Darwin Confesses evolution not being conceivable!

[SirKenin]

Keep in mind, I recentally lost my faith. I was an ardent believer in Christ-until I woke up and figured out there wasn't any evidence of a personal deity. So if you have evidence, quit stalling.

Do you know why you don't "throw pearls to pigs"? (Matthew 7:6)

 

[SirKenin]

Wrong. Evolution is observable. Repeatable is a little trickier, since the evolutionary process is such that become of the dynamics of the environment, one will never get the same results. We can thank Chaos Theory for that. But plenty of lab experiments have been carried out with regards to evolution. Last time I did a PubMed search for "evolution" I received over 120 000 research papers on the subject.

To the best of my knowledge, they have not been able to reproduce the theory of evolution in the labs. They can't even get an amoeba to evolve, even under perfect conditions.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you know why you don't "throw pearls to pigs"? (Matthew 7:6)

Because you have no pearls to throw?

 

[LadyShea]

To the best of my knowledge, they have not been able to reproduce the theory of evolution in the labs. They can't even get an amoeba to evolve, even under perfect conditions.

Bacteria evolve in labs all the time as do viruses. Individual organisms don't evolve, populations do.

 

[JohnR7]

I know I couldn't live in heaven if my fellow humans were suffering eternal torture in hell.

What are you doing to help people who are suffering right now?

What are you doing in regards to the hungry, thisty & the naked?

Matthew 25:37-40
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? [38] When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? [39] Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' [40] And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

Righteous people do care about their fellow humans.

 

[SirKenin]

Bacteria evolve in labs all the time as do viruses. Individual organisms don't evolve, populations do.

Not really. They still remain the same virii. They just develop an immunity to whatever was attacking them, perhaps.

 

[JohnR7]

Because you have no pearls to throw?

Does anyone care anything about pearls now a days?

 

[SirKenin]

Because you have no pearls to throw?

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

If you have understanding....If you have discernment....If you have wisdom you will understand what this verse is saying and how it applies.

 

[armed2010]

Not really. They still remain the same virii. Just immune to whatever was attacking them, perhaps.

You do realise that the change is considerd evolution, right?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Not really. They still remain the same virii. Just immune to whatever was attacking them, perhaps.

Biological evolution is simply a change in gene frequencies over generations. This has been observed so many times, anyone who claims that evolution has not been observed is just ignorant of what biological evolution actually is.

Now, you're probably going to drag out the whole macro/micro evolution bit, but even macroevolution (as defined as evolution between species; i.e. a population of one species giving rise to a new species) has been observed. Check the T.O. site for examples.

*edited for sleepiness*

 

[Arikay]

Ah, so you dont really mean "evolution" you mean the "strawman evolution of the virii evolving to something else completly, evolving into another "kind"" (like say a cat or something).

Not really. They still remain the same virii. Just immune to whatever was attacking them, perhaps.

 

[LadyShea]

Not really. They still remain the same virii. They just develop an immunity to whatever was attacking them, perhaps.

That is evolution, adapting to the environment, changing over time. Virii aren't even technically living organisms and they evolve because it's all about reproducing.

 

[SirKenin]

Biological evolution is simply a change in gene frequencies over generations. This has been observed so many times, anyone who claims that evolution has not been observed is just ignorant of what biological evolution actually is.

Now, you're probably going to drag out the whole macro/micro evolution bit, but even macroevolution (as defined as evolution between species; i.e. a population of one species giving rise to a new species) has been observed. Check the T.O. site for examples.

*edited for sleepiness*

Actually, I'm not going to drag anything out. Your mind is closed. You're convinced you're right, and to embark on a discussion of this particular topic with you would be pointless.

I am content to just leave it at that.

 

[SirKenin]

That is evolution, adapting to the environment, changing over time. Virii aren't even technically living organisms and they evolve because it's all about reproducing.

Evolution:

Biology.

1. <LI type=a>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

And this has not been observed to be naturally occuring in the lab, even under perfect conditions.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

This has been observed in lab experiments. Like I said, check T.O. for examples.

 

[LadyShea]

It has been observed...different strains of virii are different "species" because they have changed genetic codes

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Actually, I'm not going to drag anything out. Your mind is closed. You're convinced you're right, and to embark on a discussion of this particular topic with you would be pointless.

I am content to just leave it at that.

Right. It's always the *other* guy's mind who is closed.

Just FYI, I originally got interested in the debate after reading a bunch of creationist material that made evolution sound like bunk. Of course, over a year of research on the subject changed that notion.

You may argue that I have already made up my mind, but it was only after spending a lot of time learning about the subject (and I still am).

 

[SirKenin]

It has been observed...different strains of virii are different "species" because they have changed genetic codes

If an AIDS virus develops an immunity to a certain syrum, it's not evolution, as it didn't evolve into a new species. It's still the same virus. An amoeba is still an amoeba. Not even something as simple as that, the supposed start of all life.

Plant experiments. Bees.. I don't care what you throw at me. The only "evolution", the only creation of a new species, that I'm aware of, including that which I have seen in lucaspa's arguments, has occured when scientists intervened. Now that's no longer natural selection. It's "human selection", and human intervention neither proves nor disproves the theory of evolution (in specific natural selection) IMHO.

 

[Arikay]

So these didn't really happen?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

One thing to note, some were observed in the lab, others in the wild.

Scientists Did Not intervene in this example,
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm

Evolution:

Biology.

1. <LI type=a>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

And this has not been observed to be naturally occuring in the lab, even under perfect conditions.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If an AIDS virus develops an immunity to a certain syrum, it's not evolution, as it didn't evolve into a new species. It's still the same virus. An amoeba is still an amoeba. Not even something as simple as that, the supposed start of all life.

Evolution does not require the production of new species. All that is required is that genetic changes occur and are inherited throughout a population as it reproduces.

Producing new species just happens to be a consequence of the evolutionary process.

Plant experiments. Bees.. I don't care what you throw at me. The only "evolution", the only creation of a new species, that I'm aware of, including that which I have seen in lucaspa's arguments, has occured when scientists intervened. Now that's no longer natural selection. It's "human selection", and human intervention neither proves nor disproves the theory of evolution (in specific natural selection) IMHO.

Natural or artificial selection are still selection. All that matters is they occur as a result of an environmental influence. (And as long as we are only talking about selection, and not something like genetic engineering...)

You seem to be trying to wiggle around the issue by inventing a strawman definition of biological evolution. It's not helping your position to do so.