Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution

I’m pretty agnostic as to the mechanics of God’s creative forces but these quotes say an awful lot.

If we are going to use art as evidence of God, what does the work of Van Gogh, Picasso, or Dali suggest about reality.

I remember when it came out; the flip side was Ey, Jude.

Ya forgot your joke emoji.

That's complete bullshit. It says nothing about conservatives going out and doing the hunting while liberals stayed at the campfires sewing animal skins together, or brewing beer, or any of the most important historical stuff.

Evolution is a fact. Theory relates to the means and mechanisms by which it happens.

Dang, someone has a clue. What are you doing here?

Exactly, when evolution is defined as the change in gene frequencies over time. We use an off shoot of these theories to put people in prison all the time - called DNA evidence. Pretty good science.

nOn Sequitur July 18 , 2019.

https://images.app.goo.gl/ENsXGku45fWMq4mh9

Thank you for proving my point.

You state that it is a fact even though you can’t find evidence that it happened. You can’t find evidence that it is happening. And you can’t satisfactorily explain how it could have happened. Yet, it is fact. Lol

It's the most scientifically confirmed theory there is. Literally all of the life sciences, and the accomplishments therefrom, would be meaningless (and impossible) were it not correct. Nothing we know about biology makes any sense whatever without it. Before evolution, biology was an oddball hobby of cataloging all the different lifeforms as unrelated organisms.

Is it really your contention that the zebra, the horse, and the donkey are not related to one another, Joe? If you recoil at the notion of their being unrelated species, then you have accepted speciation by natural selection. You just grow increasingly uncomfortable as divergence increases beyond species that look superficially alike due to greater lengths of time in isolation that would be required.

There is micro evolution. There are no examples of macro evolution and it is a mathematical impossibility. Animals do not change form.

I guess we have to discuss what you mean by form? Most animals that you'd think are quite distinct, share a great deal in terms of form, e.g., two eyes, nostrils in about the same place, ears in about the same place, spine in about the same place, organs, blood vessels, etc.. yet this all could be said about a fish and a wolf. At first glance, one is inclined to say they are very distinct in form, but that's just a bias you have. Looked at scientifically, their forms are extremely similar. And that's explained by their having had a common ancestor. That position of the eyes, the skull, the spine, the limbs, the organs, etc., is a family resemblance, like the way you resemble your brother or sister, just further removed.

Anatomy cannot be studied or understood without evolution? Organic chemistry? Pathology? Even genetics? (all disciplines I've studied) The assertion that all the life sciences are "impossible" without evolution is a straight up crock of crap. The only life "science" that depends on evolution is evolution. If evolution was so essential to understanding life sciences, it would be a prerequisite for all major courses instead of a senior elective. You are simply repeating this stuff. Try to refute the math presented by the video. You'd look smarter.

No, just no. Find the mechanism where a foot becomes a fin, one stomach becomes four, lungs become gills, skin becomes scales, limbs become wings, and so and so forth. There literally has not been enough time on earth and not enough organisms on earth to have made the necessary genetic changes by random means.

That’s what those guys in the video were talking about. Today we understand more about genetics. They calculated the number of combinations possible and the odds of getting one useful mutation in one protein. It was ten to the 77th power. In the history of the world, counting every single bacteria that has ever lived, there have only been something like ten to the 40th power organism. In the universe, there is an estimated ten to the 78th power atoms.

only man is arrogant enough to think he has all the answers.

It's quite easy. Just take their discussion of the Cambrian Explosion. The speaker holds a fundamental misconception about it that makes any mathematically derived conclusions he draws from it utterly worthless. He makes the mistake of believing that the "explosion" was an actual sudden appearance of new kinds of species that hadn't existed before, or didn't exist before in anything like that form. This is wrong. All those types of species existed before, just lacking hard parts that would survive the fossilization process. Hard parts were a new adaptation to the first appearance of jaws. Once jaws came into existence on predators, it created a strong environmental pressure favoring the development of various hard parts of the body as a defense, and thus all those species seemed to suddenly appear in the fossil record. It was just an adaptation that made them visible to us there. The explosion refers to their sudden appearance in that record, not their sudden coming into existence without predecessor species very similar to themselves (just lacking hard, fossilizable, parts).

First, you didn’t address the math at all in the post. Secondly, you just repeated the old “Well, the evidence would be there but we can’t find it because it wasn’t preserved” excuse.

This is comical---TRH correcting Meyer on the Cambridge explosion. If only all those Phd evolutionist who Meyers has destroyed in public debates only knew what the great TRH knows about the Cambrian! LOL.