How You Know This Shit Was Written By Men!

[Esquilax]

Actually what constitutes a "species" is defined in the Bible as that which is able to produce fertile offspring, the scientific definition is the same: the thing is, the Bible said it first.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

*emphasis mine*

So basically your objection is with creationism vs abiogenesis, not with how a 'species' is defined.

Considering how my objection was with you using your own definition of evolution, and had nothing to do with species, I fail to see how what you said was germane at all.

Thump, quite rightly, pointed out that what you were describing was a physiological change based in consumed chemicals, not a heritable change at a genetic level. It's not evolution according to a scientific understanding of the term. You responded that you're using your own definition, which is merely convenient word games, not an actual point. That's all.

[Huggy Bear]

Negative. We were talking about how the inability to beat the snot out of each other for 124 rounds means we aren't the men we used to be, and now you're trying to shoehorn your god-thingy into this.

Surely such a majestic being as your objet de culte has better examples than this. You're trying to import origin into change, but it's slipshod thinking, and it will be pointed out.

Actually the original point being made was about the resiliency of the human race then as compared to now... read the op.

Additionally, you write that it's our origins that determine whether we evolve or devolve, but this point of yours ignores the most basic point, which is relative motion. Our origins don't determine change; change determines change. Revolutionary idea, huh? Change is the distance between two points. If there has been no motion, there is no change, and that renders the origin irrelevant.

I know you can do better than this, bud. C'mon now.

Don't know what your going on about but let me break it down for you. Say we are trying to determine whether or not a certain object has accelerated (evolved), or decelerated (de-evolved); knowing the state the object was originally in determines whether or not we can figure that it is moving faster or slower.

Got it?

[Esquilax]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually the original point being made was about the resiliency of the human race then as compared to now... read the op.

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.

Don't know what your going on about [...]

Yes, that much is obvious.

[...] but let me break it down for you. Say we are trying to determine whether or not a certain object has accelerated (evolved), or decelerated (de-evolved); knowing the state the object was originally in determines whether or not we can figure that it is moving faster or slower.

Got it?

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.

[Minimalist]

Ah, but your definition of evolution and mine are two separate things.

You don't get to make up your own definitions, Hugs.  He is talking about "evolution."  You are talking about creatard bullshit.

[Cyberman]

It's not even his definition. It's something he got from Hovind or one of his kind.

[Huggy Bear]

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?

[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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Additionally, you write that it's our origins that determine whether we evolve or devolve, but this point of yours ignores the most basic point, which is relative motion. Our origins don't determine change; change determines change. Revolutionary idea, huh? Change is the distance between two points. If there has been no motion, there is no change, and that renders the origin irrelevant.

I know you can do better than this, bud. C'mon now.

Don't know what your going on about but let me break it down for you. Say we are trying to determine whether or not a certain object has accelerated (evolved), or decelerated (de-evolved); knowing the state the object was originally in determines whether or not we can figure that it is moving faster or slower.

Got it?

Yeah, it's clear you don't understand my point. Deceleration is not backward motion, in any event. It is a slowing-down. Even if evolution decelerates, it is still moving forward, unless it comes to a standstill (which does happen).

But moving backwards compared to what we used to be? You'll need something better than coming to the understanding, as a society, that prizefighting isn't as desirable as it used to be.

And none of that has anything to do with abiogenesis. Assuming for the sake of argument that your little godling actually exists with the characteristics you ascribe to him, it is entirely possible that he started life and then let EbNS guide his plan.

To toy with the watchmaker analogy a bit -- which watchmaker is better, the one whose watch needs constant fiddling to achieve his goal of accurate timekeeping, or one which does so without his interference?