How much longer?

[Loudmouth]

Ahhh, but doctors are not asking me to ignore how everything in nature propagates in favor of Fairie Dust. They actually correct their mistakes.

Evolutionists on the other hand are still refusing to admit to their mistakes in classification - let alone correct them. And this is why we have people that must ignore their own scientific definitions of species when they call interbreeding pairs separate species.

How do you know when they have the correct classification? What criteria do you use?

I've asked Loud for the link to the scientific definition of species he accepts - he has yet to respond to the challenge.

I have told you many times that I define it by the gene pool for living species. I have also told you many times that speciation is not a quantum event, but a spectrum of interbreeding.

Because you can not support they are different - any more than a Poodle is different than a Terrier, or an Asian from an African. So to then attempt to "claim" they are separate species - is a stretch beyond anything ever observed in nature. Just as calling two Finches that mate in front of your eyes separate species.

Are you saying that there is only one finch species?

"The scientific name Fringillidae, comes from the Latin word fringilla for the common chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), a member of the family which is common in Europe. The name was coined by the English zoologist William Elford Leach in 1820.[2][3] The Fringillidae family is divided into three subfamilies, the Fringillinae containing a single genus with the chaffinches, the Carduelinae containing 183 species divided into 49 genera, and the Euphoniinae containing the Euphonia and the Chlorophonia.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finch

Are you saying that all 183 true finch species are actually just one species of finch?

 

[Loudmouth]

They had bones of them with extinct species - so of course they were extinct - before they bothered to study them that is. Sort of like Darwin calling those finches separate species cause they looked a little different. Before we studied them of course and found them all interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. With the DNA data to show they had always been doing so - speciation never occurred. But because Darwin's Finches are a "claimed" prime example of living speciation (before we got around to studying them) they refuse to admit to that mistake in classification.

EDIT: And then of course wonder why they can't be trusted. Not because they make mistakes - every time - but refuse to correct them when it's right before their eyes. And then try strawmen tactics and double-talk as to the why.

Are you saying that all 183 species of true finches all interbreed freely?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolutionists on the other hand are still refusing to admit to their mistakes in classification - let alone correct them. And this is why we have people that must ignore their own scientific definitions of species when they call interbreeding pairs separate species.

What mistake exactly did evolutionary biologists make? Are you willing to write a paper and submit for peer review in relevant lines of study? What would the title of the paper be? What predictions and tests would you perform to demonstrate this mistake?

 

[AV1611VET]

You said that animals already had all the variation within them. That would mean that giraffes have human variation already within them. Or did you misspeak?

No, he didn't.

If that is true, we know that God is a God of boundaries; and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

Psalm 74:17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

So it doesn't matter if they have variation in them or not, they are not going to macroevolve.

 

[justlookinla]

I did. You didn't bother to look at it. Evidenced by how quickly you replied. This shows your lack of desire to learn anything.

No you didn't. You posted something with no explanation, nothing about showing HOW, the process, was being presented concerning the production of pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

You claim there is a flaw in the theory of evolution.

I claim that you, nor anyone else, has offered the evidence which supports the view that only naturalistic mechanisms created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You've evaded and evaded and evaded, tried this and tried, that, with absolutely no submission of anything concerning evidence.

Are you willing to write a paper and submit it for peer review? This is a yes or no question.

Are you going to keep evading, claiming there's evidence, when in fact you've offered none?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No you didn't. You posted something with no explanation, nothing about showing HOW, the process, was being presented concerning the production of pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

There was an explanation in the quotes I took from the article and then linked you to the original source. Perhaps you did not comprehend the information, in which case you should ask questions.

I claim that you, nor anyone else, has offered the evidence which supports the view that only naturalistic mechanisms created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. You've evaded and evaded and evaded, tried this and tried, that, with absolutely no submission of anything concerning evidence.

It's been offered to you. You are either unable to comprehend the information or you don't want to.
I haven't evaded anything. Myself and other posters here have provided you with sufficient examples of evidence to answer your question.

You seem to want to resort to this:

Are you going to keep evading, claiming there's evidence, when in fact you've offered none?

Nobody is evading. Your questions have been answered. You didn't comprehend them.
I am asking you a question. Are you willing to write a paper and submit it for peer review in relevant lines of study? Yes or no?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you have not demonstrated you know how the scientific method works. Describe it in your own words ...

It goes like this:

1. take a guess
2. if guess doesn't line up with paradigm-of-the-day, or has never been heard before:

• rig a vote - (Pluto)
  
• cross fingers and go ahead with it anyway and hope for the best - (I promised not to mention this example, so I won't)
  
• lie about it - (Thalidomide)
  
• declare paradigm-of-the-day obsolete - (geocentrism)
  
• blame the dictionary - (Pluto)
• if it violates public opinion or the law, change the terminology - ("child in the womb" becomes "fetus"; LSD)

How'd I do?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, he didn't.

If that is true, we know that God is a God of boundaries; and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

Where is the evidence for those boundaries, and where is the evidence that macroevolution can not cross them?

 

[justlookinla]

I don't understand the point that you are trying to make. To look at your last sentence first, are you a new life form or did you come from existing life forms?

The point is simple. The claim is made that only naturalistic mechanisms produced pine trees and humans (and all of life we observe today) from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. So far, there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the Darwinistic evolutionary claim.

The process that ultimately produced pine trees and humans from a common ancestor is called descent with modification.

That's certainly the claim. Now all you have to do is give evidence, based on the scientific method, proving that all life we observe today was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms.

We all know that living things reproduce themselves, that they produce copies of themselves.

Yes, we have evidence, based on the scientific method, that bacteria produce bacteria, finches produce finches, moths produce moths. No problem there.

These copies belong to the same species, but they are not exact copies. Also, in most species most of these copies of the original die without reproducing. The few that survive and reproduce are not identical; there are slight differences between them. These differences are propagated to the next generations. With time, more differences accumulate between the surviving populations, sufficient for these populations to become species, and then different genera, different families and so on.

You're claiming that somewhere in the past, a life form (which wasn't plant or animal) accumulated differences entirely by naturalistic mechanisms and this process slowly but surely produced pine trees and humans? Would you please give evidence for that, based on the scientific method? Some sort of real world example? Just to be clear, this isn't about common ancestry, this is about the alleged process and the evidence for it.

Ultimately the driving forces behind evolution, the processes that produce new life forms, are reproduction and the slight differences between descendants of the same parents. Of course reproduction depends on pre-existing life forms, but the offspring are new life forms, not identical with their parents or with each other. Natural selection operates on these differences. Is it that difficult to understand?

As I said, this isn't about natural selection, this is about the HOW, the process. Natural selection doesn't produce new life forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

It goes like this:

1. take a guess
2. if guess doesn't line up with paradigm-of-the-day, or has never been heard before

• rig a vote - (Pluto)
  
• cross fingers and go ahead with it anyway and hope for the best - (I promised not to mention this example, so I won't)
  
• lie about it - (Thalidomide)
  
• declare paradigm-of-the-day obsolete - (geocentrism)
  
• blame the dictionary - (Pluto)
• if it violates public opinion or the law, change the terminology - ("child in the womb" becomes "fetus"; LSD)

How'd I do?

You completely failed. That is not the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

Er....you said you knew of a major flaw in the TOE. Why are you asking me to find evidence? I'm not the one who is planning on overturning the TOE.

No, I said that a major flaw of Darwinism is the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today by acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. The reason it's a major flaw is there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.

 

[AV1611VET]

EDIT: And then of course wonder why they can't be trusted. Not because they make mistakes - every time - but refuse to correct them when it's right before their eyes ...

That's why we still have "flying squirrels" today.

Scientists won't admit they were wrong at first.

 

[AV1611VET]

What mistake exactly did evolutionary biologists make?

Flying squirrels.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's why we still have "flying squirrels" today.

Scientists won't admit they were wrong at first.

How do flying squirrels falsify evolution?
http://www.britannica.com/animal/flying-squirrel

 

[AV1611VET]

Where is the evidence for those boundaries,

On your wrist?

(time)

... and where is the evidence that macroevolution can not cross them?

Macroevolution cannot cross what has never existed.

That's basic physics.

 

[justlookinla]

How do flying squirrels falsify evolution?
http://www.britannica.com/animal/flying-squirrel

Depends on what view of evolution you're referring to.

 

[Black Dog]

No, I said that a major flaw of Darwinism is the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today by only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. The reason it's a major flaw is there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.

Um....just yesterday you were telling me that the TOE says we should be able to watch a dog mutate into a fish before our eyes. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't believe you have a clue about what you're talking about now.

 

[AV1611VET]

You completely failed. That is not the scientific method.

Oh, well.

It wasn't the first time I failed, and won't be the last, either.

 

[justlookinla]

Um....just yesterday you were telling me that the TOE says we should be able to watch a dog mutate into a fish before our eyes. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't believe you have a clue about what you're talking about now.

Quote me.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do flying squirrels falsify evolution?

I give up ... how?

That wasn't what I was addressing anyway.