Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Speedwell]

We lost because we didn't have any evidence. I want to see Omega's evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

I you can't demonstrate what you believe, why should I (or anyone else, for that matter) care about what you believe?



Slow gazelle = less chance of escaping fast lion.
Fast gazelle = more chance of escaping fast lion.

Natural selection: favours fast gazelles.

Done.

Your usual parroting the usual evo nonsense. There is no gene for fast gazelle ans slow gazelle. Even if there was, the fast gazelle would still produce gazelles. No evolution in that guess. I can prove after their kind and you cant falsify it.

Is it? Then why are you insisting on countering the science with religious claims about gods that, as per your own acknowledgement, are unfalsifiable, unprovable and unsupportable?

I only mention God creating it all because it is the most logical explanation. You won' even of an explanation.

No. Evolution needs to explain to origins of species. And it does. Very elegantly and in testable ways.

Your usual rhetoric with not evidence.

You can't agree to this and at the same time demand that evolution explains the origins of life. That is in contradiction.[/QUOTE]

Its amusing that when you have no answer, you call my asking, demanding.

You would if you could but your cant.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm sorry, but how are those examples of a kind?
You do know that corn, robins and bass are all sub-species of grains, birds and fish respectively, right?

They are not. They are distinct and separate.

 

[omega2xx]

If your 'logic' was correct, we could never achieve more than we've already achieved.

Research takes time, be it manned flight or power from nuclear fission. All the principle elements for life have been achieved empirically in appropriate environments, including self-assembly of vesicles, RNA, basic metabolic pathways, etc. They have not yet been combined into a complete system.

“If someone says: "That's impossible."
You should understand it as: "According to my very limited experience and narrow understanding of reality, that's very unlikely"” - Paul Buchheit

Every year we achieve more than they did last year.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are not. They are distinct and separate.

No, they're all sub-species.
All corn is grain but not all grain is corn.
All robins are birds but not all birds are robins.
All bass are fish but not all fish are bass.

 

[omega2xx]

Huh...

It is tremendously different.

How

Well see, I got it from creationists! For the flood is claimed to have occurred about 4000 years ago, and thus all extant diversity had to have arisen from a breeding pair (or 7 clean pairs) of 'kinds' off the ark.

But thanks for admitting it is make-believe.

If you think I said it was make believe, you need a course in remedial reading comprehension.

Did God do this?

Chapter and verse please.


Actually, I was working from these values and the known amount of food and water consumption of elephants.

I know that creationists like to try to impress people with big numbers, but they seem to calculate the volume of the ark based solely on its supposed external dimensions - I've never seen such an estimate that took into account things like the floors, internal walls and supports, etc.

Unless you can prove evolution did not occur, you lose.

And by the way - as I will be adopting the techniques of evangelicals, I will dismiss or reject any of the 'proof' you provide![/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

Huh...

It is tremendously different.



Well see, I got it from creationists! For the flood is claimed to have occurred about 4000 years ago, and thus all extant diversity had to have arisen from a breeding pair (or 7 clean pairs) of 'kinds' off the ark.

But thanks for admitting it is make-believe.



Did God do this?

Chapter and verse please.


Actually, I was working from these values and the known amount of food and water consumption of elephants.

I know that creationists like to try to impress people with big numbers, but they seem to calculate the volume of the ark based solely on its supposed external dimensions - I've never seen such an estimate that took into account things like the floors, internal walls and supports, etc.

Unless you can prove evolution did not occur, you lose.

And by the way - as I will be adopting the techniques of evangelicals, I will dismiss or reject any of the 'proof' you provide!

I can prove after their kind. That refutes evolution and unless you can falsify it, you lose.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can prove after their kind. That refutes evolution and unless you can falsify it, you lose.

I highly doubt you can prove 'after their kind'.

 

[omega2xx]

Interesting - surely you are not implying that YOU do?

I have taught genetics for a few years - show me what you think you know!

You only teach what you have been taught be other evos and you can't genetically prove how dog=like land animal eventually became a whale.

What deteremines if the offspring will have bones?

 

[omega2xx]

I highly doubt you can prove 'after their kind'.

Are you serious? You can prove it yourself. Plan some corn and in abut 90 days, not only will you ALWAYSY get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted. If you don't understand that, thee is no hope for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you serious? You can prove it yourself. Plan some corn and in abut 90 days, not only will you ALWAYSY get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted. If you don't understand that, thee is no hope for you.

You show a seriously poor understanding of evolutionary theory. Hint: what you just said is not what evolutionary theory espouses. POPULATIONS evolve NOT INDIVIDUALS.

 

[tas8831]

I can prove after their kind. That refutes evolution and unless you can falsify it, you lose.

OK. Prove it. Show me the genetic data that supports your position and not anything else.

 

[tas8831]

Huh...

It is tremendously different.

How

Really?

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

to which you replied:

"That is no different than the great number of dog varieties in the same length of time."

Are you really going to stand on your implied claim of there being 350,000 "sub-baramina" of dog?

Do you now see the pickle that your breed of "argument" gets you into?

Well see, I got it from creationists! For the flood is claimed to have occurred about 4000 years ago, and thus all extant diversity had to have arisen from a breeding pair (or 7 clean pairs) of 'kinds' off the ark.

But thanks for admitting it is make-believe.

If you think I said it was make believe, you need a course in remedial reading comprehension.

I am just going by what you wrote:

"Where did you get 4000 years? You just made that up with no evidence. Evolutionist have gotten very good at make believe."

to which I replied:

"Well see, I got it from creationists! For the flood is claimed to have occurred about 4000 years ago, and thus all extant diversity had to have arisen from a breeding pair (or 7 clean pairs) of 'kinds' off the ark."

Do you not even know the story YOU are promulgating?

Did God do this?

Chapter and verse please.

Are you saying God did not flood the earth? We agree!

Actually, I was working from these values and the known amount of food and water consumption of elephants.

I know that creationists like to try to impress people with big numbers, but they seem to calculate the volume of the ark based solely on its supposed external dimensions - I've never seen such an estimate that took into account things like the floors, internal walls and supports, etc.

Unless you can prove evolution did not occur, you lose.

And by the way - as I will be adopting the techniques of evangelicals, I will dismiss or reject any of the 'proof' you provide!

I think you meant to omit the above - for you did not even try to address it.

This is what happens when you 'argue via knee-jerk.'

 

[tas8831]

duplicate

 

[Speedwell]

Are you serious? You can prove it yourself. Plan some corn and in abut 90 days, not only will you ALWAYSY get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted. If you don't understand that, thee is no hope for you.

You will get a range of variants, some similar to other varieties. This range will be a random or "bell curve" distribution--the "random" in random variation and natural selection.

 

[tas8831]

You only teach what you have been taught be other evos and you can't genetically prove how dog=like land animal eventually became a whale.

On the one hand, of course I teach what I have been taught. It is quite stupid, frankly, to think any one person can do everything.

I have, however, done original published research. One of my papers was cited in the 2nd Edition of Doug Futuyma's textbook "Evolution." He did not cite it in the 3rd ed... razza frakken....


Regarding the dog=whale, you will first have to abandon your strawman.

What deteremines if the offspring will have bones?

A series of genes.

No magic required, if that is what you were getting at.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All bass are fish but not all fish are bass.

Except the double-bass >ba-dum tish!<

Reminds me of that Monty Python sketch with the annoying man who says "There's an interesting fact about the whale - do you know that the whale is not really a fish.... it's an insect"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your usual parroting the usual evo nonsense. There is no gene for fast gazelle ans slow gazelle. Even if there was, the fast gazelle would still produce gazelles. No evolution in that guess. I can prove after their kind and you cant falsify it.

Falsifying that, would make evolution false.
Gazelles producing anything other then gazelles, would falsify evolution.

Please learn what evolution is actually about, because this is becoming rather ridiculous.

I only mention God creating it all because it is the most logical explanation.

No. You say it, because that is what you believe as a religious creationist.

You won' even of an explanation.

You mean that you won't listen to one.

Your usual rhetoric with not evidence.

It's not rhetoric.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How do you know there has been an increase in entropy?

When work is done or available energy is reduced, entropy increases - it's basic thermodynamics. Roughly, disorder (entropy) tends to increase.

It is my understanding, which is limited, is that entropy cannot increase in a closed system

That's incorrect. Available energy cannot increase in a closed system, because entropy cannot decrease (statistically speaking). In practice, entropy always increases in a closed system.

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you serious? You can prove it yourself. Plan some corn and in abut 90 days, not only will you ALWAYSY get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted. If you don't understand that, thee is no hope for you.

I already showed you how corn has evolved back in January. Don't you think your "argument" must be particularly weak if you have to repeat the same erroneous points over and over? Did you forget or is this just another example of your dishonesty?

Please don't use your stock response of "pictures are not evidence", empirical evidence is laid out in the links below.

❉AlchemYegg AumniVerse❉ =alchemy - egg - am - universe=: Vegetable Corn Domestication Evolves in the Span of Ten Millennia Producing the Modern Varieties We See Today

Evolution of Corn

Beadle, G. W. (1980). The ancestry of corn. Scientific American, 242 (1), 112-119.

Doebley, J. Stec, A., Wendel, J., & Edwards, M. (1990). Genetic and morphological analysis of a maize-teosinte F2 population: Implications for the origin of maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87, 9888-9892.

Doebley, J. & Stec, A. (1993). Inheritance of the morphological differences between maize and teosinte: comparison of results for two F2 populations.Genetics, 134, 559-570.

Doebley, J., Stec, A. & Hubbard, L (1997). The evolution of apical dominance in maize. Nature, 386, 485-488. (subscription required)

Kane, N. & Rieseberg, L. (2005). Maize genetics: the treasure of the Sierra Madre. Current Biology, 15 (4), R137-R139.

Wang, H., Nussbaum-Wagler, T., Li, B., Zhao, Q., Vigourous, Y., Faller, M., Bomblies-Yant, K., Lukens, L. & Doebley, J. (2005). The origin of the naked grains of maize. Nature, 436, 714-719.

Illustrations on this page were based on photographs by Hugh Iltis and John Doebley, available from the Doebley lab website.

The archaeological progression of maize photo (Fig. 122 in MacNeish, Richard S. Prehistory of the Tehaucan Valley, V.1 - evolutionary sequence from circa 5000 BC to circa AD 1500) is re-published here by permission of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology.