(February 22, 2015 at 12:59 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(February 22, 2015 at 12:52 am)YGninja Wrote: For evolution to happen things must change over time, but change over time alone is not evolution, which is the process theorised to explain the arrival of complex life from the most simple.

What else do you think evolution is that is more than change over time?

Why would you believe magic god dust to be a better answer?

Would change over time plus a little magic fairy dust make evolution more appealing to you?

All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?

(February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?

Do you have any understanding at all of the mechanism of that change? Because if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.

(February 22, 2015 at 1:13 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?

Do you have any understanding at all of the mechanism of that change? Because if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.

I don't believe there is such a mechanism which could turn a single cell into a human being over the course of billions of years. Certainly not natural selection acting on mutation.

(February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote:

(February 22, 2015 at 12:59 am)Brakeman Wrote: What else do you think evolution is that is more than change over time?

Why would you believe magic god dust to be a better answer?

Would change over time plus a little magic fairy dust make evolution more appealing to you?

All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?

So you claim that changes don't accumulate over time for some reason?
Do you think that species cant split and take different evolutionary paths without magic FOO-FOO dust?

(February 22, 2015 at 1:14 am)YGninja Wrote:

(February 22, 2015 at 1:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: Do you have any understanding at all of the mechanism of that change? Because if you did, you wouldn't be asking this question.

I don't believe there is such a mechanism which could turn a single cell into a human being over the course of billions of years. Certainly not natural selection acting on mutation.

Why not? It's already established science that when cells replicate, transcription errors known as mutation occur, and that the natural environment selects for or against those mutations via the resultant organism's suitability for that environment; why don't you think that's sufficient? We know that it happens, what force or mechanism are you proposing that would stop it happening at a certain, arbitrary level based on human defined morphological labels like species?

(February 22, 2015 at 1:22 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 22, 2015 at 1:14 am)YGninja Wrote: I don't believe there is such a mechanism which could turn a single cell into a human being over the course of billions of years. Certainly not natural selection acting on mutation.

Why not? It's already established science that when cells replicate, transcription errors known as mutation occur, and that the natural environment selects for or against those mutations via the resultant organism's suitability for that environment; why don't you think that's sufficient? We know that it happens, what force or mechanism are you proposing that would stop it happening at a certain, arbitrary level based on human defined morphological labels like species?

The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral. Data is corrupted or deleted. Natural selection can act on it as much as it wants, the thing is only ever going to devolve. Whats more, you need a mechanism to increase the quantity of data. Mutation only changes existing data. A human contains alot more data than a single cell, and you've no mechanism to explain how the genome can acquire such quantities of new data, even over billions of years.

(February 22, 2015 at 1:26 am)YGninja Wrote: The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral.

Untrue: mutations run the gamut from negative to positive, of which we've seen plenty of all stripes. For example, following population isolation, Italian Wall Lizards have been observed to evolve entirely new valves in their digestive tracts to handle the new food sources they were forced to predate on in their new environment. Bacteria has been observed to evolve the ability to digest nylon where no other food is available, and some populations of rattlesnakes are evolving out their rattles, as warning their prey isn't a good way to catch food. You're simply wrong on this one.

Quote: Data is corrupted or deleted. Natural selection can act on it as much as it wants, the thing is only ever going to devolve. Whats more, you need a mechanism to increase the quantity of data. Mutation only changes existing data.

Nope. We've observed it adding genetic material and information too.

Quote: A human contains alot more data than a single cell, and you've no mechanism to explain how the genome can acquire such quantities of new data, even over billions of years.

Mutation is sufficient for this; new genetic information can be added, and there's plenty of reportage on this to prove it. I don't need a new mechanism: the old one works just fine.

Now, I've shown you mine, you show me yours: what is the mechanism that halts mutations, so that they don't accumulate to the point that we'd need to reclassify an organism?

(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am)YGninja Wrote:

(February 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: That's because some people don't understand science, and others don't understand bullshit.

I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk.

That's a distinction without a difference, kiddo.

Perhaps you should study up first, before you get your ass handed back to you.

---

(February 22, 2015 at 12:52 am)YGninja Wrote: For evolution to happen things must change over time, but change over time alone is not evolution, which is the process theorised to explain the arrival of complex life from the most simple.

Of course "change over time" is not the sole premise of evolution.

Your first study assignment, therefore, will be to read up on the concept of "natural selection".

---

(February 22, 2015 at 1:14 am)YGninja Wrote: I don't believe there is such a mechanism which could turn a single cell into a human being over the course of billions of years. Certainly not natural selection acting on mutation.

Facts contradict your beliefs. Feel free to argue them.

---

(February 22, 2015 at 1:26 am)YGninja Wrote: Whats more, you need a mechanism to increase the quantity of data. Mutation only changes existing data.

This is factually incorrect. Mutations can also cause genetic information to be repeated, or doubled. And then mutation can act upon that extra length of information to change it.

You're welcome.

Now, get back to studying natural selection. You will need to understand it in order to continue this lesson.

YGninja, what books on evolution did you read? I'm going to bet on zero based on your comments. I would recommend Darwin's The Origin of Species or the two excellent works spawned at the bicentennial of Origins' publication, The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins and Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr and Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll are also highly recommended.

You're welcome, btw.

We can't debate evolution until you understand what it is I'm afraid. Every post has demonstrated that you don't.

There is a huge amount of information at your fingertips on the internet. You can go learn, or remain willfully ignorant.

This is a good place to start.

Instead of assuming it is wrong, why not investigate it, and actually discuss various aspects of it to further your understanding. Then when you have better knowledge, you can have a more informed opinion and meaningful debates.

For example, if I offered to debate with you why god is called Jeremy Smith, and I can prove he isn't, would you take me seriously?