Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: Noinden

While you have no shame scamming people.

a reply to: turbonium1


Do you have any citations supporting your number of one quadrillion species being used as a number regarding biological organisms over the last 500 million years? Or perhaps a citation supporting your claim that not a single one ever evolved? You keep using the same argument and pretend it’s a fact yet you’ve never once been able to support this argument other than “anyone who believes it is an idiot”? Because if you’ve got the facts to support this idea you have falsified the MES and deserve a place amongst the pantheon of great scientists right up there with Einstein, Max Planck and the Leakey family. If you were able to put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn’t need to resort to petty name calling and ad hominem attacks. Yet here you are, never a citation and still resorting to talking S#

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Noinden

While you have no shame scamming people.

Sméagol? Is that you talking in riddles in the cave with Bilbo again? Because not one single post of your contains an iota of substance and comes across as nothing more than jabberwocky.

P.S. ATS T&C require that you actually post some sort of substance and it must be more than one line. 2 things you have yet to do over the course of 700+ posts.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1
Or perhaps a citation supporting your claim that not a single one ever evolved?

You're asking him to prove a negative, that's not how it works. Show us one research paper of an organism evolving into another organism, and then this whole argument will be over. But you can't. Moths remain moths, finches remain finches, microbes remain microbes. All variability is caused by options pre-existent in the genome of these organisms.

The fact that we haven't been able to artificially evolve, for example, fruit flies, despite millions of artificially selected generations, strongly insists that organisms cannot evolve outside of their genetic bounds.

originally posted by: cooperton
The fact that we haven't been able to artificially evolve, for example, fruit flies, despite millions of artificially selected generations, strongly insists that organisms cannot evolve outside of their genetic bounds.

Time is the key here, plus changes in the environment and other factors. Who knows what the fruit fly was, or here it's going.

However, there are examples of species change going on. For example the three-toed skinks, which can produce live young or lay eggs and it's postulated that this is leading to a species branch - essentially two type being formed - egg-laying and live birth depending on the habitat they live in. Another example is the Italian wall lizard which due to isolation has adapted to a new diet and therefore branched.

a reply to: cooperton

How convenient that you left out the part where I also asked for citations supporting the claim of quadrillions of species never changing at all.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yes, this is Sméagol transmitting the power of the ring.

Substance is only recognised by a mind with substance.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Burden of proof neighbour. Show how I am shamming anyone? Are you saying Evolution is a shame? Or the fact that there are over 5000 deities jknown in human history, and you are claiming your little Middle Eastern one is THE ONLY one?

Prove it

a reply to: Noinden

Yea, so species adapt to change in the environment.

What made the monkey move out of the tree to move upright? To reach the fruits in the trees?

Or maybe because it got sick of being so close with its nose to the ground where all the elephant poo is left?

Tell me, oh monkey overlord!

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

the species moved into flatter grass lands where they needed to stand upright to look for predators as opposed to just climbing a tree...

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Tell you what, when you understand that the "monkey" was not a monkey, we can talk. Until then, you will probably keep doing the big lie approach.

Can you speak to the topic of the thread.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh yes, the monkey was not a monkey but a swimming fish who was on the beach for millions of years without dying and grew some limbs.

Well, if reason can't beat your science I don't know what else will.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

the species moved into flatter grass lands where they needed to stand upright to look for predators as opposed to just climbing a tree...

Well ofcourse, how couldn't I think of that!

It moved into flatter grass lands where they needed to stand upright to look for predators!

Sucked it right out of your thumb right there.

There's demons in my head and it's more than I can take!

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Don't worry man its just your religion...

Just run away... things get better...

a reply to: Akragon

Evolution is not my religion. It leads to nothing.

I did not evolve from ape. You did, you really did.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Thats the best you’ve got? Your ability to levy insults is as substandard as your grasp of the most basic aspects of science.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Akragon

Evolution is not my religion. It leads to nothing.

I did not evolve from ape. You did, you really did.

It isn't meant to lead anywhere my friend... its just how things are...

again, its just your religion clouding your mind...

And by the way, I didn't evolve from an ape ether... none of us did...

Though our ancestors did... way back before religion was even a thing

a reply to: Akragon

I assume you don't consider it an insult then when I tell you I can tell you descended from apes by your looks.

All animals are your brothers, the bloodsucking leech as well as the stinking goat.

Tell me, why so much variety from one specie?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Why would it insult me? You haven't got the slightest idea what I look like...lol

Though IF I told you that you had the mentality of a 5 year old... and about as clever and bright as a sloth, im sure it would be different... at least that is on display lol

And as far as variety is concerned... well, im not a geneticist... but that doesn't matter anyways... Even IF I was and I gave you an answer you'd just attempt to insult me again because you don't like or understand said answer

typical with religious types