Evolutionary debate

[pgp_protector]

I'm a biologist, and i don't believe in evolution. I'm new here, but i would suggest you evolutionists learn how to debate instead of resorting to your usual logical fallacies. I also started a thread, inviting any evolutionist to debate me on biology (or another scientific area).

There is simply no evidence for evolution and the 'supposed' evidence always is debunked by us creationists.

First, what's your definition of Evolution?

 

[sandwiches]

I'm a biologist, and i don't believe in evolution. I'm new here, but i would suggest you evolutionists learn how to debate instead of resorting to your usual logical fallacies. I also started a thread, inviting any evolutionist to debate me on biology (or another scientific area).

There is simply no evidence for evolution and the 'supposed' evidence always is debunked by us creationists.

This is very timely for me. Just last weekend I was talking to a friend of mine who's a biology professor in the University of Texas in Arlington. He was telling me about the surprisingly high number of biology majors grads and undergrads who do not accept evolution. Of course, when trying to tie together everything about biology, they fail without evolution.

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

First, what's your definition of Evolution?

''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Or

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Niether have been observed.

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

Foiled again. Drat.

BTW, how would a creationist debunk, say, ERV's?

What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

 

[laconicstudent]

What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

You claim to have PhD in biology, but you have to ask us what an endogenous retrovirus is?

 

[sandwiches]

What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

*facepalm*

 

[united4Peace]

''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Or

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Niether have been observed.

Cells are always changing...
I hate Biology, however I need to study it and from what I understand biologists have proof that cells change...
Would that not be a gradual process of something changing?

 

[firechild_82]

''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Or

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Niether have been observed.

You mean, no evidence of either has been posted on any of the creationist websites you frequent?

I'm sure the nylon-eating bacteria example is not something creationists like to discuss but it is a clear cut example of your second definition.

Have you come across the E. coli experiment?

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

Have you come across the e. coli experiment?

Lenski has refused to release details on his 'bacteria mutation' to public, and his peer-reviewed paper (2008) has also been rejected, or atleast questioned because of it's flaws.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

The E.Coli experiment remains controversial, Lenski is clearly a deceitful character and his work has been proven to contain flaws, he also failed to provide data to the public for his claims.

 

[laconicstudent]

Lenski has refused to release details on his 'bacteria mutation' to public,

1. Yes he has. You can look everything up in his papers. He made even more information available on his website.

and his peer-reviewed paper (2008) has also been rejected,

It hasn't. That is simply untrue.

or atleast questioned because of it's flaws.

The only one's who questioned it were Conservapedia, who made themselves the laughing stock of the scientific community and Western society at large by demanding that Lenski send them bacterial specimens and demonstrating that they had not the faintest clue how to read a scientific study.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

Was it written by a microbiologist, or anyone with a PhD in the sciences? No? Then I really can't be bothered.

The E.Coli experiment remains controversial,

Actually, it isn't.

Lenski is clearly a deceitful character

And yet, he has exceeded all ethical standards by going and posting even more information about his methods on his website, and making his study free for everyone to download from the PNAS, just to prove his integrity.

and his work has been proven to contain flaws,

Really? I wasn't aware that the PNAS had published anything of the sort. Citation please.

he also failed to provide data to the public for his claims.

Sorry, but he actually did

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

 

[Nostromo]

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''

Strictly speaking, doesn't that happen in pretty much every case? My generation is not genetically identical to my father's.

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

Strictly speaking, doesn't that happen in pretty much every case? My generation is not genetically identical to my father's.

Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

 

[laconicstudent]

Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

The diversity in the human species is due to less then .1% of genetic variation, obviously....

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

Weird, huh?!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it not evolutionists who say:

''99.9% of humans are DNA identical''

''Humans share 97% DNA with Chimps''

''We all bleed red''

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

False dichotomy. Pointing out that we're not genetically identical to each other isn't the same as saying we're completely different: we are, obviously, extremely similar, but we differ in subtle (but significant) ways. A slightly different shape to a protein here, a mildly longer gene expression there, and you have your small, but significant, variation. It's enough for evolution to work.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

False dichotomy. Pointing out that we're not genetically identical to each other isn't the same as saying we're completely different: we are, obviously, extremely similar, but we differ in subtle (but significant) ways. A slightly different shape to a protein here, a mildly longer gene expression there, and you have your small, but significant, variation. It's enough for evolution to work.

Bingo!

 

[Nostromo]

''Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.''
Niether have been observed.

Yet now you guys are saying Humans are totally different to each other?

If you take "not identical" to mean "totally different". That's probably not the most faithful interpretation I've seen.

You got to provide your own definition of evolution and it's quite obvious just from looking around at other people that the criteria have been met, how about a retraction?

 

[TerranceL]

Is it not evolutionists who say:

''We all bleed red''

What color do creationists say we bleed?

 

[plindboe]

Lenski has refused to release details on his 'bacteria mutation' to public, and his peer-reviewed paper (2008) has also been rejected, or atleast questioned because of it's flaws.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

The E.Coli experiment remains controversial, Lenski is clearly a deceitful character and his work has been proven to contain flaws, he also failed to provide data to the public for his claims.

Conservapedia:Lenski dialog - Conservapedia

I highly recommend this exchange to anyone. Lenski's impression of these creationists' tactics are well in line with my own impression of how creationists tend to operate. They seem to form very strong opinions and claim "hoax" and "fraud" without even having read the research in question. They show severe misunderstandings and ignorance of the science, and still pretend like they're experts, demanding to be taken seriously and demanding data, that they wouldn't know what to do with even if they saw it.

Peter

 

[USincognito]

''A gradual process in which something changes into a different form.''

Define "form".

What about ERV's is 'evidence' for the theory of evolution? From what i've read, most Intelligent Design advocates are using ERV's for their evidence, not evolutionists.

You're kidding us right? If you're going to play a PhD biologist, you need to at least have some grounding actual biology.

Can't (yet) paste links showing where all this is listed. However looking up the net, ''Flaws in Richard Lenski Study'' will show the basics.

Was it written by a microbiologist, or anyone with a PhD in the sciences? No? Then I really can't be bothered.

It looks like it was written by Schlaffley or his minions. The only Google hit for that particular phrase shows up on Conservapedia.