• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dead, just like when you mix a finch with a canary.
It dont work. Natural selection and sterility will take their bodies and snuff the life out of them. Leaving them to rot in the sun and be food for maggots
Same reason we dont have a bunch of ligers
running around
 
Its sad the best examples for evolution have came down to retarded inbred incestuous birds,
And a sterile jackass
really embarrassing
 
Read the link moron.. they're breeding.

The best examples we have of evolution is every living thing on the planet.

But yet again you are ignoring the information and continuing to be wilfully ignorant.

But you did just admit that natural selection happens. Bravo.
 
You sir, are a dishonest piece of processed grass.
You know good and dam well those birds died out.
As well you know I never said natural selection doesn't happen.
Its what screws evolution, weeding out mutations
 
No.. they didn't..

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/new-finch-species-evolves-our-eyes

From this year (They've been around for decades)

“Maybe in 2007, we really grasped what was going on,” Peter Grant told Weiner. Only the likelihood that Global Warming will deplete their food supply looks likely to prevent their long-term success
Click to expand...

So you believe random mutations happen and you believe in natural selection.. mmm-k..

Looks like I've presented another piece of information you are unable to refute in any meaningul manner.

I've already spoon fed you mutations that are beneficial.. why would natural selection want to weed them out? You're a fool if you think birth defects and the like are the only thing mutations bring.
 
Last edited:
Finches beaks are not example of mutations.
This is what evolution requires. It is an expression of gene that they already have.
All finches came from one pair of finches.
Like dogs you can get a variety of characteristics, but none are uncharacteristic of any finches common ancestor.
Again what mutation is responsible for a change in finches
you see evolution depends on a disrupt in the genetic code to get something else to choose from
selecting a already possessed trait does not give it anything new
that's how finch beaks can get bigger and return to normal
not from mutation
 
Last edited:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html

Common ancestor

I can admitt that I was thinking of finch and a canary hybrid witb respect to your example on hybridization.
Are you honest enough to admitt common ancestor comprises the traits we see today?
 
Last edited:
rick said:
you don't
Click to expand...

I don't have time for this discussion.

I have better things to do.

Believe what you like.

If you honestly believe the story of Adam and Eve was meant to be taken literally, you have no understanding - whatsoever - of mythological allegories. It's not worth my time discussing it with you.

...

Stop feeding the troll.
 
Last edited:
If you're not a troll, you're embarrassing yourself and making religious-types look foolish.

Either way, please stop.

There are more than enough idiotic ambassadors for religion.

You are doing God a disservice.

Meth makes smart people smarter and stupid people stupider. Find another drug.
 
Last edited:
methamaniac said:
Finches beaks are not example of mutations.
This is what evolution requires. It is an expression of gene that they already have.
All finches came from one pair of finches.
Like dogs you can get a variety of characteristics, but none are uncharacteristic of any finches common ancestor.
Again what mutation is responsible for a change in finches
you see evolution depends on a disrupt in the genetic code to get something else to choose from
selecting a already possessed trait does not give it anything new
that's how finch beaks can get bigger and return to normal
not from mutation
Click to expand...

What? You have literally no idea what you are talking about..

that's how finch beaks can get bigger and return to normal
Click to expand...

Jesus christ.

That doesn't happen, meth. Again you display a complete lack of understanding.
 
ForEverAfter said:
If you honestly believe the story of Adam and Eve was meant to be taken literally, you have no understanding - whatsoever - of mythological allegories. It's not worth my time discussing it with you.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were meant to be taken literally.. i said they are.

Night night <3
 
you said:
How do you, or anyone else for that matter, know what the intentions of the author of Genesis was?
Click to expand...

In the context of this question, above, you were questioning whether or not the story was meant to be taken literally. Nobody (don't bother finding exceptions, I'm not speaking in absolutes) takes Adam & Eve literally. I've never met a Christian that literally believes in talking snakes. It is blatantly allegorical, and it was obviously written that way.
 
Last edited:
ForEverAfter said:
If you're not a troll, you're embarrassing yourself and making religious-types look foolish.

Either way, please stop.

There are more than enough idiotic ambassadors for religion.

You are doing God a disservice.

Meth makes smart people smarter and stupid people stupider. Find another drug.
Click to expand...

Ah but this is the work of intravenous Dawkins. Best to leave well enough alone.
 
Last edited:
In respect to the species. IN response to a stress a dominant trait of small beaks can rather quickly give way to big beaks , but return back to small beaks when the stress is removed.

RICO,
Again how does mutations play a role in finch beaks
( notice no answer)
you would have us believe it is evolution before our eyes. Where is the new information to the genome??

Forever,
ps I am not on meth
I used to be on methadone
got the courage to get off and glad I did
hardest thing ive done to date
the withdrawls will turn u into a maniac
 
Last edited:
Ah but this is the work of intravenous Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins is an idiot, who manages to convinces some people that he is more intelligent than he is by "winning" non-existing debates with people even stupider than he.

Did you mean Darwin?

...

methamaniac,

Nobody is answering your beak questions in sufficient detail to satisfy you, because they aren't worth the time. That doesn't mean you've stumped the rest of the forum. What it means is this:

You're out of your element, Donny.
Click to expand...
 
Just to clarify, no, I did not mean Darwin. Dawkins is intelligent but his debates are shite.
 
Why does religion have to be dominant in clarifying such meaningless crap. As long as we focus on the future without causing harm to others, why is it that the past cant be learned from but has to be argued over.
 
Just to clarify, no, I did not mean Darwin. Dawkins is intelligent but his debates are shite.
Click to expand...

Dolphins are also intelligent.

What does intravenous Dawkins mean?

Intravenous Darwinism would have made a lot more sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top