[Joo (Quarantined)]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

In the days before this cultural sewer the Internet many a young man first sexual experience was in the pages of National Geographic look upon the naked breasts of some brownskined harlot. That's why that magazine is baned in Freehold for corrupting public morals.

I would like to remind you all about Rule 34: If it exists, then there is porn of it.

The citation to Rule 34 is as follows: But if you can't find it, then 4chan will make more of it.

[Kazoo]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

This notion is completely wrong. Fear is indeed instinctive and is mitigated in the brain by a structure known as the limbic system (part of the autonomic nervous system - fear is also known as the "fight-or-flight" response). We actually have to learn to trust things, not the other way around. No one would survive if there were not an instinctive fear, God made this automatic so that animals would not be completely helpless when they are young.

Though true in select instances, such examples as I illustrated show that environment and society are also, in many instances, large contributors to such responses. The video entailed below gives a very brief description of this, however, it has been shown that if a species has no natural predators in their habitat, they will not tend to be [as] fearful of any newly introduced species in said habitat. Reference

So now you, the alleged defender of Darwin, are asserting that there never was a time that chickens and turkeys were not domesticated. You must be incredibly stupid or are just putting forth sophomoric statements just to be argumentative.

And again, I must correct you, for I was alleging that humans, at one point, domesticated the animals, never that they have been domestic since their creation. How you arrived at that conclusion remains an enigma to me.

Now it is you that are confused. You originally asserted that extinction had nothing to do with evolution. The original question in this thread was the discrepancy over the short time it took for the Dodo to disappear and the Darwinist theory that evolution occurs over long periods of time. Now you are somehow agreeing that the Dodo "was already on its way towards extinction". So now which side are you really on? Does evolution have anything to do with extinction or not?

Forgive me for this digression, but have you never learned to debate without the use of logical fallacies? I said nothing of evolution and here you are incessantly trying to work it in where it does not belong. Yes, the dodo was already on its way to extinction, whether you want to place the supposed flood else the introduced predators first on the timeline, both events would in turn lead to the species' extinction. And yet, without delving into ridiculously deep intricacies, we see no relevant mention of evolution in this argument.

This bring us back to my original post on this matter which was that the Darwinists and neo-Darwinists are still not sure how all this takes place. Research on evolution has mainly concentrated on speciation, not extinction. The fact of the matter is that species are going extinct all the time, your Darwinists claim that this is a natural process.

Yes, there are, in essence, two types of extinction: extinction through evolution, else a lack thereof and extinction through introduction. In the former, the process argued by supporters of evolution, as a species evolves, its directly former evolutionary form will, in essence, die out and be replaced by this new creature. A second digression of this type of evolution is that in which a species fails to evolve in par with its ecological competitors and is in turn either hunted to extinction, else starved to extinction.

Now, in the latter form aforementioned, extinction will occur when a new variable is introduced into the ecosystem, thus throwing off a balance. The variable will inevitably find its own niche in the habitat, and will likely displace any number of other species who will then fail to adapt in sufficient time and will become extinct as thus. This second process has naught to do with natural extinction and the natural process of evolution and is generally a man-made occurrence.

Given your past performance here one would have to conclude that you don't even have enough intelligence to comprehend the Bible (KJV1611) and will remain unsaved trash for the foreseeable future.

Rather irrelevant to our argument, however, it is rather out of a lack of sufficient interest, not out of stupidity, that I have since refrained from delving over your Bible. Of course, it is likely that I shall indeed remain unsaved trash. I do believe that I can live with that.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

Ah, but we are not talking about the eruption of a supervolcano nor the extinction of a staggering number of species--this is a predator/prey relationship we are talking about. First, it was entirely fearless of people1, second, it was not only flightless, but also possessed few, if any defences aside from pecking with its beak.

If "the survival of the fittest" is real, then how did such a staggeringly unfit animal survive for so long? According to the Darwinist account, this useless animal managed to survive for over 5,000 years. That makes no sense at all.

Anyway, the dodo evolved into a fat easy target.

Again, species are supposed to evolve to become stronger, not weaker. Sounds like you're advocating your backwards anti-God (but also anti-Darwin) "devolution" philosophy again. I need scarcely remind you that, when God made man, He most certainly did not need a monkey to provide the glue!

[Kazoo]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

If "the survival of the fittest" is real, then how did such a staggeringly unfit animal survive for so long? According to the Darwinist account, this useless animal managed to survive for over 5,000 years. That makes no sense at all.

Well, it really does. The Dodo had no natural predators nor any other geographic need to evolve and defence mechanisms.

Again, species are supposed to evolve to become stronger, not weaker.

Yes, when the need is present, according to punctuated equilibrium. You are referring to gradualism, a dual to the theory aforementioned. According to punctuated equilibrium, evolution in a species happens in relatively short "bursts," so to speak; these bursts likely occurring only when a need for change is present in the species' habitat. Gradualism states that species are constantly evolving at a slow and regulated pace. This theory can, however, be discarded providing that the following criteria, defined by the Hardy-Weinberg principle, are met:

• No gene flow can occur (e.g. no migration of individuals into, or out of, a population)
• No gene mutations can occur
• Large population as to minimize the effects of genetic drift
• Random mating must occur
• No selection can occur so that certain alleles are not selected for, or against.

Obviously, this can never exist in real life, however, the Hardy-Weinberg formulas allow us to detect allele frequency changes per generation, allowing for a simpler method of determining whether or not evolution is occurring.
p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1 and p + q = 1

p = frequency of the dominant allele in the population
q = frequency of the recessive allele in the population
p2 = percentage of homozygous dominant individuals
q2 = percentage of homozygous recessive individuals
2pq = percentage of heterozygous individuals

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1 and p + q = 1

p = frequency of the dominant allele in the population
q = frequency of the recessive allele in the population
p2 = percentage of homozygous dominant individuals
q2 = percentage of homozygous recessive individuals
2pq = percentage of heterozygous individuals

Casting spells in Jesus forum now? PRAISE HIM He thought to inspire us to put a prayer protection covering over this forum. Your demon will not work here Kazoo, the power of Christ prevents it.

[Kazoo]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

Casting spells in Jesus forum now? PRAISE HIM He thought to inspire us to put a prayer protection covering over this forum. Your demon will not work here Kazoo, the power of Christ prevents it.

Yeah, I've pretty much already realized that science is largely discarded on these forums.

[Jew]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

I agree with Kazoo in pretty much everything he says! He is my idol!

[Kazoo]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

Actually, 'tis Kaze--they just like to change it every now and then.


Do you have to spam? I mean, if nothing else, at least just make an educated response to the opening post.

[Jew]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

I really wasnt kidding but if u wish i will always bring my knowledge to each post. im sorry. please dont make bad assumptions against me.

[Kazoo]

Re: Care to explain the Dodo bird Darwinist???

Wow, really? Um... thanks.

And I mean, it's not really a problem--chances are I'm just obsessing over my elitist standards. All the same though, one should always try to contribute to a topic at hand. If nothing else, it shows that you have the conviction and maturity to form an educated and level-headed response to a proposed question or topic of discussion.