proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

A lie by definition is someone who knows the truth and intentionally tells what he knows is false. Again one must know the person they are calling a liar in fact does know the truth and is telling what he knows is false. You do not know I know the "truth" or not, so how could you know if I was lying or not? Your attitude in this matter is very telling to your own character. I try to believe the best in everyone. Until they show me otherwise. I don't start that way.

True.

The other option would be, you have zero clue about what the theory of evolution actually states and you are simply trying to protect a personal belief.

 

[BradB]

True.

The other option would be, you have zero clue about what the theory of evolution actually states and you are simply trying to protect a personal belief.

That indeed could be a possibility. However let's clear the air here. I'll make you a deal. If you can present with even one good example of the kind of evidence I have been asking for, since it would prove the Bible false and my faith in vain, I will make a youtube video of me burning my Bible and spend the rest of my days as a proponent of evolution. But I want to know if I can show good evidence that God is, what will you do?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Shows you want to add confusion factors when you cannot answer the questions.

If the people that existed prior to the flood were all descendants of 2 identical created middle eastern humans with perfect genomes (your words), then how did any new variants arise?

Why would you believe they were identical? Half the chromosomes were removed from Adam and placed into Eve. Their combined genomes held every racial attribute.

Why no, not interbreeding - selective breeding.

That is, there are natural variations in populations (that come from....?), and the variants are chosen for their qualities, then mated with others that exhibit the similar characteristics.

Like black bears tend to mate only with those exhibiting similar qualities, black bears? Like Cardinals tend to mate only with those exhibiting similar qualities, Cardinals? Name any that don’t tend to mate with others exhibiting similar qualities.

That’s how Cardinals became Cardinals and black bears became black bears and Husky became Husky. And Asian became Asian too.

I find your explanations (or, in reality, 100% lack thereof) wanting.

You want to equate the generation of distinct species with dog breeding without understand how dog breeding actually works.

You do not understand that dog breeds are bred by picking those individuals with desirable qualities and breeding them with other individuals with desirable qualities - the OPPOSITE of what you claim goes on!

Sort of like a Cardinal chooses its mate based upon desirable qualities to it, plumage? Sort of like the exact same thing I claim is going on.

According to your kooky nonsense, we should be able to breed a chihuahua and a mastiff and get a wolf.

There you go again, ignoring reduction in genetic variation from inbreeding. Man you people are something else.....

I find your continual inability to grasp how wrong you are typical of creationists.

I find your inability to equate Cardinal, peacocks, or any animal picking its mate based upon desirable characteristics and refusing to accept its no different with dogs except we picked the characteristics instead of the dog as being equal. Typical of evolutionists to not understand nature....

 

[bhsmte]

That indeed could be a possibility. However let's clear the air here. I'll make you a deal. If you can present with even one good example of the kind of evidence I have been asking for, since it would prove the Bible false and my faith in vain, I will make a youtube video of me burning my Bible and spend the rest of my days as a proponent of evolution. But I want to know if I can show good evidence that God is, what will you do?

I dont play pigeon chess with evolution deniers on this site. I learned how futile that is, a long time ago. Plenty of other folks on here, will happily engage you.

 

[Speedwell]

That indeed could be a possibility. However let's clear the air here. I'll make you a deal. If you can present with even one good example of the kind of evidence I have been asking for, since it would prove the Bible false and my faith in vain, I will make a youtube video of me burning my Bible and spend the rest of my days as a proponent of evolution. But I want to know if I can show good evidence that God is, what will you do?

Actually it would do none of that, only compell you to revist your interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are more organisms than humans, finches and dogs you know.

Yes I know. Black bears mate with black bears and remain black bears. Cardinals mate with Cardinal and remain Cardinals. Only when they mate with another subspecies, does variation in the species occur. We can do this for every animal alive if you think it necessary? Red tailed deer mate with red tailed deer and produce only red tailed deer. Spiny lizards.... and on and on and on.

I am quite aware the entire animal kingdom backs up my assertions, but you can’t get past dogs, humans and finches, let alone cope with the evidence of every single animal alive.

I apologise if I'm misrepresenting your beliefs. I thought that you claimed that the first husky came from two wolves mating, is that not correct? If not you had better explain how the husky came about becuase it's not exactly clear what you believe.

The original two wolves, or whatever canine led to the different breeds of wolves.

My confusion is how you all like to claim they all can’t come from two. Yet if I get a random mutation, then only my descendants receive this mutation, correct? So to be fixed in the population, the population must consist solely of my descendants.

My confusion has nothing to do with how I view the taxonomic classification system or scientific definitions.... for the sake of argument, and if it means you'll stop endlessly repeating it, I'll even accept your argument that certain species should be reclassified as subspecies.

Not certain ones, every single one that interbreeds. But then you wouldn’t be able to claim speciation, so that ain’t happening.

It is precisely your outlook that colors your thinking. All you want to believe is increase in genetic variability, even if inbreeding only reduces genetic variability. And everything does it. Asian only mate with Asian (inbreeding) it is what set in their specific traits. Black bear tend to mate only with black bear (inbreeding) it is what set in their specific traits.

It’s why every subspecies within the species is fixed in their traits, until they mate with another subspecies in that species. I’d confirm this with grizzlies and polar bears, except you won’t accept the scientific definition of subspecies either.

 

[Speedwell]

How can I speak for what others do? I can only speak for what I do. I believe it ultimately originates from a liar. But most of those who believe it are only deceived.

If it is Satan, why is he doing such a poor job? The theory of evolution only discomfits a minority of Evangelical Protestants, leaving the majority of Christians secure in their faith. That's no way to steal souls.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is the article:

Darwin finches' messy family tree

1. One should note that it is a NEWS story, not a scientific article, and thus CONTAINS NO DATA.

2. Even when you quote the article, you ONLY get out of the quote what you want -

"This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

You seem to totally ignore that part - why?

Because that part is nothing but evolutionary PR speak.

They initially diversified - how?

By moving to different islands, at which point they still continued to interbreed.

According to your "theory", they are all just hybrids, but your very source of "data" indicates that they DIVERSIFIED first!

And yet they only diversified through interbreeding. With mutations playing no role in the matter at all. Unless you wish to make a stand for the ALX1 gene mutation changing beak shapes and sizes as the cause?

You all keep running from that one for some reason.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7539/full/nature14181.html

“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

It is only believed they first diversified, the genome analyses only reveals the reality, gene flow throughout the entire species, resulting in mixed ancestry. Darwin simply believed incorrectly they had diversified because of reproductive isolation. He was wrong, they were never reproductively isolated. Speciation never occurred. Evolutionists simply refuse to follow the scientific definitions of subspecies. They refuse to reclassify them simply because they have Darwin’s name attached, and were the prime reason Darwin began evolution theory.

There is no hybridization, because they were never reproductively isolated to begin with. But evolutionary PR continues with the claim of diversification, when they only diversified because of interbreeding.

Again, unless you care to make a stand on the claimed mutation to the ALX1 gene? That’s the only thing that actually sets them apart genetically, so mixed are their genomes together. It’s why the biologists keep harping on that mutation, they know nothing else distinguishes them genetically.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I shall respond tomorrow. It is well past midnight. I trust you will be more courteous in future exchanges.

You get back what you give. Don’t like it don’t participate in it yourself first.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you not know how many different DNA configurations would result in a human? Too many to count, sir.

I would say about only one in however many trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion from that first single celled organism, since you claim it also led to everything else too. So only one specific combination arrived at humans, yes? So I have no problem counting to one, since we are using evolutionary theory right now. Because none of the other trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion possible combinations led to us, correct?

 

[Ophiolite]

@Justatruthseeker
As promised yesteday I have returned to address your points regarding inbreeding. It is clear from your exchanges with tas8831, JimmyD and possibly others, that your understanding of inbreeding is confused, as is your understanding of the range of meaning for the phrase "close relationship".

You make assertions based upon the present. For example "Black bears mate with black bears and remain black bears". In doing this you ignore the fact, one I am confident has been explained to you more than once, that evolution of a new species, genera, or higher taxonomic order takes more than a generation or two.

Consequently you will not entertain the correct version of your statement: "Black bears mate with black bears and remain black bears, until such times as a sufficient number of beneficial mutations accumulate to justify classifying them as something else".

It is evident from your response to others that there are no circumstances in which you will open your mind sufficiently to objectively consider the evidence for this.

I have noted on other threads that I have no issue with individuals who choose to reject evolution because it conflicts with their faith. I believe it to be an unwise decision, but I respect their right to make it.

However, it is challenging for me to respect anyone who chooses to misinterpret, manipulate, misrepresent and consciously misunderstand the methods and findings of science in regard to evolution. Therefore, it is unlikely that I shall have further exchanges with you, unless to point out especially inaccurate statements. Thank you for your responses thus far.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I dont play pigeon chess with evolution deniers on this site. I learned how futile that is, a long time ago. Plenty of other folks on here, will happily engage you.

That's wise, especially since I'm 97% certain the OP of this thread strolled over here from Landover Baptist or a similar site, and is probably gleeful that it's already generated 181 pages.

 

[PsychoSarah]

yep. but im sure that even if such event will happen evolutionists will say that the fact the this happened prove evolution. actually, they already did it:

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

-_- dude, in order for the ability to digest citrate to develop twice, the guy performing the experiment had to pin point the generation that just barely preceded that development, and allow them to grow and reproduce again (he froze individuals of every generation so that he could use them later without them further mutating in the meantime). The entire sequence of mutations necessary to acquire this trait did not repeat, only one or two of them did in a huge population of bacteria that have much smaller genomes than our own. Read your own source, the citrate digestion gene only repeats along a specific lineage, starting around generation 20,000. None of the other, independent E. coli lineages had this happen even once.

"Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”

And that supports your position how?

 

[bhsmte]

That's wise, especially since I'm 97% certain the OP of this thread strolled over here from Landover Baptist or a similar site, and is probably gleeful that it's already generated 181 pages.

Indeed.

Debating certain folks about evolution, reminds me of this:

 

[BradB]

I dont play pigeon chess with evolution deniers on this site. I learned how futile that is, a long time ago. Plenty of other folks on here, will happily engage you.

So be it

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would say about only one in however many trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion from that first single celled organism, since you claim it also led to everything else too.

I know for a fact that I have told you that I am not a UCA supporter before.

So only one specific combination arrived at humans, yes?

Pfft, no, seeing as all humans on this planet don't have identical DNA.

So I have no problem counting to one, since we are using evolutionary theory right now. Because none of the other trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion possible combinations led to us, correct?

I think you are confused about my point a little bit, so I'll try to clarify; I was not suggesting in the slightest that humans were an inevitability by mentioning that tons of different codon combinations could produce humans. I was rather stating that it would take significant effort to make all life on earth genetically linked starting from scratch, given that so many different combinations could be used to make humans and other species. It would be far easier for a designer to just leave no genetic connections between distinct species, and it would make the fact that these organisms were designed far more apparent.

 

[BradB]

Actually it would do none of that, only compell you to revist your interpretation of Genesis.

I'm sorry you think so. But I know there's only one way the author intended it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

even if it was true- it will be true for species, not families.

-_- sure. I'm not going to waste my time trying to track down all the recognized extinct families, and compare them to the number off all the living ones, to get an exact percentage on that, so sure.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sorry you think so. But I know there's only one way the author intended it.

No doubt you think so, but be patient with us--from the rest of Christendom your view of it seems hard to fathom.

 

[pitabread]

No, two per phonetic trait. Let’s get that cleared up, not two per individual.

What do you mean by "two per phonetic trait"? That sentence makes zero sense. Do you mean phenotypic? And what do you mean by "two per"? We're dealing with alleles here (gene variations) which may or may not have anything to do with a specific phenotype.

They were there from the beginning.

So basically the originally two created "kinds" had magic genomes with thousands upon thousands of extra gene variations to account for all the allelic variation we observe in existing populations.

Is that really your contention?