Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Speedwell]

Mendel published 3 laws of genetics. Here is the one you need to understand:

1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.

This law shows us that inherited traits are defined, determined, by a pair of genes. If the parents do not have the gene for a certain characteristic, bones for example, their kids cannot have that trait. Thus they can only reproduce "after their kind."

There can be differences in their kids, depending on which pair of genes is dominant. This can result in different eye color, skin color, etc, but it cannot cause a change of species.

Is this an insight you had yourself, or is there a creation ministry actually teaching it?

 

[mark kennedy]

To proves something it must be observed and duplicated. I has been proved that all living cells have DNA.



Not only that it has never been observed, but it it is not genetically possible.



Then present your evidence.



Goggle "laws of genetics."

Try laws of inheritance, Mendel's contribution to genetics in it's early infancy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...

please fix your quotes.

 

[omega2xx]

please fix your quotes.

please fix your quotes.

That theology come directly from scienece lala land.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ironic or not. Produce your evidence or it is time to move on. You really can't do it. Now prove me wrong.

You need to have it demonstrated to you that those who are genetically "best equipped" to survive and reproduce, actually have the best chance of doing so?

Really?

So it needs to be explained that the gazelle that can run slightly faster then the rest, has more chances of fleeing from a lion attack?

Owkay.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To proves something it must be observed and duplicated. I has been proved that all living cells have DNA.

That doesn't answer my question. At all.
The question was: what kind of evidence are you looking for? What evidence would make you change your mind on evolution theory? And I also said that you can use an example if that makes it easier to answer the question.

Stating the obvious like "all living cells have DNA", is not an answer to such a question...

Not only that it has never been observed, but it it is not genetically possible.

Just give a straightforward answer to my question please.
Is your objection to evolution, that a member of species A never gives birth to a member of species B? Yes or no.

If no, then explain clearly what your objection is.

Then present your evidence.

I'll refer you back to my question: what kind of evidence are you looking for?
I can give you plenty individual pieces of evidence. I can write you post after post after post, detailing specific pieces of evidence. But I've done this before and I know how creationists tend to treat such examples (including you, because I know for a fact that people have given you pieces of evidence). So I'ld rather not waste my time...

Hence my question: what kind of evidence are you looking for? And be specific.

Goggle "laws of genetics."

I'm not seeing anything that would pose a problem to evolution theory.
Perhaps it would be more productive if you could point to one such specific "law" and explain how it is a problem in context of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As usual all you have done is parrot the usual evo talking point

Has it perhaps occured to you that people "parrot" this, because that's just how evolution works?

It also shows you do not understand mutations.

I understand mutations quite well, for a laymen.

They only alter characteristics, they NEVER change the species.

Nobody said they did.

Speciation is a process that occurs gradually, by the continued accumulation of mutations that achieved fixation over generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know more about evolution and science than you do.

I had 3 college courses that taught evolution as fact. I passed them all.

And yet, you don't seem to understand the simple process of speciation. At all.
Neither do you seem aware of what the evidence for evolution is.

I'ld sue and ask for a refund, to be honest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.

This law shows us that inherited traits are defined, determined, by a pair of genes. If the parents do not have the gene for a certain characteristic, bones for example, their kids cannot have that trait. Thus they can only reproduce "after their kind."

And that's supposedly a problem for evolution.... how exactly?

This can result in different eye color, skin color, etc, but it cannot cause a change of species.

pssssst: speciation is a VERTICAL process.
When a population of species A gets split into 2 groups that are genetically isolated, then both populations will continue accumulating changes. They will eventually speciate. They will NOT have become "totally different species". Instead, both will be SUB-species of the ancestral species. Species A will have split into 2 sub-species: A1 and A2. They will not turn into "B".

For the upteenth time: dogs will produce dogs. And dogs are "still" canines, mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes,....

At no point in the evolution of dogs, did an ancestral population speciate into a "totally different" species.

Again: it's a VERTICAL process.



Seriously, "3 college courses on evolution" and not a single one explained this to you? Where did you get those courses? In a creationist ministry?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That theology come directly from scienece lala land.

???

What are you talking about?
Go take a look at the post I quoted. You messed up all the quoting there, making it hard to read and reply to.

I'm just asking you to go back to that post, edit it and fix the quoting, so that I can properly respond to it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To proves something it must be observed and duplicated. I has been proved that all living cells have DNA.



Not only that it has never been observed, but it it is not genetically possible.



Then present your evidence.



Goggle "laws of genetics."

Lol, I did Google "laws of genetics". The closest thing to a law in that field are Mendel's principles of basic inheritance patterns... which are over 100 years old and don't account for mutation since Mendel was unaware of it.

Heck, as it turns out, most genes aren't passed down in strict Mendelian inheritance patterns anyways, and he just lucked out with the organism and traits he chose to study.

 

[USincognito]

To proves something it must be observed and duplicated. I has been proved that all living cells have DNA.

We have been correcting you on the use of "proof" in a scientific context for months now, so no, it has not been "proved" (sic) that all living cells have DNA.

By the way, red blood cells don't have a nucleus and thus don't have DNA.

 

[USincognito]

I know more about evolution and science than you do.

Bahahahaha!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sure. Goggle "primordial soup."

If you ever paid for dance lessons, I know a good lawyer who can get your money back.

Let's just put this one to bed. From the first link returned (Wikipedia):
"When an English naturalist Charles Darwin introduced his theory of natural selection in his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, and even in his subsequent books, his supporters, such as a German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, criticised him for not using his theory to explain the origin of life." Emphasis mine.

Hand wave in 3....2...

 

[omega2xx]

Let's just put this one to bed. From the first link returned (Wikipedia):
"When an English naturalist Charles Darwin introduced his theory of natural selection in his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, and even in his subsequent books, his supporters, such as a German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, criticised him for not using his theory to explain the origin of life." Emphasis mine.

Hand wave in 3....2...

Irrelevant. When the THEORY was later developed and taught, it included the origin of life beginning in the primordial soup as a simple, one celled form of life.

You can't teach "common descent" without teaching its origin. It is more than amusing that you don't know how it got here, what it was and what it became. You say all living things originated from dead elements. If you can't explain that, and you can't. and the absurdity of even thinking that, there is little hope for you,

 

[omega2xx]

Bahahahaha!

What a clever response. It certainly convinces me. Ha Ha

I can prove what I say, you can't.

 

[bhsmte]

What a clever response. It certainly convinces me. Ha Ha

I can prove what I say, you can't.

Prove how?

 

[Jimmy D]

You can't teach "common descent" without teaching its origin. It is more than amusing that you don't know how it got here, what it was and what it became. You say all living things originated from dead elements. If you can't explain that, and you can't. and the absurdity of even thinking that, there is little hope for you,

You can't claim "special creation" without demonstrating its origin. It is more than amusing that you don't know how it got here, what it was and what it became. You say all living things originated from a magical entity. If you can't explain that, and you can't. and the absurdity of even thinking that, there is little hope for you.

 

[omega2xx]

We have been correcting you on the use of "proof" in a scientific context for months now, so no, it has not been "proved" (sic) that all living cells have DNA.

Thanks for exposing your lack of knowledge of what constitutes evidence. It ain't rhetoric and that is all you have done so far.

By the way, this yet another example of your abject ignorance. Red blood cells don't have a nucleus and thus don't have DNA. How about learning more and lecturing less?

Congratulations, you finally got something right. 1 out of a 1000, isn't a good batting average.

 

[omega2xx]

Lol, I did Google "laws of genetics". The closest thing to a law in that field are Mendel's principles of basic inheritance patterns... which are over 100 years old and don't account for mutation since Mendel was unaware of it.

Heck, as it turns out, most genes aren't passed down in strict Mendelian inheritance patterns anyways, and he just lucked out with the organism and traits he chose to study.

Thanks for exposing your ignorance of mutations. They are not a mechanism for a change of species. The only alter traits, they do not change them into something new. Prove me wrong and explain how a mutation can change the species. They can change skin color but they can' cause skin to appear.