Creationists False on Key Point

[Dale]

It may get fatter, longer, shorter, change colors, on and on
but it will always be a paramecium with an eye spot.

Hybridization has created new species in plants.
This disproves the notion that new species aren't possible.

 

[pat34lee]

Hybridization has created new species in plants.
This disproves the notion that new species aren't possible.

Such 'species' are not new, and no more different
than breeds of dogs or cats from a common ancestor.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Or one could ask why science is being used on evolution when clearly it's a faith with no empirical evidence
Science and evolution just don't mix

Don't blame religion for hating science when it's evolution being masqueraded as a science that's corrupting science

Evolution was being pushed long before Darwin wrote his book

Sorry, evolution is scientific, and sticking one's head in the sand and declaring it is not will not change the facts. God made the stars, the rocks, and the genomes; we can trust what they have told us.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Such 'species' are not new, and no more different
than breeds of dogs or cats from a common ancestor.

And yet you have ear wiggling muscles you probably can't even activate. They are mute witnesses of your direct descent, according to the flesh, from a species that could move its ears to good effect. And you have a coccyx. It is mute witness of your direct descent, according to the flesh, from a species with a tail. And you have a broken vitamin c gene you share with other primates. It is a mute witness of your direct descent from a common ancestral species with other primates.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

More importantly there is absolutely no conflict with our OBSERVED age of the universe and a literal 6 day creation!

Because time is relative based upon where it is observed.

Quite silly. A year is defined as an orbit of the earth around the sun. Did the earth orbit the sun billions of times since it was formed, or merely thousands? These questions are not equivalent and do not depend on "relative" time being "observed differently".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Lamarckianism isn't about desire to change, but passing
on acquired characteristics. An animal finds a way to get
stronger or faster. He passes on this trait and his offspring
have an advantage over others. Doesn't work though. And
it's why no evolution works.

Sorry, merely making declarative statements is not a logical or evidence based debate tactic.

 

[pat34lee]

And yet you have ear wiggling muscles you probably can't even activate. They are mute witnesses of your direct descent, according to the flesh, from a species that could move its ears to good effect. And you have a coccyx. It is mute witness of your direct descent, according to the flesh, from a species with a tail. And you have a broken vitamin c gene you share with other primates. It is a mute witness of your direct descent from a common ancestral species with other primates.

Some people can wriggle their ears and actively control
many other muscles that others never bother to try.
That means nothing but the fact that we no longer control
our bodies as Adam and early man could.

The coccyx: why is this still brought up? Nothing useful is
vestigial, that is pretty much the definition.

"The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position."
http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx

As for vitamin-c, if the gene is broken from degenerating DNA,
and our DNA is so similar to that of apes, why is it surprising
that they would fail at the same place?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Some people can wriggle their ears and actively control
many other muscles that others never bother to try.
That means nothing but the fact that we no longer control
our bodies as Adam and early man could.

Mere denial of the facts. We don't wiggle our ears because holding them steady is better . . . it allows phase analysis of incoming sounds to determine their direction, an improvement over mere ear pointing. But the muscles are vestigial.

The coccyx: why is this still brought up? Nothing useful is
vestigial, that is pretty much the definition.

"The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position."
http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx

The alledged usefulness of the coccyx is greatly exaggerated.

Here is a post from one mother to another about the consequences of a son without a coccyx. In summary, she points out from experience the coccyx isn't needed.

Hi there, I was just looking up information about this condition my son has out of curiosity. He was diagnosed at 3 1/2 with partial sacral agenisis, and is missing his tailbone too. He was diagnosed as a result of gastroenterology treatment for severe constipation. It took 18 months to get the constipation sorted and he is now nearly 11 years old. What problems has the partial sacral agenisis caused? Nothing really. It turns out you don't really need a tailbone & if the spinal cord passes correctly through the deformed sacrum, all is well. He's a good athlete, plays football, runs really fast & is a very fit, healthy active boy. We've always needed to keep his constipation in check which we do. He naturally chooses very good foods, unlike his brother, so this helps.

Good luck with our son. I worried a lot but it was unnecessary in our case. My other son complained of a sore back at one stage. Does anyone else in the family have a sore back? It turned out he was copying his dad. It was very convincing! Hopefully your sons pain resolves itself and his missing tailbone is nothing to concern you.

THen you posted this:

As for vitamin-c, if the gene is broken from degenerating DNA,
and our DNA is so similar to that of apes, why is it surprising
that they would fail at the same place?

It is surprising because a random break without something connecting them such as common ancestry is extremely unlikely to happen in the same way.

 

[pat34lee]

It is surprising because a random break without something connecting them such as common ancestry is extremely unlikely to happen in the same way.

That is only if the break wasn't by design.
Part of the reason we no longer live past
120 years old because God ordered it.
Yes, the animals were affected too, in
various ways.