Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[LoricaLady]

I love it when you tell others to pay attention when you can't pay attention yourself. Darwin's finches predate the modern definition of species. Please pay attention.

You talk about finches a lot. You give lots of theories about this and that. Let's get down to actual data. What actual data - you know what real science uses - do you have to show that finches ever have been, or ever will be, anything but finches? Yeal their beaks change in size. Big deal. Those changes reverse with climatic factors. Whatever. They are all still 100% finches. Period.

Sorry, but a minuscule change in finch beaks doesn't convince me that I came from an ape or that a giraffe and a mushroom have a common ancestor. Funny about that.

Please don't change the subject as is the usual with Darwin devotees when they are asked hard core Qs that require real data. I'm asking a simple Q. Please answer it: What data do you have to show any finch ever has been or ever will be anything but a finch? Sorry, but wild theories posing as evidence only make for pseudo science.

I've got data. The data says finches stay finches. The data shows no non finches turning into finches. But if you've got some data that conflicts with that, by all means, bring it on. Cite it. Don't dodge the Q. Answer it. With data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Modern definition of species" is your humble opinion which you are presenting as if it is universally accepted by scientists. Baloney. It certainly is not. You are just "moving the goal post." Evolution fans do that a lot. Don't like the definition because evolutionary theory doesn't hold up to it? No problem. Make up a new definition! In fact state there is more than one definition and pick whichever one you like!

No, the modern definition of species is called that because it is the most common definition used. Biologists realized that defining what a species is would be difficult to impossible long ago because of the fact that all life evolved. If your beliefs were true it would be a piece of cake to define species, or "kind" for that matter.

You talk about finches a lot. You give lots of theories. Let's get down to actual data. What actual data - you know what real science uses - do you have to show that finches ever have been, or ever will be, anything but finches? Yeal their beaks change in size. Big deal. Those changes reverse with climatic factors. Whatever. They are all still 100% finches. Period.

Sorry, but a minuscule change in finch beaks doesn't convince me that I came from an ape or that a giraffe and a mushroom have a common ancestor. Funny about that.

Please don't change the subject as is the usual with Darwin devotees when they are asked hard core Qs that require real data. I'm asking a simple Q. Please answer it: What data do you have to show any finch ever has been or ever will be anything but a finch? Sorry, but wild theories posing as evidence only make for pseudo science.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, creationists bring up Darwin's finches a lot. And there is only one theory that I have been working with. And you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution. In the theory of evolution the offspring of finches will always be finches. Let me use you as an example. All of your offspring and their offspring will be people. You share a common ancestor with other people. There is no "change of kinds" in evolution.

Your offspring will all be apes because you are an ape. You share a common ancestor with all other apes. Again, there is no "change of kind" in evolution.

Your offspring will all be mammals because you are a mammal. You share a common ancestor with all other mammals.

I could go on and point out that you are a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a member of chordata, and a eukaryote. That makes a banana your extreme distant relative. And there was no "change of kind" along the way. You have a bad understanding of the theory of evolution and are trying to make a strawman of it. You need to learn what you are fighting against.

 

[Zosimus]

Again, you are the one not paying attention. I have been focusing on one version of the definition of species, but I did not say it was the only one.

There is no one universally accepted definition of species. As such, it is impossible to say whether speciation occurs. When you come up with a definition, I'll re-examine the claim–not before.

Again, since it specifically used the ability to interbreed this definition clearly is not used for bacteria. That is two "epic fails" by you in this post alone.

You're the one championing BSC as though it came straight from the Bible!

And I mentioned that fact. If a species differentiation has already been made such as dogs and wolves, has already been made we don't immediately go out and change the names. It seems I need to give the same warning to you that I have to give to other creationists, when you don't understand you should ask questions.

First of all, I am very much aware that science gets wrong ideas and then doesn't change them. Believe me!

Second, as you doubtless know, I'm not a Creationist. I'm agnostic. In case you can't figure that out, look just a little bit to the left, and you'll see a scorecard outlining who's what.

For some reason you are not the most reliable of sources so I will take this with a huge grain of salt. Citation please.

This is completely false. Everything that I say is 100 percent other people's ideas. Do you think I made up Raven's Paradox? Do you think I made up the color grue? You give me too much credit. The link is right here wherein we read: "The genetic species concept can be thought of as the geneticists’ equivalent of the morphospecies concept, but the measure is genetic similarity or distance. Genetic analyses can uncover cryptic species that morphological studies would not....Disadvantages: This species concept also relies, to some extent, on human judgement of how much difference is enough to constitute separate species."
-----------------
Translation: There is no objective genetic test for whether any two creatures are of a different species.

Yes, and even with artificial insemination you can't breed with a chimp. It seems that you are the king of bad analogies.

This has nothing to do with a Recognition Species Concept.

You are one cheeky bastard. You never provide any links to back up any of the nonsense you spew whereas my posts are filled with links. Then you say I'm the unreliable one.

Next post you make, I want to see links.

 

[LoricaLady]

SUBDUCTION ZONE I am not making a strawman. Darwin's so called Tree of Life, which is promoted heavily by evolutionary icons like Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller, shows fish turning into tetrapods, tetrapods turning into birds, apes turning into people etc. You say "There is no change of kind in evolution." Uh, golly I'd say a change from a fish to a tetrapod was a change in kind. But maybe you made up a new definition for "kind"? Or....maybe you don't know what evolutionists are saying?

You are not answering the Q. for data showing finches ever have been or ever will be anything but finches. You never will. I'll give you another chance to show you have scientific evidence for what you are believing in, though. You say "You share a common ancestor with all other apes." The data for that, please? Let's see I've already heard that Lucy is my ancestor. Oh, but they are trying to wiggle around with new definitions about her too.

She is a pile of fragmented bones, about 3 feet high, typical of an australopithecus. How many "missing", really non existent, links between her and me? Oh, there are only about 3 million (their time table, not mine) years worth of "missing" links. That's not data. That's not science. That's a fantasy being offered as a scientific fact to support a failed theory. But if you've got something better than Lucy to show me, or if you can demonstrate that she is related to me, present your....observable...data.

Monkeys and "lesser apes" and people don't interbreed. That's what the...data....shows.

But give me your observable data, not a bunch of theories based on logical fallacies like Presuming Omniscience and many more, to show that you are nothing but an ape update. Name any ape you are saying you sprang from. Pick your pile of bones. Demonstrate how Lucy, or any other ape "transition",(1) ever even had any descendants (2)much less that they were significantly different from it in anyway (3) much less that it turned into you.

But you won't answer any of those Qs either. You will dance all around the topic and never provide a shred of data for any such things. Because there isn't any. Because you're not an ape update and because evolution is nothing but pseudo science fairy tales.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are way, way off in your understanding of evolution. The community of science is very conservatives, believe me, and would not have given evolution center stage, had there been no hard data. If you can't find any hard data, then you haven't done much looking. You brought up Luck. She is more than a pile of bones. If that is what you think, you need to take a course in anthropology. She is a snapshot of the past, as door way into the past. She is a kind of missing link. Many ape features, yet bipedal.

 

[LoricaLady]

You are way, way off in your understanding of evolution. The community of science is very conservatives, believe me, and would not have given evolution center stage, had there been no hard data. If you can't find any hard data, then you haven't done much looking. You brought up Luck. She is more than a pile of bones. If that is what you think, you need to take a course in anthropology. She is a snapshot of the past, as door way into the past. She is a kind of missing link. Many ape features, yet bipedal.

All you have done on this string is make faith based claims. You have never presented a shred of data to back up what you say. I asked some Qs above. You will ignore them but I will ask them again. Instead of just telling me out of your heart filled with...faith...that by golly the answers are out there in evo. land and I just haven't looked for them, demonstrate that you can use your own mind and your own words.

Give data, don't just tell me it's out there because it isn't, that shows finches ever have been or ever will be anything but finches. Give data that shows me how we can know that Lucy, or any other "transition" (1) ever had a single descendant (2) ever had one significantly different from her (3) ever led to you. Oh, and most important of all, do explain to me how I can tell the difference between purportedly 3 million years of "missing" links and 3 million years of nonexistent links.

And oh yeal, do present data to show that monkeys, apes and people ever interbreed.

I see your faith. I don't see your facts to support it. I see you saying over and over that evolution is true and if someone doesn't believe it they haven't studied it. I see no evidence whatsoever that you understand it! You know what else I won't see? A single data based answer to any of my Qs above. Move from bluff and bluster to actual critical thinking. You are not an ape update. Find out how you really are.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, I told you before and I'm telling you again, I am not here to teach you science. I'm just saying you hare been dishing out nothing bluff bluster yourself, because it appears you know little about how science, especially evolutionary science, operates. All you have proven is that you don't understand it, period, that's it. That is a bogus argument in a theological discussion group. You're the one that wanted center stage. Now you need to back your bluff and blister with some hard data, which you have yet to do. Again, complaining as you did above that you can't understand it and have a lot of questions isn't a criticism; it really means that maybe you need to do your homework. Talk with evolutionary scientists. ask them your questions.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, I told you before and I'm telling you again, I am not here to teach you science. I'm just saying you hare been dishing out nothing bluff bluster yourself, because it appears you know little about how science, especially evolutionary science, operates. All you have proven is that you don't understand it, period, that's it. That is a bogus argument in a theological discussion group. You're the one that wanted center stage. Now you need to back your bluff and blister with some hard data, which you have yet to do. Again, complaining as you did above that you can't understand it and have a lot of questions isn't a criticism; it really means that maybe you need to do your homework. Talk with evolutionary scientists. ask them your questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no one universally accepted definition of species. As such, it is impossible to say whether speciation occurs. When you come up with a definition, I'll re-examine the claim–not before.

Poor logic on your part again. Though there is no one universal example there are examples that would be match all examples of speciation.

You're the one championing BSC as though it came straight from the Bible!

No, you simply can't follow a discussion. You seem to go out of your way to find ways not to understand someone else.

First of all, I am very much aware that science gets wrong ideas and then doesn't change them. Believe me!

Second, as you doubtless know, I'm not a Creationist. I'm agnostic. In case you can't figure that out, look just a little bit to the left, and you'll see a scorecard outlining who's what.

Yes, I am aware of those two points. But you seem to have very strange ideas that you cannot defend at all.

This is completely false. Everything that I say is 100 percent other people's ideas. Do you think I made up Raven's Paradox? Do you think I made up the color grue? You give me too much credit. The link is right here wherein we read: "The genetic species concept can be thought of as the geneticists’ equivalent of the morphospecies concept, but the measure is genetic similarity or distance. Genetic analyses can uncover cryptic species that morphological studies would not....Disadvantages: This species concept also relies, to some extent, on human judgement of how much difference is enough to constitute separate species."
-----------------
Translation: There is no objective genetic test for whether any two creatures are of a different species.


This has nothing to do with a Recognition Species Concept.

You are one cheeky bastard. You never provide any links to back up any of the nonsense you spew whereas my posts are filled with links. Then you say I'm the unreliable one.

Next post you make, I want to see links.

When needed I give links. So far there has been no real need. And when you misuse scientific terms you should not get mad when people laugh at you. You have never shown that your use of the Raven's argument applies to evolution in any way. You also tend to blow up posts unreasonably. I am trying to help you. Please bring up your misconceptions one at a time. This forum does not make it easy to look back at prior posts when they get buried and I am not opening up another window for your benefit.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, I don't care a hoot whether you believe evolution or you do not. What I am puzzled over is the fact you don't seem to present any evidence that it doesn't, except complaints, such as above. If you are going to attack the idea of evolution, then you need first to present the scientists' case and then go right down their list of reasons, giving a solid rebuttal for each one. Also, in science, you can't prove the null hypothesis, that is, that something isn't true, doesn't work. All you can prove is an alternative hypothesis. So, where are yours? Also, the tone of you emails is very accusatory and rude. OK maybe here. But that is not the way scientists present data. Hence, your exclusive reliance on inflammatory rhetoric tells me that you really don't have a scientific case to present in the first place.

 

[Zosimus]

Poor logic on your part again. Though there is no one universal example there are examples that would be match all examples of speciation.

Provide one.

Yes, I am aware of those two points. But you seem to have very strange ideas that you cannot defend at all.

If by "strange ideas" you mean the same ideas that are taught at pretty much every university, then I plead guilty.

When needed I give links. So far there has been no real need. And when you misuse scientific terms you should not get mad when people laugh at you. You have never shown that your use of the Raven's argument applies to evolution in any way. You also tend to blow up posts unreasonably. I am trying to help you. Please bring up your misconceptions one at a time. This forum does not make it easy to look back at prior posts when they get buried and I am not opening up another window for your benefit.

If there is any doubt in your mind that Raven's Paradox applies to Darwinism, then you do not understand Darwinism or Raven's Paradox.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SUBDUCTION ZONE I am not making a strawman. Darwin's so called Tree of Life, which is promoted heavily by evolutionary icons like Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller, shows fish turning into tetrapods, tetrapods turning into birds, apes turning into people etc. You say "There is no change of kind in evolution." Uh, golly I'd say a change from a fish to a tetrapod was a change in kind. But maybe you made up a new definition for "kind"? Or....maybe you don't know what evolutionists are saying?

No, you misunderstood the tree of life. Fish do not "turn into tetrapods". Fish have offspring. Those offspring are eventually tetrapods, but by your use of the term they are still "fish".

You are not answering the Q. for data showing finches ever have been or ever will be anything but finches. You never will. I'll give you another chance to show you have scientific evidence for what you are believing in, though. You say "You share a common ancestor with all other apes." The data for that, please? Let's see I've already heard that Lucy is my ancestor. Oh, but they are trying to wiggle around with new definitions about her too.

I answered it but you did not understand it. And the fossil record shows that other apes are your ancestors. DNA shows that other apes are your ancestors. I am sure that you have been shown the data, but since you misunderstood the simple tree of life I am sure that you would misunderstand the data. Remember, your side lost this argument long ago. I am merely trying to help you to understand.

She is a pile of fragmented bones, about 3 feet high, typical of an australopithecus. How many "missing", really non existent, links between her and me? Oh, there are only about 3 million (their time table, not mine) years worth of "missing" links. That's not data. That's not science. That's a fantasy being offered as a scientific fact to support a failed theory. But if you've got something better than Lucy to show me, or if you can demonstrate that she is related to me, present your....observable...data.

So many errors. First Lucy was not he only Australopithecus found, she was the first one where it was obvious that she was bipedal. Her hips are clearly half way between a chimps and yours. Exactly what the theory of evolution predicted and totally outside of what creationist s would predict.

Monkeys and "lesser apes" and people don't interbreed. That's what the...data....shows.

Do you have a point here? Yes, we are all different species by all definitions of species.

But give me your observable data, not a bunch of theories based on logical fallacies like Presuming Omniscience and many more, to show that you are nothing but an ape update. Name any ape you are saying you sprang from. Pick your pile of bones. Demonstrate how Lucy, or any other ape "transition",(1) ever even had any descendants (2)much less that they were significantly different from it in anyway (3) much less that it turned into you.

But you won't answer any of those Qs either. You will dance all around the topic and never provide a shred of data for any such things. Because there isn't any. Because you're not an ape update and because evolution is nothing but pseudo science fairy tales.

First you have to shown that you can understand that data. Like I said you have been shown you won't let yourself understand. You are proposing an exercise in futility. I am not jumping through too many hoops for you. Right now I am just correcting some of your more obvious mistakes.

 

[LoricaLady]

Look, I told you before and I'm telling you again, I am not here to teach you science. I'm just saying you hare been dishing out nothing bluff bluster yourself, because it appears you know little about how science, especially evolutionary science, operates. All you have proven is that you don't understand it, period, that's it. That is a bogus argument in a theological discussion group. You're the one that wanted center stage. Now you need to back your bluff and blister with some hard data, which you have yet to do. Again, complaining as you did above that you can't understand it and have a lot of questions isn't a criticism; it really means that maybe you need to do your homework. Talk with evolutionary scientists. ask them your questions.

This will be my last post to you. You got on a string where people are presenting their arguments
for and against evolution. What exactly do you think you are offering when all you have to say is "I'm not here to teach you science...Talk with evolutionary scientists and ask them your Qs." Do you honestly think that somehow shows you have any understanding of the issues?

You had a chance to help a fundie out and, like others, as is the standard practice on strings like this, to present your facts and to answer Qs. Exactly as predicted, you did none of that. You have nothing to say. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Again, this will be my last post to you. I will pray for you however. I will pray for you to see that you are not an ape update but a special being made in the image and likeness of the Creator. He loves you and wants you to know and love Him too. Also, btw, He'd like you to learn how think, not just parrot faith bytes, and to understand what real science is! Real science points to HIM when you see the whole, and true, picture. It points to how much He cares about you.

Bye and blessings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Provide one.

There is the obvious case of man and chimps. By all definitions we are different species and yet by DNA our relationship cannot be denied, especially when the tool of ERV's are used.

If by "strange ideas" you mean the same ideas that are taught at pretty much every university, then I plead guilty.

No, others use these ideas properly. All I have seen you do is to misuse your idea. So please do not compare yourself to others. You are like some poor dweeb that points to quantum mechanics and then uses it to defend a belief in woo.

If there is any doubt in your mind that Raven's Paradox applies to Darwinism, then you do not understand Darwinism or Raven's Paradox.

You have as yet to show how it applies in any way. Where have evolutionary scientists made that error?

 

[Zosimus]

There is the obvious case of man and chimps. By all definitions we are different species and yet by DNA our relationship cannot be denied, especially when the tool of ERV's are used.

So you theorize that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. If that's true, then surely our DNA will be similar. We may even share some ERVs. Then you find similar DNA and shared ERVs. What does that prove?

All it proves is that you're good at logical fallacies. This logical fallacy, called affirming the consequent, is rampant in scientific circles. You think it's logical that confirmations support theories. This only shows that you're bad at logic. If confirmations support theories, then Raven's Paradox shows that green apples supports the idea that all ravens are black. Does that make sense to you?

You may think that's a stupid question. However, this article postulates that Bayesian statistics does support the idea that large numbers of green apples will support the idea that all ravens are black.

P.S. If you ask a prominent scientist about the problem of induction, he generally claims that Bayesian statistics resolves that problem. So yes, it is a very important point!

 

[LoricaLady]

SUBDUCTION ZONE [Here, in italics, are your comments and my responses to them in purple.]No, you misunderstood the tree of life. Fish do not "turn into tetrapods". Fish have offspring. Those offspring are eventually tetrapods, but by your use of the term they are still "fish". Give one example of a fish that "eventually" turned into a tetrapod. Name the fish and what the tetrapod it supposedly turned into. I'm predicting you will dance around that too and never answer the Q.. The current evolutionary favorite "transition" would be Tiktaalik. Give your data to show, not just your faith but data that it or any other fish "eventually" turned into a tetrapod.

I answered it but you did not understand it. And the fossil record shows that other apes are your ancestors. DNA shows that other apes are your ancestors. I am sure that you have been shown the data, but since you misunderstood the simple tree of life I am sure that you would misunderstand the data. Remember, your side lost this argument long ago. I am merely trying to help you to understand.
Cite your DNA so called evidence. Chromosome 2 is the current favorite "proof" with evolutionists. Want to defend that?

So many errors. First Lucy was not he only Australopithecus found, I never said she was. she was the first one where it was obvious that she was bipedal. Her purported bipedalism has been debated even amongst evolutionists. Guess what, though? Penguins are bipedal too. You have nothing but Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Affirming the Consequent, Fallacy of the Single Cause and Presuming Omniscience logical fallacies to offer here. Her hips are clearly half way between a chimps and yours. Half way you say. Wow. Too bad those so called 3 million years worth of "missing" links don't show her growing to be the normal height of a human, developing her hips the rest of the way and well you know, just in general don't show that she isn't just another australopithicus. Look up the definition of australopihecus. It won't say homo sapiens. Exactly what the theory of evolution predicted and totally outside of what creationist s would. They tell you they see what they predicted. What they really see is a 3 foot high pile of fragmented australopithecus bones and 3 million supposed years of "missing" links.

Do you have a point here? Yes, we are all different species by all definitions of species.

First you have to shown that you can understand that data. Like I said you have been shown you won't let yourself understand. You are proposing an exercise in futility. I am not jumping through too many hoops for you. Right now I am just correcting some of your more obvious mistakes------------------------------------------------------------

How kind of you to correct my "mistakes". Too bad that, just as predicted, you never answered a single one of my Qs. But maybe you didn't see them. I'll give you another chance to prove you aren't just another Darwin devotee doing the Data Dodge Dance while you try to change the subject away from pesky reality based Qs.

What evidence do you have that any finch ever was or ever will be anything but a finch? Why should I buy it that changes in their beak sizes, measured in millimeters, have any bearing whatsoever, any evidence to offer whatsoever, to show animals climbed up Darwin's "Tree" to turn into me? You seem to think those tiny changes are important to evolution since you've talked about them a great deal. Darwin surely made a big fuss about them. You say you want to help me, so help me understand how changes in a finch beak shows giraffes and mushrooms came from the same ancestor in the conveniently unobservable and unverifiable past.

With Lucy (and I will certainly ask these Qs with any other "transitions you come up with) I asked (1) How do you know she even had any descendants at all (2)that any assumed descendants were significantly
different from her in anyway much less (3) turned into you?

Oh, and most of all do tell me how I can tell "missing" links from nonexistent links. I don't want to just be...faith...based. I want evidence, again, what real science uses. The data says there are no links. The evo. spin says the links are there...somewhere...have faith brothers and sisters....we'll find them some day.

Riiiight

Sorry, as creationists so often say, I just don't have enough..faith...to buy into the evo. myth. If you can answer my Qs I'll see it differently. But you never will. You will change the subject and try to blame me for that by accusing me of not understanding evolution. I understand it alright. I understand what real science is supposed to be, too. That's the problem. I don't confuse wild theories with actual evidence or faith with scientific facts. You're not going to be able to "help" me "understand" evolution because it's not science. Help yourself, dear. Come out of the matrix.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you theorize that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. If that's true, then surely our DNA will be similar. We may even share some ERVs. Then you find similar DNA and shared ERVs. What does that prove?


All it proves is that you're good at logical fallacies. This logical fallacy, called affirming the consequent, is rampant in scientific circles. You think it's logical that confirmations support theories. This only shows that you're bad at logic. If confirmations support theories, then Raven's Paradox shows that green apples supports the idea that all ravens are black. Does that make sense to you?

You may think that's a stupid question. However, this article postulates that Bayesian statistics does support the idea that large numbers of green apples will support the idea that all ravens are black.

P.S. If you ask a prominent scientist about the problem of induction, he generally claims that Bayesian statistics resolves that problem. So yes, it is a very important point!

"Prove" is a very poor word choice on your part. It shows that you do not understand the scientific method. It is evidence that supports the claim. Reasonable people will accept an idea with a reasonable amount of evidence. There is far more than merely a reasonable amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

There is no logical fallacy since I did not say it was ironclad proof. You don't seem to know how logic works either. Science works on the concept that you cannot prove a correct idea to be right, but that you can prove an incorrect idea to be wrong. And no, this is not an example of the Raven's paradox. Remember that used rather idiotic examples of a blue shirt. If we are related to chimps we should see a similarity of DNA. That is not what the Raven's paradox uses for its broken logic. It uses examples like" Ravens are black, this blue shirt supports that idea". What I gave was more like an example of Ravens are black, these two Ravens are black. Again, that does not prove all Ravens are black but if you see black after black Ravens it is time to admit that Ravens are indeed black. Yes, if someone shows you an orange that would be bad logic. This is not a case of that.

And sorry, but I am not chasing your nonsense any more. You are simply strawmanning the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SUBDUCTION ZONE [Here, in italics, are your comments and my responses to them in purple.]No, you misunderstood the tree of life. Fish do not "turn into tetrapods". Fish have offspring. Those offspring are eventually tetrapods, but by your use of the term they are still "fish". Give one example of a fish that "eventually" turned into a fish. Name the fish and what it supposedly turned into. I'm predicting you will dance around that too and never answer the Q.. The current evolutionary favorite "transition" would be Tiktaalik. Give your data to show, not just your faith bur data that it or any other fish "eventually" turned into a tetrapod.

I explained this error of yours to you already. You are using poor English in this debate. And you have been shown the "data". You don't understand it. I am not going to the ends of the Earth to help you to learn. If you won't let yourself learn how can I help you.

I answered it but you did not understand it. And

the fossil record shows that other apes are your ancestors. DNA shows that other apes are your ancestors. I am sure that you have been shown the data, but since you misunderstood the simple tree of life I am sure that you would misunderstand the data. Remember, your side lost this argument long ago. I am merely trying to help you to understand.
Cite your DNA so called evidence. Chromosome 2 is the current favorite "proof" with evolutionists. Want to defend that?

I am not going

So many errors. First Lucy was not he only Australopithecus found, I never said she was. she was the first one where it was obvious that she was bipedal. Her purported bipedalism has been debated even amongst evolutionists. Guess what, though? Penguins are bipedal too. You have nothing but Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Affirming the Consequent, Fallacy of the Single Cause and Presuming Omniscience logical fallacies to offer here. Her hips are clearly half way between a chimps and yours. Half way you say. Wow. Too bad those so called 3 million years worth of "missing" links don't show her growing to be the normal height of a human, developing her hips the rest of the way and well you know, just in general don't show that she isn't just another australopithicus. Look up the definition of australopihecus. It won't say homo sapiens. Exactly what the theory of evolution predicted and totally outside of what creationist s would. They tell you they see what they predicted. What they really see is a 3 foot high pile of fragmented bones and 3 million supposed years of "missing" links.

Do you have a point here? Yes, we are all different species by all definitions of species.

First you have to shown that you can understand that data. Like I said you have been shown you won't let yourself understand. You are proposing an exercise in futility. I am not jumping through too many hoops for you. Right now I am just correcting some of your more obvious mistakes------------------------------------------------------------

How kind of you to correct my "mistakes". Too bad that, just as predicted, you never answered a single one of my Qs. But maybe you didn't see them. I'll give you another chance to prove you aren't just another Darwin devotee doing the Data Dodge Dance while you try to change the subject away from pesky reality based Qs.

What evidence do you have that any finch ever was or ever will be anything but a finch? Why should I buy it that changes in their beak sizes, measured in millimeters, have any bearing whatsoever, any evidence to offer whatsoever, to show animals climbed up Darwin's "Tree" to turn into me? You seem to think those tiny changes are important to evolution since you've talked about them a great deal. Darwin surely made a big fuss about them. You say you want to help me so help me understand how changes in a finch beak shows giraffes and mushrooms came from the same ancestor in the conveniently unobservable and unverifiable past

With Lucy (and I will certainly ask these Qs with any other "transitions you come up with) I asked (1) How do you know she even had any descendants at all (that any assumed descendants were
different from her in anyway much less (3) turned into you?

Oh, and most of all do tell me how I can tell "missing" links from nonexistent links. I don't want to just be...faith...based. I want evidence, again, what real science uses. The data says there are no links. The evo. spin says the links are there...somewhere...have faith brothers and sisters....we'll find them some day.

Riiiight

Sorry, as creationists so often say, I just don't have enough..faith...to buy into the evo. myth. If you can answer my Qs I'll see it differently. But you never will. You will change the subject and try to blame me for that by accusing me of not understanding evolution. I understand it alright. I understand what real science is supposed to be, too. That's the problem. I don't confuse wild theories with actual evidence or faith with scientific facts. You're not going to be able to "help" me "understand" evolution because it's not science. Help yourself, dear. Come out of the matrix.

Too long did not read. I am not going to dance around for you. You don't understand what you are arguing against and it seems that you are not letting yourself learn. Bring up your problems one at a time and we can discuss them.

Again, I am here to help, but you are in no position to be making any demands yet. Once again, your side lost over 100 years ago. This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists. It is the opinion of almost every court case there has been in the U.S.. I can help you to understand but if you flood me with nonsense because you will not let yourself learn I will simply not give a meaningful response.

 

[LoricaLady]

Too long did not read. I am not going to dance around for you. You don't understand what you are arguing against and it seems that you are not letting yourself learn. Bring up your problems one at a time and we can discuss them.

Again, I am here to help, but you are in no position to be making any demands yet. Once again, your side lost over 100 years ago. This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists. It is the opinion of almost every court case there has been in the U.S.. I can help you to understand but if you flood me with nonsense because you will not let yourself learn I will simply not give a meaningful response.

My post that you call "too long" was really barely, if any, longer than the one you sent me that I was responding to. A lot of it was simply quoting your own words.

I see you are still arrogantly posing as the great evolutionary teacher who is going to help me over my presumed ignorance. Below are the Qs which you dodged. I will repeat them again. Take one at a time if you wish. Or dodge them again, which I predict will happen, this time with a different excuse.

What evidence do you have that any finch ever was or ever will be anything but a finch? Why should I buy it that changes in their beak sizes, measured in millimeters, have any bearing whatsoever, any evidence to offer whatsoever, to show animals climbed up Darwin's "Tree" to turn into me? You seem to think those tiny changes are important to evolution since you've talked about them a great deal. Darwin surely made a big fuss about them. You say you want to help me, so help me understand how changes in a finch beak shows giraffes and mushrooms came from the same ancestor in the conveniently unobservable and unverifiable past.

With Lucy I asked (1) How do you know she even had any descendants at all (2) that any presumed descendants were significantly different from her in anyway much less (3) turned into you? I know what that pile of bones for a fragmented 3 foot high Australopithecus shows. Give me the data for what happened to her "descendants" without using the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy.

Oh, and most of all do tell me how I can tell "missing" links from nonexistent links. I don't want to just be...faith...based. I want evidence, again, what real science uses. The evidence says there are no links. The evo. spin says the links are there...somewhere...have faith brothers and sisters....we'll find them some day. Sorry I prefer data to fantasies, so please present data.

But if you can answer my Qs without more logical fallacies, more faith presented as scientific fact and more theories presented as evidence, if you can honestly answer them with data, go for it!

My side hasn't lost. The truth never really loses. Also, since you are so knowledgeable you should know that scientific truths are not determined in courts, particularly with non science trained judges and non science trained juries in a politically correct atmosphere. I like to think for myself and look at all the data, not just use your appeal to authority logical fallacy. Of course scientists from every discipline have come out against evolution. Google Quotes That Reveal The Credulity of Evolutionists where Nobel Prize winners, famous secular scientists, and world famous evolutionists admit there is no evidence for evolution. See about the first 10 minutes of Thomas Kindell's vid Thermodynamic Arguments For Creation to hear more such quotes by evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." Unproven and unprovable huh? Think about that. Gee should I listen to him, a real live, even well known, evolutionist, or some poster on a forum? I'll listen to the data.

 

[46AND2]

I see you are still arrogantly posing as the great evolutionary teacher who is going to help me over my presumed ignorance.

Pot..meet kettle...