proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

We can be animals and there can still be a distinction between humans and non-human animals and humans. Chimpanzees and barnacles are both animals, but I suppose that you can distinguish between them.

In what sense do you think there should be a distinction between humans and non-human animals? Obviously there is a distinction in their legal status and in their capacity for thought and learning. However, just to show that there is nothing new under the sun and that it has all been said before, I will quote from a book written more than 2000 years before Charles Darwin was born.

'For man is a creature of chance and the beasts are creatures of chance, and one mischance awaits them all: death comes to both alike. They all draw the same breath. Men have no advantage over beasts; for everything is emptiness. All go to the same place: all came from the dust, and to the dust all return' (Ecclesiastes 3:19).

And yet refuse to classify us as the rest of the animal kingdom, using race instead of subspecies....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

An idea is tested by science by examining the empirical evidence, the logic used, and the results of testing. Belief in the existence in G-d has none of these features, so it has no scientific meaning. As such, no matter whether a scientist believes in the existence`G-d or not, it does not affect the science.

Except the largest, most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment for evolution (dogs) completely falsifies you’re core beliefs, while supporting mine. Kind after Kind, and no significant change regardless of how many mutations occur at birth over the generations. But we do know how all the new forms in that Kind developed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Pssst. It's falling apart. Little by little. Headed toward maximum entropy. Thermal equilibrium. Kaputniksville. Total ruin.

I don't know what you consider 'beautiful and coordinated,' but this 'beautiful and coordinated' place is headed for aitch in an aitchbasket.

It's not my home. I'm just a pilgrim here.

Ahh so0meone that understands the laws of thermodynamics. Even if they claim the genome is now 98% non-functional because of mutational error, refuse to accept the logical conclusion that it was therefore once more functional and following the laws of entropy has degraded over time....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evidence. Evidence is the currency of scientific credibility.

Agreed. The evidence points to Asian mating with Asian producing only Asian despite mutations. Of African mating wit African and producing only African despite mutations. That when Asian mates with African variation or new races (since we cant correctly call them subspecies) enter the picture.

The evidence shows neither the Asian nor African evolved into the variation Afro-Asian.

So that they confuse the fact that every fossil found always stays the same, and new forms appear suddenly as meaning one evolved into the other is understandable, because they ignore how the Afro-Asian actually was produced.

 

[HitchSlap]

Only to those who perish. Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 on the 3rd Day according to Gen 2:7. Prehistoric man was made the 5th Day from WATER. Gen 1:21 Eve was built from Adam's rib on the 6th Day. Gen 2:22 Humans and prehistoric people (sons of God) produced children together. Gen 6:4

Apes also came from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Your assignment is to tell us HOW Humans, made on the 3rd Day, could have possibly evolved from Apes, who were NOT made until the 5th Day. You cannot and that means that your view does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History. IOW, it's as false as the ToE. Amen?

I prefer the Romulus & Remus myth, as opposed to your myth. Way more exciting.

Amen?!

 

[gaara4158]

And yet refuse to classify us as the rest of the animal kingdom, using race instead of subspecies....

Homo sapiens follows the same binomial nomenclature we use for any other animal.

Agreed. The evidence points to Asian mating with Asian producing only Asian despite mutations. Of African mating wit African and producing only African despite mutations. That when Asian mates with African variation or new races (since we cant correctly call them subspecies) enter the picture.

The evidence shows neither the Asian nor African evolved into the variation Afro-Asian.

So that they confuse the fact that every fossil found always stays the same, and new forms appear suddenly as meaning one evolved into the other is understandable, because they ignore how the Afro-Asian actually was produced.

Have you ever googled how different ethnicities came to be? Do me a favor and show me the evidence instead of just telling me what you conclude from it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd like to jump in on this one, if I may.

As an agnostic, I usually do not visit such forums because as an American, those beliefs have little to no impact on my daily life. I find their beliefs to be interesting, and will study them, but I see no need to debate them.

Christianity, however, is well-entrenched into the social fabric of this country, and there are those in power (and those who seek to acquire more power) who want it entrenched still further via force of law.

Personally, I try to have no issues with people's beliefs until they attempt to enforce them on others -- specifically, me.

Just as long as only what you believe is enforced on others through the school system, correct?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting how evolutionists balk at using a car as an example against evolution -- since a car isn't biological -- but won't think twice about equating a flagellum with a mouse trap in a discussion on Irreducible Complexity.

Thats like refusing to accept dogs because its artificial selection, yet dont mind using artificially genetically spliced peas, or artificially mutated bacteria, etc, etc, etc......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Homo sapiens follows the same binomial nomenclature we use for any other animal.

No we dont. Except for dogs every other animal is split into subspecies, not races or breeds.....

Have you ever googled how different ethnicities came to be? Do me a favor and show me the evidence instead of just telling me what you conclude from it.

I know how they came to be, the same way the Afro-Asian comes to be, by the mating of different ethnicity's, not from the Asian or African evolving into the Afro-Asian. Oh, you meant in fantasy long ago versus how we actually observe it in real life. Just say you prefer to diverge to myth and ignore empirical observation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You would think they'd have learned something from observing God's creations -- the tree that does not bend, breaks.

We have, that's why those Asians stay Asians and Africans stay African and neither evolve into the Afro-Asian. You just refuse to bend is all.

 

[USincognito]

this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):
(snip image)
is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

(image from Vehicles)

yes its is. since we can find shared traits in far groups, but not in some groups between them. so its non-hierarchy.

The problem is we don't have a general hierarchy with living things, but a nested hierarchy. We also don't find different swapped or shared identical parts between nodes. Here's a 1981 VW Caddy, Golf, Scirocco and Jetta. As you can see, they all are basically the same front end with different back parts (pickup, hatchback, sport coup and sedan). This one make and model falsifies the claim that their is a nested hierarchy of automobiles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, not really.

Yes, really, you simply refuse to accept emperical observation of how new forms arise.

VERY different.You link to an article that does not mention God, Noah, the middle east, any of that stuff, but present it as evidence for the flood myth in the bible.

Interesting. Usually they argue against biblical accounts and what supporting evidence ffrom other sources. Then when given other sources complain its not from the Bible. interesting.

Then how do you propose 'new races' came to be?

You refuse to say or provide any evidence.


You say an Asian and an African mating becomes an Afro-Asian - great!

You answered the question. You propose mutation when no new race has been observed to come about except by mating, regardless oif mutations at every birth. Interesting.

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN ALL HUMANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR MYTHS, AROSE FROM A CLONED INBREEDING PAIR WITH 'PERFECT' GENOMES??????

Hmm, interesting. Where did you get the idea of cloned? Clearly God took half the chromosomes from that perfect genome and used it to create the woman. You know, half the chromosomes from the male, half from the female, make one flesh?

And where did Africans come from i your bible-based beliefs?

EXPLAIN how we got the "allies" associated with being African from a cloned inbreeding pair (Adam and Eve) without mutation.

I have, you just havent been paying attention.

Right - the whole Asian+African=Afro-Asian.

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????

From Noahs descendants.

So now you are arguing FOR mutations?

Whats this? Misrepresentation? Strawman nonsense? Shocking!


It is hilarious that you expend so much energy arguing AGAINST mutation-based change, and then argue FOR mutation when you are stuck.


You people are something else.

you are confused, I understand. No it is you that purposes if I randomly acquire a mutation it somehow becomes fixed in the entire population.

I propose only my descendants share that mutation. So if only my descendants share this mutation, then how do mutations in your fantasy world get fixed in the entire human population if that population doesn't come from just my descendants?

Oh that's right, the only ones are from before recorded history, from Noah and their descendants.

 

[gaara4158]

No we dont. Except for dogs every other animal is split into subspecies, not races or breeds.....

Yes we do. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, distinct from the subspecies argued as our direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu. The distinction between modern extant humans you're referring to as "race" hasn't been formally recognized in science since the 80's.

I know how they came to be, the same way the Afro-Asian comes to be, by the mating of different ethnicity's, not from the Asian or African evolving into the Afro-Asian. Oh, you meant in fantasy long ago versus how we actually observe it in real life. Just say you prefer to diverge to myth and ignore empirical observation.

No. I'm not asking you what you know. I'm asking you what your evidence is. You say Asians only come from Asians and Africans only come from Africans. So, was there a first Asian? A first African? Or were there simply always people inhabiting these regions for as long as the regions have existed? What evidence do you have to support this?

 

[pitabread]

Except the largest, most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment for evolution (dogs) completely falsifies you’re core beliefs, while supporting mine.

Hahaha, just so much no.

What selective breeding demonstrates is just how many changes (particularly to phenotype) are possible when extreme selective pressure is applied. Far from supporting creationists, it demonstrates how its possible to get considerable diversity over a (geologically speaking) relatively short period of time.

 

[pitabread]

So even though we build all buildings in earthquake zones to look different, they still all share the same common engineering designs internally, correct?

You instead ask I believe those internal designs are random, based upon your view of the outside. But common design fits better, each is based on the same principle (to survive on earth) with slight modifications as per the buildings depending on their height and width, as life for their role in life.

We're not talking about buildings. We're talking about living organisms.

So far no creationist on this forum is willing to offer up an explanation as to why "common design" (whatever that is) better fits the observed evidence with respect to diversity of living species. There's a whole lot of assertions, but nothing to back them up.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes we do. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, distinct from the subspecies argued as our direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu. The distinction between modern extant humans you're referring to as "race" hasn't been formally recognized in science since the 80's.

Not formally recognized? Shall we go look at all the biology and medical papers that use the term race instead of your claims of not formally recognized?

Lets look at finches. They are classified as separate species merely from beak size, even if they interbreed. Can you explain why we should not classify Africans separate species as well? Or how about the American Indian that was reproductively isolated for 10,000 years. I mean thats what Darwin claimed when he named those finches separate species, was reproductive isolation. That turned out to be wrong, but dosnt seem to have mattered.

No. I'm not asking you what you know. I'm asking you what your evidence is. You say Asians only come from Asians and Africans only come from Africans. So, was there a first Asian? A first African? Or were there simply always people inhabiting these regions for as long as the regions have existed? What evidence do you have to support this?

From Noah and his descendants. You on the other hand want me to believe what, that one evolved from the other through mutation? Even when Asian never becomes anything but Asian regardless of mutations over tens of thousands of years?

I suggest you apply the empirical evidence. That several races {Noah and his sons and their wives} mated, you know, half the chromosome from the male, half from the female and created a third and so on. Just as empirical observation shows the Afro-Asian is produced. I'm not asking you to believe in some common ancestor that evolved into another race in opposition to empirical evidence of how new races form.
I mean even in your fantasy world would not all have to come from one pair, since mutations are only passed to descendants?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hahaha, just so much no.

What selective breeding demonstrates is just how many changes (particularly to phenotype) are possible when extreme selective pressure is applied. Far from supporting creationists, it demonstrates how its possible to get considerable diversity over a (geologically speaking) relatively short period of time.

Diversity within the Kind, agreed. No one is disputing that, just your claim Kind can become other Kind through mutation. When regardless of how many mutations occurr, that has never been observed. Unless those arbitrary definitions you refuse to follow and want to do away with are arbitrarily applied to support your arbitrary claims.

 

[pitabread]

Diversity within the Kind, agreed. No one is disputing that, just your claim Kind can become other Kind through mutation.

Considering that "kind" is not a recognized biologically defined term to begin with, your claim is completely moot.

Even creationists can't seem to agree on a definition of the term.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We're not talking about buildings. We're talking about living organisms.

So far no creationist on this forum is willing to offer up an explanation as to why "common design" (whatever that is) better fits the observed evidence with respect to diversity of living species. There's a whole lot of assertions, but nothing to back them up.

Why wouldn't common design fit what we observe? If I make 100 different animals out of similar dirt, would they not all show similarities at the subatomic level that could be confused as sharing common ancestry? Even if each one was created separately? Then each Kind would diversify through mutation by phenotype within that Kind. None of which shows common ancestry, just mistakenly interpreted to mean this based on the fact the same designer created them from the same building blocks. You simply see shared ancestry when it is nothing more than from using the same building blocks to create everything.

Why don't you claim we share ancestry with rocks?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Considering that "kind" is not a recognized biologically defined term to begin with, your claim is completely moot.

Kind - Biology-Online Dictionary

Even creationists can't seem to agree on a definition of the term.

Like evolutionists cant agree on the definition of species? Sort of like that? Your point being, since none of you can either, then will refuse to follow the very one you give? Didn't give much thought to that argument, did you.