What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[Justatruthseeker]

Hmmm, but what about huskies?

Husky remains Husky. Brown Bears remain brown Bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin remain Bottle-nosed dolphin. Pick any you care name. They will remain that exact same infraspecific taxa until they mate with a different infraspecific taxa within the same species. Only then does variation occur in the species. The Husky NEVER becomes a Chinook, nor does the Mastiff.

So you can ignore all of life if you like, but it wont go away just because you do. It's not my fault they incorrectly classify 90% of the fossil record because they ignore how variation actually occurs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Agreed, ignoring the facts that Asian remains Asian and African remains African and only when the two mate does variation come into the species will not make it go away.

No. Variation takes place in every newborn, as every newborn human as some 50-ish mutations in its DNA.

You can make all the claims you like, but the simple fact is those infraspecific taxa never become anything new until they mate with another infraspecific taxa in the species. We all understand you must ignore what is right in front of your eyes to peddle your dogma.

Ignoring how evolution works is not an argument against it.
Every newborn is always of the same species as its direct parents.

Obviously 2 black people mating won't produce a white caucasion. Why you think that such would happen if evolution is correct, I don't know.

 

[KWCrazy]

Actually, if this happened, the law of density would be considered falsified, and we'd be left scrambling to find an explanation for this anomalous behavior. Like I said, scientific law is descriptive, not prescriptive.

There's nothing wrong with the law. If I reached into the water and lifted the ax head, that would still conform to the law because there was an external force applied. The same thing happens with God's miracles. I'll give you another one. A small church was facing a deadline to make a payment on their building project. When they counted the money, they were way short. The pastor prayed for a miracle and they recounted the money. The count was one dollar higher. They recounted again and gained another dollar; and again and gained another dollar. They kept this up through the evening until they had enough money to pay the bank. None of the people counting added to the count, and there was nothing wrong with their counting skills. They prayed for a miracle and that miracle happened.

I personally knew all the people involved. They were very devout people with no reason to invent such a story. In fact, they were all pretty humble that they had been a part of such a happening. These things still happen, and God still works His miracles today.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you don't understand biology even though you claim to.

Fish hunt for food primarily in the day and closer to the surface.

That's entirely made up. There are fish in all parts of the ocean, and they hunt at all times, both day and night. Squid also hunt during the day in the same waters that we find vertebrate fish.

 

[Loudmouth]

So it seems our brains are getting smaller yet we are getting more intelligent. Why, because size is not as important as organization.

It shows that both size and organization are important.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would the Bible mention evolution when the it states that all the animals were created intact in their mature state; that trees were created bearing fruit; that the waters teemed with fish and that Adam was an adult man? You are stating 100% opposite of what the Bible clearly states while pretending you're not. The Bible is absolutely positively 100% in contrast to evolution and not a single TE has ever been able to make a case to the contrary.

If you insist that Genesis is meant to be translated literally, then we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Those are assertions as usual.

So is intelligence separate to our physical bodies? Is it actually a separate miracle for each of us?

As a group, human is far more intelligent than animals. (so human is not evolved)
In detail, yes, some humans are more intelligent than some others on something. So men are born unequal. This is also a property of creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Agreed, ignoring the facts that Asian remains Asian and African remains African and only when the two mate does variation come into the species will not make it go away.

You can make all the claims you like, but the simple fact is those infraspecific taxa never become anything new until they mate with another infraspecific taxa in the species. We all understand you must ignore what is right in front of your eyes to peddle your dogma.

Are humans and chimps separate species?

 

[Loudmouth]

Husky remains Husky. Brown Bears remain brown Bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin remain Bottle-nosed dolphin. Pick any you care name. They will remain that exact same infraspecific taxa until they mate with a different infraspecific taxa within the same species. Only then does variation occur in the species. The Husky NEVER becomes a Chinook, nor does the Mastiff.

So you can ignore all of life if you like, but it wont go away just because you do. It's not my fault they incorrectly classify 90% of the fossil record because they ignore how variation actually occurs.

Are humans and chimps separate species?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. Variation takes place in every newborn, as every newborn human as some 50-ish mutations in its DNA.

And yet despite your claims, the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, The Mexican remains Mexican. No new infraspecific taxa has ever been observed until one of those mate with another.

Ignoring how evolution works is not an argument against it.
Every newborn is always of the same species as its direct parents.

Obviously 2 black people mating won't produce a white caucasion. Why you think that such would happen if evolution is correct, I don't know.

So then monkey will always remain monkey, since two monkeys mating will never produce anything else but monkeys. You just defeated your own arguments without even realizing it in your haste to defend your pseudo-science. When you admit the truth you come to see that the truth goes against your claims of one species becoming another. If one infraspecific taxa can never become even another infraspecific taxa, claiming they become new species is outrageous.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet despite your claims, the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, The Mexican remains Mexican. No new infraspecific taxa has ever been observed until one of those mate with another.

Are humans and chimps separate species?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are humans and chimps separate species?

Sure they are, but like you finally admitted it is your belief they were once the same species that is incorrect. If a black person can never produce a white person, then they can certainly never become an entirely new species. You finally admitted the truth, now accept what you admitted as true, as true.

Quit ignoring half the post:

So then monkey will always remain monkey, since two monkeys mating will never produce anything else but monkeys. You just defeated your own arguments without even realizing it in your haste to defend your pseudo-science. When you admit the truth you come to see that the truth goes against your claims of one species becoming another. If one infraspecific taxa can never become even another infraspecific taxa, claiming they become new species is outrageous.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure they are,

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

We have over 200,000 ERV's that we share with chimps. That is 200,000 pieces of proof that we evolved from a common ancestor.

but like you finally admitted it is your belief they were once the same species that is incorrect.

I have the proof that we do share a common ancestor. It isn't a belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet despite your claims, the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, The Mexican remains Mexican. No new infraspecific taxa has ever been observed until one of those mate with another.

No part of evolution theory states that black people should give birth to anything but black people. So we can only wonder what your point is.

So then monkey will always remain monkey, since two monkeys mating will never produce anything else but monkeys

Exactly. Just like all descendents of Homo Sapiens will forever be subspecies of Homo Sapiens. This is why humans are also still primates, mammals, tetrapods, etc.
Species speciate into sub-species (over many generations, not overnight). They don't jumb branches.

You just defeated your own arguments without even realizing it in your haste to defend your pseudo-science

No. Tetrapods produce tetrapods.
Mammals are tetrapods.
Primates are mammals.
Homo Sapiens are primates.

Cats do not give birth to dogs.
Species don't jump branches, nore do they give birth to other species.

It's not my fault that you don't understand the concept of gradual change and the accumulation thereof.

When you admit the truth you come to see that the truth goes against your claims of one species becoming another.

Google "observed instances of speciation".

If one infraspecific taxa can never become even another infraspecific taxa, claiming they become new species is outrageous.

That's not what I said.

I said that a member of species A is never going to give birth to a member of another species.

Just like a Latin speaking mother never gave birth to, or raised, a Spanish or Italian speaking child.

Yet, both Italian and Spanish descend from Latin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure they are, but like you finally admitted it is your belief they were once the same species that is incorrect. If a black person can never produce a white person, then they can certainly never become an entirely new species.

Here's an analogous statement for you to think about:

"If a Latin speaking person will never produce a Spanish speaking child, then Latin an never become Spanish".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have over 200,000 ERV's that we share with chimps. That is 200,000 pieces of proof that we evolved from a common ancestor.



I have the proof that we do share a common ancestor. It isn't a belief.

No proof at all. A retrovirus is a virus that is not original to the host. It brings DNA from one host to the other. Yoy know this, you just refuse to admit it.

Man shares 97% of his DNA with mice, even more than with apes. Why are you not claiming mice are our direct ancestor, because if we accept the DNA evidence, we are more closely related to mice than to apes. Convenient you ignore this when claiming ancestry.

You just refuse to accept that all DNA is made from the same protons, neutrons and electrons as is all DNA, so similarities is to be expected as the norm and is not conclusive of anything except that shared DNA profiles is to be expected in all life to one degree or another.

Just as we share molecular and chemical similarities with non-life. As we should, since we were formed from dust out of the same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up all matter.

 

[Abraxos]

Obviously 2 black people mating won't produce a white caucasion. Why you think that such would happen if evolution is correct, I don't know.

Actually you evolutionists are wrong again. As usual.

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...ack-couple-makes-a-white-baby-oguejiofo-annu/

 

[Loudmouth]

No proof at all. A retrovirus is a virus that is not original to the host. It brings DNA from one host to the other.

No, it doesn't. That is something you have invented from nothing. The insertions are entirely viral DNA.

Man shares 97% of his DNA with mice, even more than with apes. Why are you not claiming mice are our direct ancestor, because if we accept the DNA evidence, we are more closely related to mice than to apes. Convenient you ignore this when claiming ancestry.

I never said that chimps were our direct ancestors. Do you still not understand what a cladogram looks like?

You just refuse to accept that all DNA is made from the same protons, neutrons and electrons as is all DNA, so similarities is to be expected as the norm and is not conclusive of anything except that shared DNA profiles is to be expected in all life to one degree or another.

A nested hierarchy is not expected, unless evolution is true. There is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy just because all DNA is made up of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons. There is no reason to expect that chimps and humans will share over 200,000 ERV's just because all DNA has the same neutrons, protons, and electrons.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No part of evolution theory states that black people should give birth to anything but black people. So we can only wonder what your point is.

We can only wonder what your point is, since nothing has ever been observed to become anything else but what it started as. But even knowing a black person never becomes anything but a black person, you want them to magically become Asian.

Exactly. Just like all descendents of Homo Sapiens will forever be subspecies of Homo Sapiens. This is why humans are also still primates, mammals, tetrapods, etc.
Species speciate into sub-species (over many generations, not overnight). They don't jumb branches.

That's why fish evolved into humans, because they don't jump branches, right? So fish are homo-sapiens????? Or are we sub-species of fish????

No. Tetrapods produce tetrapods.
Mammals are tetrapods.
Primates are mammals.
Homo Sapiens are primates.

Cats do not give birth to dogs.
Species don't jump branches, nore do they give birth to other species.

It's not my fault that you don't understand the concept of gradual change and the accumulation thereof.

Yet fish became mammals. Hmmm, seems consistency is not really your strong point in evolution theory. So which is it?

That's not what I said.

I said that a member of species A is never going to give birth to a member of another species.

Just like a Latin speaking mother never gave birth to, or raised, a Spanish or Italian speaking child.

Yet, both Italian and Spanish descend from Latin.

Because at some point the Latin infraspecific taxa mated with another infraspecific taxa and made a Spanish infraspecific Taxa. Just like we observe in real life. Why keep trying to double-talk your way around how life propagates?

 

[Loudmouth]

We can only wonder what your point is, since nothing has ever been observed to become anything else but what it started as.

We observe 200,000 pieces of proof that demonstrate common ancestry between humans and chimps.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/