Darwinism's non-individual animals

[7djengo7]

I've been told by some of my Darwinist friends on TOL that what they call "the theory of evolution" is not about individual animals. Now, I agree with them that it is not about individual animals, inasmuch as what they call "the theory of evolution"--being sheer nonsense--is not about anything, period. But further, I'd have it noticed, also, that whatever is not about individual animals is not about animals. For, the phrase, 'individual animals', is redundant, since every animal is an individual. Yet, Darwinists wish to have things so that, in some magical, mystical way, the nonsense they call "the theory of evolution" can be about animals, yet not about individuals. So, by thinking in this way, what the Darwinists are doing is telling us that an animal can somehow be not an individual.

Since the phrase, 'individual animals', is redundant, then to say that something is about animals--but is not about individual animals--is to say that something is about animals, but is not about animals. For the Darwinist to say such is for the Darwinist, in one sentence, to deny what he/she affirms--all in the one, selfsame sentence. And, interestingly, I've yet to see a Darwinist actually use a phrase such as, "non-individual animal"; that is, I've never yet seen a Darwinist say, "The theory of evolution is not about individual animals; rather, the theory of evolution is about non-individual animals." Hmmm.

 

[7djengo7]

From time to time, you'll see a Darwinist say something like, "Individual animals do not evolve." If you have the opportunity, I recommend responding to such a saying with something along the lines of, "So animals do do not evolve? Or is it that only individual animals do not evolve, whereas non-individual animals evolve?"

 

[7djengo7]

The population is of course made up of individuals, but each individual doesn't evolve.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.

Since genetic, anatomical, and fossil data show that legs evolved from fins, you really are asking how fins evolved.

According to Darwin cheerleaders, individuals don't evolve, but parts of individuals, like legs and fins, evolve. Hilarious!

Every Darwin cheerleader's nose evolves into a longer nose, every time he/she opens his/her mouth.

 

[marke]

According to Darwin cheerleaders, individuals don't evolve, but parts of individuals, like legs and fins, evolve. Hilarious!

Every Darwin cheerleader's nose evolves into a longer nose, every time he/she opens his/her mouth.

Low intelligence amateur scientists claim science proves legs evolved from fins. That is absurd, as you have indicated. Science proves nothing of the sort. Speculation based upon bad reasoning and misinterpretations of data give rise to fictionary science nonsense.