As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
-Dogs from wolves
-Broccoli, cauliflower, mustard all from the same non-eddible ancestor plant.
-Viruses that mutate every year
There is a liteny of proof to prove evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. The same as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.
This isn't an argument. Evolution is a fact of life on Earth. Species change over time. There is mountains of evidence.
The number of individual genetic mutations required to change species is immense, and the timescale in which they were supposed to take place is so short that it would require multiple viable mutations per generation to accomplish - which we can observe in real time today is neither occurring nor possible.
For example, look at what a single protein is composed of, and the number of correctly-arranged amino acids required to produce that protein, and extrapolate from there the odds of such an event happening in nature - much less the dozens or hundreds of other mutations needed to actually capitalize on it.
Not really. Mathematically it's already happened. Regardless of the statistics the fact is that mathematically it's possible and it happened. You're argument is akin to looking at a rock and saying it could have taken all these other paths but it landed in this spot right here. The probability of this specific spot is huge. Well yeah but so what. If not this arrangement we wouldn't exist to examine it.
The mutations also aren't random. The set that works best for survival and reproduction is what gets selected. Pressure from the environment guides the process passively so that the remainder is the best fit for the current environment. Not being a random process greatly speeds up the changes and also makes your mathmatic probability argument irrelevant.
This is completely untrue on so many levels. Mutations are often random and caused by external factors ie viruses, natural disasters, vegetation, etc. The survival of the fittest crock has been so disproven it is laughable. There has never been a provable case of cross species mutation, evolution that is provable is very limited, and took hundreds of thousands of years for very small steps.
By your logic it’s possible to argue anything is possible given enough time and random chance. Even if that we’re true, the problem in this case is there isn’t enough time to accomplish everything evolution demands. You saying “but it happened” is just assuming the conclusion. The evidence for evolution is nowhere near as strong as you were led to believe and there are all sorts of problems with it that were glossed over and ignored for decades because academia hated Christianity and wanted desperately to distance itself from it.
As a theory it could still have legs if the glaring issues were addressed, but instead they just seem to just get worse the more we examine them, so at the very least it’s an incomplete theory (as it has always been). You’ll get your head taken off by academics, anti-theists and secularists if you even suggest such a thing though, as it’s taken on an almost religious importance in that community.
No I actually haven't made that assertion or alluded to it at all.
By what metric? What standard? And where does the theory of evolution make such a claim? You keep making this assertion with nothing to back it up.
It happened and I pointed out where you can find evidence of how and why it happened over multiple fields of study.
You're ignoring tangible facts and imperical evidence making this claim.
Then point out the problems so they can be discussed. The issues you've brought up so far I've given examples of evidence that points to you being absolutely wrong.
You're using the word theory in the scientific definition when it fits your need and changing it to the colloquial version to also fit your need. It's not both. You're being disengenuius by doing this. Especially after I pointed it out. The fact that you still are doing it makes me believe you have no interest in an honest discussion.
Nah this is bunk. The fact is there is mountains of evidence for evolution and you clearly don't want to look into any of it. I've provided examples that you just ignore completely. You're going to need more than baseless assertions to make a claim such as evolution isn't real. Your argument thus far makes it seem that you don't even know what the theory of evolution asserts to be the explanation.
The mutations are random. Those that are selected for (or against) are not. The difference is important, and it invalidates the rest of your paragraph.
You should read on genetics and how traits are passed from one generation to another. No one who is actually educated on the subject calls it random because it's not.
Dogs are not from wolves, but from a common ancestor. And despite dogs showing by far the most mutability within the species, they have not yet jumped to another species among them via mutation.
If the theory of evolution was true, and by the way pointing to a provable law of physics to try and lend weight to an unproven theory of speciation doesn't hold water, then we'd actually have a concrete example of evolution somewhere in the fossil record and we just don't.
As an example that actually fits within the subject, supposedly humans, Homo Sapiens Sapien, evolved from a common ancestor to chimpanzees.
But we have millions, literally millions of genetic variances from chimps. So explain them. Explain to me the rate of mutation within the supposed evolutionary timeframe, and explain to me where the species jump is between them.
Right this is exactly how the theory of evolution describes the process. Minor changes through time lead to big changes via pressure from the environment. You don't look exactly like your mom or dad or anyone in your family tree. Taken over millions of years and generations speciation happens. The famous fruit fly experiment was able to prove this by breeding two separate colonies of fly into two distinct species that could not interbreed.
It's also not lost on anyone that you ignored the other glaring examples I gave you.
I wasn't actually pointing to the theory of gravity. I was pointing to the wording and how the science community uses theory as the highest level of any hypothesis.
As I pointed out speciation has been proven through multiple facets including the fruit fly experiment.
We do have examples of speciation through fossil records. Tons! When we travel the ancestry tree through life we can find links in the timeline left in rock sediments. Never once have we found a link in the chain in the wrong position in time. In addition the Tictalac species and fossils were found due to scientist's want to prove that whales evolved from hippo like creatures and guess what they found the intermediate species right where it should be in the timeline in the fossil. Evolution has biology, chemistry, and archaeology all supporting the claim. Not the science community. The data. This is all easy to find.
Yes
The genome project did just this. The change from chimp to bonobo to early human happened when the #2 and #3 chromosomes fused in the timeline. We have fossil records for tons of intermediate species between the bonobos and modern humans. This all exits.
No, it doesn't, that's the point. I said it before, and I'm going to say it again.
Tell me the suggested rate of stable mutation for a species jump to occur. Then explain to me how that many stable mutations can take place over a period of, say, thirty million years which is the oft suggested timeframe in which humans supposedly evolved from a chimp ancestor.
Because the number you need to reach? Is in the dozens of millions of genetic differences. You could have a billion years and still not reach sufficient stable mutations that breed true and still not have a single species jump, let alone the many necessary to differentiate humans and chimps.
It is not mathematically possible. You are doing an asspull and just hoping that nobody challenges it.
That's not what the theory of evolution says so again it doesn't make sense as a refutation. It's not my job to make your argument
Show me your math.
They say the same about the germ theory of disease, which has also not been proven.