[TRIGGER WARNING] how does religion exist in educated first world countries?

[Frequency]

But how did that someone learn to pick up the turtle????

well that guy's just very smart and decided he wanted a turtle on a fencepost and had the means to make it happen

then he decided to do that a little more throughout the whole city, but every turtle on every fencepost in the city decided that they climbed up there themselves.

[Ad Bot]

[Foxscotch]

As I understand your argument, you're saying that that because life exists on earth, then it must have happened the way I described.

uh... no
all I said is that what you said doesn't disprove anything

As for the second argument, there really isnt any evidence of an intermediet species existing at any point. You say that such species already exist, but there arent any species that trancend the boundries of species that I am aware of. You say that fish are the intermediary between microbes and full life forms, but we have no such evidence of a single or multi celled microscopic life forms becoming anything bigger or more animal life. We have no record one has existed in the past. There are tonnes of fossils that serve as permanant evidence that a species exists. Archeologists have been digging these up a good few centuries by now. If there was an intermediet species then it should have showed up in the fossils by now. After all, if the process of macroevolution takes milions of years, there's a huge window of time for fossils of such species to form. Why are they non-existant?

what do you mean "species that trancend the boundries of species"? do you mean animals with traits of more than one species? platypuses are mammals that lay eggs and have bills. that's a whole class being transcended. also, the entire way that animals are categorized relies on the fact that animals share traits with other animals of different species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and even kingdoms
and there are certainly a metric frickton of real, entire species that never left fossils. it appears to be difficult to find actual numbers for how many species we've found fossils of*, but I am pretty sure it's not anywhere near the number of species that probably existed at the time. if biodiversity was anything then like it is today, we've certainly got a long way to go

*after looking a little more I did find this
"The number of different kinds of fossils (species) is much less, I think the figure is a few hundred thousand."
that's also just the number for all of history, nevermind all the extinctions and repopulations that occured

[Juncoph]

how do people fail to understand "macro"evolution is possible when they're perfectly fine with "micro"evolution

i'm using quotation marks because the terms micro/macro evolution is just made up jargon bullstuff to hide the fact that one is just lots of the other


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

[Tayasaurus]

how do people fail to understand "macro"evolution is possible when they're perfectly fine with "micro"evolution

i'm using quotation marks because the terms micro/macro evolution is just made up jargon bullstuff to hide the fact that one is just lots of the other

Micro being far more observable than Macro since it takes an amount of time that generally extends past ones point of living.

[Juncoph]

Micro being far more observable than Macro since it takes an amount of time that generally extends past ones point of living.

yeah but 6000 years is also beyond one's live's timeline so creationists can't really use that as an argument either

[otto-san]

science doesn't work by proving itself, it works by blasting a hypothesis with loads of information to see if it works. theories are given credit by their ability to hold up in many cases, not in the ability of cases to apply to the theory. the great thing about evolution is that it can make predictions about what we should find, and it works. as an example, evolution predicted that there would be a link between advanced fish species and amphibians, and then we found it. (also looking back it seems like moppy was trying to refute the existence of any intermediate species so there's your counter-evidence for that?)

[Moppy]

uh... no
all I said is that what you said doesn't disprove anythingwhat do you mean "species that trancend the boundries of species"? do you mean animals with traits of more than one species? platypuses are mammals that lay eggs and have bills. that's a whole class being transcended. also, the entire way that animals are categorized relies on the fact that animals share traits with other animals of different species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and even kingdoms
and there are certainly a metric frickton of real, entire species that never left fossils. it appears to be difficult to find actual numbers for how many species we've found fossils of*, but I am pretty sure it's not anywhere near the number of species that probably existed at the time. if biodiversity was anything then like it is today, we've certainly got a long way to go

*after looking a little more I did find this
"The number of different kinds of fossils (species) is much less, I think the figure is a few hundred thousand."
that's also just the number for all of history, nevermind all the extinctions and repopulations that occured

I keep saying what I mean by transcending species. A dog has never been documented to turn into a not dog, a fish has never turned into a non-fish. There is no evidence of this even happening. Even platypuses don't appear to be changing into from anything into anything because, although they have so many different traits, they don't seem to be growing out of any of them. What did the platypus change from, and what is it changing into, and why does it need to change so drastically at all?

Let me lay out something for you: For a species to be an intermediary species, it needs to have leftover traits from one species that eventually become no longer useful as it becomes another thing. For instance, a hypothetical intermediary between a fish and a mammal may have traits left over from its fish phase. There has never been any evidence of a mammal with gills, scales, or fins like a fish has. I guess if you say that if mammals evolved from amphibians, it should have some traits like webbed feet or a skeleton designed to be on both land and in water.

And I don't understand your argument about the fossils. All you're saying is that you're confirming that there isn't any evidence of these species ever existing.

Without proof, you can say anything can happen over a long period of time simply because nobody saw it happen. Again, the turtle on a fence post thing.

[otto-san]

gonna reiterate this then:

evolution predicted that there would be a link between advanced fish species and amphibians, and then we found it.

and evolution doesn't work the way you seem to be saying? it's a very long-winded process driven by natural selection (perpetuation of favourable genes in changing conditions and decline of less successful genes), and human efforts to basically make sure that this process doesn't kill off negative genes kinda makes it even harder to observe. for instance, pandas logically should not still exist because they're simply unfit to survive in their habitat, we just don't want to lose them for whatever reasons we have (science, tourism, whatever)

i mean, really, dogs are a pretty good example of evolution driven by humans. dogs descended from wolves from human domestication. we did that through our own selection over a long period of time. and i don't tend to buy the idea that the science we see now is somehow different from the science that existed yesterday. science applies even in the absence of observation. that's what makes it a reliable way of understanding the universe. applies don't fly up just because nobody's there to police them.

[Juncoph]

I keep saying what I mean by transcending species. A dog has never been documented to turn into a not dog, a fish has never turned into a non-fish.

nice strawman

nobody is saying A will give birth to B

we're saying A gives birth to A' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A''' gives birth to A'''', but A'''' is so different from A that they can't breed with eachother so A'''' is a different species and is renamed as such: B

of course, A, A', A'', and A''' have all been causing different branches to form, such as 'A, 'A', 'A'', 'A'''

etc

[TristanLuigi]

nice strawman

nobody is saying A will give birth to B

we're saying A gives birth to A' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A''' gives birth to A'''', but A'''' is so different from A that they can't breed with eachother so A'''' is a different species and is renamed as such: B

of course, A, A', A'', and A''' have all been causing different branches to form, such as 'A, 'A', 'A'', 'A'''

etc

Of course, it doesn't happen in 4 generations, it happens in hundreds of thousands.

[Juncoph]

Of course, it doesn't happen in 4 generations, it happens in hundreds of thousands.

indeed, it's just that i can't type exponentially increasing diversity over hundreds of thousands of generations

[Moppy]

nice strawman

nobody is saying A will give birth to B

we're saying A gives birth to A' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A''' gives birth to A'''', but A'''' is so different from A that they can't breed with eachother so A'''' is a different species and is renamed as such: B

of course, A, A', A'', and A''' have all been causing different branches to form, such as 'A, 'A', 'A'', 'A'''

etc

Again, there is no proof that this happened.
Of course A can turn into A', A'', and A''' because all of it's changes can be found within it's own genepool. However, where did the fish get the gene to stop swimming, eventually gain air breathing lungs instead of gills, and get feet to traverse the land. Where did these genes come from?
And how could this have happened without the intermediary species not having a huge disadvantage in their environment before gaining all of the traits needed to survive on land? After all, it would be disadvantageous for a fish to grow legs, but not have the lungs to get on land, or having the lungs needed to breath the air above the water, but still being unable to go up for air and breath the air?

science doesn't work by proving itself, it works by blasting a hypothesis with loads of information to see if it works. theories are given credit by their ability to hold up in many cases, not in the ability of cases to apply to the theory. the great thing about evolution is that it can make predictions about what we should find, and it works. as an example, evolution predicted that there would be a link between advanced fish species and amphibians, and then we found it. (also looking back it seems like moppy was trying to refute the existence of any intermediate species so there's your counter-evidence for that?)

Right, sorry I've missed this. 
I have never heard of this, you see. I'll need some time to learn about this.

[Headcrab Zombie]

I'm not going to read through that huge post because I don't have time at the moment. If you could condense it into a couple paragraphs, maybe.

But I glanced through it, and I'll make these couple points:

First, micro evolution vs macro evolution is a distinction without a difference. The two terms are rarely, if ever (at least not that I've seen) used outside of creationists arguing against them. They both happen for the same reason, and via the same process. One is just an accumulation of the other.

Second, your arguments against evolution are entirely moot because you're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against abiogenesis

Again, there is no proof that this happened.

Now this is just blatant denial.
We've found all sorts of intermediary fossils.
There's also numerous anatomical oddities that make no sense under intelligent design, but perfect sense under evolution

[Juncoph]

Again, there is no proof that this happened.
Of course A can turn into A', A'', and A''' because all of it's changes can be found within it's own genepool. However, where did the fish get the gene to stop swimming, eventually gain air breathing lungs instead of gills, and get feet to traverse the land. Where did these genes come from?
And how could this have happened without the intermediary species not having a huge disadvantage in their environment before gaining all of the traits needed to survive on land? After all, it would be disadvantageous for a fish to grow legs, but not have the lungs to get on land, or having the lungs needed to breath the air above the water, but still being unable to go up for air and breath the air?Right, sorry I've missed this. 
I have never heard of this, you see. I'll need some time to learn about this.

They don't immediately grow lungs, they don't immediately sprout feet. Their current organs and limbs gradually become more tolerant of an environment that they've been forced into, be it from food shortages, predator threats, temperature drops, etc., until they're eventually just not the previous organ or limb.

[Nonnel]

A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A'' gives birth to A''