south park

[Traveler]

+ YouTube Video

[Doc Velocity]

It makes JUST AS MUCH SENSE as Darwinian Evolution. Retard fish-monkeys having buttsex with squirrels. Why not? I mean, it explains the existence of a good number of the Socialist Libtards on AO.

— Doc Velocity

[lycanox]

Intresting to see that creationist can only defend their backwards ideas by attacking and ridicilousing others. But fail to present any concrete evidence for theirs.

Infact, the south park clip was nothing more than a parody of that.

[GamerGal]

Yeah, the SP clip was making fun of Doc and Trav. And yet they are so dense they don't realize it.

[Traveler]

Intresting to see that creationist can only defend their backwards ideas by attacking and ridicilousing others. But fail to present any concrete evidence for theirs.

Infact, the south park clip was nothing more than a parody of that.

But that is exactly what science does to the creationists. Rather like the kettle calling the pot black there. However he did cover the chain of events rather well. This is after all what science has presented to us.

[Traveler]

Yeah, the SP clip was making fun of Doc and Trav. And yet they are so dense they don't realize it.

Another blond moment I see.

[Doc Velocity]

Yeah, the SP clip was making fun of Doc and Trav. And yet they are so dense they don't realize it.

GG... Look, I'm going to explain this so carefully and so slowly that even a brain-damaged retard Cajun from Maine could understand it.... The clip is FUNNY, okay, because it exposes the horseshit that the teachers' unions are shoving in our faces.

The teachers are ORDERED to disseminate the evolution schtick, even though Evolution through Natural Selection has been shown to be a THEORY riddled with inexplicable inconsistencies. Evolution is no more a FACT than is the Theory of Relativity.

That's a good comparison, actually, because BOTH theories work really, really well in CERTAIN instances, but when you try to move them around and apply them across the board, they break down.

Just so, Einstein's physical mechanics break down when you try to apply it to the subatomic world, right, and Darwin's Natural Selection hits the rocks when they try to explain ISOLATION EVOLUTION, mutant evolution, among other things.

Our friends down under know all about isolation evolution, don't you? Yeah, it's your whole culture is predicated on isolation. The ruddy aborigines down there — many of whom have good, solid, homo sapiens genes (There's an inside joke that will infuriate tight-assed socialists)

Anyway, the FUNNY thing about the clip is that it fairly spoofs the way Science ARTICULATES their total LACK of understanding of how Evolution really works.

You would have to go to college and sit in a fucking lecture hall to CATCH these fucking glaring errors: like, what the FUCK is homo habilis man doing in the Gobi Desert 750,000 years ago?

He shouldn't be there? Well, hell, that goes without saying.

— Doc Velocity

[lycanox]

GG... Look, I'm going to explain this so carefully and so slowly that even a brain-damaged retard Cajun from Maine could understand it.... The clip is FUNNY, okay, because it exposes the horseshit that the teachers' unions are shoving in our faces.

Actually if you actually watch the whole episode. Its clear that that that part is a parody on stupid creationist believers.

The teachers are ORDERED to disseminate the evolution schtick, even though Evolution through Natural Selection has been shown to be a THEORY riddled with inexplicable inconsistencies. Evolution is no more a FACT than is the Theory of Relativity.

It is however the only theory backed with concrete undeniable evidence.
And is believed by practically every scientist that is not a fundamental wacko Christian.

That's a good comparison, actually, because BOTH theories work really, really well in CERTAIN instances, but when you try to move them around and apply them across the board, they break down.

Then please explain why there exist no evidence contrary to evolution.

Just so, Einstein's physical mechanics break down when you try to apply it to the subatomic world, right, and Darwin's Natural Selection hits the rocks when they try to explain ISOLATION EVOLUTION, mutant evolution, among other things.

Evolution works perfectly in isolated parts of the world. And mutant evolution is just a bullshit term from Marvel.
Which shows that you really know nothing about the subject.

Our friends down under know all about isolation evolution, don't you? Yeah, it's your whole culture is predicated on isolation. The ruddy aborigines down there — many of whom have good, solid, homo sapiens genes (There's an inside joke that will infuriate tight-assed socialists)

Anyway, the FUNNY thing about the clip is that it fairly spoofs the way Science ARTICULATES their total LACK of understanding of how Evolution really works.

Again, watch the episode. The clip shows the retard ideas creationist have about evolution. Nothing about that clip is meant to be an actual representation of evolution.

You would have to go to college and sit in a fucking lecture hall to CATCH these fucking glaring errors: like, what the FUCK is homo habilis man doing in the Gobi Desert 750,000 years ago?

He shouldn't be there? Well, hell, that goes without saying.

— Doc Velocity

And why exactly shouldn't it be there.

[johnBeeone]

Ps 139:16 ​​​​​​​Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence.

Ps 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.


Ps 139:16 גָּלְמִי ׀ רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ וְעַֽל־סִפְרְךָ כֻּלָּם יִכָּתֵבוּ יָמִים יֻצָּרוּ [וְלֹא כ] (וְלֹו ק) אֶחָד בָּהֶֽם׃



yet being unperfect <--- Unformed---> DNA

[Cartesiantheater]

Just so, Einstein's physical mechanics break down when you try to apply it to the subatomic world

False. Special relativity is fully compatible with quantum mechanics, and general relativity and quantum mechanics have a MATHEMATICAL problem (renormalization of gravity is elusive, not that you have any idea what that means), but in theory there is no problem as long as you're comfortable with infinites. Since you believe in God, you should have no problem with that, right?


Of course, that's academic.



Now please explain to me Human Chromosome #2.

+ YouTube Video

[Traveler]

How about the RNA behind it.

So much time spent on the image and promotion of the idea but bottom line is there should not be a split in the great apes because right back at the start when the mutations were first supposed to have started the first members of the different species would still be interbreeding with each other, thus removing the distinction between the apes again.

[johnBeeone]

​​​​​​​God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time, but he has also placed ignorance in the human heart so that people cannot discover what God has ordained, from the beginning to the end of their lives.


​​​​​​​I also know that whatever God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken away from it.

God has made it this way, so that men will fear him.

[lycanox]

How about the RNA behind it.

So much time spent on the image and promotion of the idea but bottom line is there should not be a split in the great apes because right back at the start when the mutations were first supposed to have started the first members of the different species would still be interbreeding with each other, thus removing the distinction between the apes again.

Humans have been interbreeding for centuries. Yet we still have different races, haircollors and such.
And traits barely disapear, unless there is pressure from the enviroment to make it go away. (Survival of the fitting.)

So there is no reason to believe that traits would automatically deevolve when there is interbreeding. Unless the trait happens to be very resesive and rare.

[Traveler]

Humans have been interbreeding for centuries. Yet we still have different races, haircollors and such.
And traits barely disapear, unless there is pressure from the enviroment to make it go away. (Survival of the fitting.)

So there is no reason to believe that traits would automatically deevolve when there is interbreeding. Unless the trait happens to be very resesive and rare.

You forget all humans can still cross breed.

But you don't see a cross between a chimp and baboon do you, yet if all the apes came from a single ancestor the guerrillas and orang-utans should still be producing in the common pot.

[johnBeeone]

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,

we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[Cartesiantheater]

How about the RNA behind it.

So much time spent on the image and promotion of the idea but bottom line is there should not be a split in the great apes because right back at the start when the mutations were first supposed to have started the first members of the different species would still be interbreeding with each other, thus removing the distinction between the apes again.

That isn't always true. Take blue eyes, for example. The set of genes that lead to blue eyes don't disappear from the gene pool, even if the trait seems to. As soon as someone from that line breeds with someone else who has that set of genes, poof! blue eyes are back. In other words, genes don't just disappear all the time. Sometimes they just piggy back along for the ride.

You forget all humans can still cross breed.

But you don't see a cross between a chimp and baboon do you, yet if all the apes came from a single ancestor the guerrillas and orang-utans should still be producing in the common pot.

That argument here is flawed. Chimps and baboons are entirely different species. Human races are just tiny modifications within a species. That is, chimps/baboons are far too removed from each other, while some human races are only a few hundred years old (Mestizos for example).

Sure, sometimes different species can interbreed, but that depends obviously on how closely they are genetically related.

[lycanox]

You forget all humans can still cross breed.

Which was a point you also brought up in your scenario.

But you don't see a cross between a chimp and baboon do you, yet if all the apes came from a single ancestor the guerrillas and orang-utans should still be producing in the common pot.[/QUOTE]
Actually they haven't, They each split up from their own respective forefather. Like not all tree branches come from the same branch. But separate from individual branches.

But sure. Separate black people long enough from white people, and eventually the two will become different species. The difference is that that in our species, this separation does not exist. But in many species this isn't.

[Traveler]

That isn't always true. Take blue eyes, for example. The set of genes that lead to blue eyes don't disappear from the gene pool, even if the trait seems to. As soon as someone from that line breeds with someone else who has that set of genes, poof! blue eyes are back. In other words, genes don't just disappear all the time. Sometimes they just piggy back along for the ride.



That argument here is flawed. Chimps and baboons are entirely different species. Human races are just tiny modifications within a species. That is, chimps/baboons are far too removed from each other, while some human races are only a few hundred years old (Mestizos for example).

Sure, sometimes different species can interbreed, but that depends obviously on how closely they are genetically related.

What you are doing is looking to the past and trying to paint a picture but if you take that same picture and stand in the past and try to project ahead to the future using that same picture you painted it does not hold up.

[lycanox]

And how exactly does it not hold up.

[Traveler]

At the point the great apes were supposed to have separated they would still be interbreeding with each other and the separation would have never occurred in the first place. That is what bisexual reproduction is all about. It repairs the damage done by mutations.

If the evolutionary model is applied then life on this planet should have a boring consistency. In fact the split between animal and plant should not even be there because of our common ancestor already needed to find a partner to mate with even back then.

[lycanox]

Unless, the following things happen.

1. The thrait has a positive geographic advantage for the individue that only applies to an specific group of animals in that region. Like a better capability to withstand desert conditions. Resulting in an better position to survive, breed and thus pass the gene than one that has not that gene. Resulting in a spread of that gene.
While a group of animals of that species living in the jungle, does not develop that gene. As it holds no advantage for them. Resulting in a different genetic make up between groups.

2. A part of the the population are separated from others, like on an island. Resulting in the island either only sharing a new gene among themselves, or missing out on a new gene on the mainland. Resulting in a genetic difference between the two groups.

[DontBeAfraid]

Traveler... Your understanding of the Theory of Evolution becomes more flawed each and every time you want to discuss it. And bisexual reproduction doesnt "repair" diversion but creates more opportunities for different genes to excel thus speeding up evolutionary change. Parents create many DIFFERENT offspring each with its own advantages and disadvantages then nature selects the offspring that are most worthy of breeding even more children... With asexual reproduction differences are rare and far between thus most of the time there is no advantage to be taken.

[Cartesiantheater]

At the point the great apes were supposed to have separated they would still be interbreeding with each other and the separation would have never occurred in the first place. That is what bisexual reproduction is all about. It repairs the damage done by mutations.

There is no "point" in which they separated. You keep thinking about it terms of one creature having some mutation, but it doesn't work like that. A GROUP of them would need to be separated geographically (or otherwise), and in that GROUP the mutation would be favored due to circumstance.

Like the genes to produce tall or short people don't just happen ONE time. They happen numerous times, but there is no genetic advantage to either, and there is no single sub-portion that is separated and then placed in a situation where being tall or short would be favored.

If the evolutionary model is applied then life on this planet should have a boring consistency.

This is false. In fact it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what evolutionary theory predicts, and it was already explained to you here:

http://forums.armageddononline.org/s...3&postcount=22

Why is life diverse? Evolutionary theory predicts that if there is a niche to be filled, a creature will fill it. Why you say? Because natural selection. As creatures compete for limited resources, there will begin to be clear winners. Those who are not "fit" enough to win in the battle will become extinct, right? WRONG. Those who are not able to ADAPT and find a NICHE that is somewhat independent from the one being dominated by the "most fit" will die out. The end result here is that you end up having numerous creatures filling numerous niches. The "little" creatures living in the mud were pushed there by the "big" creatures living in the sunlight. However, the "little" creatures weren't just Life's pushovers, either. THEY were in turn the winners of ANOTHER "survival of the fittest" battle. The ones who couldn't quite cut it in the mud were eliminated from THAT niche. However, even THEN they aren't necessarily losers. Some of these creatures might have found a way to live as parasites within the bodies of the mud dwellers. Or maybe they were forced deeper into the earth (of course, at the expense of still MORE creatures competing for THAT niche...). This happens OVER and OVER and OVER in ONE freaking ecosystem. Which in turn happens OVER and OVER and OVER in larger systems, up until you get to a global system. And that is only ONE line. One needs to think in possibly HUNDREDS in a given system.

THAT is why life is diverse. It isn't "he who gets the banana wins and everyone else dies." It's "he who gets the banana eats the banana, and everyone else has to compete to get the 'next best' food source." You might object and say, "but any mutation in one member of the species won't be enough to save them all." But you see, given a large enough population of the creature, MOST of them might not be able to make the step, but MANY (who are not at first spatially near each other relatively) will. And then some will dominate the new niche, and others will find new niches. And so on. We see it happen in laboratories every quarter.



Stop. Thinking. Linearly in one dimension. Evolution IS NOT A ONE DIMENSIONAL LINEAR PROCESS!


A large diversity of life is PERFECTLY within the scope of evolution and indeed it is a PREDICTION of it. Given competition for resources, eventually creatures WILL BE FORCED to move onto other niches. By natural selection, those who are able to will gain a small foothold into the new niche. But then the game is never finished. These slightly newer creatures will STILL have to fight for control over the new niche, and many will be forced to adapt to still a slightly different niche. This gives you diversity! Even in this grossly oversimplified model, it is easy to see that diversity is a prediction of evolution.

Some educational links for those interested in actually learning something:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...1928/HTMLSTART

[...] more species create more opportunities and selective pressures for other species to respond to, rather than capping diversity at a fixed equilibrium level. Studies from the scale of modern ecosystems to global long-term patterns in the fossil record support a model for the exponential diversification of life, and one explanation for a pattern of exponential diversification is that as diversity increases, new forms become ever more refinements of existing forms. In a sense the world becomes increasingly divided into finer niche space.

Starting to get it yet? I doubt it... in a nutshell, competition forces creatures to look for finer and finer niches to exist in. Those who make adaptations move on. This in tern breeds more competition, etc... until you have a very large diversity of creatures filling as many niches as is possible. I mean really, traveler, this is evolution 101 man...



This is of course ignoring the myriad of neutral genetic changes that accumulate with time (genetic drift, etc), and many other important factors. But if you can't even grasp simple natural selection and the competition of resources, what's the point of getting any more detailed?



http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/nichelec.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn5l08k32452507q/

http://www.archidictus.org/theory/niches.html





Oh, more evolution happening in the labratory (this one somewhat relevant to the present discussion, although it takes on another variable- how different environments constrain the availability of diversity)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2279222



lol... hell, if you're argument were correct, we wouldn't see diverse RACES among species either. Even human ethnic distribution can be analyzed by considering niche theory, as shown in one of my links.

Now championing a cause so as to be the winner is of no real value to you as an individual if at the end of the day you have an empty victory that sticks to you for your own hurt. Collectively the human race is running out of time, all the ancient prophecies found in the scriptures are starting to be fulfilled to the letter, thus testifying to the credibility of said scriptures. Receiving praise from those who wish to oppose those scriptures is not going to help you in the long run if you are going to end up having to explain your actions to the author of those self same scriptures. Mistakes and misunderstandings are expected and will be forgiven but deliberately enforcing what you know to be wrong is not going to go down too well.

What I know to be wrong... rotf. As I said, your ridiculous attempt to discredit evolution by saying that something it freaking predicts is evidence against it... what do you expect traveler? The evidence, including the diversity of life, all points towards evolution. (that life is diverse is EXACTLY what you would expect in a natural selection type game where finding niches is the secret to success).

And more to the point, if your horrible representation of theory were correct, then it would be impossible for race diversity to exist for the very same reasons that you claim species diversity cannot exist! Yet LO! Diversity among races exists!

In fact the split between animal and plant should not even be there because of our common ancestor already needed to find a partner to mate with even back then.

Again, this is showing that you have some idea of evolution that has nothing to do with the actual theory. Nothing is "changing into" something else in any way so suddenly. ORGANS change, ATTRIBUTES change, GENETIC MATERIAL changes. The distinction of species is one WE make by looking at the big picture, but on the small scale of individual creatures, such distinctions are meaningless.

According to evolutionary theory, there was no single day when a chicken gave birth to a non-chicken. There was no "new species" of chicken in any single year. There was no point where a creature with long term descendants that had a particular variation in its genetic code could not find a mate. This is a UTTERLY ANNOYING misconception by creationists. The misconception arises from a very simplistic view of evolution. It is not single changes in individual creatures that lead to evolution. It is long term trends among a genetically isolated group.

[lycanox]

[QUOTE]

If the evolutionary model is applied then life on this planet should have a boring consistency.

Actually it does have a lot of consistency. There are only few mayor families. And the mayority have lots of organs in common.

In fact the split between animal and plant should not even be there because of our common ancestor already needed to find a partner to mate with even back then.

Actually plants do mate through pollination. Where pollen are blown from the male parts of the plants to female ones from other plants.

Regardless, your argument is wrong as animals did not evolve out of the plants most people are familiar with. Or the other way around. But both did evolve out of more microorganism like organisms.

[Traveler]

Traveler... Your understanding of the Theory of Evolution becomes more flawed each and every time you want to discuss it. And bisexual reproduction doesnt "repair" diversion but creates more opportunities for different genes to excel thus speeding up evolutionary change. Parents create many DIFFERENT offspring each with its own advantages and disadvantages then nature selects the offspring that are most worthy of breeding even more children... With asexual reproduction differences are rare and far between thus most of the time there is no advantage to be taken.

That is just saying stuff and it contradicts things you guys have stated before.

Single cell life is asexual and they mutate the whole time. Look at the flue you all hold up as proof! Bisexual does not but because there is a sharing of codes each new joining produces a unique combination of the two but species drift is inhibited.