Refuting Evolution

[Esquilax]

Mutation and natural selection don't know that, so some mutations (the same imaginary ones that turned fins into legs) will turn the upper fin into legs as well, then it will take millions of years till natural selection deselect them!

Not necessarily, and nor does the absence of such things in the fossil record indicate the correctness of your position. You haven't provided any evidence for your position, just a host of contentions against somebody else's, and beyond that, I'd remind you that those dorsal fins are required for the fish to stay stable in the ocean; mutations that alter that fin in any noticeable way would cause the fish to be off balance and at the mercy of predators; every "nonsense" mutation you bring up is actually just a negative one, if you'd take a moment to think things through.

But you don't, because actual thought would lead you to abandon your position, and how embarrassing would that be, after you've humiliated yourself as thoroughly as you have so far?

[SiRade]

Seriously? You'll have to do some serious refuting. Well, to start, could you explain what the fuck is happening between our legs? I mean who puts entertainment complex in middle of sewage system?

[orogenicman]

Mr. Muslim Scholar:

Since you've been trying to refute evolution, can you please explain, without using the biologic theory of evolution, why 1 in 13 human beings have ape-like feet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22728014

A team studied the feet of 398 visitors to the Boston Museum of Science.

The results show differences in foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of a member of the human lineage from two million years ago.

In other words, why would these people have ape-like feet and not evolve from apes?

[orogenicman]

Mr. Muslim Scholar:

Since you've been trying to refute evolution, can you please explain, without using the biologic theory of evolution, why 1 in 13 human beings have ape-like feet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22728014

A team studied the feet of 398 visitors to the Boston Museum of Science.

The results show differences in foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of a member of the human lineage from two million years ago.

In other words, why would these people have ape-like feet and not evolve from apes?

Bump.

Erm, Muslim Scholar? Any comments?

[Muslim Scholar]

Since you've been trying to refute evolution, can you please explain, without using the biologic theory of evolution, why 1 in 13 human beings have ape-like feet?

It is the same reason that most species have organs like heart, legs, arms, etc. because they are all created by the same God

If you see many paintings of Picasso, you will be able to identify patterns used in all of his painting, then if you see another one, you can say it is by Picasso.

Anyway I'm not refuting evolution itself (it may be possible), I'm refuting the UN-intelligent claim of evolution.

---

Seriously? You'll have to do some serious refuting. Well, to start, could you explain what the fuck is happening between our legs? I mean who puts entertainment complex in middle of sewage system?

this is itself is a refutation

Why do have pleasure? it is not mean for survival!

How male female organs are design to suit each other, did evolution had a crystal ball to plan both at the same time to fit each other.

---

Mutation and natural selection don't know that, so some mutations (the same imaginary ones that turned fins into legs) will turn the upper fin into legs as well, then it will take millions of years till natural selection deselect them!

Not necessarily, and nor does the absence of such things in the fossil record indicate the correctness of your position. You haven't provided any evidence for your position, just a host of contentions against somebody else's, and beyond that, I'd remind you that those dorsal fins are required for the fish to stay stable in the ocean; mutations that alter that fin in any noticeable way would cause the fish to be off balance and at the mercy of predators; every "nonsense" mutation you bring up is actually just a negative one, if you'd take a moment to think things through.

But you don't, because actual thought would lead you to abandon your position, and how embarrassing would that be, after you've humiliated yourself as thoroughly as you have so far?

do you mean that they existed but were eaten by Sharks?
hock:

[orogenicman]

It is the same reason that most species have organs like heart, legs, arms, etc. because they are all created by the same God

The issue wasn't why 1 in 13 have feet. Obviously most people have those. The question is why do 1 in 13 have apelike feet specifically if evolution (say from an earlier ape ancestor) doesn't occur? But let me add a few others. Why would a god create a situation where 1 in 13 have apelike feet? Also, why do you assume that 1 in 13 having apelike feet is evidence that one, and ONLY one god was at work? Why not one god to create the sinew, one to create the bones, one to create the muscles, one to create the vascular system, one to create the nervous system, etc, etc, etc? We create things in assembly line fashion. And since we are(allegedly) created in his image, why wouldn't there be a similar god assembly line? And finally, you appear to like making unsupported claims. What is the evidence that a god created 1 in 13 people with apelike feet, and what it is the evidence that ONLY one did so? For that matter, what it the evidence that such a situation didn't simply arise out of the pressures of natural selection? And finally, if we are created in god's image, why would a god create so many people who are so intellectually stymied with regard to how the physical universe works? I don't just want logic. I want tangible evidence. Got anything like that?

[Esquilax]

do you mean that they existed but were eaten by Sharks?
hock:

I'm saying you're asking why we don't see a ton of fish that have a critical part of their locomotive system mutated out of its single useful feature. It's the same reason we don't see a ton of tigers that don't have legs; they don't survive. It's not a trait that allows one to even reach maturity in the animal kingdom, let alone breed.

[downbeatplumb]

Mutations happen all the time.

After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster people started to see mutant frogs around the area of the disaster with extra limbs.
This was seen as evidence for the dangers of radiation.

It turned out it was not as simple as it first appeared.

Further research discovered that any clutch of frog eggs will spawn frogs with extra limbs.

What was missing at chernobyl was the predators.

I read this in the science of the disc world 4 so do not have any links.

[popeyespappy]

do you mean that they existed but were eaten by Sharks?
hock:

I'm saying you're asking why we don't see a ton of fish that have a critical part of their locomotive system mutated out of its single useful feature. It's the same reason we don't see a ton of tigers that don't have legs; they don't survive. It's not a trait that allows one to even reach maturity in the animal kingdom, let alone breed.

Yes a large part of MS’s argument is a strawman. His understanding of evolution is poor at best. The reason we don’t see fish fossils with legs in the middle of their backs is evolution and natural selection don’t work that way. Functional tetrapod legs don’t suddenly appear over a single generation. The evolution from the fins of lobe fined fish to tetrapod like amphibian took many generations and millions of years.



If a fish with a mutation that resulted in a wrist / ankle like joint in the fin in the middle of its back had been born the mutation wouldn’t have lasted enough generations to develop into a functional leg because it would offer no functional advantage. On the other hand that same mutation to the front fins would allow the fish to do pushups. This type of adaption would eventually allow lung fish to drag themselves out of the water and onto land.

[SiRade]

Since you've been trying to refute evolution, can you please explain, without using the biologic theory of evolution, why 1 in 13 human beings have ape-like feet?

It is the same reason that most species have organs like heart, legs, arms, etc. because they are all created by the same God

If you see many paintings of Picasso, you will be able to identify patterns used in all of his painting, then if you see another one, you can say it is by Picasso.

Let me rephrase his question. Why do we have GENES which, if activated, would lead to ape-like feet? Or tails? Or hairy body? And if they are there for no reason, why are they activated at specific stages of development and DO give appropriate phenotype to embryo (e.g. tail or hairy body) and only later these genes are deactivated and appropriate cells commit suicide?

this is itself is a refutation

Why do have pleasure? it is not mean for survival!

How male female organs are design to suit each other, did evolution had a crystal ball to plan both at the same time to fit each other.

Well, first of all, the reason we feel pressure is because this leads to us wanting more sex ---> more offspring.
Secondly, if individuals couldn't mate, they wouldn't produce any offsprings and, thus, traits due to which prohibits mating would be excluded from subsequent generations.

Now, I will repeat my question for those who didn't read it properly the first time and those who are... Exceptionally stupid WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON BETWEEN OUR LEGS? Prostate (part of our entertainment complex) is a swelling organ and it's positioned quite close to urethra (part of sewage system), which means that just about any men above certain age will have swelling prostate which will block urethra. Now, please, do tell me what kind on engineer make such a stupid design? Not even my half-crazy flatmate wouldn't do anything this stupid.