Extreme troll goes all out.

Quote from Fusion

Why? It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

I just don't understand what you were trying to say. We're comparing evolution to gravity because they're both theories that have heaps of scientifically valid evidence supporting them. Your post seemed to agree with that at first, then went into some odd explanation of how it *might* not be valid everywhere else. That's not really true and doesn't seem to matter when it's being compared to a phenomenon that takes place on earth.

I thought Fusion was making a point about the ridiculous lengths you have to go to in order to argue against either theory.

Oh, haha, yeah that makes a lot more sense. My bad fusion.

I guess it's a little bit my fault too; it probably would have been better to explain more of what I meant.

Dear Exilement,
How I argue is of no concern to anyone. The validity of my arguments is what is essential. Also, People have said that something is an obvious fact in the past, just because they say it means nothing. You still have yet to cite that piece of information too.

Also, why should I care if "The overwhelming majority of geologists believe the coconino sandstone was created from desert winds, not a flood."? The overwhelming majority of scientists also believed in the existence of phlogiston, that did not make them right. Also, to accept that the formation was made by water would mean to accept that a worldwide flood did occur, and that would mean accepting some sort of a God. To them, that is UNacceptable.

And lastly,
Good bye. I don't wish for you to "waste" your time on what you believe to be futile.

Thank you.

Quote from Fusion

Prove what wrong? "Disproven by observable science" is a horribly vague argument.


But Gravity is a theory; you don't know if it works the same way everywhere in the universe. Have you gone to one of the planets orbiting Alpha Centauri, measured the effect of gravity, and then compared it to the measurements for earth to see if they match up the way they should? No, you haven't. And they might *not* work.

So... what was your proof exactly?
Yes, gravity is a theory. However, the difference between gravity and evolution is that there has never been any exceptions or proof against Gravity.

Quote from Javelin

The guy who made this thread is trolling right?



Isn't this evolution over a couple of thousand years?

No. Do you call breeding A poodle and a Labrador to make a new breed evolution?
No NEW information was added to the DNA. It was all already there.

Quote from Envoy

iRakodai, you need to revise on your definitions.



Evolution: Refers to cumulative change in the genetic material of a population over time.

Natural Selection: The action of selective agents on wild populations in the wild. Essentially this is what Evolution is based on.

The moths adapted to their environment through natural selection and their genepool in the end was altered as a result. This change is?


Specie: A group of organisms that have the capacity to mate and produce fertile offspring.
The dogs are still the same specie. Just because they look different does not mean they are a complete separate group. If you take the genes of a black man and mix it with an asian lady, this does not produce a new specie.

Also, structure your arguments in a way so people can CLEARLY know what your contention is. Not everyone wants to scan a list of words, 90% of which are just explanation, and try to deduce what you are saying.

No NEW information was added so it was just natural selection. the dark moths existed before, and the white moths exist today. There was no change in the genetic information.
Also, sorry about the species confusion. They meant "breeds".

Quote from Exilement

Yup. Same with this quote



I mean he's blatantly admitting that that evolution exists. I don't even know how to have a discussion with someone like this.

again, I am sorry about the misinterpretation.

Quote from iRakodai

No NEW information was added so it was just natural selection. the dark moths existed before, and the white moths exist today. There was no change in the genetic information.
Also, sorry about the species confusion. They meant "breeds".

Natural selection is a function of evolution. I don't know how many times this has to be said for you to understand it.

Quote from iRakodai

No NEW information was added so it was just natural selection. the dark moths existed before, and the white moths exist today. There was no change in the genetic information.
Also, sorry about the species confusion. They meant "breeds".

Evolution looks at the genepool of the population, not just whether "no new information is added" to it. You can't just say it is only natural selection. There may have not been speciation but a obvious change in the allelic frequency in the population.

The fact that you discredit the evolution of the peppered moths, which is widely used in evolution example just demonstrates your misconception of the theory. We are confused. You say natural selection is happening by it is not evolution which is contradicting your point.

Have any of you heard of genetic mutation? What needs to die dies,what is destined to survive might pass its genes to its offspring. It is only indicated as evolution after a few hundred or thousand years later when there is a massage change in their gene pool.

Quote from iRakodai

Dear Exilement,
How I argue is of no concern to anyone. The validity of my arguments is what is essential. Also, People have said that something is an obvious fact in the past, just because they say it means nothing. You still have yet to cite that piece of information too.

Also, why should I care if "The overwhelming majority of geologists believe the coconino sandstone was created from desert winds, not a flood."? The overwhelming majority of scientists also believed in the existence of phlogiston, that did not make them right. Also, to accept that the formation was made by water would mean to accept that a worldwide flood did occur, and that would mean accepting some sort of a God. To them, that is UNacceptable.

And lastly,
Good bye. I don't wish for you to "waste" your time on what you believe to be futile.

Thank you.

I hate you so much, soooo much.

Why won't you consider the evidence, logic and everything else being presented to you in this thread.

You are the most arrogant person I've ever come across.

Quote from iRakodai

The validity of my arguments is what is essential.

Yeah I agree, but I'm not really focusing on the quality of your arguments here, I'm talking about your responses to the ones I've made to invalidate your arguments. That's what I'm trying to do here, and you're doing little more than ignoring me. How are we supposed to have a discussion if you won't even acknowledge what I'm saying?

It's downright ridiculous that you're even trying to discuss this topic in the first place. You said from the beginning, "Please research your information thoroughly before presenting it", but with some of the blatantly false statements you've made so far, it's extremely obvious you don't really know what you're talking about. When I correct you, you dismiss it because you don't understand enough about this topic to make sense out of my rebuttals. This is really fucking frustrating.

But I'm going to try one last time to explain this to you. Starting with this statement:

Quote from iRakodai]Evolution is all about creatures going from simple beings to complex beings through mutations that add new and useful information. [/quote]

So here you acknowledge that evolution exists if, and only if:

1. Mutations occur
2. These mutations add new and useful information

By "information" I'm assuming you mean any new psychological trait or physical structure/variation that's added as a result of the mutation. And your designation of it as "useful", means it's favorable for survival, reproduction or both, leading to an increased chance of it being passed down across generations, increasing its prevalence in the population. Am I on track here?

So, if you acknowledge this, what the hell are we arguing about? You agree with evolutionary theory. What you disagree with are the terms used to define it, as demonstrated here:

[QUOTE=iRakodai

I suppose what I don't believe is mutations that don't just copy or delete, but cause the creation of new structures that function.

lol. Okay so here's a few definitions for you, because if you've ever read them you would never say anything like that:

Mutation: The changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes

Now, the definition of gene duplication: any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene; it may occur as an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome.

aka THE DEFINITION OF MUTATION. Duplication changes the genome, mutation is any change in the genome, so duplication is a type of mutation. Let me repeat that: gene duplication IS mutation. This is not up for debate, this is obvious from their definitions.

I feel it's necessary to make that as clear as possible, because when you challenged us to find an example of something being added through mutation, I gave you one. This was your response:

Quote from iRakodai

As far as the duplication goes, yes, but that information was already there, there is just more of it now. No NEW information was created.

First of all, no, that isn't what happened at all. "New information" was created. What the fuck isn't "new" about having increased color perception? It's a new function and it was the result of mutation, it's exactly what you asked for.

If you knew anything about biology you would have realized that, but I'm assuming that hasn't changed and repeating myself is equally useless now as it was then. So gather 'round, kids, it's time for a fucking biology lesson.

When a gene is copied: "The second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. Thus it accumulates mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms."

So yes, you are kind of right, the gene was copied and didn't lead to anything new. But that copy can eventually mutate into something that is new. What else do you want? The end result causes something new THROUGH MUTATION. Genes don't just pop into existence, completely functional and useful to the organism from day one. Or even if they might (I don't know of any examples) it's not how evolution works.

After a gene is copied it can undergo something called neofunctionalization, it's the process by which a copied gene becomes mutated while the original gene remains intact. It serves a separate function while the original gene continues functioning as it did prior to the mutation. This is exactly how cone cells evolved to allow trichromacy in humans.

You can read more about it here and here, if you insist on citations.



So that's it. Mutations do occur, some of which eventually add new or useful structures. It is not a "dumbing down" process of selective genetic deletion like you suggested before.

Until you directly address this scientific evidence that directly refutes your claims, you haven't said a single fucking thing to give any of your arguments even a shred of validity. That's what's essential here, right?