How much longer?

[mickiio]

You said that animals already had all the variation within them. That would mean that giraffes have human variation already within them. Or did you misspeak?

Variations with-in species. Don't try to put words in my mouth. That ties into Natural Selection.

Act how? Describe in your own words what you think natural selection is.

Natural Selection can:
1. Decrease genetic information.
2 Allow organisms to survive in given environments.
3. Act as a "selector".
4. Support creation's "orchard of life".

Natural Selection does not:
1. Increase or provide new genetic information
2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as an "originator".
4. Support the evolutionary "tree of life".

 

[Loudmouth]

Variations with-in species.

New variations appear in each generation that weren't there in previous generations due to mutations. Those mutations were not found in previous generations.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. That ties into Natural Selection.Natural Selection can:
1. Decrease genetic information.
2 Allow organisms to survive in given environments.
3. Act as a "selector".
4. Support creation's "orchard of life".

Until you define genetic information and have a method of measuring it you can't make any claims about it.

Natural selection also acts at the population level, not at the organismal level. Natural selection is as much about organisms not surviving as it is surviving. Natural selection is about the average fitness of the population increasing over time.

Natural selection in combination with mutation produces a nested hierarchy which ties together all life into a tree of life.

Natural Selection does not:
1. Increase or provide new genetic information
2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as an "originator".
4. Support the evolutionary "tree of life".

All claims with zero evidence to back them. You still haven't shown us a single scientific law that is broken by macroevolution.

 

[Black Dog]

It's a pretty good defense TBH. Take out the competition. Especially when you don't have a very good offense.

Sorry, your reply went right over my head. Could you please rephrase it?

 

[justlookinla]

First, you have not demonstrated that you know what the scientific method is and how it is used. Posting an image does not demonstrate you know what it means.

well, you go from asking me to describe natural selection to you, which I did, and when it's pointed out once again, you now change to 'you don't know what the scientific method is'. Simply because you cannot offer evidence to support the Darwinistic how/process of producing pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago, you do this and do that and do something else in order to evade the how/process issue.

Evasion isn't going to make the issue go away. This major flaw in Darwinism will continue to be exposed.

Second, the evidence has been presented to you.

Where? When? Prove it and actually reference it. I don't believe you will.

You have demonstrated you don't know what is and what is not evidence. In your own words, what would evidence look like to you for the claims to be convincing?

Give an example of where evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process which Darwinism claims produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago. You're not going to do that but will instead evade with another question, another accusation, another attempt to change the issue.

You confirmed that you know how natural selection works, however you do not understand the results of it over millions of years and generations.

I understand that's not evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the claim of Darwinism concerning the production of pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Natural selection does not produce new life forms, it only acts on existing ones.

Yes, finches are a great example of natural selection. Another good one is a duck. Duck's are birds that belong to the Anatidae family. Other species in this family are geese and swans. You would agree geese and swans are vastly different than a duck, right? For one, ducks have 16 fewer bones in their neck.

You'd agree that coconuts and whales are vastly different life forms, right?

Would you also agree that a duck is vastly different from a bat? They both can fly right? They both must be birds? Except they're not, bats are mammals.

An neither are red roses.

 

[justlookinla]

Variations with-in species. Don't try to put words in my mouth. That ties into Natural Selection.Natural Selection can:
1. Decrease genetic information.
2 Allow organisms to survive in given environments.
3. Act as a "selector".
4. Support creation's "orchard of life".

Natural Selection does not:
1. Increase or provide new genetic information
2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as an "originator".
4. Support the evolutionary "tree of life".

Yeppers.

 

[Black Dog]

Natural Selection does not:
1. Increase or provide new genetic information
2. Allow organisms to evolve from molecules to man.
3. Act as an "originator".
4. Support the evolutionary "tree of life".

Bold statements, disagreeing with literally millions of pieces of evidence. Can you provide proof for any of these assertions?

 

[mickiio]

Sorry, your reply went right over my head. Could you please rephrase it?

Well if you are playing a game of basketball, you have a defense and offense; correct? It is the same thing with macroevolution. If you take out the competition (Creationists) , then you can stand alone and claim what every you want in the schools, universities wherever. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have. In fact it doesn't matter that your "theory" doesn't even support scientific laws.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well if you are playing a game of basketball, you have a defense and offense; correct? It is the same thing with macroevolution. If you take out the competition (Creationists) , then you can stand alone and claim what every you want in the schools, universities wherever. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have. in fact it doesn't matter aht your "theory" doesn't even support scientific laws.

How is the evidence inconsistent with evolution?

What scientific laws does evolution not support?

 

[Black Dog]

Well if you are playing a game of basketball, you have a defense and offense; correct? It is the same thing with macroevolution. If you take out the competition (Creationists) , then you can stand alone and claim what every you want in the schools, universities wherever. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you have. In fact it doesn't matter that your "theory" doesn't even support scientific laws.

Thank you for explaining, so you think scientists see creationism as the competition.

Actually, scientists don't give two hoots about creationism because it is meaningless in terms of science and scientific research. Scientists see Evolution as the competition, and each and every biologist would like nothing better than to overturn the TOE. It would make them rich and famous. That's what scientists live for, to prove their colleagues wrong.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

you now change to 'you don't know what the scientific method is'. Simply because you cannot offer evidence to support the Darwinistic how/process of producing pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago, you do this and do that and do something else in order to evade the how/process issue.

Because you have not demonstrated you know how the scientific method works. Describe it in your own words and then describe why it wouldn't apply to the evidence for the diversity of species on earth. You're making a claim that it doesn't. Demonstrate this.

Evasion isn't going to make the issue go away. This major flaw in Darwinism will continue to be exposed.

Write a paper exposing it and submit it for peer review. Are you willing to do this?

Where? When? Prove it and actually reference it. I don't believe you will.

Give an example of where evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process which Darwinism claims produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago. You're not going to do that but will instead evade with another question, another accusation, another attempt to change the issue.

"All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences—instructions written in the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts of DNA bases—differ slightly among the three domains

The 23 universal proteins perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins, and are crucial to the survival of all known life-forms—from the smallest microbes to blue whales."

Paper- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
Article- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

As you can see, Doug Theobald is using the scientific method in this study.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

I'll wait patiently as you will predictably move the goal posts.

You'd agree that coconuts and whales are vastly different life forms, right?

Are you going to answer my original question? Or dodge it with a different question?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's what scientists live for, to prove their colleagues wrong.

Proving someone wrong would be far more fun than continuing to pile on the evidence for an already existing theory. Oh and the rich and famous thing would be nice too.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Variations with-in species. Don't try to put words in my mouth. That ties into Natural Selection.Natural Selection can:
1. Decrease genetic information.

Natural Selection does not:
1. Increase or provide new genetic information

What is information and how do you measure it?

 

[Black Dog]

Evasion isn't going to make the issue go away. This major flaw in Darwinism will continue to be exposed.

You know a major flaw in the TOE? Write it up, and submit it. Congrats on your upcoming Nobel prize!!

 

[justlookinla]

Because you have not demonstrated you know how the scientific method works. Describe it in your own words and then describe why it wouldn't apply to the evidence for the diversity of species on earth. You're making a claim that it doesn't. Demonstrate this.

Describe this, describe that, define this, define that. All the while you've not offered the evidnence, based on the scientific method, for examination. Offer something, offer what you believe to be evidence. We'll take this claimed evidence, apply the scientific method to it and see what happens. We'll see, in a real world example, it works.

You're not going to do that. You're not going to give the example you claimed was offered earlier. Where was this? Actually post a reference.

You've offered nothing but evasion action after evasion action.

Write a paper exposing it and submit it for peer review. Are you willing to do this?

LOL. And more evasion and more evasion.

"All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences—instructions written in the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts of DNA bases—differ slightly among the three domains

The 23 universal proteins perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins, and are crucial to the survival of all known life-forms—from the smallest microbes to blue whales."

Paper- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html
Article- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

As you can see, Doug Theobald is using the scientific method in this study.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

I'll wait patiently as you will predictably move the goal posts.

Now, point out the part which identifies the the HOW, the process, which created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago. You haven't done it before, you haven't done it in this post and you'll not do it in future posts. The evidence isn't there for you to offer.

Are you going to answer my original question? Or dodge it with a different question?

What original question?

 

[justlookinla]

You know a major flaw in the TOE? Write it up, and submit it. Congrats on your upcoming Nobel prize!!

Actually find evidence for the HOW, the process, which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Describe this, describe that, define this, define that. All the while you've not offered the evidnence, based on the scientific method, for examination. Offer something, offer what you believe to be evidence. We'll take this claimed evidence, apply the scientific method to it and see what happens. We'll see, in a real world example, it works.

You're not going to do that. You're not going to give the example you claimed was offered earlier. Where was this? Actually post a reference.

I did. You didn't bother to look at it. Evidenced by how quickly you replied. This shows your lack of desire to learn anything.

LOL. And more evasion and more evasion.

You claim there is a flaw in the theory of evolution. Are you willing to write a paper and submit it for peer review? This is a yes or no question.

What original question?

Yes, finches are a great example of natural selection. Another good one is a duck. Duck's are birds that belong to the Anatidae family. Other species in this family are geese and swans. You would agree geese and swans are vastly different than a duck, right? For one, ducks have 16 fewer bones in their neck.

Would you also agree that a duck is vastly different from a bat? They both can fly right? They both must be birds? Except they're not, bats are mammals.

 

[Astrophile]

Nope, that's not the issue and surely by now, after probably hundreds of posts, you realize that. I'm not sure why you simply cannot address the issue and lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago. I've pointed out over and over, this isn't about common descent.

As we see in the finch example, natural selection does not produce new life forms, it only acts on existing life forms.

I don't understand the point that you are trying to make. To look at your last sentence first, are you a new life form or did you come from existing life forms?
The process that ultimately produced pine trees and humans from a common ancestor is called descent with modification. We all know that living things reproduce themselves, that they produce copies of themselves. These copies belong to the same species, but they are not exact copies. Also, in most species most of these copies of the original die without reproducing. The few that survive and reproduce are not identical; there are slight differences between them. These differences are propagated to the next generations. With time, more differences accumulate between the surviving populations, sufficient for these populations to become species, and then different genera, different families and so on.
Ultimately the driving forces behind evolution, the processes that produce new life forms, are reproduction and the slight differences between descendants of the same parents. Of course reproduction depends on pre-existing life forms, but the offspring are new life forms, not identical with their parents or with each other. Natural selection operates on these differences. Is it that difficult to understand?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see. If an entire community of researchers gets one thing wrong, then your response is to never trust the results of any research they produce after that. I'm guessing that you don't go to doctors either, since the medical field has made mistakes many times in the past.

Ahhh, but doctors are not asking me to ignore how everything in nature propagates in favor of Fairie Dust. They actually correct their mistakes.

Evolutionists on the other hand are still refusing to admit to their mistakes in classification - let alone correct them. And this is why we have people that must ignore their own scientific definitions of species when they call interbreeding pairs separate species.

I understand you are just throwing out another strawman because you know accepting the truth will force you to change your beliefs. I've asked Loud for the link to the scientific definition of species he accepts - he has yet to respond to the challenge. I therefore ask now the same of you. Let us settle this issue right here and now. Present your link to the scientific deffinition of species you accept.

Also, how is it a Strawman for me to ask you to support your statement that the fossil Coelacanth and the living Coelacanth are the same species?

Or was that accusation a result of my question regarding your credentials in the scientific fields of biology and paleontology.

Because you can not support they are different - any more than a Poodle is different than a Terrier, or an Asian from an African. So to then attempt to "claim" they are separate species - is a stretch beyond anything ever observed in nature. Just as calling two Finches that mate in front of your eyes separate species.

Link to your accepted "scientific" definition of species. Let's stop the future strawmen and settle this now.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So much for the accuracy of evidence then.

Just curious, what led to the assumption that they went extinct?

Was it assumed on principle?

What part did the scientific method play in leading to that conclusion?

They had bones of them with extinct species - so of course they were extinct - before they bothered to study them that is. Sort of like Darwin calling those finches separate species cause they looked a little different. Before we studied them of course and found them all interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. With the DNA data to show they had always been doing so - speciation never occurred. But because Darwin's Finches are a "claimed" prime example of living speciation (before we got around to studying them) they refuse to admit to that mistake in classification.

EDIT: And then of course wonder why they can't be trusted. Not because they make mistakes - every time - but refuse to correct them when it's right before their eyes (unlike the doctors). And then try strawmen tactics and double-talk as to the why.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually find evidence for the HOW, the process, which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Er....you said you knew of a major flaw in the TOE. Why are you asking me to find evidence? I'm not the one who is planning on overturning the TOE.