Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[lasthero]

Wrong analogy. A baby is still a human.

No, it's the right analogy, you're just missing the point by a staggering degree.

Change. Slow. Gradual. Change.

 

[JWGU]

Wrong analogy. A baby is still a human.

Actually, it was a perfect analogy, because it wasn't about speciation, it was about the gap. Here's another question: when did Middle English stop being Middle English and become Modern English? Exact date? How many grains of sand does it take, added one at a time, before we have a heap of sand? The latter question is quite commonly addressed in number theory and logic classes, by the way!

 

[EternalDragon]

No, it's the right analogy, you're just missing the point by a staggering degree.

Change. Slow. Gradual. Change.

Except there is no point. What you are suggesting have never been observed. It's a staggeringly wrong conclusion.

 

[lasthero]

Except there is no point. What you are suggesting have never been observed. It's a staggeringly wrong conclusion.

It's been observed. The problem is that you don't really understand what an 'observation' is.

 

[OllieFranz]

Except there is no point. What you are suggesting have never been observed. It's a staggeringly wrong conclusion.

It HAS been observed. there are a number of populations that are partway through speciation. They are called Ring Species. We've told you this before.

 

[JWGU]

Except there is no point. What you are suggesting have never been observed. It's a staggeringly wrong conclusion.

Sometimes, the moons of Jupiter go behind the planet relative to the Earth. I suspect we have never directly observed them in this state. We can see them before and after that state, and we can see them partially obscured by Jupiter, but we can't see them when they are completely eclipsed by it.

By your hypothesis, I suppose you would conclude that the moons do not exist at that time? Because we have pretty much the same confidence in speciation through evolution that we do in Jupiter's moons existing even when we can't see them.

(If we have seen Juipter's moons in that state, replace them with some other astronomical phenomenon--my point would remain the same).

 

[lasthero]

(If we have seen Juipter's moons in that state, replace them with some other astronomical phenomenon--my point would remain the same).

We've never seen Pluto make a full orbit. It's orbit is longer than a human lifetime. Based on ED's way of thinking, someone could state that, because of this, someone could say that, halfway through Pluto's orbit, it will suddenly change direction and go the opposite way. The calculations don't matter - we've never seen Pluto make a full orbit, so how can we say that it will happen?

Come to think of it, has anyone ever actually WATCHED the Earth make a full orbit around the Sun? Maybe there's something to geocentrism after all.

And hey, no one's ever been to the center of the Earth and observed anything further than about fourteen miles beneath the surface. Maybe Hollow Earth Theory has something to it!

Teach the controversy!

http://www.hollowearththeory.com/

Children should know about the weaknesses of plate tectonics, and learn about the opposing view that states Earth has a FLIPPING STAR IN ITS CENTER.

 

[JWGU]

We've never seen Pluto make a full orbit. It's orbit is longer than a human lifetime. Based on ED's way of thinking, someone could state that, because of this, someone could say that, halfway through Pluto's orbit, it will suddenly change direction and go the opposite way. The calculations don't matter - we've never seen Pluto make a full orbit, so how can we say that it will happen?

Come to think of it, has anyone ever actually WATCHED the Earth make a full orbit around the Sun? Maybe there's something to geocentrism after all.

And hey, no one's ever been to the center of the Earth and observed anything further than about fourteen miles beneath the surface. Maybe Hollow Earth Theory has something to it!


Teach the controversy!

The Hollow Earth Theory - Serious scientific evidence supporting the theory that planets are naturally hollow.

Children should know about the weaknesses of plate tectonics, and learn about the opposing view that states Earth has a FLIPPING STAR IN ITS CENTER.

Funnily enough, hollow earth, like intelligent design, also can't be empirically refuted Not the way the website you linked to describes it, of course.

 

[frogman2x]

If you're not even going to look at evidence before calling it wrong, there's no chance of a mature conversation. Act your age.

Instead of making a snide remark, prove me wrong.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

It is not a mystery. Due to the different ways they have adapted to their environments, they are no longer compatable as mates.

Again you have just made dogmatic statements but offered no evidence. Hoooow has the enviorment affecdt theier ability to breed? Why are they no longer compatable as mates?

In some cases, it might be because they are no longer physically compatable (I would not want to try mating a Great Dane with a chihuahua, except maybe by artificial insemination)

They are not incompatablebecause of species. It is because of size. Even if it was possib le,hey woulds still lprfoduce a dog---no evolution.

In most cases, though it is because they have become genetically incompatible.

How about some evidence? Although it is not relevant. If they ever find a mate, they will still produce only salamaders.

They are on the way to being considered to be separate species.(sub-species is just the first step)

They will NEVER preoduce anything except a different variety of salamnder. That is not evolution.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

I understand it ten times better than you do which is why I can cite and discuss peer reviewed papers on genetics while you ignore those same papers.

When you discuss them with me, please include the biological evidence that makes it possible. Answer these 2 quesion and sdhow me you u nderstaqnd genetics:

How are characteristics passed on to the offspring.

Can an offspring acquire a characterisic for which the parents did not have a gene for?

Where did you refute that the 200,000 shared ERV's between chimps and humans came from a common ancestor? Oh, that's right . . . you didn't. You ran away from it.

I did not run away. I ask you for the BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. The fact that humans and chimps both have eyes, arms, legs, etc is not evidence that we both had the same common ancestor. How did we get different DNA and where is thre fossil record?

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

No, it's the right analogy, you're just missing the point by a staggering degree.

Change. Slow. Gradual. Change.

Time will not change proven Biology. It has worked the same ever since God created it.

kermit

 

[lasthero]

Time will not change proven Biology.

Italian wall lizards.

 

[JWGU]

What's funny is that time actually will change proven biology. For example, take a look at the plant kingdom. Plants are living solar panels and the sun will continue to supply us energy for billions of years. Perfect design, right? Well, it turns out there is a slight hitch--the design is reliant on the ability to suck carbon out of the air at will. As the sun has brightened (look it up!) and more and more carbon has settled out of the reach of plants (bottom of the ocean, within rocks, deep underground, etc.), the amount of free carbon dioxide has decreased. I know I'm going to regret mentioning that fact but it's true--for most of the Earth's existence (while plants were around, anyway) it has been a steamy jungle planet. Anyway, the evolutionary response has been quite pronounced--plants are starting to develop neat "tricks" for saving energy and improving the rate at which they fix carbon, at the cost (for various technical chemical reasons) of metabolic speed. Or to put it another way, plants are living slower, on less. Probably the ultimate culmination of such techniques are C4 plants. And guess what? They may be under 5% of the Earth's biomass now, but in 600 million years they'll be the only plants left. In 800 million or so, even they will die out. In 1.1 billion years, the oceans will boil.

You can scoff at this as taking place on too long of a timescale to be relevant, but in fact life has gone through extremely significant changes in temperature, atmospheric and geological chemical composition, available energy, etc. To say that "time will not change proven biology" is laughable on the face of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

How are characteristics passed on to the offspring.

In the case of complex metazoans, through the combination of gametes, one from each parent.

Can an offspring acquire a characterisic for which the parents did not have a gene for?

Yes. Mutations that occur during the production of the gametes can and do result in a change in characteristics in the offspring. Take the Vadoma people as an example:

They carry a mutation on chromosome 7 that produces their unique morphology.

We have also seen children born with dwarfism where neither parent carries the trait.

The fact that humans and chimps both have eyes, arms, legs, etc is not evidence that we both had the same common ancestor. How did we get different DNA and where is thre fossil record?

kermit

Already explained to you multiple times now. The differences are due to the accumulation of mutations in each lineage. This is evidenced by the differences in synonymous and non-synonymous mutations between the two species demonstrating random mutations that were selected for and against within coding regions. I have linked you the paper where they discuss orthologous ERV's and the sequence divergence in these retroviral insertions that evidence evolution through the accumulation of mutations.

I have also shown you that the differences between chimp and humans is due to a difference in their DNA. Mutations produce differences in DNA sequence. I have challenged you to show me a single difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been put there by the known mechanisms of mutation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Time will not change proven Biology. It has worked the same ever since God created it.

kermit

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong analogy. A baby is still a human.

Can you point to the very second in your lifetime when you went from being a baby to a toddler? From a toddler to an adolescent? From an adolescent to an adult?

 

[EternalDragon]

Can you point to the very second in your lifetime when you went from being a baby to a toddler? From a toddler to an adolescent? From an adolescent to an adult?

Why are you trying to compare the growth rates of one living creature to the slow evolution of a species population over a long period of time?

There is no pointing out what you ask because those terms are man made and don't really represent real stages of growth of a human. They are subjective. A human is a still a human throughout their growth lifetime.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, that is because you are just describing variety within a species. Not a creature that say didn't have wings, light bones, internal navigation, feathers, etc. gradually gaining those capabilities over long time. That would produce lots of fossil evidence of all the gradual transitions. The evidence does not show that.

That's exactly what the evidence shows.
1. Therapod dinosaurs with feathers and hollow bones
2. Archaeopteryx with feathers, hollow bones, and wings
3. Confuciusornis with feathers, hollow bones, wings and a beak.
4. Modern birds.

 

[frogman2x]

Sorry, but that isn't true. We have observed microbes--in a laboratory, under supervised conditions--evolve the ability to metabolize citrate in an oxygen-rich environment, when a defining characteristic of the species was its its inability to do this.

But they remained microbes. That is no difference than breeding dogs. They do have some differences, bu they ar sill dogs.

Again, to be clear, what you just said has been falsified beyond even unreasonable doubt. The experiment was also able to exactly trace the history of the potentiating mutations, by virtue of the fact that all of it occurred under supervised laboratory conditions. There are really only three possible explanations for your saying the opposite:

(1) You had never seen this evidence before. You now understand why what you said was wrong.

What I understans is that a micobe remaining a microbe is not evolution. If it ever becomes sdomething other than a microbe, get back to me.

(2) You suspect fraud. Lenski has offered to send samples of the microbes to anyone interested in replicating the results, provided the person has a qualified team and lab. So far, no creationists or intelligent design proponents have taken him up on this challenge,

I don't suspect fraud. I am sure they did a legitgimate test and observed it. I disagree with the results being a indication of evolution. In fact he said he would send sample os the microbe. Evidentaly it did not evolve into something that was not after its kind.

(3) You are being illogical.

What Qualifies you to be the final determiner of what is logical? To me it is illogical to start with microbes, end with microbes and consider that is evolution.

Please let me know whether it's (1), (2), or (3).

Now you know.

kermit