Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's pretty funny considering you've had the opportunity but have refused to provide details of this "prediction" after pages of only vaguely alluding to its existence. And you accuse me of being obtuse. Spit it out already.
Similar to what? You haven't even described your "prediction". And trying to shift the focus to creationists is just an attempt to distract from focusing on the issue of ToE's scientific merits. (or lack thereof)
It's fairly irrelevant to my thesis here, so it's not a huge priority of mine, but seeing as how you won't address any of my main arguments, feel free to present your case on the Kondrashov material. I would be most interested in any literature that openly acknowledges the problem and claims to solve it without dodging the issue by presupposing populations have existed for millions of years like Loudmouth's reference did.
What evidence? 50+ years of mutation experiments started by evolutionists which evolutionists then ignore because it failed to produce anything new or support their theory in the slightest?
Please stop spamming that paper. It doesn't cover what you think it covers nor arrives at the conclusions you think it does. That paper deals with "mutation breeding", where plants are exposed to mutation causing agents in order to try and stimulate mutations of new characteristics that breeders would find desirable.
Mutation breeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"For Agassiz, the coelacanth fossil record pointed to “a correspondence between the succession of Fishes [evolution of fishes] in geological times”. Reflecting on Agassiz findings, Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “this doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection.”
At the time, the coelacanth was thought to be a species bridging the transition of life from water to land. This conclusion was primarily based on the limb-like structure of the fins; a structure on the way up from a fin for swimming and a foot for walking. The coelacanth was touted as fossil record “missing link” evidence for evolution.
Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms. ↑ I must follow Pictet and Huxley in thinking that the truth of this doctrine is very far from proved. Yet I fully expect to see it hereafter confirmed, at least in regard to subordinate groups, which have branched off from each other within comparatively recent times. For this doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection. In a future chapter I shall attempt to show that the adult differs from its embryo, owing to variations supervening at a not early age, and being inherited at a corresponding age. This process, whilst it leaves the embryo almost unaltered, continually adds, in the course of successive generations, more and more difference to the adult.
We were talking about the Coelacanth being mistakenly portrayed in science books about being a transitional species, ("Just, can you provide any documentation showing anyone ever thought the coelacanth was a transition between fish and amphibians? Anything at all?")
Absorbed in the special investigation, I paid no heed to the edifice which was meanwhile unconsciously building itself up. Having however completed the comparison of the fossil species in Paris, I wanted, for the sake of an easy revision of the same, to make a list according to their succession in geological formations, with a view of determining the characteristics more exactly and bringing them by their enumeration into bolder relief. What was my joy and surprise to find that the simplest enumeration of the fossil fishes according to their geological succession was also a complete statement of the natural relations of the families among themselves; that one might therefore read the genetic development of the whole class in the history of creation, the representation of the genera and species in the several families being therein determined; in one word, that the genetic succession of the fishes corresponds perfectly with their zoological classification, and with just that classification proposed by me.
yeah i didnt bring them up because your other sources said nothing about it being a transition between fish and amphibians.I notice you didn't want to attempt to attack Origin of Species where Darwin agreed, or Webster Dictionary or the Quarterly Review of Biology. We were talking about the Coelacanth being mistakenly portrayed in science books about being a transitional species, ("Just, can you provide any documentation showing anyone ever thought the coelacanth was a transition between fish and amphibians? Anything at all?") not any theory of violation of thermodynamics. What would that have to do with it, since clearly you require that energetic lightning to have started it all, to which I agree????
That energetic activity that holds the very atom and genetic code together? So why would I, just because another does, dismiss that as a requirement? He's no more right about why you mistakenly had it as a false transitory species than you are it was never considered such.
I told you, I protest Fairie Dust in all forms, but why did someone feel so compelled to argue a point if you never once taught it and thought it? You were asking for proof it was once believed and taught, not that I agree with their story of Fairie Dust any more than I do with yours.
Make up your mind what you are asking for. I for one know NOTHING is an isolated system. Even galaxies are connected together by filamentary plasma and electric currents in it. By magical Dark Matter in your theory that is electrically neutral, but now is blamed for UV emissions. So why would "I" think that anything is isolated?
Don't try to switch the subject. You asked for papers showing it was once taught that it was a transitional link. So if you have been wrong with about every one of them you claim were, what makes you think they have anything else right????
Mainstream's entire tree is beginning to come crashing down around them. They are like a drowning man gasping for his last breath. Making claims that as technology advances shatters every claim, one by one.
What evidence? Calling two Felidae that can mate and produce fertile offspring separate species on a whim, simply to reinforce your religious beliefs about evolution????
What does this statement even mean?What evidence? You mean every single fossil of any animal that is always the same from the very first one found until the very last one found? And then imagination takes over and you tell us how they evolve but you just can't find the intermediate links?
Mammals-like reptiles:Over 200,000,000 fossils and conveniently only the transitory species are missing?
Sure, found it as easily as you could have, had you bothered to do your claimed research before opening your mouth.
Evolution of the Coelacanth Saga
"For Agassiz, the coelacanth fossil record pointed to “a correspondence between the succession of Fishes [evolution of fishes] in geological times”. Reflecting on Agassiz findings, Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “this doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection.”
At the time, the coelacanth was thought to be a species bridging the transition of life from water to land. This conclusion was primarily based on the limb-like structure of the fins; a structure on the way up from a fin for swimming and a foot for walking. The coelacanth was touted as fossil record “missing link” evidence for evolution.
The coelacanth was embedded into biology text books as the “missing link” evidence for evolution."
That source of yours which you found so convincing (because it agreed with your religious dogma) offered no refernces for the quotes that it mined. None.
The coelacanth is a descendent of a group which featured transitional species (the lobe-finned fish), but which is a pretty wide ranging group.
This is from your much-vaunted link:
See above. Are you done citing dishonest websites?Shall I go find some more for you, or are you done ignoring reality yet?
eta - Wow. It's worse than I thought. My response was just two days ago in this very thread and Jats responded to my post, but didn't even address what I'd posted about the mutation breeding
Yeah, I'm still waiting for him to admit that lions and tigers evovled from a common ancestor. He knows it and even implied it, but just can't bring himself to admit it.
That quote from a 1969 paper is classic creation science "scholarship."I'm becoming ever more fascinated by the psychology that allows one to see something so plainly contradictory to what one is claiming and continue to claim it.
(We could throw his coelacanth claims in there as well. They were debunked weeks if not months ago.)
Jats, can you give me a sincere, cogent answer. I have shown you repeatedly that the link you keep spamming is not about natural mutations (the random mutations that drive evolution), but exposing plants primarily to mutagens like chemicals and radiation in order to try and create mutations of characteristics desirable for breeders.
Here's the Wikipedia link I provided to you just the other day.
Mutation breeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And if you look in the section "mutagenic varietals" you see that experiments have been quite successful in creating new characteristics.
Mutation breeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now, here's my serious question to which I request a sincere, cogent answer. Why do you continually ignore that information and instead continue to spam the same link over and over and over? Are you unable to understand the difference between natural mutations and mutation breeding? Are you unable to address the content of even the Wikipedia page? Are you under the impression that continuing to spam the same link over and over will change the fact that you misunderstand the content and it doesn't help your case after all?
Sometimes I wonder about the Creationists around here and I'd like to know what makes them tick when they do stuff like this.
eta - Wow. It's worse than I thought. My response was just two days ago in this very thread and Jats responded to my post, but didn't even address what I'd posted about the mutation breeding
I'm becoming ever more fascinated by the psychology that allows one to see something so plainly contradictory to what one is claiming and continue to claim it.
(We could throw his coelacanth claims in there as well. They were debunked weeks if not months ago.)
What it comes down to is that evolutionists hold the pseudo-scientific faith that culled mutations will translate into mystical anatomy/bodyplan creating forces over millions of years and they can't be convinced otherwise. It's their creation story and they're sticking to it.
My personal opinion is that the behaviour works in a similar way to denial in alcoholics who haven't admitted to themselves that they are alcoholics. The evidence is all undeniably there in front of them but somehow they can't allow themselves to see it. The reason they won't allow themselves to see it is fear, in my uninformed opinion. Fear of the consequences of allowing the truth to hit them square between the eyeballs. Their whole world as they know it will fall apart if they admit the truth, they know this on a subconscious level, so they pretend to themselves that it's not so. The results are exactly what we see on this forum.
When the creationist is caught out in his/her denial we tend to see tantrums, and people who imagine themselves to be sweet, benevolent christian souls suddenly find themselves being defensive, vicious and accusatory. It's the same thing as cornering a problem drinker and telling him he is an alcoholic and needs to get help. He isn't going to be thrilled about it.
The evidence is there, so why do evolutionists deny it? Mutation has never created anything new, simply turned off or on what already existed, or rearranged what already existed. Your own science tells you this when you don't ignore it. Sure, you can rearrange the code and get a new "breed" within that same species, but you can never get something that did not already exist within the genetic code to begin with.
Yeah, this is like the alcoholic hiding all the empty bottles under his bed and saying he's not touched a drop for days.
We know what you are doing and why you are doing it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?