How You Know This Shit Was Written By Men!

[Astonished]

Evolution is not a ladder, Huggy. There's no such thing as "de-evolving."

What you're talking about are maladaptive changes in the population, and as usual, you're wrong about that too. See, when you're talking about evolution, you necessarily also have to take into account the environment the population you're discussing finds themselves in. For example, evolving a thick coat of fur is a fantastic adaptation for a population living in a cold climate, but an absolutely disastrous one for that same population if it were living in the desert. Your advances are always relative to your ecological niche.

Now, we'll ignore, for the moment, that your initial claim was both completely unsourced and equally as untested, and focus on the fact that you've arbitrarily decided the marker for whether an evolutionary change is positive or negative is physical resilience, specifically in combat. That might have been true at some point in our past, but the human survival niche has always been cooperation and intellect, not general resistance to being beaten up. Those two traits, among a few others, are what led to us becoming the dominant species on the planet, and improved our survivability immensely. Given our current ecological niche, evolution away from outright physical competition and towards education and technological advancement would be a positive, not a negative; evolution, not de-evolution, according to the way you're using the word.

In other words, according to an actual understanding of evolution and what it does, a decrease in physical toughness would not be a step backward for humans. The only sense in which it would be is in your arbitrary, subjective, and fallacious appeal to tradition.

Perhaps this might be surprising to you, but evolution does not take your personal opinions into account when changes are selected for.

*emphasis mine*

Here's the thing, the scientific version of evolution is based solely upon the idea that abiogenesis is true. Abiogenesis is unscientific by definition. Science doesn't even entertain the idea of evolution based off of intelligent design, and why not? one is just as unscientific as the other.

As far as evolving away from physical competition, that statement is just false, one of the highest people of 2015 was a boxer with earnings of 300 million.

---

Yes. And you were asserting we've gone backwards because we no longer beat the shit out of each other. So what? I had thought you were able to follow the flow of the conversation.

No, I was asserting that we've gone backwards because we are not as resilient as we used to be, boxing was just an example.

Wrong again. I need not have been present at your birth to see that you've grown since I first met you at age seven.

Here's your shovel.  Keep digging.

Terrible analogy, here's why.

The process of a baby being born and growing to adulthood is fully understood, heck I don't have to know anything about you to know that you were once a baby.

A better example is trying to determine someones growth by looking their shadow, when there are other factors besides growth that can account for a larger shadow.

I noticed you dodge my question...

Do you accept abiogenesis as likely?

Buddy, even if evolution weren't true, the idea that we are the descendants of the ship of fools from Golgafrincham being cast off of its planet and crashing here is a more likely explanation of our origins than your creationist horseshit.

Your claim that the analogy is bad is wrong. The alternate analogy you gave is the bad one. But you can't understand that because you're not allowing the good kind of intelligence in. It doesn't hurt, I promise. It might actually ease some of the pain that's in there now.

And abiogenesis is a perfectly valid hypothesis, we observe chemical reactions in nature creating all sorts of different, large, complex compounds. We have NEVER seen things being poofed in and out of existence. We have never seen humans being turned into pillars of salt. We have never seen people live to be nine hundred years old. We don't have the signs of being horribly inbred for generations which would have to have happened repeatedly throughout history if this was actually a young earth.

You can think you're right all you want, but if your goal is to change the minds of anyone here, whether about the existence of your god or about him not being an asshole, you're going to have to use science, not just flinging shit around and calling it science. If you're not sure about how to go about that, any of us would be willing to help. You just have to be willing to listen, learn, and be honest for once.