This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#1  Postby Rumraket » May 17, 2017 12:58 pm

Turtles and squirrels can't successfully copulate, therefore macroevolution is a fantasy.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/what-is-the-standard-for-evidence-in-biology/comment-page-4/#comment-176394
Erik wrote:A male squirrel and female squirrel copulate and a baby squirrel comes out, not a turtle or whatever. A squirrel and a turtle copulate, nothing comes out. Does not look like an observable barrier to macroevolution?

If evolution aims at the thing called reproductive success, then why is breeding an intra-species thing? If all species are all related as if cousins, why doesn’t breeding occur regardless of species? Why this arbitrary counter-productive restriction? What is the evidence or reasoning that this restriction is merely an apparent barrier to macroevolution and not really there?


Checkmate!
:picard:
:picard: :picard:
:picard: :picard: :picard:
:picard: :picard: :picard: :picard:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12557
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#2  Postby Matt_B » May 17, 2017 1:10 pm

It has to be said that evolution would be doing a heck of a better job if it wasn't possible for creationists to reproduce. ;)
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4028
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#3  Postby Manticore » May 17, 2017 2:03 pm

I would say creationists are a perfect example of devolution - in only a few thousand years they will have devolved into something resembling slugs. All we have to do is make sure they don't get a chance to interbreed with humans while that is still possible.
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 206

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#4  Postby Animavore » May 17, 2017 2:10 pm

That pretty much beats everything.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38495
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#5  Postby Matthew Shute » May 17, 2017 2:32 pm

We're going to need more Picards for this.

                           :picard:
                        :picard:    :picard:
                     :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
                  :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
               :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
            :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
         :picard:    :picard:    :picard:     :facepalm:   :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
            :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
               :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
                  :picard:    :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
                     :picard:    :picard:    :picard:
                        :picard:    :picard:
                           :picard:
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3474
Age: 39

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#6  Postby Calilasseia » May 17, 2017 9:46 pm

Apparently, this wanktard is too dumbfuck stupid to work out, that the whole fucking point of macroevolution, is the emergence of reproductive barriers between diverging populations.

Was he born this dribblingly palsied, or did he take SAT tests to achieve this?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 20977
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#7  Postby TopCat » May 17, 2017 10:28 pm

These people ought to be forced to read Jerry Coyne. I'd pay actual money to watch the squirming as the cognitive dissonance took hold.
TopCat
 
Posts: 516
Age: 54
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#8  Postby minininja » May 17, 2017 11:29 pm

Erik wrote:A squirrel and a turtle copulate, nothing comes out. Does not look like an observable barrier to macroevolution?


I think this piece of irrefutable photographic evidence clears this up:

Squrtle.jpg
Squrtle.jpg (44.46 KiB) Viewed 1072 times
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1004

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#9  Postby The_Piper » May 18, 2017 1:01 am

The first Picard pyramid and diamond that I've see yet. I'm saving those for later. :cheers:

Up to 16 males, and a female squirrel mate. Not just one. :mrgreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_red_squirrel#Reproduction
"I'm not really sure what I'm talking about" - Tucker Carlson
The Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife thread.
The Self Taken Pictures of Scenery thread.
User avatar
The_Piper
 
Name: Fletch F. Fletch
Posts: 22065
Age: 42
Male

Country: Chainsaw Country
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#10  Postby Calilasseia » May 18, 2017 2:13 am

Heh, what I'd like to do, is find the moron responsible for the crap that Rumraket dangled before us for our delectation at the start, and introduce him to the life cycle of Acarophenax tribolii ...
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 20977
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#11  Postby Manticore » May 18, 2017 6:12 am

It seems to me that creationists, like other crackpots, have zero grasp of scale.
That is to say they are incapable of comprehending that things may work differently over great stretches of time or space (or at the sub atomic level).
Basically, their whole view of the Universe is a reflection of the space inside their head - just a few lonely brain cells occasionally colliding in the vacuum.
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 206

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#12  Postby Rumraket » May 18, 2017 6:45 am

It's really much worse than that single post. You should, if you desire to facepalm so hard you'd need reconstructive surgery, take the time to read the thread through. There are in that thread, among other qualified people, Joseph Felsenstein, trying to teach this guy how common descent is inferred.

Joe Felsenstein wrote:Look Erik, I have worked for over half a century on the logic of methods for inferring phylogenies. Since back when there were about 6 people in that field. Up to today, when one of my papers is the 41st most-cited paper in all of science. I wrote the standard book on inferring phylogenies. And I distributed the first widely-distributed package of programs for inferring phylogenies.

So I know how the algorithms for reconstructing phylogenies work. They have gotten steadily more sophisticated and steadily better and better at assessing how conservative or how labile different parts of molecular sequences are. And no, they contain no step that tells the program to make sure to put anything called “chimpanzee” in the tree near anything called human. And yet, they keep doing that. Owing to the evidence.

Take a look at the evidence yourself. Try Orthomam, at
http://www.orthomam.univ-montp2.fr for example, a database of sequence alignments for (now) 14,526 protein-coding loci for 43 completely-sequenced mammalian genomes. And there they have trees, inferred automatically, for each locus. Or you can download the some of the aligned sequences, get one of the free phylogeny programs, and infer the trees yourself. Check out how similar the trees for different loci are. That’s important. Not just that they are trees but which trees they get for different parts of the genome.

If you have problems, ask an expert. Say John Harshman, who is an experienced molecular systematist who is a considerable expert on genomic and morphological evidence on bird and reptile phylogeny, and who uses phylogeny algorithms all the time. My 2004 book contains a section discussing, admiringly, his arguments about using bootstrap sampling with parsimony methods.

There are others here as well who have lots of relevant expertise. Stop lecturing them about how they are making elementary and fundamental mistakes. (In the passage you quote, Darwin didn’t make any mistake either, though you seem to think he did.)

I’m not trying to suppress discussion, just trying to urge you to look at the mass of evidence before making wild statements.

Yeah, I know, it’s always a mistake to “pull rank” and cite one’s own credentials in these discussions. Makes one look like a pompous defensive idiot. We do have to listen respectfully to any argument, no matter how little background the person has who puts it forward.

But in this case Erik is lecturing us about how we have all gone wrong, and when you look at his arguments, it’s like what Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, California: “When you get there, there’s no there there.”
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12557
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#13  Postby zulumoose » May 18, 2017 7:17 am

Why answer him with language more complicated than his own, that's just escalating the misunderstanding.

The simple answer is that new species are not created when two different species combine to make a third, this is not a claim made by those who understand how evolution works.

This can be illustrated clearly with national identity:-

White Americans did not arise when Europeans interbred with native Americans, and White Australians did not arise when Europeans interbred with native Australians, they both drifted apart from their native national identities until they had completely separate national identities (but with common ancestral national identity).

Similarly if someone asks why there are still monkeys if we descended from them, just ask them why there are still Europeans, if white Americans descended from them. The answer explains evolution perfectly - common ancestry.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 2030

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#14  Postby DavidMcC » May 18, 2017 10:05 am

zulumoose wrote:...
The simple answer is that new species are not created when two different species combine to make a third, this is not a claim made by those who understand how evolution works.

...

Almost entirely true, although there are a small number of cases of it:
Nature: Speciation by hybridization in Heliconius butterflies
See this Wikipedia article for other examples, mainly in plants.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14047
Age: 63
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#15  Postby Rumraket » May 18, 2017 10:24 am

zulumoose wrote:Why answer him with language more complicated than his own, that's just escalating the misunderstanding.

Well supposedly this fantastic individual has a degree in linguistics, and the whole thread spawned out of Erik having some sort of issue with Darwin bringing up the analogy between the evolution of languages and the evolution of species.

You'd think a fellow with a degree in linguistics is at least somewhat familiar with complicated and technical language. If he isn't, then he should be intelligent enough to simply ask for clarification, rather than brainlessly assert that he's figured out it's all wrong.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12557
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#16  Postby Calilasseia » May 18, 2017 10:49 am

zulumoose wrote:Why answer him with language more complicated than his own, that's just escalating the misunderstanding.

The simple answer is that new species are not created when two different species combine to make a third, this is not a claim made by those who understand how evolution works.


Part of the problem, however, is that the typical creationist dupe has been lied to on this matter by duplicitous pedlars of apologetics, and has swallowed the lies in question wholesale. Getting past the "my pastor is a man of god and wouldn't lie to me" stupidity is, unfortunately, a major hurdle with some of the dupes, because they've swallowed an even more insidious lie beforehand. Namely, the lie that only adherents of mythology-based doctrine can be trusted. Selling that lie is, of course, standard operating procedure for the pedlars of the doctrine in question, along with other insidious, pervasive lies, such as the lie that being part of the narrowly prescribed doctrinal pale magically confers an exalted status upon the adherent. The whole "us versus them" dichotomy arising as a result, is then weaponised.

Cutting your way through the bramble thicket of psychological manipulation, frequently requires asking when the precision secateurs approach will work, and when it won't, whereupon you have to swap the secateurs for a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. Or, in the severest cases, a Castle Bravo level physics package.

zulumoose wrote:This can be illustrated clearly with national identity:-

White Americans did not arise when Europeans interbred with native Americans, and White Australians did not arise when Europeans interbred with native Australians


Indeed. All that happened was that the Europeans that hopped across the oceans, stopped breeding with the Europeans they left behind. In some cases, that created some bottlenecks with, er, interesting end results.

zulumoose wrote:they both drifted apart from their native national identities until they had completely separate national identities (but with common ancestral national identity).


Of course, there's the little problem that being geographically coupled to a given location, and being directly genetically coupled via recent matings to the population of that location, are two separate entities with their own nuances. But nuance is something that the creationist dupes are programmed to avoid with visceral loathing.

zulumoose wrote:Similarly if someone asks why there are still monkeys if we descended from them, just ask them why there are still Europeans, if white Americans descended from them. The answer explains evolution perfectly - common ancestry.


Trouble is, the dupes will either refuse to make the connection point blank, or if they do, reboot quickly to avoid exiting the doctrinal pale that's been their security blanket for so long. The latter constituting a powerful influence, when the consequences of said exit involves personal safety issues.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 20977
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#17  Postby Wortfish » Jun 05, 2017 11:27 am

Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas increased their brain size over the last 8 million years but ours have tripled?
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 493

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#18  Postby zulumoose » Jun 05, 2017 11:48 am

Human survival and the spread of humans into a variety of ecosystems has been enabled by the use of tools and technologies to protect us from environment, climate, food shortages, and all forms of threats and dangers, and the passing on of the required skills and knowledge through language is the key enabler. Chimps and gorillas have largely remained within their natural environments, and have not been able to pass on much from generation to generation that is learned, so the ability to pass on and process extra knowledge has not been a deciding factor in determining survival.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 2030

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#19  Postby newolder » Jun 05, 2017 11:53 am

Wortfish wrote:Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas increased their brain size over the last 8 million years but ours have tripled?

How much of a course in evolution would it take for you to understand? 2 minutes in a chat box, a term or two towards a biology certificate, a lifetime of study? Your choice...
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3843
Age: 6
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: This one beats "why is there still monkeys?"

#20  Postby Fenrir » Jun 05, 2017 11:55 am

Wortfish wrote:Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas increased their brain size over the last 8 million years but ours have tripled?


Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas lost their baculum over the last 8 million years but our dicks have tripled?

Never understood why only the human lineage should have made such evolutionary progress while the rest of the hominid family did not. For example, why haven't chimps and gorillas become bipedal over the last 8 million years while our muscles have become weak and woosy?

"Evolutionary progress" is a non-sequitur.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 2898
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest