Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[PsychoSarah]

Do you evos not understand EVIDENCE is necessary, not the usual evo talking points for which there is no evidence?

Yes, and it would be easy to provide you with examples of organisms that did change over time because of these processes.

It certainly does. That is the basic idea behind common descent.

Negatory, common descent is that, say, horses and willow trees at some point in the past shared a common ancestor. Note the "in the past" part. Common descent isn't even a process in and of itself, it is a conclusion made based on the fact that every living organism sequenced thus far shares too much genetic and physiological similarity with everything else to reasonably be concluded as a product of chance. It is still an evaluation of the past, not what will occur in the future. Common descent doesn't mean that the horse was predestined to exist.

-_- as a wingnut that doesn't entirely support common descent, it makes me really annoyed that I have to explain anything about it to you, but your conclusion was so inaccurate I couldn't ignore it.

You can't look back except in the fossil record and it spports after their kind.

"Kind" doesn't even mean the same thing from creationist to creationist, so please, use genus or whatever organization of taxonomy you think matches up with your ideal of "kind" best rather than using the word "kind".

As a generic argument from me that fits regardless, organisms on this planet don't neatly fit in any boxes we make for them. That they are continuously changing makes any statements about transitions relatively arbitrary.

Look at this rainbow for me:

Unless you are colorblind, it's rather easy to tell the difference between the red farthest to the left and the violet farthest to the right. At no point on it does red become violet. However, where does red cease to be red and orange begins? Even if you want to get technical and use hexidecimal color codes, you'd inevitably notice that the red that comes right before the transition to orange is practically identical in appearance to the first orange, and that it is easier to distinguish it from the first red than it is to distinguish it from the first orange. Same goes for from orange to yellow, and so on and so forth all the way to violet. Everything in sequence is practically indistinguishable from the one before it and the one after it, but move far enough in either direction and you find different colors.

Now of course, most organisms don't leave behind a fossil record so complete that you even get the full range of colors, but sometimes you will find some that amount to colors like red-orange or blue-green, some so intermediate even that people constantly argue whether they should be categorized "with the blues or with the greens". Then you have human evolution, in which nearly all of the recent "blue to violet" transitions are accounted for apart from maybe one or two shades, but anything prior is far less complete. Even if the fossil record didn't have so many intermediate organisms, it would be unreasonable to conclude "only blue comes from blue" when you don't ever get to see the full rainbow.

 

[omega2xx]

Seriously, how many times do you have to be told that evolution does not deny "after their kind"?

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT AN OFFSPRING WILL BE OF A DIFFERENT SPECIES TO IT'S PARENT.

It is only your strawman version that proposes such a stupid thing.

I'm starting to think that you either don't even bother reading responses to your posts (or you just aren't the sharpest tool in the box).

You don't really understand what evolution preaches.

For evolution to be true, at some point an A had to become a B, or there can be no evolution. That means at that time, the offspring was not the same species as its parents.

Common descent preaches all life originated from one species, and you don't know what it was or what it became, but if it became the same species as its parents and that is always the case, how do we get diversity?

 

[omega2xx]

LOL, Is that all you can say?

Your trolling is getting old now so you're going on ignore.

Don't forget to cover your ears and say in your loudest voice, It aint' true, it aint true. Pictures drawn by evolutionists are real scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Does math support creation?

No.

The generation of more than 350,000 'sub-baramina' of beetle in 4000 years?

That is no different than the great number of dog varieties in the same length of time. Where did you get 4000 years? You just made that up with no evidence. Evolutionist have gotten very good at make believe.

More than half the ark would have been filled with food JUST for the 'elephant kind' - where's the math that rescues the ark tale?

Not if God put them in a state of hibernation or they were babies. If you figure out the CF of the ark and he average size of the animals, there is plenty of room for food.

Let's see the numbers.

If you claim Miracle, you lose.

Unless your can prove there is not an omnipotent God, you lose.

 

[omega2xx]

False dichotomy.

Let's pretend that Robert Hazen has not produced dozens of papers on Origin of Life research, and (for the sake of discussion) there is no evidence whatsoever for a natural origin of life.

This does NOT mean Jehovah wins.

It means there is no evidence for a natural origin of life.

In order for Jehovah-creation to be the answer, it has to be demonstrated by at the very least there being some kind of empirical evidence.

It is not that there is no evidence. It is impossible for lifeless elements to produce life. Even science admits that.

Jehovah the Intelligent Designer wins.

 

[omega2xx]

Go check your study notes (as if!).

Not necessary for those who understand even basic genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

It's a model that predicts the physical universe we observe better than any other; i.e. the evidence is its remarkable fit with reality. That's good enough.

Then present the evidence. Your rhetoric is not evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

I sympathise with your lack of understanding.

I sympathise with your ignorance of what constitutes scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, and it would be easy to provide you with examples of organisms that did change over time because of these processes.


Negatory, common descent is that, say, horses and willow trees at some point in the past shared a common ancestor. Note the "in the past" part. Common descent isn't even a process in and of itself, it is a conclusion made based on the fact that every living organism sequenced thus far shares too much genetic and physiological similarity with everything else to reasonably be concluded as a product of chance. It is still an evaluation of the past, not what will occur in the future. Common descent doesn't mean that the horse was predestined to exist.

-_- as a wingnut that doesn't entirely support common descent, it makes me really annoyed that I have to explain anything about it to you, but your conclusion was so inaccurate I couldn't ignore it.



"Kind" doesn't even mean the same thing from creationist to creationist, so please, use genus or whatever organization of taxonomy you think matches up with your ideal of "kind" best rather than using the word "kind".

As a generic argument from me that fits regardless, organisms on this planet don't neatly fit in any boxes we make for them. That they are continuously changing makes any statements about transitions relatively arbitrary.

Look at this rainbow for me:

Unless you are colorblind, it's rather easy to tell the difference between the red farthest to the left and the violet farthest to the right. At no point on it does red become violet. However, where does red cease to be red and orange begins? Even if you want to get technical and use hexidecimal color codes, you'd inevitably notice that the red that comes right before the transition to orange is practically identical in appearance to the first orange, and that it is easier to distinguish it from the first red than it is to distinguish it from the first orange. Same goes for from orange to yellow, and so on and so forth all the way to violet. Everything in sequence is practically indistinguishable from the one before it and the one after it, but move far enough in either direction and you find different colors.

Now of course, most organisms don't leave behind a fossil record so complete that you even get the full range of colors, but sometimes you will find some that amount to colors like red-orange or blue-green, some so intermediate even that people constantly argue whether they should be categorized "with the blues or with the greens". Then you have human evolution, in which nearly all of the recent "blue to violet" transitions are accounted for apart from maybe one or two shades, but anything prior is far less complete. Even if the fossil record didn't have so many intermediate organisms, it would be unreasonable to conclude "only blue comes from blue" when you don't ever get to see the full rainbow.

All that verbage and no evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Unless your can prove there is not an omnipotent God, you lose.

That's a good move, demanding that an unfalsifiable proposition be falsified. Way to go, Omega.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't really understand what evolution preaches.

Haven't heard that one for a while.

For evolution to be true, at some point an A had to become a B, or there can be no evolution. That means at that time, the offspring was not the same species as its parents.

This is a bit OT, but since you seem to think that the world is bound by two-value propositional logic, I have a theological question for you. Back on the old Beliefnet there was a running creationist argument that unless God's will is also bound by two-valued logic His existence is impossible. do you subscribe to that belief?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I sympathise with your ignorance of what constitutes scientific evidence.

Meh. As a graduate scientist with a career in research (i.e. gathering scientific evidence), I know what constitutes evidence to the scientific community.

What are your credentials to pontificate on my knowledge of scientific evidence?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then present the evidence. Your rhetoric is not evidence.

Just Google the standard model of cosmology. It's all there waiting for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not necessary for those who understand even basic genetics.

Good - so, if you have the knowledge you claim, you should have no trouble seeing where you've gone wrong. Your posts suggest you don't.

 

[Snappy1]

You don't really understand what evolution preaches.

For evolution to be true, at some point an A had to become a B, or there can be no evolution. That means at that time, the offspring was not the same species as its parents.

This is pretty impressive.

 

[Speedwell]

This is pretty impressive.

Assuming that there is a "point."

 

[Hank77]

@Speedwell @HitchSlap @omega2xx @PsychoSarah

First let me say that I have Very little understanding of evolution at all, I'm old, even my college Biology 101 barely covered it. I just want to try to understand better and have a question to ask, so please everyone be patient and don't start accusing me of debating those more knowledgeable or of trying to teach anything. Thank you.

Based on a natural science program that I watched almost a year ago a fish that lives in lake, in Africa maybe, adapts to changes in the lake's environment. It's small mouth becomes large and it's tail and fins change as well, then it changes back when the environment returns to it's previous state.

Is this plastic change?
If the environment just stopped changing back, over a very long period of time, could plastic changes become genetic changes/or mutations?
If one where to separate this species of fish into two groups, one group while in small mouth form, the other while in large mouth form, could they eventually become different enough genetically that they could no longer reproduce together?
Could they now be genetically a separate species from the original fish in the lake that they came from?

I'm very sincere, so don't laugh too hard, I'll just do that for you right now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't really understand what evolution preaches.

For evolution to be true, at some point an A had to become a B, or there can be no evolution. That means at that time, the offspring was not the same species as its parents.

Lol! Good luck with that - considering that a species is defined at the population level...

Common descent preaches all life originated from one species, and you don't know what it was or what it became, but if it became the same species as its parents and that is always the case, how do we get diversity?

A slow accumulation of changes in the population over many generations, until it is sufficiently different from the original population to be considered a separate species.

I thought you said you knew about evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is impossible for lifeless elements to produce life. Even science admits that.

Wrong - there's an entire branch of science devoted to studying how life can emerge from the non-living.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Based on a natural science program that I watched almost a year ago a fish that lives in lake, in Africa maybe, adapts to changes in the lake's environment. It's small mouth becomes large and it's tail and fins change as well, then it changes back with the environment returns to it's previous state.

Is this plastic change?
If the environment just stopped changing back, over a very long period of time, could plastic changes become genetic changes/or mutations?
If one where to separate this species of fish into two groups, one group while in small mouth form, the other while in large mouth form, could they eventually become different enough genetically that they could no longer reproduce together?
Could they now be genetically a separate species from the original fish in the lake that they came from?

I'm assuming the programme was about cichlid fish, which are interesting examples of relatively rapid speciation. Here's an article that describes how their diverse speciation is driven by alterations in genes for vision, affected by the interaction between the varying turbidity of the water, the skin colouration, and mate selection: Ecological Speciation in Cichlids.