Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The retardation is strong in this one...
But fuck it...
Rice and Salt bred fruit flies for 35 generations and from one line of flies created two groups that were isolated from each other reproductively. They could not interbreed because they no longer bred in the same environment. Depending on one's definition of 'species' this could be a case of artificial speciation.
Rice WR, Salt GW (1988), Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence". The American Naturalist 131 (6): 911–917
@ Random, glad you see you back!
rmfr
J N Vanderbilt III "prison shamed" again, and it's impossible to have any sympathy with such a wilfully stupid poster. I mean he could take his lies to a creatard site and they'd lap it up, why on earth does he think an atheist forum is going to let him get away with such stupid lies? I left wondering again what on earth he hopes to gain from posting this rubbish in here?
Oh really there’s objective evidence for one creature turning into another completely different type? BS big time on this!!
Speciation is simply variations within the established genome and tigers and cats are evidence of this, they all still have same body plans morons. Fish did not eventually become philosophers, your faith of lucky mutations is built on sand
Speaking of lucky mutations, how lucky for the Katydid to evolve the ability to look EXACTLY like a leaf in order to protect itself,!!!
are you losers feeling lucky?
Fuck me, you literally have no clue what evolution or speciation is...
Ironically though you do appear to be a prime example of it... a clear hybrid of some sort of rare breed of cabbage.
J N Vanderbilt III,
If you want o see a hen laying an egg and hatching a goat, I am sorry, it is not going to happen. These miracles are what theist believe in, not biologists. The so-called macroevolution is just the accumulation of a lot of the so-called micro-evolution.
Lets reason a little.
Evolution is defined as "The change with time of gene frequencies in a population". Sweet and simple.
This change of gene frequencies is observable and happens all the time, so it is fact. Implication: Evolution is a fact.
It is known that genes are the ultimate factor that determines the morphology and functions of organisms. It is a proven fact.
It is a fact that mutations (both genetic an epigenetic) happen and are some of the causes of variations among individuals in a population.
They are observed facts that the number of chromosomes in a species can vary by duplication of one, many or all or reduced by fusion or inactivation. It is also an observed fact that genes can migrate from one species to another through the work of viruses and that whole and partial virus genomes can attach themselves to the DNA of another species.
With these facts in mind, continuous change of the genome of individuals in populations is unavoidable and endless. It means that there are no limits to the changes that a genome can get through and that explains why the potential is there for a species to change until it becomes another species.
Without a biological mechanism to stop genetic changes at a certain point, the change of one species into another, given natural selection, (which is also a proven fact) is simply unavoidable. If you want to debunk evolution you have to provide a biological mechanism that will stop genetic variation once it has reached a certain point so as to stop a species to keep changing. As nobody has ever been able to provide that mechanism, evolution (micro and macroevolution are the same thing) stands as the unavoidable result of all these well- known facts.
There is nothing but objective evidence for speciation, that is why the entire scientific world accepts it as an objective fact.
"Speciation is simply variations"
noun BIOLOGY
the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.
Macro evolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of ***species,*** in contrast with micro evolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.
Do you think your relentless verbiage will change scientific facts, and definitions? I'll give you a clue, it won't.
So your claim that macro evolution has not been observed is a demonstrable lie, as you have been given the links to multiple bodies of research showing that speciation has been observed. You're going to put your back out if you keep trying to move the goal posts like this.
>Codes only occur in nature, as only nature is evidenced.
>Macro evolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species.
>Speciation has been observed in multiple bodies of scientific research.
>Since speciation is macro evolution and has been observed - ipso facto macro evolution HAS BEEN OBSERVED, so you lied.
>The entire scientific world accepts species evolution through natural selection is an objective fact, because ALL THE EVIDENCE supports this.
>Creationism is nothing but a superstitious myth, and no one can demonstrate any evidence for it, beyond archaic superstitious myths.
You're the one who is bullshitting, and no one is fooled by your verbiage.
"Oh really there’s objective evidence for one creature turning into another completely different type? "
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
55 million years ending in the horse do you? Knock yourself out champ.
Did you know there is more variation between the genome of a Zebra and a horse than there is between a human and a gorilla? Do you know why?
I sure do know what speciation is, I even gave you an example, read much?
Go over the bollocks you've churned out on this thread and compare it to actual science and basic dictionary definitions....
People are trying hard to explain these simple concepts to you!
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I'm not sure anyone's trying hard anymore to be honest. The broad all encompassing nature of his ignorance is too easy to knock over to require much effort.
Once they start redefining the dictionary there isn't much more to say is there.
Besides it has been clear from the start that this clown is impervious to facts and knowledge.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/speciation
Speciation
Noun
Biology
The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.
Macro evolution includes speciation, and speciation has been observed in laboratories, links are in this thread for all to see. So you are a liar.
I can read the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of speciation , is this too difficult for you? Do you enjoy being spanked like this? Get someone to click the link for you, and read it aloud, see if you can grasp the relevance? I mean we all look foolish at times, but you seem to actually enjoy making yourself look wilfully moronic, even for a creatard..
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes , the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, you are lying to say that you have observed this. Like a fish or bacteria or a fruit fly becoming something else entirely. It’s BS. I dare call you an evotard
"Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes "
Yes, and this starts at and includes speciation level changes. Do you think repeating your lie will bamboozle us?
"the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, you are lying to say that you have observed this"
I never said they observed this, and I welcome anyone to read my multiple posts on this, and see I said speciation had been observed, and that macro evolution started at and includes speciation. can you really be so thick as to think quoting part of the definition and pretending I had used that part and not speciation will fool anyone?
I think even I have underestimated how stupid and dishonest you really are, if you think that kind of moronic mendacity will fly.
"Like a fish or bacteria or a fruit fly becoming something else entirely. "
Except I never made any of those claims, and only a created would try and lie like this. Once again then for the lying creatard, speciation has been observed in multiple bodies of research, macro evolution **starts at the speciation level, ipso facto macro evolution has been observed. Unlike you I don't cherry pick which objective scientific facts I will accept based on a priori beliefs in archaic superstitious myths.
Pmsl, bloody nora, now he has gone from just being wrong, to denying the actual definition of words!
This is on par with that pillock Lane Craig in his debate with Professor Carroll... the nob makes a claim regarding the borde guth vilenkin theorem, only to have carroll not only scientifically destroy his claim but show an email from Vilankin himself who dismisses Craig's retarded claims.
Still Lane Craig wouldn't accept it. Lol
Yes I saw that, WLC's response was cringeworthy. This is what happens when you handcuff your reasoning to bronze age superstition as if it represents absolute truth. A good example of the late Christopher Hitchens's concept that "religions poisons everything".
Okay, I am not arguing a position here, just asking some questions and clearing up some curiosities.
If I am not mistaken DNA requires certain external structures to replicate and code for proteins. Can someone please tell me the process by which these structures came to be before the genes that code for them had time to evolve?
Sorry if in this extensive thread it has been discussed already, but what are some proposed cases of creatures of one "family" evolving into another? Perhaps the term "macroevolution" should not include speciation. Evidence of this level of evolution seems very plausible even based on the visible similarities between species of the same family. But I've not yet seen anything that looks like it could be an intermediary state between two gene families living today. Shouldn't this evolutionary process of macro-macroevolution (for lack of a better term) still be taking place? Why have I never seen some kind of lizard-bird or dog-horse on the nature channel?
Oh dear... it's happened again...
This is n article showing a list of transitional fossils.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
If you see dinosaurs fossils you will see how some of them transitioned into birds. There are tons of these dinosaur /bird fossils some are so intermediate that scientist debate were to place them if as birds or as dinosaurs.
Fuck sake, I'm going to do it again...
Right, the actual definitions of the two are...
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population--changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.
Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.
There is no evolutionary biologist who would ever claim that macroevolutiom demands that a horse turn into a marine animal with a tortoise shell, or any such crap.
Is this really so difficult to get?
“Except I never made any of those claims“
This from Sheldon the evotard
So evotard, fish never turned into man? This is the crux of your shell game called evolution. Your lie is transparent, You are a confused liar Perhaps.
By the way That katydid sure was lucky eh?
Can someone change this dipshits handle and avatar to Ralph Wiggum please?
Because let's be honest, that's the intellectual level that is on display here.
Pure, unadulterated retardation of the highest order.
Bless, you really think endless repetitions of your asinine creationist bilge will provoke me? Why on earth would I get annoyed because you choose to delude yourself that a risible bronze age creation myth is true, and scientific facts like species evolution are not? I might have felt sorry for you, but your posts indicate you are such a lying odious cretin that even that ship has sailed I'm afraid.
"So evotard, fish never turned into man? "
Show a single post of mine where I have even mentioned a fish changing into anything? You really are the mother and father of all liars, so much for the faux pretence of you being a christian anyway. If you want to educate yourself on the most basic facts about evolution do so, but please don't waste our time producing dishonest creationist distortions of it, we've all seen them before. Look try talk origins website it even has a comprehensive searchable list of creationist lies about evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Every single one of yours is in there, and creatards always think they are being original and will blow our socks off with their acumen, but always are so woefully and pathetically ill informed it is creditworthy. You are one of the most ignorant we have yet encountered.
Seriously why not take your cretinous verbiage to a creationist website, they'll lap it up. The people here will just point and laugh, as I am doing now.
Now can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural at all? Or is your vapid argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy attack on evolution all you have, a pathetic smoke screen, as if we didn't know the answer already.
Random hero fights back but only w insults
I guess among other creatures, he deems the katydid lucky
I'll say it again.
You need to go back to school.
And do not skip classes this time.
A church is NOT a school.
rmfr
@ Arakish and JNV3
"A church is NOT a school." (hear hear!)
Neither are YouTube creatard apologists.
arakish
"I'll say it again.
You need to go back to school.
And do not skip classes this time.
A church is NOT a school."
You'd almost feel sorry for him if weren't such an odious liar. His confidence is almost funny it's so ironic.
actually if there is anything in the bible I agree with it is that the education of fools is folly. Going back to school wonn't help, education is pointless as long as the recipient is determined to mangle all facts to conform to their a priori superstition.
Not he has posted suggest he has any interest in objective truth, quite the opposite.
It's not really an insult if you are just being incredibly dumb... in that event, it's banter as we say in the UK.
You have demonstrated on this thread that you have no idea what evolution is, nor can you use definitions of key compoments such as macroevolution accurately.
You've even had to re-write your original OP because it was that obviously stupid.
Stop listening to apologists and just read! just read the actual relevant material that directly corresponds to what you want to know.
This isn't hard, by a dictionary and look up the actual definitions of terms your discussing.
I can’t take much advice from folks who think mankind came from fish. Preposterous on its face.
Perhaps you should go into business
MUTATIONS R US”
“Need a lucky mutation? Call us!!”
-Need an immune system? Call us
- need to look exactly like a leaf for camouflage?
Call us
Bombardier beetle needs a sophisticated defense apparatus, which involves shooting a hot 212°F noxious mixture of chemicals out of a special swivel nozzle in its backside, into the face of predators such as rodents,
CALL US!!!!!
I like the leaf one though you can’t make this crap up
Pages