Evolution is a joke part X

So, based on what you're saying every creature that now exists must have always existed. New species can't come into being according to your paradigm, so if something is here now it must have always been here, just as it is now (according to the "stays basically the same" contention)

 

Okay - how about this... Let’s take the ant – it appeared what – 150 million years ago. What was the genome then and what is it now and how is it different. You can pick any life – provide what the genome was and what it is today as long as it has survived “one” extinction event…

 

But what is your criteria for "basically the same"? Are most fish basically the same? Apart from colour and size, I can't really tell the difference, so I guess they are all basically the same. So to repeat, by your criteria, is a human, "basically the same" as a chimp?

 

No. That is not what I am saying. As my theory stated the aliens brought down life after extinctions and the fossil record shows this. Life that survived the extinction event is unchanged and did not need to be replaced.

 

I provided you with a link to a podcast which outlines 6 or 7 different reasons why common descent must be true. Have you listened to it yet?

Assuming you're not going to I have a couple of questions.

Given your objection to speciation how to you feel about ring species?

Other than common descent how do you explain the evidence from endogenous retroviruses?

 

I was not referring to chimps and humans. I was referring to life that has survived an extinction event. The list, as I will provide it again are as follows:

Sand dollar
shark
insects
jelly fish
star fish

A species of those who have survived more than one extinction will be "basically the same" and not show evolution... An example is as follows to get you on the same page. Am I basically the same as a man who lived in Russia 1,000 years ago? Yes - we are both homosapien sapiens and thus are "basically the same". Was a jelly fish that lived 5 million years ago a jelly fish?

Do you follow?

 

You still have yet to provide any criteria for "basically the same". Surviving an extinction event implies that the form is quite successful and so evolutionary theory accounts very nicely for it's persistence. I am beginning to think you are being disingenuous. I'll have to step up the game, in addition to giving a definition for "basically the same" I would like you to explain why speciation does not occur.

 

So aliens are how new species come into being?

Let's not be silly though, you deny that evolution occurs. Species (somehow) come into existence and then according to you basically remain unchanged. Therefore, since life cannot evolve species must manifest out of thin air until an extinction event occurs, then afterwards another manifestation occurs?

 

Well, since I’m not watching a podcast – you can just post it…

Ring species are quite interesting.

Viruses are not considered life..

 

I just did, but I will explain it differently for you. If I state that 2% is not “basically the same” then we will have to go less than that 2%. It seems that 2% is the difference between different apes and they look nothing alike. So, how much is “basically the same”. Well, as I stated it would mean that they have not change enough to become another species of life. They are still classified within their species. Is this determined by a percentage of DNA? Do you even know…?

I find this conversation quickly becoming trite. Either you know what it is or you are just playing games.

 

You have not defined it. Two creatures are said to be members of the same species if they are capable of having fertile offspring (provided those members aren't infertile or too old or of the same sex etc. etc.). So are you defining "basically the same" to mean "belonging to the same species/capable of having fertile offspring"? If so, then why not just say "of the same species" rather than "basically the same"?

Now, if you mean they are still the same species (i.e. capable of producing fertile offspring) then you are undoubtably wrong.

 

This is how silly I think evolution is… I have more evidence than evolution and you think my theory is silly? Why…?

All evidence points to what I just described. Not out of thin are, but from aliens like they are being “beamed” down to Earth by the thousands. That explains them showing up in the fossil record like they do…
How else do you explain life just “appearing” in the fossil record at the Cambrian Explosion and after all five (5) extinction events? There is no evidence of evolution – the saber-tooth cat just “appeared”… The Mammoth… Appeared… The ant… Just appeared… The sand dollar… Just “appeared”!!!

 

Because if you have studied biology you know that “species” is a very – well – wrong term to use and should be used lightly.

Also, there is no way to tell if life that lived millions of years ago could have offspring with life that lives today… What makes you think you know the answer to viable offspring of sand dollars from today and sand dollars from one million years ago?

 

I know that 'species' is a poorly used term as there is no clear distinction between when one species begins and another ends (hence my language example, when does Latin end and Spanish begin?) however it is a far better term than "basically the same". The reason why I bring it up is that we have evidence for a population evolving to the point where the modern descendants would no longer be able to breed with the ancestors. This leads to the conclusion that evolution does occur, and the alien idea is wholly superfluous (ignoring that it does not fit the facts better in any sense). Furthermore the alien theory merely adds questions. From whence came the aliens?

 

I disagree. When you put a label on it like species – it means something. My way of saying it, is that there may be differences, but they are less than that which most would place life outside of the category of species. As I stated in my post. I think my definition was outstanding. I can’t think of a better way to say it.

What species is that which has evolved in such a way?

Aliens do fit the facts and I provided websites that agreed with my theory. Also, where the aliens came from I stated was Seti Alpha Six, but that really doesn’t matter since, like evolution, “where” the life comes from is irrelavent and a different subject.

 

Sorry, I don't have time for this nonsense. Horses, man etc. etc. meet your definition as do various species of dinosaur. I had assumed you were just a mad hatter, genuinely deluded but it is clear you are simply trolling. Good day.

 

I know they meet my definition – that’s why I used it!!!! Are you jealous of my definition? Mad because after I explained it to you six times that sand dollars from one million years ago are “basically the same” was actually a great description of what I was trying to put forth?

I have been doing this for three years (I’m pretty sure if I was trolling the mods would have caught it by now don’t you think?). There are many followers to this thread, and you are no different than the others who “try” to debate with no known knowledge of biology and evolution…

Thanks for playing though…

 

I meant they meet the definition of having evolved to the point where the current descendants can no longer breed with the ancestors. As I said, I have no time for crackpots who think Aliens made everything (ignoring the question of where these Aliens came from). You do not have an alternate "theory", you have nonsense.

 

Then your statement is incorrect. The evolution of horses is taking different sizes and saying they evolved from each other. Did the Chihuahua evolve into a Great Dane? Did the artic fox evolve into the timber wolf?

There is no evidence except the skeletons look alike. No DNA – nothing… Even with your dinosaurs. They look alike… and what was it you stated about if they just look alike?

CRACKPOTS?!?! I gave evidence… Just because you don’t believe the evidence I have put forward for my theory makes me a crackpot? You believe in evolution with no evidence. You have no evidence dealing with DNA as I do. Mine has been kid tested and mother approved!!! I had links!! I backed it up with what we see in the fossil record… How did you disprove my theory? It has more evidence than evolution does…

 

The artic fox did not evolve into a timerwolf and a chiuahaua did not evolve into a great dane.

They had a common ancestor...repete after me.... common ancestor.

man did not evolve from a chimp...they had a common ancestor....a common ancestor.

 

This is incorrect.

This is stupid.

They look wildly different.

You gave misinterpretations. When they were corrected, you ignored the corrections.

The evidence on the whole supports something totally different from your delusions. Your delusions render you a crackpot.

The theory of evolution is generally considered the best-evidenced, most comprehensively supported theory in the history of science.

Your misinterpretations are frankly stupid - perhaps too stupid to even be dishonest.

You have lost all credibility.

 

Objectively a lie.

Doesn't matter though, why are you trying to hide behind jokes to avoid my questions?

 

You don't watch a podcast. You listen to it.

I didn't say virii were life. I asked about the predictions that were made regarding them (if common descent were true) that later turned out to be true. You must be aware of this - any oft who keeps up with the literature knows about this. There's absolutely no viable alternate explanation for what was discovered.

 

Well, many podcasts do come in video form..

 

True, although they are so overwhelmingly outnumbered by audio podcasts that they are referred to as "video podcasts" to help differentiate them.

This seems like prevarication. The podcast contains precisely the information you keep claiming to want (while implying doesn't exist.). Why not listen to a real biologist explain a few things you don't seem to understand?