BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Cats will always give birth to cats, forever? Interesting. How do you know they are "done"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The biogeographic evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Cats will always give birth to cats, forever? Interesting. How do you know they are "done"?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Please prove here why cats will never give birth to dogs, even given millions of years and evolution, using your knowledge of genetics, evolution, statistics, mutations, phylogeny...
All descendants of modern cats will be mammals and felids. They may not be very similar to modern cats, though.
It's quite easy. Spencer and other social commentators found an analogy with their ideas and ran with it.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes. That's how it works. I'm sure you've noticed that humans always give birth to humans as well.
How do you know they are done? Um, when they're born?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"Social darwinism" and "biological theory of evolution" are two different things.
How many times must it be repeated?
Sure, "social darwinism" is a thing.
Biological evolution, is another thing.
They are not the same thing.
You can pretend they are the same thing till you are blue in the face. At the end of the pretending, it still won't be the same thing.
I don't know how to say it any clearer.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes.
The fact that you're so surprised, is a testament to how ill-informed you really are on the matter.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is? And perhaps also ask yourself just how valid your objections to evolution can really be, if you even fail to grasp one of the most basic things about it?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
For the same reason that spanish speaking parents will not be raising a chinese speaking child.
For the same reason that when you give birth to a child, that child will not be your cousin.
Now consider this:
Spanish and italian both derive from Latin. Yet both are distinct languages. The distant ancestors of extant spanjards and italians, spoke latin. During a time that neither spanish nore italian existed.
Now get this: at no point in history, did a latin speaking mother raise a spanish speak child. at no point in history, did a latin speaking mother raise an italian speaking child. In fact, EVERY child that was brought up, was brought up speaking the language of the parents that raised said child.
And yet today, they speak spanish, italian, french, portugese.... but not latin.
So how did that happen, knowing that EVERY child that was ever brought up, ended up speaking the language of the parents that raised it?
How did Latin transform into these 4 distinct languages, if no latin speaking parents ever raised a spanish speaking child?
When you can answer that question, you'll understand how cats will never give birth to non-cats. Or in more generic terms: you'll understand why members of species X will be producing more mombers of species X.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. That's how it works. I'm sure you've noticed that humans always give birth to humans as well.
How do you know they are done? Um, when they're born?
This is the type of ignorance you get, when one fails to grasp the concept of change through accumulation of micro changes inevitably resulting in nested hierarchical structures.
No, cats don't give birth to dogs and you won't be giving birth to your cousin or step brother either.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This is a great way of explaining it.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Can't you read your own link?
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
Or here - again at your Wiki link:
Social Darwinists[edit]
It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However, these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[16]
It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However, these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[16]
Nothing to do with subjugating other groups of humans and the like.
You suck at this. Where did you get your degrees from? Patriot University?
Also - still waiting:
Thats nice - but you didn't even try to explain the terms you used:
1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Again, the fact that you've been debating and discussing evolution for many years now and still think it's about "cats giving birth to dogs" is a clear indication that you have never bothered to actually learn even the most basics about the subject.
I suggest you take a break from trying to argue against it and spend some time educating yourself.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Science isn't a religion, and you've utterly failed to demonstrate that it is. Your attempts to sully it in order to drag it down to your level have failed.
I'm an evidence person. Show me the evidence, and I will be a believer. The problem is, you believers repeatedly fail on the evidence part. Hence the reason I am an unbeliever.
Way to avoid the point again, though. Will you ever address it?
dad
Undefeated
Overruled. Did to.
dad
Undefeated
Origin fables falsely labeled as science are belief based in entirety and every post you make confirms that.
If you want to pretend you have a point you need to post it.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There are no origin fables. I suggest you look up the word "fable."
You're still just projecting here.
I already posted and then re-posted it, in different words in case you misunderstood. I suggest you spend more time reading more carefully and less time trying to come up with quippy nonsequitors that go no where.
dad
Undefeated
Blah blah. No point again eh? Maybe a lurker can sift through the hundreds of posts here and see if there was some unanswered point in one of your posts. We wait.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
No thanks, I'm straight. I think your point was that evolution was not a world view. I showed it is one as well as a religion and fables. Pretenses are over for you.