• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Icebear's Evolution Thread

Do you see banana man?



Just had to share that. The actual OP is just too ridiculous to give any credence to.
 
Back in college, in intro genetics class, we were supposed to do some fruit fly experiments. Unfortunately, we got a bad batch of Drosophila (maybe . . . . MUTANTS?!?!?) and they all died. The prof (no joke) told us all to just dry-lab the whole thing.

Therefore, all fruit fly experiments ever were just made up.

And none of us evolved at all, so where's your evolution NOW?

Oh, except for that one kid who got bitten by a radioactive spider. Wonder what ever happened to him.
 
dafydd said:
I disagree. If you were that uneducated then you would be a creationist.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not uneducated, rather overeducated by either idiots or shills of the socialist NEA cartel, or probably both at once. They filled my head with grammar and gay rights and history and all my faith leaked out. My mind has been poisoned by pseudo-skeptical secularism.
 
icebear said:
A single BENEFICIAL mutation at a time. That's the assumption evolution works with.
Click to expand...
Sorry, icebear, but that is an assumption that people who are ignorant about evolution work with!
Mutations exist. Evolution includes mutations as one mechanism for the "change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". You can have multiple BENEFICIAL mutation in a population in a single generation or over many generations that natural selection then "fixes" into the population.
Natural selection (AFAIK) tends to select old NEUTRAL mutations, i.e. you have a population that has been collecting neutral mutations over millions of years. The environment changes so that some of the old neutral mutations become beneficial and the population evolves to fit the changed environment.
N.B. I am not a biologist so this may be worded wrongly.
 
icebear said:
http://able2know.org/topic/184841-1
Click to expand...
In other words, citing a completely insane web page called "Evolution vs Rastafari: Why you have to go with Rastafari", icebear :jaw-dropp!

This author is so ignorant that they think
  • that a religion should be taught in a biology class.
  • religion is science.
  • that the scientific evidence for evolution can be completely ignored.
  • and that bright, flashing, memorizing images are nice :rolleyes:!
 
icebear said:
It doesn't.
Click to expand...
That would be a lie, icebear, given that the quotes do not say that the fossil record does not support evolution.
They are the usual stupid quote mining (lies) about gaps in the fossil record existing (well Duh :eek:!).
The quote from 1974 is especially stupid since paleontology has found many transitional forms since then (and even before then!).

Talkorigins (which you will of course ignore, icebear) is still a good resopurce for the sceince.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
An Index to Creationist Claims
 
icebear said:
Simple ignorance is one thing, but I really hate seeing people totally in BONDAGE to ignorance, and jref seems to have a problem which is a bit worse than usual...
Click to expand...
I agree. Someone totally in BONDAGE to ignorance is a pitiful sight. Luckily no one (except maybe you :rolleyes:) is ignorant about the evidence for evolution and the bogus claims of creationists, icebear.
If you are ignorant then it is easily fixed, icebear:
Evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
An Index to Creationist Claims

Please do not confirm your BONDAGE to ignorance by linking to creationist rants or quote mines (lies), icebear.
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
I mean, you've got an ideological doctrine which needs quadrillions of years and only has a few thousand or a few tens of thousands, tops:
Click to expand...
Whoops - I missed this spate of "BONDAGE to ignorance" from you icebear :rolleyes:!
Evolution is science not religion (not an ideology so no doctrine).
Evolution does not need "quadrillions of years". It needs millions of years for most animals or a few decades for bacteria (e.g. the new species of nylon-eating bacteria).
The creationist woo about an Earth that is a few thousands of years old can be debunked by any one who can count. icebear, can you count the rings in ice cores :D?
 
icebear said:
The other kind of time problem which evolutionists have and don't like to talk about has to do with soft tissue turning up to an increasing extent in dinosaur remains.
Click to expand...
A bit of "BONDAGE to ignorance", icebear.
Tyrannosaurus: Soft tissue has talked bout by scientists since the discovery in 2005. There have been several papers discussing it.

There is 100% chance of this "soft tissue" surviving for millions of years because it did :jaw-dropp!

The fact that you seem ignorant about, icebear, is that this "soft tissue" was found inside bones that were millions of years old.
In the March 2005 issue of Science, Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and colleagues announced the recovery of soft tissue from the marrow cavity of a fossilized leg bone, from a Tyrannosaurus rex. The bone had been intentionally, though reluctantly, broken for shipping and then not preserved in the normal manner, specifically because Schweitzer was hoping to test it for soft tissue.[66]
Click to expand...

This was an important discovery because it was assumed that fossilization replaced all biological material with minerals. Now we know that in special circumstances biological material can be preserved. This give further evidence for evolution, e.g. the possible relationship between T. Rex and modern birds.
 
icebear said:
A single BENEFICIAL mutation at a time. That's the assumption evolution works with. The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal or, best case, don't really do much of anything.
Click to expand...

"Most mutations are harmful or don't do much of anything." That's what you just said when stripped of extremist language.
 
icebear said:
I mean, you've got an ideological doctrine which needs quadrillions of years and only has a few thousand or a few tens of thousands, tops: how retarded does somebody need to be to actually BELIEVE that kind of BS??

Another take on the subject (evolution vs Rastafari):

http://able2know.org/topic/184841-1

In other words, an apples2apples comparison (a religion which works on the same sort of intellectual level as evolutionism).
Click to expand...

That's a straw man argument, ice bear.
 
icebear said:
Simple ignorance is one thing, but I really hate seeing people totally in BONDAGE to ignorance, and jref seems to have a problem which is a bit worse than usual...
Click to expand...

Attacking your audience does not equate to supporting your fallacious argument.
 
Raw meat in dinosaur remains:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/dinosaur_main_388.jpg

That's also consistent with the good representations of known dinosaur types which are sometimes found in Amerind petroglyphs, e.g. the stegosaur glyph at Agawa Rock, Massinaw Lake Superior:

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbvi...2007-agawa-pictographs-canoe-and-serpents.jpg

I'm aware that stegosaurs did not have horns... Indians were always in the habit of touching those glyphs up every few years, and the horns were added long after the animal himself became extinct by an artist who simply figured an animal that size needed them.

Indian oral traditions describe the stegosaur ("Mishi-pishu", or 'water panther') as having had a saw-blade back, red fur, a cat-like face, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon (Vine Deloria, "Red Earth, White Lies"). Louis and Clark described their Indian guides as being in mortal terror of Mishi-pishu glyphs around the Mississippi; the original intent was "Caution, one of these things LIVES here".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom