation inducing parasites/death and disease

[The Noose]

I provided plenty of reasons in my post. Abiogensis, genetics, the scientific method and what is required etc etc. I'm not going to repeat all that if you're whole point is "well yeah...but".

That is childish. Either bring the science to disprove what I've said or stay quiet.

You think you provided plenty of reasons do you?
I dont think you know what you are talking about.
Lets look at our conversation again...

YOU:

Do you know what abiogenesis is? It is the formation of living matter from inorganic, non living matter. It has never, ever been observed in the history of mankind (observation is one of the key principles of science and the scientific method) and yet, this is what evolution hinges on.

So evolution, in your opinion, "hinges on" abiogenesis.

Where exactly is all your reasoning for this claim?

My response was...

No it does not.
If hypothetically life was initially created by some intelligence, it in no way prevents the evolution of those organisms.

In other words, how life was initially started has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Whether it be abiogenesis or god, or whatever.
Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up.

You then stated that my argument was invalid because i hadnt backed it up with science.
I didnt need to.
You are simply wrong.
You provided no scientific argument or ANY reasons as to WHY evolution hinges on abiogenesis.

So i dont know what you are talking about about when you claim you provided plenty of reasons, INCLUDING abiogenesis, (??) genetics, the scientific method. etc etc.
That makes no sense.
And you talk about circular reasoning? lol

[The Noose]

Thanks for the refs!

Of course its the opposite! Did you not see the following logical response to your last question.

I dont see how that is the "opposite" of evolution.
Maybe its an issue with your definition of evolution?

[maracho]

I dont see how that is the "opposite" of evolution.
Maybe its an issue with your definition of evolution?

Hmm ok please explain why you believe that minor adaptation via purposeful selection of ancestral phenotypes is synonymous with traits and even whole new body parts appearing via random chance?

[bigfo0t]