Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[lesliedellow]

Who knows nothing about the birds and the bees? And in the example you wouldn't even have to know that. Most of us don't need "further investigation" or "extensive testing" to put the obvious together....most of us.

It wasn't me who offered it up as a supposed "proof".

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution is observable and testable. It is supported by an abundance of facts.

It's been tested and falsified. It's been shown not to happen. The mechanism for advancing a species does not exist in nature. The fossil record is entirely manipulated to show transition where none existed. What biology tells us is that there are limits of speciation beyond which sterility always occurs. There are boundaries to change.

What is the mechanism that stops a population from changing past the barrier that you seem to have put up? Could you point me towards the scientific research of this claim?

I think it has to do with chromosome sequencing. For example, mules are always sterile because the chromosomes don't match up. When the species is manipulated and cross bred too far the result is sterility. All breeders know this. Why? I'm not a biologist.

The term "Kind" is not used by any evolutionary biologists. Could you define in your own words the definition of "kind"?

Kind is a Biblical term meaning about the same as family. Remember that animals are classified in biology by certain characteristics. The Bible makes no such detailed classification. Likely all canines are one kind and felines are one kind. It could be more specific than that; wolves and coyotes being different for example. I suspect it's the broader classification because we have to keep in mind what all would fit into the ark.

New traits don't come about by magic. They are random mutations.

Except that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species.

Every new born has about 60-100 genetic mutations, most of them neutral. If one of these mutations is beneficial to the context of the environment, do you agree that this trait will be passed on to its offspring?

You're playing loose with the definition of "trait." If tall parents marry likely they will have tall children. If a child is born with a six fingers on one hand, usually that is not an inheritable trait. Howe3ver if neither parent had gills, the child will not have gills.

I must ask you again, at what point do these positive mutations stop adding up over generations within populations?

Benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species; not ever. There is more evidence for devolution than evolution. It's possible to lose information but not gain it.

So are you in agreement with the fact that evolution takes place in populations and not individuals?

I'm in agreement that evolution doesn't take place at all.

Favorable traits in a population of organisms are selected for and the negative traits are selected against.

Yes, selected from what currently exists. The fairy mutation mother doesn't magically impart new genetic information. It's a conservative process. When I go to the store and select items to purchase, I am not creating them.

There are over 1500 different species of fruit flies. Only deformities? Can you provide scientific literature to back that up?

...The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. source

Sorry. Evolution does not happen. Not even among bacteria.

 

[expos4ever]

Need examples of what you mean so I know exactly what you mean.

Experiment/challenge to anyone here:

Start reading at Genesis 1:1 and tell us at what verse we have to stop believing God meant exactly what he said and why.

How about this one:

"For you will go out with joy And be led forth with peace; The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their hands."

Are you suggesting that Isaiah means exactly what he says here? Do you expect to hear mountains and hills to actually sing?

 

[lesliedellow]

It's been tested and falsified. It's been shown not to happen. The mechanism for advancing a species does not exist in nature. The fossil record is entirely manipulated to show transition where none existed. What biology tells us is that there are limits of speciation beyond which sterility always occurs.

Nonsense. The only mutations which can affect fertility are, by definition, those which have an effect on the reproductive system. And if you knew anything at all about how evolution works, it would be completely obvious that harmful mutations there, even more than anywhere else, would not be selected for.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'll tell you what, Leslie. Why don't you sell your house, buy a ranch and invest your life savings into some young mules, then breed them and make a fortune. That sterility thing is just a myth.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'll tell you what, Leslie. Why don't you sell your house, buy a ranch and invest your life savings into some young mules, then breed them and make a fortune. That sterility thing is just a myth.

I wonder what that mini rant is supposed to be relevant to?

I have a feeling that he might be about to shoot himself in the foot.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'll tell you what, Leslie. Why don't you sell your house, buy a ranch and invest your life savings into some young mules, then breed them and make a fortune. That sterility thing is just a myth.

Breeding two separate species together is not evolution.... good grief. No wonder no one takes creationists seriously.

 

[KWCrazy]

Breeding two separate species together is not evolution.... good grief. No wonder no one takes creationists seriously.

It's an example of sterility caused by the formation of an animal too different from its origin to reproduce. I used the mule as an example because everyone knows mules are always sterile.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's an example of sterility caused by the formation of an animal too different from its origin to reproduce.

That's not how evolution works mate, populations change, not individuals. Maybe it would be a good idea to learn a bit about it before offering your critique.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's an example of sterility caused by the formation of an animal too different from its origin to reproduce. I used the mule as an example because everyone knows mules are always sterile.

Does he know how evolution works? No, he doesn't.

Why doesn't he know? Probably because he doesn't want to know.

 

[KWCrazy]

That's not how evolution works mate, populations change, not individuals.

Benevolent mutations do not and have never advanced a species mate; not even a lowly bacteria. Speciation is limited. Deviate too far from the norm and sterility is 100%. Maybe it would be a good idea to learn a bit about it before offering your critique.

 

[lesliedellow]

Benevolent mutations do not and have never advanced a species mate; not even a lowly bacteria. Speciation is limited. Deviate too far from the norm and sterility is 100%. Maybe it would be a good idea to learn a bit about it before offering your critique.

Benevolent mutations, by definition, increase an organism's reproductive success.

 

[KWCrazy]

Does he know how evolution works? .

Not a trick question, Leslie, evolution doesn't work. It's been tested and proven not to work. We couldn't even validate increasing complexity in a lowly bacteria, much less a fruit fly. There does not exist a process in nature for the auto-generation of new genetic information and the encoding of it into the reproductive system. It's all lies based on hopeful theories that never pan out. News flash: we were CREATED. We DID NOT evolve. While we share commonalities with chimps and 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil, our ancestors were neither chimps nor daffodils. Our true father is the Lord; Creator of the heavens and the earth; giver of all life and the source of all wisdom. Evolution is a lie; formulated and embraced by those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Father.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not a trick question, Leslie, evolution doesn't work. It's been tested and proven not to work. We couldn't even validate increasing complexity in a lowly bacteria, much less a fruit fly. There does not exist a process in nature for the auto-generation of new genetic information and the encoding of it into the reproductive system.

Evolution depends upon mutations in the genome, and that most definitely happens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_evolution

 

[expos4ever]

Benevolent mutations, by definition, increase an organism's reproductive success.

I do not deny this, but I suggest that the strategy of engaging those who deny evolution with technical arguments about biology will never work and is otherwise counterproductive.

When a person with good intentions engages an evolution-denier on the details of the relevant science, that well-intentioned person is unwittingly muffling (by omission) the much better argument: scientists are professionals who know better than you and I. I suspect the reality is that the "case" for evolution, while overwhelming, is very complex and requires expert knowledge.

Same with human-caused climate change, another massively supported theory that is largely rejected by Christians (and perhaps by others whose "religious" views are threatened by these ideas).

Once you start arguing the technical details, I suspect you cannot possibly win.

 

[lesliedellow]

I do not deny this, but I suggest that the strategy of engaging those who deny evolution with technical arguments about biology will never work and is otherwise counterproductive.

When a person with good intentions engages an evolution-denier on the details of the relevant science, that well-intentioned person is unwittingly muffling (by omission) the much better argument: scientists are professionals who know better than you and I. I suspect the reality is that the "case" for evolution, while overwhelming, is very complex and requires expert knowledge.

I was about to add to my previous post that, if a case could be made for six day creation, I was sure that people like Francis Collins, who describes himself as a Bible Believing Christian, would have no difficulty in making it.

Obviously, in his mouth that phrase does not imply the same crass literalism that it does in the case of YECs.

 

[KWCrazy]

Evolution depends upon mutations in the genome, and that most definitely happens.

Mutations do not advance a species or create new genetic information, as REAL science has demonstrated by testing fruitflies and bacteria. If it happened commonly enough to populate a world, it would be common enough to observe in a lab.

 

[KWCrazy]

Same with human-caused climate change, another massively supported theory that is largely rejected by Christians (and perhaps by others whose "religious" views are threatened by these ideas).

Of course, with "climate change" the "experts" got caught cooking the books and manipulating data, and all of their models have failed. One doesn't have to be religious to know that when people conspire to manipulate evidence that the evidence must go against their claims. We didn't go into an ice age in the late sixties, and we didn't melt down in the early 2000's. God is in control. Rest easy.

 

[lesliedellow]

Mutations do not advance a species or create new genetic information, as REAL science has demonstrated by testing fruitflies and bacteria. If it happened commonly enough to populate a world, it would be common enough to observe in a lab.

Will you stop repeating the same old nonsense?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_evolution

 

[KWCrazy]

I was about to add to my previous post that, if a case could be made for six day creation, I was sure that people like Francis Collins, who describes himself as a Bible Believing Christian, would have no difficulty in making it.

I prefer what Christ had to say on the subject. He was very adamant that the Scriptures were accurate and that man should live by them; as he said it, "by every word that comes from the mouth of God." So you can call yourself a Bible believing Christian while rejecting most of Genesis if you want. Personally, I believe, as the Lord believed, that the real knowledge is found in the Scriptures. You can continue to pretend you evolved it you wanted. I know better.