A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

New species can be developed over time by mutations to DNA. This takes into account that the definition for species has mutated many times and has 15 different meanings though.

They cannot.

It can range from any significant difference, to inability to cross breed. So "species" is the critical word. There are some dogs which cannot or do not cross breed. But they are not considered different species most of the time.

2 dogs is not evicdence of evolution.

 

[lasthero]

2 dogs is not evicdence of evolution.

Forget evolution for a second. Let's just talk about natural selection.

Do you understand how breeding works? Do you what it means? Do you grasp that much?

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV; I think most people including atheists here will attest that you do not insult fellow posters.As for having weird ideas..... Well Let's say at the least you keep us entertained.

Thank you, mzungu; I appreciate that.

No, I certainly don't intend to insult posters here.

It would be counterproductive.

 

[frogman2x]

Nobody ever said either of these things. This is some hardcore false-witness bearing.

Before you call someone a liar, you need to do your homework. In 1924 Alexander Oparin suggested the first life form came out of a primordial soup when all of the elements were right. If had know about DNA he would not have made such an ignornat statement. By extention the evos of today say the first life fomr was some single celled something. Since all life forms have DNA they are saying it formed itself. That was the theory before DNA was PROVEN. If what we know today was known then that person woulld not have made such an ignorant statement.

Since you are an expert in evolution, tell me what the 2nd, 3rd and 4th life forms were. I will put on my prophets hat and predict you will not tell me because no one knows. You starter with a guess, and not a very good one, and keep guessing, hoping someone will believe it. Darwin and his fundamentalist disciples have been duping people for years.

 

[frogman2x]

No, it hasn't.

Then why do you use it to try and make your case?

 

[frogman2x]

Everything in there is a biological explanation. If it deals with biology, it's a biological explanation.<<

It is not. Prove me wrong.

Do you even understand what the word 'biological' means?

Yes. Evidentlay you don't.

 

[frogman2x]

Forget evolution for a second. Let's just talk about natural selection.

Do you understand how breeding works? Do you what it means? Do you grasp that much?

Don't be so condescending. If you have a question ask it. I will ask you one. Has any breeding ever produced something other than its kind? If you say yes, provide the biological evidence as to HOW it happened.

 

[frogman2x]

I did. Other people have. How are the things in the link I provided not examples? <<

You did not. No one has. All y ou did was give the usual evo rhetoric. Prove me wrong.

>>
Did you actually click on the link? Do you even know how?<<

No I didn't. I ask YOU to give me an example


Pretending to be stupid is not an adequate rebuttal, no matter how naturally it comes to you.

Being stupid is worse than pretending, no matter how naturally it comes to you.

 

[lasthero]

Before you call someone a liar

I didn't call you a liar.

In 1924 Alexander Oparin suggested the first life form came out of a primordial soup when all of the elements were right

After looking him up, I can't find any indication that said he suggested what came out of the 'soup' had DNA, which you claimed he said.

If had know about DNA

But he didn't, so how could he propose that whatever came out of the 'soup' had DNA? Your statements aren't even consistent.

Since all life forms have DNA they are saying it formed itself.

Firstly, that's not correct. All life forms we're aware of have DNA. That doesn't mean they all do. Also depends on what you call 'life'.,

Secondly, no one ever proposed that DNA just popped into existence.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it. You don't have to accept any of it, but at least argue what's actually being propose, not some ridiculous parody of it.

That was the theory before DNA was PROVEN.

DNA was never PROVEN. There is no 'proof' in science. Read a book.

Since you are an expert in evolution

I never said I was. I have a high school level understanding of it on my best day. But that's still leagues above someone who knows less than nothing about it - you.

tell me what the 2nd, 3rd and 4th life forms were.

I can't. As far as I understand, they were likely simplistic, single celled organisms. But my inability to name them doesn't actually demonstrate them. It in no way invalidates the mountain of research into evolutionary theory. What's your point?

Darwin and his fundamentalist disciples have been duping people for years.

Projection at its finest.

Then why do you use it to try and make your case?

It's strong evidence. Evidence doesn't have to be 100% proven. In fact, it never is. Do you understand the concept of 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt'?

It is not. Prove me wrong.

You want me to prove that a explanation that deals with biology is, by definition, a biological explanation?

What would you consider a biological explanation to be, if not an explanation that deals with biology?

If you have a question ask it

I did ask a question. Do you understand how breeding works?

Has any breeding ever produced something other than its kind?

Focus, dude. We're talking about natural selection, which you're claiming can't happen. Let's focus on that, for a moment. Do you accept that it's possible to breed animals for specific traits? Because if natural selection wasn't possible, if it wasn't possible to select specific traits in an animal and change them over time by encouraging these traits in mating, breeding wouldn't be possible. If it's not possible to, say, creating a rabbit population to have stronger legs over time by selecting rabbits with traits that give stronger legs, then breeding can't work, because that's essentially what breeding is. Do you understand at least that much?

 

[OllieFranz]

Don't be so condescending. If you have a question ask it. I will ask you one. Has any breeding ever produced something other than its kind? If you say yes, provide the biological evidence as to HOW it happened.

"Kind" is not a scientific term. Did yo mean species? Clade? Genus? Breed (sub-species)? Or something else, entirely?

 

[CabVet]

2 dogs is not evicdence of evolution.

Yes, it is.

 

[Smidlee]

This video contains a wonderful explanation of natural selection:
How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I - YouTube
?

You need watched the linked where Noble showed the Central Dogma has been proven false.
Also natural selection cannot detect small genetic changes require for evolution. As one scientist put it it's like trying to feel a pea while on top of a pile of mattresses. This is why some evolutionist scientist question how useful natural selection really is and can it select over plain bad luck.

 

[CabVet]

Also natural selection cannot detect small genetic changes require for evolution.

This is 100% false. Small genetic changes were not only detected but can be observed in real time. You have no idea what you are talking about.

For the millionth time, try to learn about evolution before you attempt to "debunk" it. Erroneous statements like the one you just made only damage your cause.

 

[Smidlee]

This is 100% false. Small genetic changes were not only detected but can be observed in real time. You have no idea what you are talking about.

For the millionth time, try to learn about evolution before you attempt to "debunk" it. Erroneous statements like the one you just made only damage your cause.

We are not talking about small changes being observed but becoming fitted in a population by natural selection and not something already programmed in the cell.

 

[CabVet]

We are not talking about small changes being observed but becoming fitted in a population by natural selection and not something already programmed in the cell.

That's not what you said, is it?

Also natural selection cannot detect small genetic changes require for evolution.

But keep moving your goalpost, there is evidence for mutations becoming fixed in a population as well, plenty of it. Next false claim?

 

[Smidlee]

That's not what you said, is it?



But keep moving your goalpost, there is evidence for mutations becoming fixed in a population as well, plenty of it. Next false claim?

A good example of natural selection is when bacteria is being attacked by antibiotics it start to change it's DNA at hot spots as well as sending the SOS to other bacteria to do the same. The bacteria who happens to find the right combination to break the antibiotic hold survives and those that don't dies. Usually this come with a cost ; slower reproduction.
What evolution needs is small changes which will add up over a long time which will transform a leg into a fin. Since these small changes are not a matter of life or death natural selection can't select them.

 

[lasthero]

as well as sending the SOS to other bacteria to do the same.

Exactly how do they send this 'SOS' to other bacteria?

 

[CabVet]

A good example of natural selection is when bacteria is being attacked by antibiotics it start to change it's DNA at hot spots as well as sending the SOS to other bacteria to do the same. The bacteria who happens to find the right combination to break the antibiotic hold survives and those that don't dies. Usually this come with a cost ; slower reproduction.

And what exactly is the name given for changes in DNA?

Here is a hint: they don't do it on purpose.

Another hint: bacteria don't send SOS.

What evolution needs is small changes which will add up over a long time which will transform a leg into a fin. Since these small changes are not a matter of life or death natural selection can't select them.

Another erroneous statement. Small changes are a matter of life and death. Sickle cell disease is caused by a point mutation (that is a mutation in a single DNA base, you cannot get any smaller than that) and it is a cause of life (in areas where malaria is common) and death (where malaria is not common). There are hundreds of other examples.

By all means, keep moving your goalposts and trying again, this is starting to get fun.

 

[Smidlee]

Exactly how do they send this 'SOS' to other bacteria?

Probably the same way our immune system does.

 

[CabVet]

Probably the same way our immune system does.

Are you really comparing bacteria to cells in our immune system? Here is a thought: try to understand your subjects before making statements about them.