(May 12, 2018 at 1:26 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Kind must be a genus or maybe family, not a species.  That was my bad. 

Must be... so that scientific observation can remain within what you call "micro-evolution", huh?

(May 12, 2018 at 1:26 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I responded to that post regarding the ordering.

Indeed you did... I'd forgotten:

(May 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)CDF47 Wrote: There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.

No intermediary species? I wonder how someone could come up with this graph:
(it's huge, so I'll hide it)


Here are some examples from our own evolution:


Can you not see the features developing from top to bottom?
Brain size increases, jaws recede and become smaller? no? can't see it? I doubt you can't see it... considering how you can comprehend the complexity in DNA...

(May 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)CDF47 Wrote: I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth. Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.

There is a big problem in sexually reproductive species, when they have a single breeding pair. Cheetahs were (or still are) close to this situation. http://Inbreeding results in homozygosit...as inbred.
So, it seems very unlikely that any species, humans included, were ever limited to a single pair of breeding specimens. It would have always been a population-wide effect.

(May 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)CDF47 Wrote: Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.

That would be mitochondrial RNA that is only passed down in the egg from the female side.
And, if I remember correctly, they've traced mitochondrial RNA back to an African population... not a single person

(May 12, 2018 at 10:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

Are alligators and crocodiles different kinds?

What about octopus and squid?

(May 12, 2018 at 1:59 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 1:26 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Kind must be a genus or maybe family, not a species.  That was my bad. 

Must be... so that scientific observation can remain within what you call "micro-evolution", huh?

(May 12, 2018 at 1:26 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I responded to that post regarding the ordering.

Indeed you did... I'd forgotten:

(May 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)CDF47 Wrote: There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.

No intermediary species? I wonder how someone could come up with this graph:
(it's huge, so I'll hide it)

---

Forum software may resize this automatically, right click and view image for the full size

---

Here are some examples from our own evolution:


Can you not see the features developing from top to bottom?
Brain size increases, jaws recede and become smaller? no? can't see it? I doubt you can't see it... considering how you can comprehend the complexity in DNA...

(May 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)CDF47 Wrote: I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth.  Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

There is a big problem in sexually reproductive species, when they have a single breeding pair. Cheetahs were (or still are) close to this situation. This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population[4][5] (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce. An individual who inherits such deleterious traits is referred to as inbred.]Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits.[3] This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population[4][5] (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce. An individual who inherits such deleterious traits is referred to as inbred.
So, it seems very unlikely that any species, humans included, were ever limited to a single pair of breeding specimens. It would have always been a population-wide effect.

(May 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)CDF47 Wrote: Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

That would be mitochondrial RNA that is only passed down in the egg from the female side.
And, if I remember correctly, they've traced mitochondrial RNA back to an African population... not a single person

Doesn't mean the graph is accurate or correct.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 10:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

Are alligators and crocodiles different kinds?

What about octopus and squid?

Crocodiles and alligators are same genus so same kind.  I believe the same is true for octopus and squid.

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Doesn't mean the graph is accurate or correct.

It represents the age of the corresponding fossils. And do keep in mind that, for each of those species, there are various specimens and all agree with respects to their age.
Considering how unlikely fossilization is, we can infer that a considerable population existed of each species at each "era".

(May 12, 2018 at 10:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: I read the Bible cover to cover and study it frequently.  The accusations you make are not warranted.  God allows evil to happen but He is not the author of evil, satan is.  You are just a hater of God.

Just like every other theist this is your go to when you have nothing else to say. If you even wanted to understand atheism, you'd know what we don't hate something we don't believe in. I guess you must think we like satan too. 

Quote:The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

And you are still a fucking idiot.

(May 12, 2018 at 2:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Doesn't mean the graph is accurate or correct.

It represents the age of the corresponding fossils. And do keep in mind that, for each of those species, there are various specimens and all agree with respects to their age.
Considering how unlikely fossilization is, we can infer that a considerable population existed of each species at each "era".

You’re wasting your time, Poca.  Any data you present that he doesn’t like is going to be called “fake science”, lol.  This is a one way conversation.

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 1:59 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Must be... so that scientific observation can remain within what you call "micro-evolution", huh?


Indeed you did... I'd forgotten:

No intermediary species? I wonder how someone could come up with this graph:
(it's huge, so I'll hide it)

---

Forum software may resize this automatically, right click and view image for the full size

---

Here are some examples from our own evolution:


Can you not see the features developing from top to bottom?
Brain size increases, jaws recede and become smaller? no? can't see it? I doubt you can't see it... considering how you can comprehend the complexity in DNA...


There is a big problem in sexually reproductive species, when they have a single breeding pair. Cheetahs were (or still are) close to this situation. This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population[4][5] (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce. An individual who inherits such deleterious traits is referred to as inbred.]Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits.[3] This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population[4][5] (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce. An individual who inherits such deleterious traits is referred to as inbred.
So, it seems very unlikely that any species, humans included, were ever limited to a single pair of breeding specimens. It would have always been a population-wide effect.




That would be mitochondrial RNA that is only passed down in the egg from the female side.
And, if I remember correctly, they've traced mitochondrial RNA back to an African population... not a single person

Doesn't mean the graph is accurate or correct.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Are alligators and crocodiles different kinds?

What about octopus and squid?

Crocodiles and alligators are same genus so same kind.  I believe the same is true for octopus and squid.

Let me give you a clue.  Not even all crocodiles belong in the same genus.

Crocodiles and alligators are not the same genus.

They are not of the same family.

The smallest classification to which they both belong is order.

So there we have it.

Kind is not specie.  It is not genus.  It is not family.   It is for the moment order.  

Well, starting from the very bottom, we are already half way up to the top of Linean classification scheme. When we get all the way to the very top, domain that encompass all biotic life on earth, you will reach the closest approach to being right your Bible addled brain can ever come.

Maybe we will still drag you kicking and screaming Bible quotes all the way to the right answer.

(May 12, 2018 at 11:22 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 11:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: And Cdf47 is still a moron.   Some kinds indeed could never change.    But most kinds did better.

Take your insults and shove them up your a**.  You are real tough behind a keyboard and mouse.

It is called adaptation which is still microevolution.

For someone who was so bothered by the insults of others, you sure seem bothered now. 

Thin skinned much?

---

(May 12, 2018 at 12:59 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 12:34 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You guys, this dude is a trollolol.

I have a feeling that's why he was banned at TTA.  

Too bad the same thing can't happen here.

(May 12, 2018 at 12:47 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Yeah, right.  There is no proof of that; organic life from non-organic, and you know it.  There is no proof that there is a common ancestor to all life.

---

That has precisely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with what happens after life has turned up. Evolution has precisely nothing to say about bio-poesis. I would think you would know that already. Apparently not. You really that ignorant.

(May 12, 2018 at 12:47 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 12:27 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: And there is the problem. CDF claims "micro" evolution exists as demonstrated over 60 or so years of scientifically observed "micro" evolution. How much could happen in 3 billion years? Add those 60 years together over 3 billion years and we get 3,000,000,000/60=50.000.000 changes over time. That's right 50 million changes will result in no change of any note. That is the claim. 50 million changes results in no change at all. 

And that is to neglect the influence of natural selection. It is to ignore all of the evidence we actually have to hand of, for example, ring species, a topic CDF avoids like the plague because he realises it sinks his nonsense or simply does not understand it.

I cannot fathom how stupid CDF's claim is. It amounts to nothing more that "I can't work it out, therefore god-did-it" a typical god-of-the-gaps position. 

Unfortunately for CDF, the gaps are ever smaller, so CDF must continuously change position to attempt to keep up.

I can give a trivial example. I spend more than a little time for my daily toil on credit cards and encryption of same for substantial institutions. ~Some years ago we had the spam <bank of choice>requires you to verify your details spammage. At first, I just wrote a hack script to submit nonsense to such hackers. But that evolved over time until the entire programming started doing it in their spare time. By the end, we had a bot that would submit entirely fictitious yet valid cards, cvv's, names, DOB's and so forth. We reached a point where the scammers could not tell without testing each one and we shut down quite a few scams. The point is that the software evolved. People just contributed in their spare time for the hell of it. I am constrained by NDA to not provide identifying detail for the bank in question, but Really Believe Such. And I would rather have a bar of chocolate than a bar of clay. 

In any event, we undertook this gratis. It was not a contracted task, it was simply an emergent property. We all saw evolution happen before our eyes as diverse individuals contributed. It was fun at the time, but a long while ago.

The initial program required a programmer.  All information and information processes come from a mind.

Nope. How moronic are you willing to self present? I cannot stop you from claiming to be a moron, nobody can. All we can do is point and laugh, but that is not on us, that is on you. If you choose to self present as an idiot, nobody can stop you. If you choose to put on those oversize clown shoes and comedy red nose, nobody can stop you. All we can do is point and laugh.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 12:47 pm)CDF47 Wrote: <snippage>

Are you so proposing that evolution predated abiogenisis. Or are related?

That is comprehensively borked.

Evolution is predicated that there are organisms to evolve in the first place.

How you can have such a borked idea that evolution depends on abiogenesis in some way is way out of the pale of the vaguely rational.

Frankly, at this point your posts are comprehensively nutty.

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Are alligators and crocodiles different kinds?

What about octopus and squid?

Crocodiles and alligators are same genus so same kind.  I believe the same is true for octopus and squid.

Crocodiles and alligators cannot breed with each other.

What you're saying is that changes in micro-evolution can accumulate to the point where 'speciation' occurs so that the poopulation splits into two because they are unable to breed with one another.

That's evolution.