Another analogy

[peace4ever]

The story of evolution can be demonstrated by this simple analogy: hypothetical: If dogs once ruled the world, then it would be a logical assumption that humans could have come from dogs. Here's how it could have happened:

The genes of dogs simply changed (mutated) into the genes of humans. Since mutations exist in reality, then my claim is true. It would have to have taken hundreds of thousands of years for that to happen so humans are hundreds of thousands of years old. So the "What if" has turned to "it is" simply because the author has thought through his story logically.

That's exactly how the story of evolution was concocted. From an imaginary premise, Darwin concocted a story that could make his premise sound believable as every sciencie fiction writer does. And since his premise is so impossible, then his story is as voluminous as "Lord of the Rings" in a vain attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. But since the premise is hypothetical (imaginary) then no matter how logically and well thought through the conclusion is, the conclusion can only be as hypothetical (imaginary) as the premise is.

And that's what people, including scientists don't understand.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Evolution. is. not. linear.

Tree model! Common ancestors!

 

[Mallon]

We could easily test your scenario by examining whether dog and human DNA is more similar to each other than either is to other animal DNA. After all, if dogs and humans share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other animals, then their DNA should reflect that similarity. Likewise, the details of our skeletons should be most similar as well.
It turns out that such a scenario cannot be substantiated because human DNA and phenotype is most similar to that of a chimp. Thus, your idea that dogs gave rise to humans is falsified by science and your analogy is moot.

 

[peace4ever]

We could easily test your scenario by examining whether dog and human DNA is more similar to each other than either is to other animal DNA. After all, if dogs and humans share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other animals, then their DNA should reflect that similarity. Likewise, the details of our skeletons should be most similar as well.
It turns out that such a scenario cannot be substantiated because human DNA and phenotype is most similar to that of a chimp. Thus, your idea that dogs gave rise to humans is falsified by science and your analogy is moot.

Sorry but "if's" are hypotheticals which are imaginary scenarios that don't exist in the real world. If they did exist in the real world, they wouldn't be "if's'. "If's" are what science fiction is based on.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists are so intent on duping the world that animals can turn into people, then they neglect the obvious fact that most animals and humans have to have similar DNA because in order to live in the environment that God created, land animals and humans have to be able to; eat, breathe, reproduce themselves, drink water and protect themselves to survive. So they both have to have the following:

1) A brain
2) a heart
3) A respiratory system
4) Lungs
5) A circulatory system
6) A reproductive system
7) Limbs
8) eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth
9) Skin
10) A digestive system

And on and on and on. So of course there will be similar traits between animals and humans! So claiming that similar traits between animals and humans means one can breed the other is a perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation which scientists do all the time.

 

[pgp_protector]

And yet another poster with no understanding of evolution

 

[peace4ever]

that's because evolutionary scientists don't even understand evolution since it's a fairy tale. That's why there are zero accounts of transitional species by anyone in history. So the criteria for science is making up stories that can't be verified by any outside witnesses of events that don't happen in reality. That's the exact definition of a delusion. Point made.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry but "if's" are hypotheticals which are imaginary scenarios that don't exist in the real world. If they did exist in the real world, they wouldn't be "if's'. "If's" are what science fiction is based on.

If it's the term "if" you have a problem with, then you should turn off your computer and go live in a cave somewhere because ALL of science takes the form of "IF x is true, then prediction y should be observed." This is called hypothesis testing. It's the methodology of science. And someone who rejects science yet revels in the fruits of its labor is a hypocrite.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists are so intent on duping the world that animals can turn into people, then they neglect the obvious fact that most animals and humans have to have similar DNA because in order to live in the environment that God created, land animals and humans have to be able to; eat, breathe, reproduce themselves, drink water and protect themselves to survive. So they both have to have the following:

1) A brain
2) a heart
3) A respiratory system
4) Lungs
5) A circulatory system
6) A reproductive system
7) Limbs
8) eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth
9) Skin
10) A digestive system

And on and on and on. So of course there will be similar traits between animals and humans! So claiming that similar traits between animals and humans means one can breed the other is a perfect example of jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation which scientists do all the time.

Ahhh... but evolution isn't inferred based only on the similarity of organisms, but on the distribution of similarity and differences among organisms. This is what we mean when we talk about the nested hierarchy of life (e.g., all animals with placentas are mammals but not all mammals have placentas, all mammals have vertebrae but not all vertebrates are mammals, all vertebrates are bilaterally symmetrical but not all bilaterians are vertebrates, etc.). Only evolution explains this pattern. Creation ex nihilo does not. You can learn about the details here:
YouTube - Why "Same Designer, Same Genes" is not a valid argument.

 

[peace4ever]

Again, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation. How do you know that each animal wasn't created that way? You don't. So you jump to the conclusion that similarities between animals and humans means one can breed the other as descendants when that doesn't happen in reality.

So again, the criteria for claiming that evolution is a fact is making up stories that no one in history can verify of events that don't happen in reality. Again, that's the exact definition of a delusion.

 

[Mallon]

Again, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an observation. How do you know that each animal wasn't created that way? You don't. So you jump to the conclusion that similarities between animals and humans means one can breed the other as descendants when that doesn't happen in reality.

So again, the criteria for claiming that evolution is a fact is making up stories that no one in history can verify of events that don't happen in reality. Again, that's the exact definition of a delusion.

Perhaps you can use creationism to explain the pattern I just described, then. Why do all animals with hair have vertebrae, but not all animals with vertebrae have hair? Why do all animals with vertebrae have bilateral symmetry, but not all bilaterally symmetrical animals have vertebrae? Why do all animals with bilateral symmetry have organized tissues, but not all animals with organized tissues have bilateral symmetry? How do you account for such a branching hierarchy in the pattern of life? What process accounts for this pattern?

 

[peace4ever]

Perhaps you can use creationism to explain the pattern I just described, then. Why do all animals with hair have vertebrae, but not all animals with vertebrae have hair? Why do all animals with vertebrae have bilateral symmetry, but not all bilaterally symmetrical animals have vertebrae? Why do all animals with bilateral symmetry have organized tissues, but not all animals with organized tissues have bilateral symmetry? How do you account for such a branching hierarchy in the pattern of life? What process accounts for this pattern?

The answer is very simple; because God created animals each to their own kind. And all animals only reproduce themselves which is why the term is "reproduction", not producing other animals. That's exactly how the world works. So reality confirms the bible and it does not confirm evolution.

 

[Mallon]

The answer is very simple; because God created animals each to their own kind. And all animals only reproduce themselves which is why the term is "reproduction", not producing other animals. That's exactly how the world works. So reality confirms the bible and it does not confirm evolution.

You didn't answer my question. What process accounts for the nested hierarchical pattern of life? "God did it" is not an explanation. If I asked you why the sky was blue and you answered "because God made it that way", you haven't really answered my question.

 

[peace4ever]

You didn't answer my question. What process accounts for the nested hierarchical pattern of life? "God did it" is not an explanation. If I asked you why the sky was blue and you answered "because God made it that way", you haven't really answered my question.

The process is called reproduction. Each animal reproduces itself, that's why it's called RE-production. It's as simple as observing what cows, horses, humans, apes, giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, zebras, etc breed. They each re-produce themselves. Thus one CANNOT breed the other. One thus cannot be the descendants of the other. that's as imaginary as claiming that humans came from aliens. Thus, evolution is a bold-faced lie.

 

[crawfish]

The process is called reproduction. Each animal reproduces itself, that's why it's called RE-production. It's as simple as observing what cows, horses, humans, apes, giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, zebras, etc breed. They each re-produce themselves. Thus one CANNOT breed the other. One thus cannot be the descendants of the other. that's as imaginary as claiming that humans came from aliens. Thus, evolution is a bold-faced lie.

Have you ever been in a conversation with a nonbeliever who started to tell you everything that was wrong with the bible, quoting verses they'd seen on some website, and forcing the conclusion that it cannot be true? They take verses out of context, disregard culture and use questionable or outright wrong interpretations. It is obvious that, despite being able to quote a few scriptures verbatim, that they really have very little understanding of scripture at all.

I say this in the kindest way possible: this is exactly what you sound like right now. It is called a "strawman" argument - you build up a straw man, or caricature, of what you want to criticize, apply simplistic and easy-to-argue attributes to it, and wail away. The caricature is not the thing. I suggest you either do some more study of the topic (Mark Kennedy would be a great resource for you) or avoid the topic altogether.

 

[peace4ever]

Have you ever been in a conversation with a nonbeliever who started to tell you everything that was wrong with the bible, quoting verses they'd seen on some website, and forcing the conclusion that it cannot be true? They take verses out of context, disregard culture and use questionable or outright wrong interpretations. It is obvious that, despite being able to quote a few scriptures verbatim, that they really have very little understanding of scripture at all.

I say this in the kindest way possible: this is exactly what you sound like right now. It is called a "strawman" argument - you build up a straw man, or caricature, of what you want to criticize, apply simplistic and easy-to-argue attributes to it, and wail away. The caricature is not the thing. I suggest you either do some more study of the topic (Mark Kennedy would be a great resource for you) or avoid the topic altogether.

The difference is that reality confirms the bible and/or the events in the bible have been witnessed. So you have no case when you make up stories that don't happen in reality and that no one in history has either witnessed, nor passed along accounts of your story. That again, is the definition of a fairy tale.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The process is called reproduction. Each animal reproduces itself, that's why it's called RE-production. It's as simple as observing what cows, horses, humans, apes, giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, zebras, etc breed. They each re-produce themselves. Thus one CANNOT breed the other. One thus cannot be the descendants of the other. that's as imaginary as claiming that humans came from aliens. Thus, evolution is a bold-faced lie.

What happens when species mutate so far apart they can longer interbreed? Oh and yes, it does happen today and has been observed. Creationists do accept "adaptation."

Oh, and you also haven't defined what a "kind" is. To me, there seems to be an awful lot of mixture and changes between these "kinds."

 

[peace4ever]

What happens when species mutate so far apart they can longer interbreed? Oh and yes, it does happen today and has been observed. Creationists do accept "adaptation."

Oh, and you also haven't defined what a "kind" is. To me, there seems to be an awful lot of mixture and changes between these "kinds."

You can't say that unless you know for a fact they used to be the same species. So for example, looking at a giraffe and claiming it used to be an elephant is not only a fantasy, it's a ludicrous fantasy because no one has ever observed a giraffe turning into an elephant or breeding descendants who are elephants in reality. So once again, the imagination is considered evidence in science.

 

[Mallon]

The process is called reproduction. Each animal reproduces itself, that's why it's called RE-production. It's as simple as observing what cows, horses, humans, apes, giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, zebras, etc breed. They each re-produce themselves. Thus one CANNOT breed the other. One thus cannot be the descendants of the other. that's as imaginary as claiming that humans came from aliens. Thus, evolution is a bold-faced lie.

Animal's aren't perfect reproducers, though. No offspring looks exactly as its parent. And given enough time and enough accumulation of mutations, a population of one species can become reproductively isolated and produce an entirely new species. We see this happen even today. Heck, even the creation museum in Kentucky teaches this, otherwise they can't fit all the world's species on the ark:
YouTube - The Creation Museum Teaches Super Evolution

 

[peace4ever]

Animal's aren't perfect reproducers, though. No offspring looks exactly as its parent.

Traits vary within each species. But cows don't turn into goats or breed descendants who are goats, turkeys don't turn into elephants, and no animal tunrs into a human or breeds human descendants whether over 9 moths or a gazillion years! That does not happen in reality because one animal does not carry the genes of another animal. A couple has to be able to breed together and exchange genes before he can pass any mutations on to his descendants. Thinking that "maybe they could" is called science fiction, not science.

So you really need to learn the difference between science and science fiction. But you, like the rest of us, have been so brainwashed since we were children that what happens in the imagination actually happens in reality, that the "what if humans came from monkeys or fictitious animals" has turned into monkeys did breed human descendants in reality!

But again, since scientists don't even know what turned into what, then they don't know the origin of man and their story is as made up as any science fiction book or movie. And it's not even good science fiction since Darwin doesn't even know his main characters so he can't possibly know what kind of descendants they were capable or producing. A very bad science fiction story cannot make a good true story.

 

[Mallon]

Traits vary within each species.

That's right. And some of that variation is selected against by the environment to produce populations that become canalized and reproductively isolated to produce new species. This is basic high-school evolutionary ecology.

But cows don't turn into goats or breed descendants who are goats, turkeys don't turn into elephants, and no animal tunrs into a human or breeds human descendants whether over 9 moths or a gazillion years!

NO ONE IS SAYING THEY DO! Again, this is you misconstruing what evolutionary scientists say. Why do you have to so dishonest and make up lies like that?

So you really need to learn the difference between science and science fiction.

I am a published scientist.

But again, since scientists don't even know what turned into what, then they don't know the origin of man and their story is as made up as any science fiction book or movie. And it's not even good science fiction since Darwin doesn't even know his main characters so he can't possibly know what kind of descendants they were capable or producing. A very bad science fiction story cannot make a good true story.

Believe what you will. I'm done talking to the wall.

 

[peace4ever]

That's right. And some of that variation is selected against by the environment to produce populations that become canalized and reproductively isolated to produce new species. This is basic high-school evolutionary ecology.

Not only can you not know that unless you actually see one species turn into or breed another, your statement is impossible because one animal does not carry the genes of another animal. And that is precisely why; Bears breed bears, apes breed apes, giraffes breed giraffes, elephants breed elephants humans breed humans in reality.

So imagining that one animal can breed the descendants of another animal is again, called science fiction, not science. So again, you can be rest assured that your descendants will be human, not be another mutant animal.