Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[downbeatplumb]

Provide one example of one kind becoming another kind.

And there are the goal posts shuffling.

You do know that the only difference Macro evolution has to Micro evolution is time.

And evolution is fascinating and very complex.
But you'd know hat with your lofty level of education right/

I recently came across this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...at-drivers

which implies that gut microbes can play a role.

As I said fascinating.

But more importantly if you somehow manage to prove evolution wrong how does this help your cause? you seem to have given up trying to prove god. If Evolution was disproved it would not be evidence for god.

[popeyespappy]

Provide one example of one kind becoming another kind.

Read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin and you can find out how we know all land animals other than insects evolved from fish. How's that for an example of one kind becoming another?

[Doubting Thomas]

But the bacteria are still bacteria. So there is no proof there.

But they now have properties that bacteria didn't have before. This is just an example of evolution seen in our lifetime.

Give all know evidence of one kind changing into another kind.

First, explain exactly what a "kind" is. A strain of bacteria that never existed prior to the invention of nylon is certainly a new kind of bacteria. I could point out where scientists discovered a new species of shark that evolved from another species, but you'd just blow that off with "It's still just a shark." Oh, did I mention that this new species can't reproduce with the other species?

Evolution doesn't say that a dog will turn into a cat, dumbass.

[Minimalist]

You do know that the only difference Macro evolution has to Micro evolution is time.

I'm guessing that this moron's lack of knowledge about evolution is damn near total.

[Tonus]

To be fair, we do have an example of upward evolution:

[Something completely different]

Just like yesterday, at the point at which the arguments put up against him completly debunk everything he posted, he disapears.

And just like today, he will return tomorrow and behave as if the examples given that debunk him never were posted and will open new threads.


Anyone want to bet?

[Doubting Thomas]

And he will refuse to elaborate on his schooling.

[Mister Agenda]

You're convinced? Please show me how they are necessarily more "upward evolved" than the primitive forms.

So you think that mankind is not more advanced than a ape.

You believe that a chimp or mankind is not more advanced than a amphibian.

We're smarter and better at communicating and have a civilization. It's fair to say that we're more advanced than apes. It doesn not mean we are 'more evolved'. They have continued to evolve to better fit their environment and we have evolved to better fit ours. We just happened to go in a different direction that has panned out very well for us so far. They are better climbers than we are and some of them are better acrobats. Drop a chimp raised in captivity and a human raised in NYC naked in the middle of an African rainforest, and the chimp may well do a better job of surviving. An amphibian can do a better job than either of surviving naked after being held down 5 minutes under fresh water.

The things we've evolved to be able to do have had a profound effect because they've enabled us to develop language and culture and technology. That's what makes us so advanced. Strip those away leave only our genetic heritage (naked in the jungle with no special training)and things begin look a lot closer to even. Bipedalism, opposable thumbs, large brains, and opposable thumbs would have only taken us so far if we hadn't started actively teaching our offspring what they need to know to survive and prosper. Without that, we might still be in the Stone Age.

A species could have evolved to be much smarter than us, and still be less advanced if it couldn't effectively pass down accumulated knowledge to future generations because it lacked the physical apparatus to to be an effective language user and tool maker.

[Esquilax]

And he will refuse to elaborate on his schooling.

In his defense, he'll have to look up what a school is, first.

And I'm sure the concept of education will be a surprising one for him, since he thinks he has all the answers already.

[Minimalist]

Just like yesterday, at the point at which the arguments put up against him completly debunk everything he posted, he disapears.

And just like today, he will return tomorrow and behave as if the examples given that debunk him never were posted and will open new threads.


Anyone want to bet?

Probably back at ICR having more bullshit pounded up his ass like a re-charge.