proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

Why do you call him a maverick? Let me guess. He rejects what you accepts by faith alone. There are many scientists who reject evolution, because it is not based on science.

Except for "after their kind" we do not use the Bible to reject evolution, we use proven science. Specifically genetics and DNA.

You should take your own advice and provide some objective science to prove for example how and why a dog-like animal surviving very well on land could eventually become a whale. That refutes a basic doctrine of evolution---natural selection. Another doctrine for which there is no evidence and must be accepted by faith alone. That a dog-like land animal eventually became a whale takes much more faith than "God did it all."

He wasn't referring to any specific maverick, strange that you should respond to a post without reading the context.

Can I ask what "proven" science you use to reject evolution?

If you want to learn about whale evolution plenty of papers have been published, I suggest a google search.

 

[Jimmy D]

What he says is not possible. We still have plenty of giraffes

What is not possible? What has the extent of the giraffe population got to do anything?

 

[omega2xx]

He wasn't referring to any specific maverick, strange that you should respond to a post without reading the context.

I read the whole message.

Can I ask what "proven" science you use to reject evolution?

Basically genetics. All characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. If the parents don't have a gene for fins, they can't have a kid with fins. The evolutionist try to use mutations and time to try and explain how the kid can receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. Mutations only altar a characteristic, they do not cause a change of species.

For example when a mutation causes the offspring to become an albino, the offspring remains the exact same species as its parents.

If you want to learn about whale evolution plenty of papers have been published, I suggest a google search.

I have done that and not one of them provided any scientific evidence as to HOW it is possible. One even suggest the pakicetus wading the the ocean eating fish was the cause. Even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ, would not accept that.

To put is simply, there is no way a leg can become a fin, nose become a blowhole and a small, furry tale become a flapper.

 

[omega2xx]

What is not possible?

The length of the neck is the result of the genes of its parents, not stretching to get food.

What has the extent of the giraffe population got to do anything?

Probably nothing, but if surviving depended on a neck stretching, eventually all food would be out of its reach and it would become extinct.

 

[Jimmy D]

Basically genetics. All characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. If the parents don't have a gene for fins, they can't have a kid with fins. The evolutionist try to use mutations and time to try and explain how the kid can receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. Mutations only altar a characteristic, they do not cause a change of species.

For example when a mutation causes the offspring to become an albino, the offspring remains the exact same species as its parents.

Are you under the impression that any biologist believes a new species could arise in one generation?

I have done that and not one of them provided any scientific evidence as to HOW it is possible. One even suggest the pakicetus wading the the ocean eating fish was the cause. Even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ, would not accept that.

To put is simply, there is no way a leg can become a fin, nose become a blowhole and a small, furry tale become a flapper.

Doesn't seem so different to me....

 

[omega2xx]

You have no background in science at all, am I right?

One does not have to have a degree in science to understand some simple basics. I have the ability to understand what creation scientists say about evolution.

You don't think testing a method on knowns has implications for the usefulness of the methods?

It is not necessary to test what is known. If something is known, it has been proved.

Sounds like you are desperate to avoid the inevitable.

Did you forget to put on your hearing aid today?

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

That smell is coming from your coffee and when you drink it it youjr desperation gets stronger.

Yes, I know.

To know it you must have some evidence. Post your evidence so we can know if you know. Just make sure it is scientific, not someones opinion.

Nobody has said that apes and humans are the same species.

They certainly do. When I tell some evos that they are not the same species, some say man is an aspe.

You do not even seem to understand what it is you are opposing.

There is nothing hard to understand about common descent. Third graders can understand that. I reject it because I not only understand it. I know something you don't. It is not genetically possible and you can't prove even one thing in the doctreine of the TOE.

 

[Jimmy D]

The length of the neck is the result of the genes of its parents, not stretching to get food.

I suggest reading my posts properly if you're going to comment on them.

Probably nothing, but if surviving depended on a neck stretching, eventually all food would be out of its reach and it would become extinct.

Again read my posts on the subject.

I'll say it again for the umpteenth time, I don't know specifically the reasons for Giraffe's long necks.

But in response to your strange rebuttal, you do know that leaves can grow, right?

 

[Jimmy D]

One does not have to have a degree in science to understand some simple basics. I have the ability to understand what creation scientists say about evolution.

They certainly do. When I tell some evos that they are not the same species, some say man is an aspe.

You think "ape" a species?

Judging from your last couple of posts it seems that your understanding of biology is sorely lacking.

 

[omega2xx]

Are you under the impression that any biologist believes a new species could arise in one generation?

No.

Doesn't seem so different to me....

Many characteristics as similar. That does not make it the same. Now try comparing a nose to a blowhole and a tail to a flapper.

Probably the hardest thing to explain is why a land animal surviving very well on land would need to become a whale. It would have to enter a more hostile environment during it s transition and would be more likely to become extinct.

 

[omega2xx]

You think "ape" a species?[

I don't think it is, I know it is.

Judging from your last couple of posts it seems that your understanding of biology is sorely lacking.

Talk is cheap. Be specific, What about biology do I not understand?

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't think it is, I know it is.



Talk is cheap. Be specific, What about biology do I not understand?

The taxonomic system for a start.

 

[Jimmy D]

Many characteristics as similar. That does not make it the same

No one said it's the same did they? If you can put aside the strawmen for a moment maybe we can have a discussion.

So if it has many similar characteristics why is it "impossible that a leg couldn't become a flipper"? They both contain more or less the same bone structure, just in slightly different position and proportions.

 

[omega2xx]

The taxonomic system for a start.

The taxonomic system is man made. It may be very accurate. It provides no biological way for a leg to become a fin.

 

[omega2xx]

No one said it's the same did they? If you can put aside the strawmen for a moment maybe we can have a discussion.

The real strawman is you presenting similar bone structure as if that is evidence. Pictures are not evidence. You must explain HOW it is genetically possible

So if it has many similar characteristics why is it "impossible that a leg couldn't become a flipper"? They both contain more or less the same bone structure, just in slightly different position and proportions.

Firsts you tell me how it is possible. That is the major weakness of evolution. They NEVER provide the evidence for HOW what they say is possible.

 

[Jimmy D]

The taxonomic system is man made. It may be very accurate. It provides no biological way for a leg to become a fin.

Oh dear. I think we can politely end the conversation with that.

 

[bhsmte]

It is a matter of understanding DNA. God gave all living things different DNA to separate the species He created, not to link them. Proof positive that evolution is not true.

Evidence that dna came from a god?

 

[omega2xx]

Evidence that dna came from a god?

DNA exists. It is far to complex to have originated by chance. Can you explain how it might have? In fact the human cell is to complex to have started by accident.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh dear. I think we can politely end the conversation with that.

It always ends when the person can't provide any evidence for what they say.

Have a very + day.

 

[bhsmte]

DNA exists. It is far to complex to have originated by chance. Can you explain how it might have? In fact the human cell is to complex to have started by accident.

You are claiming dna came from a god correct? I want you to provide evidence of this claim and shifting the burden of proof to me, is simply evasion.

 

[bhsmte]

It always ends when the person can't provide any evidence for what they say.

Have a very + day.

Irony