proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

I'd be happy to do that.

But first, let me make sure you actually know what natural selection is. Can you explain natural selection in your own words?

I ask you show your evidence for natural selection . you go first or forget this discussion with me.

 

[omega2xx]

Pierre-Paul Grassé - Wikipedia



Of course, anyone who knew anything about evolution would understand that one mutation alone would not cause a change of species.

It is many mutations over many generations that cause a new species.

Really, you creationists simply must stop trying to argue against evolution when you don't even understand the first thing about it.

One thing about the truth is that it does not change with time. Altering a characteristic will never result in a change of species, no matter how many occur.

Really you evolutionist must stop trying to support evolution when you don't even understand the first thing about science.

 

[omega2xx]

Re-read the part of your post I quoted.



Which is why the majority of qualified biologists are creationist--- oh wait, they're not. Nevermind.

When you can provided some scientific evidence for anything the TOE preaches, get back to me,

 

[omega2xx]

so, is it your opinion that quantum mechanics is not science? We have no idea HOW quantum tunnelling happens, nor radioactive decay but you are using the technology that operates on what we understand about these effects, even though we have no idea how or why it happens. Imagine being able to run at an impervious brick wall & just appear on the other side of it unscathed. Makes absolutely no sense to us, but this is exactly what your electronics are doing, it's built on our observations of these effects occurring, even though they absolutely don't make sense to us, let alone we understand HOW it can happen.

It's painfully clear you don't know what you're talking about.

What is painfully clear is you beating around the bush and not producing the evidence for what you say.

You would if you could but you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

That's nice. I'm talking about actual archeological timelines versus when YECs claim the flood occurred (~2300 BC). The above civilizations predate that.

Opinions are a dime a dozen, present your evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Obviously I do.

I am also aware that the genomes of extant hominidae have been exhaustively mapped and compared. The conclusion drawn from studying the similarities and differences is that we are related, so my question remains unanswered, what makes you think that we are not related to apes?

I will answer your question when you tell me what DNA does.

A conclusion is not valid without some supporting evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL

What is this nonsense supposed to mean?

That response verifies you do not understand genetics.

Thanks.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL

Pictures are not evidence. They do not show HOW it is possible.

 

[Jimmy D]

Pictures are not evidence. They do not show HOW it is possible.

No. You asserted that to suggest that a flipper is homologous to a human arm is "mumbo jumbo", the picture I posted in response clearly shows that it is homologous. Are you really saying that it doesn't have the same structure?

And I'm not touting it as "proof" of evolution, but for you to suggest that it's some sort of impossible transformation is patently ridiculous. It's a slightly different shape, nothing more.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Opinions are a dime a dozen, present your evidence.

Been there. Done that.

But folks say they will not click on the links and read the evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

No. You asserted that to suggest that a flipper is homologous to a human arm is "mumbo jumbo", the picture I posted in response clearly shows that it is homologous. Are you really saying that it doesn't have the same structure?

And I'm not touting it as "proof" of evolution, but for you to suggest that it's some sort of impossible transformation is patently ridiculous. It's a slightly different shape, nothing more.

I don't say it is an impossible transformation, genetics says it is impossible. Being homologous is also not evidence. All species have bones in their feet if they have feet and bones in their hands if they have hands.

The species in those pictures ALWAYS come out the same species as their parents. There is no mix and match.

 

[Jimmy D]

I will answer your question when you tell me what DNA does.

Don't you know what DNA does? You should really try and learn a bit about the topic you are trying to critique.

A conclusion is not valid without some supporting evidence.

Which is why I questioned your conclusion that "DNA separates species, not links them...It will also show we are not related to apes."

The scientific consensus is that genetic evidence does show that we do share a common ancestor with chimpanzees etc but fair enough, if you a claiming the opposite I'm prepared to listen to your argument. Now, what supporting evidence you have to be able to assert that "DNA shows we are not related to apes"?

 

[omega2xx]

Been there. Done that.

But folks say they will not click on the links and read the evidence.

I read the links of evolutionist for 20 years. None of them ever have any evidence. So what's the point.

You can prove me wrong in 5 minuets by cutting and pasting the evidence in any link you want to. Would not that be worth it to show I am wrong and evolution is right? Where is your faith in Darwin?

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't say it is an impossible transformation, genetics says it is impossible.

Where does "genetics" say that. I believe you are merely making things up about a topic you don't understand.

Being homologous is also not evidence

What the heck's wrong with you people, for the third time on this page, I never said it was.

The species in those pictures ALWAYS come out the same species as their parents. There is no mix and match.

Really? Exactly the same?

 

[omega2xx]

Don't you know what DNA does? You should really try and learn a bit about the topic you are trying to critique.

I ask you what DNA does. You are continuing to beat around the bush blowing smoke.

Which is why I questioned your conclusion that "DNA separates species, not links them...It will also show we are not related to apes."

If it shows we are not related to apes, why do you say we are?

The scientific consensus is that genetic evidence does show that we do share a common ancestor with chimpanzees etc

No it doen't. The genetic evidence and DNA shows we are not related to any species except homo sapian.

but fair enough, if you a claiming the opposite I'm prepared to listen to your argument. Now, what supporting evidence you have to be able to assert that "DNA shows we are not related to apes"?

To be related our DNA must be the same. As long as man can check the DNA of apes and man and identify which is which, DNA proves man and apes are not related.

Your DNA and my DNA will show we are the same species, but not biologically related. That is one reason it can be used in court to prove someone did or did not do the crime.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am very glad I am not where you are now.

I am glad you are glad.

I am also glad I am where I am now. For there is no stopping the mind that wants to explore, to learn, to see the world for what it is. And my mind has found a path that has led me far from my evangelical roots. I don't see how I could have ever wanted to stop what happened to me.

If you could produce some evidence for where you are now, I might join you.

If you would read and understand the evidence I have already presented, you might already have joined me.

You are still accepting what you believe now by faith alone.

Let's start with the basics.

There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

There is overwhelming evidence that multi-cellular life has been here for hundreds of millions of years.

There is overwhelming evidence that life began simple and incrementally became more like modern life as time progressed.

There is overwhelming evidence that the mechanism by which new life was introduced on earth was through evolution from previous life forms.

IMO, it takes more faith for where you are now than for when you were before.

Oh dear. I used to be a Henry Morris style flood-geology young-earth creationist.

Things have changed.

Evidently your God is now to small.

I don't have a god, but if I was in the market for one I would look for one who did not make the fossil record look like things evolved over millions of years if that is not what happened.

 

[omega2xx]

Been there. Done that.

But folks say they will not click on the links and read the evidence.

Why are you unwilling to take 5 minuets to cut and past what you think will prove me wrong and you right? You have taken much more time than that trying to defend your faith in Darwin.

IMO the FACT that you will not proves you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

Where does "genetics" say that. I believe you are merely making things up about a topic you don't understand.

The offspring can only inherit a characteristic in the gene pool of its parents. Pakicetrus doe snot have a gene for fins. Therefore none of it kids can have fins.

What the heck's wrong with you people, for the third time on this page, I never said it was.

Then quit using it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To be related our DNA must be the same.

Only identical twins have the same DNA. You can be related to someone without being an identical twin.

As long as man can check the DNA of apes and man and identify which is which, DNA proves man and apes are not related.

Ever hear of mutations? Mutations change DNA.

Your DNA and my DNA will show we are the same species, but not biologically related.

Actually we are cousins. At most, you are probably no further off than my fiftieth cousin. See https://io9.gizmodo.com/5791530/why-humans-all-much-more-related-than-you-think . Hi cousin.

That is one reason it can be used in court to prove someone did or did not do the crime.

Right, because we each have different DNA.

If we all came from 2 people 6000 years ago, why is our DNA so different?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why are you unwilling to take 5 minuets to cut and past what you think will prove me wrong and you right? You have taken much more time than that trying to defend your faith in Darwin.

IMO the FACT that you will not proves you can't.

Because it is against the forum rules to cut and paste large portions of copyrighted materials. You could click the link if you are interested in reading it.

Please quit asking me to violate forum rules.