When you (unfortunately) get to know G-C better you will see that he is incapable of understanding anything more complicated than 'goddidit.'

He's not unique in that.

I love hearing about the "theory" of evolution. I find the argument is over before it even has begun when someone says that. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. Evolution has happened, evolution is happening now, evolution will continue to happen. The same penicillin that once would have killed any disease on the planet 100 years ago is now all but useless and many people are developing an allergy to it. That is evolution in action. The only theory relating to evolution is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is a fact, the mechanic by which it operates is theoretical. People who refer to evolution as a theory have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific theory and what evolution actually is.

(May 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm)Ubermensch Wrote: I love hearing about the "theory" of evolution. I find the argument is over before it even has begun when someone says that. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact, like gravity. Evolution has happened, evolution is happening now, evolution will continue to happen. The same penicillin that once would have killed any disease on the planet 100 years ago is now all but useless and many people are developing an allergy to it. That is evolution in action. The only theory relating to evolution is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is a fact, the mechanic by which it operates is theoretical. People who refer to evolution as a theory have a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific theory and what evolution actually is.

It depends on what you're talking about really. Evolution is a fact, no doubt. How is works, that's a theory. A well-ground, thoroughly tested theory, but it's not yet a law, so "theory of evolution" is perfectly okay to say. The fundies may jump on the term, but that just makes them look more ignorant. They can keep up with the old "I told Orville, I told Wilbur, and now I'm tell YOU, that thing will never fly!" for as long as they wish. The more often they say that kind of shit, the more chances we have to laugh at them. And laughter, in the end, will destroy them.

---

Jerry Coyne had a column in SciAm last year about macroevolution. He pointed out that Great Danes and Chihuahuas were now effectively separate species, because they could no longer successfully interbreed. So we now have at least two subspecies of dogs. And this in recorded history, a few hundred years at most. (I don't have the history of either breed at hand.)

(May 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm)tesseract7d Wrote: It's not supposed to be an exact analogy, Godschild. It attempts to demonstrate that repeated instances of microevolution eventually add up to macroevolution, along with a few other more nuanced points which I doubt you'd understand. Your argument is akin to saying that our theory of motion is incorrect because it's always the same matter. All you're doing is demonstrating your lack of intelligence.

Yes, I see that the small changes resulted in color change, I can accept that, however the letters and words never change into something completely different, that would have represented macro. With out mans help those words would not have ever changed color except mabe fade away as the therory of evolution will one day do.

Once again. G-C, you show why your fundie mind is incapable of grasping anything more complex than goddidit/

Thank you for reminding us all that you are a hopeless case.

Stick with your sky-daddy. It's all you can handle.

(May 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Once again. G-C, you show why your fundie mind is incapable of grasping anything more complex than goddidit/

Thank you for reminding us all that you are a hopeless case.

Stick with your sky-daddy. It's all you can handle.

There are times when I wonder if he's a Poe.

(May 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm)tesseract7d Wrote: It's not supposed to be an exact analogy, Godschild. It attempts to demonstrate that repeated instances of microevolution eventually add up to macroevolution, along with a few other more nuanced points which I doubt you'd understand. Your argument is akin to saying that our theory of motion is incorrect because it's always the same matter. All you're doing is demonstrating your lack of intelligence.

Yes, I see that the small changes resulted in color change, I can accept that, however the letters and words never change into something completely different, that would have represented macro. With out mans help those words would not have ever changed color except mabe fade away as the therory of evolution will one day do.

Are you a troll?

The two colours represent 2 different species, and the words represent a trait gained by the species with evolution

(May 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm)Ashendant Wrote:

(May 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm)tesseract7d Wrote: It's not supposed to be an exact analogy, Godschild. It attempts to demonstrate that repeated instances of microevolution eventually add up to macroevolution, along with a few other more nuanced points which I doubt you'd understand. Your argument is akin to saying that our theory of motion is incorrect because it's always the same matter. All you're doing is demonstrating your lack of intelligence.

Yes, I see that the small changes resulted in color change, I can accept that, however the letters and words never change into something completely different, that would have represented macro. With out mans help those words would not have ever changed color except mabe fade away as the therory of evolution will one day do.

Are you a troll?

The two colours represent 2 different species, and the words represent a trait gained by the species with evolution

The words are there at the beginning, how can that be a trait gained. There are far more colors than two, if you can not make that simple observation you would lose many facts in research. The words is the species and the single color that is at the beginning is the trait that changes due to out side forces. The words stay words and the color is all that changes there is no macro here, only a variation within the same species and this does not constitute evolution.

Quote:The two colours represent 2 different species, and the words represent a trait gained by the species with evolution

You're wasting your time talking to G-C. You'd be better off bending over, sticking your head between your legs and talking to your own ass.

Anyone who can look at a wolf and a chihuahua and say evolution is "just" a theory is not only ignorant but wilfully so.