proving evolution as just a "theory"

[doubtingmerle]

You need to do some research on the problems of radio-metric dating.

Thanks for the suggestion. It is quite impressive what they can do with radiometric dating, isn't it? Techniques like isochrons give us accurate dates, and different techniques give amazingly close results.

I am impressed.

The Bible does not give he age of the earth, so that is irrelevant to me.

Uh but the Bible does give figures that date the creation of animals at around 4000 BC. And that is a huge problem, since animals were around millions of years earlier.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No one has the exact same DNA, but DNA will show if the persons are the same species and it will show they are not related to apes.

Oh, please document this claim. The term "species" is an arbitrary term. There is often debate as to where species should be split. If you know a foolproof test for determining where the species break is, please tell us more, because you seem to be the only one that knows about it.

Ever see a mutation be responsible for a change of species? When a mutation affects the skin pigment resulting in albinoism, the offspring remains the exact same species as its parents. Can you present an example of what the mutation results in a change of species?

A single mutation causing a new species? How would that work? Mutations occur all the time, but it takes many mutations to make a new species.

But here are examples of some actual speciation events: Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[omega2xx]

Oh, please document this claim. The term "species" is an arbitrary term. There is often debate as to where species should be split. If you know a foolproof test for determining where the species break is, please tell us more, because you seem to be the only one that knows about it.

The claim does not need to documented for those who understand DNA. You say it is wrong, Document that it is. The term species is only arbitrary for those who need it to be to give the faithful hope that evolution should not start with once upon a tiem and end with they lived happily ever after.

A single mutation causing a new species? How would that work? Mutations occur all the time, but it takes many mutations to make a new species.

I have never said or even suggested a single mutation would result in a new species. I have said mutations cannot result in a new species. The can only alter a characteristic that was in the gene pool of the parents and that time will not change proven scientific facts.

But here are examples of some actual speciation events: Observed Instances of Speciation

The subject is mutations, not speciation. However speciation does not result in a change of species. Some in a species no longer being able to reproduce is not a new species. There are several reason they may lose that ability. In the salamander study, the salamanders remained salamanders and some of the could still mate and reproduce. I will also add the study was limited to 1 or 2 population and we can find salamanders of the same "kind" in many places.

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks for the suggestion. It is quite impressive what they can do with radiometric dating, isn't it? Techniques like isochrons give us accurate dates, and different techniques give amazingly close results.

I am impressed.

Evidently you did not do any research on the problems of that type of testing. If you want to accepet their findings by faith aloone, be my guest.

Uh but the Bible does give figures that date the creation of animals at around 4000 BC. And that is a huge problem, since animals were around millions of years earlier.

It does not.

 

[omega2xx]

I accept your concession that you were wrong when you stated we had to understand HOW it can happen in order for it to be Science.

Get real. Scientific proofs always tell HOW. If you can't explain HOW, it is an opinion, not science.

Otherwise, feel free to explain how radioactive decay happens, or how electrons can quantum tunnel through material that they shouldn't be able to, etc. You're using the very proof of this every time you pickup anything electronic (i.e. the practical application of the quantum tunnelling phenomenon despite not understanding the HOW of it), so I'd love to see you refute that... Smoke Alarms (those small ones stuck to your ceiling) use the applied observations of radioactive decay but don't understand the HOW of - Nuclear power stations and Nuclear Weapons are applied sciences of what we know about radioactive decay but don't understand the HOW of too, no doubt you'll refute this in short order, right?

First of all you need to do some study on the problems with radio metric dating. Second, you need to provide a source for quantum tunneling and what it proves. Finally, nothing you have mentioned explains HOW a species can evolve into a different species.

You're digging a rather large and embarrassing hole for yourself.

I am trying to fill in the hole you are digging for yourself by your ignorance of genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about.

Once again you have not provided any evidence for what you accept by faith alone.

 

[omega2xx]

It's a bit useless to have a discussion about natural selection until we both know exactly what natural selection is. I doubt you know what it is, so I'm asking you to show me you have the knowledge required to have the discussion.

Of course, if you don't have the knowledge, your attempt to avoid the issue of actually proving you know what you're talking about is exactly what I'd expect.

Now, natural selection is not that hard to explain. You'll be able to do it in a single paragraph if you want, and not a very long paragraph at that. So come on...

If I didn't understand the term I could google it. Please don't sent me any more post that do not include the evidence for natural selection. You are the one avoiding the issue, not me.

 

[omega2xx]

So is your entire argument to based on, "Fraid not!" or have you actually got some evidence to support your position?

I cant prove God created the heavens and the earth and you can't prove He didn't. When that is the case we must use logic. Can you explain how matter, energy, and life from lifeless elements originated out of nothing?

The only other possibility is that those things are eternal. Even that does not explain how life began from lifeless elements. Nor does it explain the thousands of both plant, animal and human life. Because we have perfect order in our system today, it is unlikely that a system that originated from randomness, could on its own become perfect. That would not only take a Designer, it would take an intelligent, omnipotent One.

There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve into its present highly ordered state. "
Don N. Page, "Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry" Nature, vol 304, July 7, 1983, p. 40.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God---King David as inspired by Jehovah.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Can you present the evidence that proves this to be the case now please?

After all....

"A conclusion is not valid without some supporting evidence."

 

[Jimmy D]

I have never said or even suggested a single mutation would result in a new species. I have said mutations cannot result in a new species. The can only alter a characteristic that was in the gene pool of the parents and that time will not change proven scientific facts.

So what's this nonsense about?

Ever see a mutation be responsible for a change of species? When a mutation affects the skin pigment resulting in albinoism, the offspring remains the exact same species as its parents. Can you present an example of what the mutation results in a change of species?

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.

You cant show one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

Why would you ask if anyone's seen a mutation responsible for a change of species then, was it just a strawman? Did you think that the TOE says that?

 

[Kylie]

Once again you have not provided any evidence for what you accept by faith alone.

If you think it is by faith alone, then you clearly have no idea. Faith is YOUR thing, not mine.

Anyway, why do you use the word "faith" here like it's a bad thing? Shouldn't you be claiming that it's a GOOD thing, since it's what you use to justify your beliefs?

But no, I won't be providing any evidence for people who have demonstrated that they won't listen to it. I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[omega2xx]

Nah. Look, if you were truly interested in scientific evidence for evolution, you'd be off reading it already. In this day and age with a world of information at our fingertips, there is no excuse for not being able to find what you seek. Especially with things like Google Scholar at your disposal.

But that's not what this is about; you're not looking to learn about the ToE. You're here to argue, just like the rest of us.

I've had these arguments and quite frankly, I find them boring. I'm not out to convince anyone to accept the ToE. You can accept it, reject it, look up whatever you want about it. That's your prerogative, not mine.

Let me present you with a couple of facts. Anyone who is a victim of our failed public school system has been indoctrinated that evolution is a scientific fact. Also if you had and evidence to support evolution, you would be overjoyed to present it and show the creationist are wrong.

What is boring in this discussion is that the fundie evolutionist never present any real scientific evidence for what they accept by faith alone.

 

[Kylie]

If I didn't understand the term I could google it. Please don't sent me any more post that do not include the evidence for natural selection. You are the one avoiding the issue, not me.

Since you seem to be so eager to Google things, why don't you try Googling "Evidence for natural selection"?

evidence for natural selection - Google Search

That's the last time I'm going to do your homework for you.

 

[omega2xx]

Can you present the evidence that proves this to be the case now please?

After all....

"A conclusion is not valid without some supporting evidence."

If you understood DNA, that would be enough proof. Can you present the evidence it is not the case?

 

[omega2xx]

The 4 letters of the DNA make up words or codons that are always three letters long. These 4 chemicals are repeated in different orders over and over again in each strand of DNA.

ATG CGT GGT CAG
These words make up sentences which the cells can understand. These sentences are called genes and are genetic codes. Each sentence tells the cells to make a special molecule called a protein that controls everything in the cell. The proteins help the cells to do their functions, to grow and to survive. The difference in these proteins is what makes two living things different from each other.

What is DNA and Where is it found? - Biology for Kids | Mocomi

You have said what it is. now explain what it does.

 

[omega2xx]

What gene for fins?

You do realize that we aren't talking about fins right? A seal does not have fins.

It sounds like you don't actually know anything about the genes that control the development and growth of limbs in mammals so how can you make any assertions about them?

You are making inane claims, based on ignorance of the topic and you expect to be taken seriously?

"A conclusion is not valid without some supporting evidence."

Someone mentioned seals with fins. I was speaking about any life form with fins.

You still haven't provided any evidence for what you accept by faith alone. Why should I take you seriously?

 

[Kylie]

I cant prove God created the heavens and the earth and you can't prove He didn't.

So we should look at the evidence, shouldn't we?

And given that there's no evidence for the Bible's claims, we shouldn't just assume them, should we?

When that is the case we must use logic. Can you explain how matter, energy, and life from lifeless elements originated out of nothing?

No, I can't.

Unlike some people, I'm not afraid to admit that there are things that I don't know.

That does NOT, however, mean that Goddidit.

The only other possibility is that those things are eternal.

False dichotomy.

Even that does not explain how life began from lifeless elements. Nor does it explain the thousands of both plant, animal and human life.

Irrelevant, since no one is claiming they are eternal.

Because we have perfect order in our system today,

How many people wear glasses? I do. So how is that a perfect system? That's just ONE out of literally MILLIONS of flaws. Don't talk to me about having "perfect order."

it is unlikely that a system that originated from randomness, could on its own become perfect. That would not only take a Designer, it would take an intelligent, omnipotent One.

Evolution isn't random.

There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve into its present highly ordered state. "
Don N. Page, "Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry" Nature, vol 304, July 7, 1983, p. 40.

So what? He's simply admitting that there are things which science does not have the answer to. This is not a flaw in science. Science has never claimed that it can currently provide all the answers.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God---King David as inspired by Jehovah.

People of every religion say that, just swapping out the name of their deity of choice. Christianity is not special in that regard.

 

[Kylie]

You have said what it is. now explain what it does.

Each sentence tells the cells to make a special molecule called a protein that controls everything in the cell. The proteins help the cells to do their functions, to grow and to survive. The difference in these proteins is what makes two living things different from each other.

If you read carefully, this was explained to you.

 

[omega2xx]

So what's this nonsense about?

Why would you ask if anyone's seen a mutation responsible for a change of species then, was it just a strawman? Did you think that the TOE says that?

I don't know about the TOE, but when I ask for evidence for a change of species, all the evos have always pointed to mutations.

 

[omega2xx]

If you think it is by faith alone, then you clearly have no idea. Faith is YOUR thing, not mine.

Unless you have evidence, you accept what you believe by faith alone. Yes faith is the thing of Christianity.

Anyway, why do you use the word "faith" here like it's a bad thing? Shouldn't you be claiming that it's a GOOD thing, since it's what you use to justify your beliefs?

I have not said or even implied faith is a bad thing. It is a good thing if the object of that faith is real and true.

But no, I won't be providing any evidence for people who have demonstrated that they won't listen to it. I'm not going to waste my time.

You would if you could but you can't

Have a very + day.