Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Says the person that presents a fossil long down the line past that claimed split while being asked for a single common ancestor that split.... Not only off-topic, but then just now presents another off-topic rant.... All because his missing common ancestors are all imaginary and he can't provide one single one for one single creature for any evolutionary tree where any claimed split happened.

Your FAITH is strong....
Wow. See this post less than 24 hours ago in this very thread and in response to this same horrendous misrepresentation. Why are you so dishonest? Who do you think believes any of your refuted claims?
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's a start, now you can also concede that there exists none for any creature. That its all based upon imagination....

As has been explained, your request is unreasonable and dishonest, we cannot be certain of direct ancestral lines of organisms in the fossil record, even in the unlikely event that they have been preserved and then found.

And no, molecular biology is not based on imagination, as you should be aware, given people have been attempting to explain this to you for many years.

Why not start a thread about the topic instead of derailing this one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
As has been explained, your request is unreasonable and dishonest, we cannot be certain of direct ancestral lines of organisms in the fossil record, even in the unlikely event that they have been preserved and then found.

And no, molecular biology is not based on imagination, as you should be aware, given people have been attempting to explain this to you for many years.

Why not start a thread about the topic instead of derailing this one?
Yet despite not being able to be certain of anything.... you are absolutely certain humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor.....

What biology? Ahhh, you must be talking about the random comparison of snippets of DNA that for some reason is not allowed in any court of law to prove relationships or the guilt of a suspect. Instead a completely different test is used to prove ancestry........ You mean your "CLAIM" of using biology, which is actually pseudoscience, versus actual biology.... So back we go to imaginary claims that random comparisons prove relationship when it can't be used in any court to prove relationships.... goes along with those imaginary ancestors.....

Unreasonable? How many different fossil species do we have? You seem to be able to positively identify billions, but can't out of those billions identify one common ancestor for any of them????
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yet despite not being able to be certain of anything.... you are absolutely certain humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor.....

What biology? Ahhh, you must be talking about the random comparison of snippets of DNA that for some reason is not allowed in any court of law to prove relationships or the guilt of a suspect. Instead a completely different test is used to prove ancestry........ You mean your "CLAIM" of using biology, which is actually pseudoscience, versus actual biology.... So back we go to imaginary claims that random comparisons prove relationship when it can't be used in any court to prove relationships.... goes along with those imaginary ancestors.....

If you want to challange established science; go and write a article for peer-review. If you cant, well then your ”opinion” doesnt matter. Its all hot air.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
If you want to challange established science; go and write a article for peer-review. If you cant, well then your ”opinion” doesnt matter. Its all hot air.
Avoidance of reality won't change the fact that this test you claim is positively able to show relationship can't be used in any court of law to show relationship.

Ptolemy and his followers were following what they believed to be established science.....

Why until we sent a probe out to the heliosphere they claimed all their models that were falsified were established science.... despite all the peer reviewed articles all of them were wrong......

Your reliance on majority belief as if that proves your belief is correct is a known common fallacy.... The fact you can't use that belief in any court of law shows the fallacy for what it is..... Just belief and not proven science at all.....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Avoidance of reality won't change the fact that this test you claim is positively able to show relationship can't be used in any court of law to show relationship.

Ptolemy and his followers were following what they believed to be established science.....

Why until we sent a probe out to the heliosphere they claimed all their models that were falsified were established science.... despite all the peer reviewed articles all of them were wrong......

Your reliance on majority belief as if that proves your belief is correct is a known common fallacy.... The fact you can't use that belief in any court of law shows the fallacy for what it is..... Just belief and not proven science at all.....

Yeah yeah, you cant.

So, irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Yeah yeah, you cant.

So, irrelevant.
Whatever excuses you need to avoid the fact that your claimed science is nothing more than belief.... Not proven in any test to show actual relationship.... but I understand that pseudoscience is all they have to attempt to confirm their belief and so like you will continue to believe in pseudoscience....

What would be irrelevant is to continue to ignore fact, which you admit, then ignore the conclusion to what you understand to be true, simply to continue to hold a belief you know is false....
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Whatever excuses you need to avoid the fact that your claimed science is nothing more than belief.... Not proven in any test to show actual relationship.... but I understand that pseudoscience is all they have to attempt to confirm their belief and so like you will continue to believe in pseudoscience....

What would be irrelevant is to continue to ignore fact, which you admit, then ignore the conclusion to what you understand to be true, simply to continue to hold a belief you know is false....

If you want response, write that article!

Go get them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yet despite not being able to be certain of anything.... you are absolutely certain humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor.....

What biology? Ahhh, you must be talking about the random comparison of snippets of DNA that for some reason is not allowed in any court of law to prove relationships or the guilt of a suspect. Instead a completely different test is used to prove ancestry........ You mean your "CLAIM" of using biology, which is actually pseudoscience, versus actual biology.... So back we go to imaginary claims that random comparisons prove relationship when it can't be used in any court to prove relationships.... goes along with those imaginary ancestors.....

Unreasonable? How many different fossil species do we have? You seem to be able to positively identify billions, but can't out of those billions identify one common ancestor for any of them????

You've already "discussed" this over six pages of your own thread, go and re-read the answers you've been given there and stop wasting everyone's time.

Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You've already "discussed" this over six pages of your own thread, go and re-read the answers you've been given there and stop wasting everyone's time.

Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities
Apparently you need to reread them since you incorrectly brought up Lucy as the common ancestor. So we can basically disregard your claims of the other person not understanding....

What do you want to talk about instead? The unlimited genome variability that only manifests itself into variations within the same creature in limited subsets across all creatures?

Or would you prefer bacteria that remain bacteria despite claims of unlimited variation? Or fruit flies? Or dogs that contained variation within their genomes, yet as the variation seemed to increase, each breed became less and less variable???? And all stayed the same species?????

Which leads one to wonder if they actually know what they are talking about when they call bones in the fossil record separate species based upon those minute morphological differences......

You see, its not variation that is the problem, its claim that variation leads to a different species that is the problem.....

But i understand you want to change the subject since those common ancestors can't be found and are your only link to connection between creatures....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
And if it is of any use it will spread to the whole population.
Which happens individual by individual... but only in a very limited population....

Can you calculate the length of time for one of my children and their offspring to become the entire population in a world population of how many billions???? Can we just say NEVER....
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Apparently you need to reread them since you incorrectly brought up Lucy as the common ancestor. So we can basically disregard your claims of the other person not understanding....

I said nothing about anyone misunderstanding anything. I said your points have been addressed, multiple times. Is that incorrect?

What do you want to talk about instead? The unlimited genome variability that only manifests itself into variations within the same creature in limited subsets across all creatures?

How about the topic of the thread?

Or would you prefer bacteria that remain bacteria despite claims of unlimited variation? Or fruit flies? Or dogs that contained variation within their genomes, yet as the variation seemed to increase, each breed became less and less variable???? And all stayed the same species?????

Which leads one to wonder if they actually know what they are talking about when they call bones in the fossil record separate species based upon those minute morphological differences......

You see, its not variation that is the problem, its claim that variation leads to a different species that is the problem.....

All these points have been addressed, A cursory search reveals over 600 of your posts that discuss variation in dogs. It's been done to death

I'm am interested as to why you think that variation can't lead to speciation though.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I said nothing about anyone misunderstanding anything. I said your points have been addressed, multiple times. Is that incorrect?
If you count using incorrect facts as addressing them, then I guess I would have to say no....


How about the topic of the thread?
How about it since the seemingly unlimited variation has only addressed itself in a very limited subset....


All these points have been addressed, A cursory search reveals over 600 of your posts that discuss variation in dogs. It's been done to death

I'm am interested as to why you think that variation can't lead to speciation though.

Then why keep ignoring that variation that leads to the variation being the same species? If people stop ignoring what is right in front of their eyes and keep claiming missing ancestors split to become separate things, I wouldn't need to keep bringing up reality to counter the fantasy.....

Don't complain about what people bring upon themselves from ignoring the reality we see around us....

But it needn't be dogs. We can talk about deer remaining deer, bears remaining bears, squirrels remaining squirrels, bacteria remaining bacteria, humans remaining humans, take your pick....

In all cases of actual observation no new organs have formed. So yes, if you would like we can speculate all we like, as long as when we are through with our flights of fantasy we come back down to reality....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Contradiction

Active Member
Feb 27, 2019
70
11
Zagreb
✟19,348.00
Country
Croatia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How do you account for the fact that the theory of evolution is not only foundational to modern biology, it's also an applied science (including common ancestry) with real-world application?

Yet we never see this from biological industries where they have arguably the most vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible.

The only people claiming evolution is wrong are creationists and they are only doing so to protect their religious beliefs that they have set up to be contradicted by scientific findings. If anything it speaks to how fragile and nonsensical creationism is.

Foundational to modern biology? Are you saying that we cannot study living organisms and their morphology, physiology or anatomy unless we assume something which has never been observed - that mutational change of their genomes will result in previously non-existent organs and organ systems? Are you serious? Where do you even pull this nonsense from?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Foundational to modern biology? Are you saying that we cannot study living organisms and their morphology, physiology or anatomy unless we assume something which has never been observed - that mutational change of their genomes will result in previously non-existent organs and organ systems? Are you serious? Where do you even pull this nonsense from?
From ignoring reality and accepting theory over it..... it's why they complain about discussing reality....

Despite the fact that modern biology relies on the fact that no new organs will develop, that during heart surgery say, they can expect the same thing time after time after time..... and when they do find an error or change, have to correct it to keep the organism from dying....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If you count using incorrect facts as addressing them, then I guess I would have to say yes....

You might not accept the explanations, for whatever reason, but they have been presented to you. I think you're being very optimistic if you're expecting different responses this time.

How about it since the seemingly unlimited variation has only addressed itself in a very limited subset....

Have you got any examples?

Then why keep ignoring that variation that leads to the variation being the same species? If people stop ignoring what is right in front of their eyes and keep claiming missing ancestors split to become separate things, I wouldn't need to keep bringing up reality to counter the fantasy.....

Don't complain about what people bring upon themselves from ignoring the reality we see around us....

But that is not what the science tells us. Do you not accept that the timescales required for speciation or is it more to do with a genetic barrier of some sort?

But it needn't be dogs. We can talk about deer remaining deer, bears remaining bears, squirrels remaining squirrels, bacteria remaining bacteria, humans remaining humans, take your pick....

In all cases of actual observation no new organs have formed. So yes, if you would like we can speculate all we like, as long as when we are through with our flights of fantasy we come back down to reality....

But no one would expect to observe an new organ forming or a deer evolving into something else, it's just not something that the theory of evolution would predict to happen in the time that we've been studying them.

I know that you are aware of all this though, so I don't know what else to say.

I could post pictures of fossils showing variation over time leading to speciation (e.g Eohippus), I could post of phylogentetic trees, distribution of ERVs etc etc, but we've been there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums