Denial of evolution VI

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by DawkyJR, Dec 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DawkyJR Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    What do you do when you've invested so much in a theory, even proselytized others on its scientific validity, and then see every new archaeological discovery prove it wrong?

    You go into cognitive dissonant mode.

    The massive collection of fossils discovered to date show that survival of the fittest (as attributed to evolution) never happened -- the vast majority of fossils seem to represent the "fit." The "unfit," the ones that allegedly didn't survive, are practically non-existent.

    Yes, we all know how genetic code pass down mostly the beneficial mutations to perpetuate the hardiest of the species. But this nonsense misses the point. In scenarios of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection," there would be those that were "not fit" or "not selected." Where are they? The absence of the unfit in the fossil record indicates that all life forms came into existence already "fit" and "selected." How do you account for such a practically flawless success rate?

    Of course, there is the misguided notion of how the misfit generally don't spawn successive generations and therefore leave few telltale traces. The problem with this notion is that accidental chaos happens in far greater numbers than accidental benefits. Fossils of the misfit, even if they never survived to spawn successive generations, should have far outnumbered our current collection of fossils. But they hardly exist.

    Natural selection on the genetic level cannot account for this inexplicable lack of "misfit" fossils. Before the first drastically different family of life forms (the first dog, the first bird, the first snake, etc.) came into existence, the genetic code could not possibly have held the genetic design for their precise characteristics. At some point, drastic genetic mutations must have occurred to produce these new life forms. And for every "first" of a new life form, there would have to have been the spawning of literally millions of misfit predecessor variations that were weeded out by natural selection. Then you'd have survival of the fittest. As it stands, we have only the fit.

    It's one thing to claim that natural selection on the genetic level can weed out bad genes. But that the genetic process can weed out, prior to birth, the first birds without wings, fish without fins, lions without teeth, etc., is preposterous. These aberrations would have to exist before they could be eliminated by natural selection.

    The possible variations of "misfit" creatures are almost limitless. There is simply no explanation for how nature produced virtually every new life form in a state already fit to survive, as the fossil record shows over and over.

    There's no question that life forms can mutate in relatively minor ways to adapt to an environment. But for completely new families of creatures to suddenly appear without any telltale signs of trial-and-error that clearly show how the myriad of misfits fell by the wayside till nature finally got it right, is impossible to explain.

    Evolution is a modern invention of a God-less religion. It's interesting how a common response you get when confronting evolutionists with legitimate disproofs of evolution is: "You don't understand evolution." Really? The only ones who seem to "understand" evolution are those who believe in it.

    Evolution is little more than lunacy cloaked in scientific jargon. Sorcery and witchcraft were also "scientific" and "well understood" in their time. None of it was ever based on evidence, yet had strong followings. Evolution fulfills 21st Century man's need to believe in a great mystical power beyond himself. Welcome to the supernatural.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    There's no law against ignorance, but it's impolite and somewhat self-defeating to display it so publicly.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yep, more "biology" from someone who hasn't studied biology.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Archaeology never disproved evolution because it is the study of ancient human societies.

    Anyway, the answer to your complaint that we don't see unfit fossils is, how do you know how fit they were just by looking at them? Every living thing is both the product of highly successful ancestors, and an approximation of the best solution to living in that time and place, and thus there is always room for improvement. Half-whales were successful in their own way, but became even more successful as they became better adapted to the ocean. At the same time, the environment changes, so what is successful at one time, may be a failure later. At the same time, every other living thing also changes, so existing conditions are never exactly the same. Evolution doesn't require complete and obvious failures, only subtle differences in success rates (of reproducing).
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    Actually, as you have the internet, you can find not only explanations of how nature produces new life forms fit to survive, but video of key stages of the process.

    Even some of the archaeological findings you mention, such as the ruins of Pompeii or various old temples in SE Asia, can provide introductory information as it applies to human beings.
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    That's weird because all of the new fossil discoveries that I have seen have supported evolution.
    You seem to be talking about yourself.

    Is that how you see it? The fossils are from animals that were well adapted to their environment. When that particular species became extinct it was no longer the best adapted to it's environment. Pretty obvious, don't you think?

    It is not nonsense and that is precisely the point.
    I hope you are joking. They are extinct. Get it? They were not the best adapted to the environment and so they are gone!

    Holy crap this is the most ridiculous misuse of logic I have seen in a while.

    Since almost every single species that we know from fossils is extinct it stands to reason that all of them were unfit for the environment at one point. So saying they hardly exist is 100% wrong.

    Just more of the same with some insults against science and an appeal to God.

    Sorry DawkyJR but that was pitifully bad job of going after evolution.
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Moderator note:

    In the tradition of previous B&G moderators, let Denial of Evolution Round VI begin! (Ding! Ding!).

    Oh yeah - I've deleted the poll.
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Looks like it was just a drive by.
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    What a fucking idiot! He doesn't understand evolution, biology... or for that matter, science.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Codify it into a religion, invent a theology, and violently punish disbelievers.
     
    Aqueous Id likes this.
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I was wrong. I was so wrong above.

    Start that shit right from the get-go. As in, at launch. Would you wait to roll out a new product every couple years like those fuckers at Microsoft? No. And then, everyone's expectations are low to begin with.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page