Invalid Arguments

[tas8831]

Right now I am taking cell biology, microbiology, and biochemistry.

Sorry - I got caught up in the flow of the discussion and thought you were somebody else!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry - I got caught up in the flow of the discussion and thought you were somebody else!

Ha, you mistook me for a creationist and thought I was giving baloney credentials.

 

[tas8831]

The process is what they call the selfish gene.

Non sequitur.

It is really just a lot of speculation with very little if anything to substantiate their theory. Even Francis Collins who calls DNA the language of God still refers to the mutation theory of evolution being a driving force. Does he think that God studders?

You keep ignoring/forgetting what else Francis Collins says - which is odd since I have presented this specifically to you before:

"While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”


"As our closest relatives, they (chimpanzees) tell us special things about what it means to be a primate and, ultimately, what it means to be a human at the DNA level."

And especially:


"This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of "silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable—not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves."​

Of course there are mutations. We know that this world is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption and restoration.

And we actually know that most mutations are simply due to replication errors, no curse needed.

But perhaps, in a new thread, you can explain the logic and love behind cursing your own most special creations to an extinction event caused by a deity's punishment - when the very punishment (mutations) also has mechanisms to correct it.

So odd and contradictory.

 

[tas8831]

Ha, you mistook me for a creationist and thought I was giving baloney credentials.

Habit premised on experience.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I’m still wondering why evolutionists refuse to apply how we observe change to occur in the species, to the past?

 

[pitabread]

I’m still wondering why evolutionists refuse to apply how we observe change to occur in the species, to the past?

I'm still wondering when creationists are going to learn how biology really works instead of applying half-forgotten high school lessons coupled with personal incredulity and a heaping dose of religious mythology to create some sort of bizarre fantasy-land version of biology.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I’m still wondering why evolutionists refuse to apply how we observe change to occur in the species, to the past?

-_- we don't refuse to, you just assert that hybridization is the only way that species change and new species develop, and we have observed otherwise.

This dog breed family tree tells a different story than you do, and you haven't addressed a single one of these that I have posted. Ever. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-VwpeNV0AA28Vf.jpg
These don't stop existing just because you ignore them, dude. http://hotphotosfree.com/sites/defa...b69fd43649f0c89b83e04dde605.jpg?itok=_AyZpHZn
Explain the breeds that come from a singular pre-existing breed in the family trees, or stop asserting that the only way for new dog breeds, species, etc. to arise is via hybridization.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- we don't refuse to, you just assert that hybridization is the only way that species change and new species develop, and we have observed otherwise.

This dog breed family tree tells a different story than you do, and you haven't addressed a single one of these that I have posted. Ever. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-VwpeNV0AA28Vf.jpg
These don't stop existing just because you ignore them, dude. http://hotphotosfree.com/sites/defa...b69fd43649f0c89b83e04dde605.jpg?itok=_AyZpHZn
Explain the breeds that come from a singular pre-existing breed in the family trees, or stop asserting that the only way for new dog breeds, species, etc. to arise is via hybridization.

No, no, no. Hybridization is a evolutionary made up term to dismiss following science of two subspecies mating, so they can claim its two species mating.

You do dismiss the evidence.

Wolf + wolf + selecting specific traits + wolf + that trait + wolf + selecting again for that trait + wolf + that trait, led to every single breed we see today.

Stop ignoring what is right in front of your nose.

But then you never actually read the fox domestication experiment performed in Russia did you.

 

[jacks]

Speaking of dogs...Forget trying to resolve evolution vs creation...could some please explain why a Labradoodle should sell for $1500 dollars! (Please don't say "supply and demand") A mutt by any other name smells as sweet.

 

[pitabread]

Hybridization is a evolutionary made up term

Hybridization of organisms pre-dates anything to do with evolutionary theory.

First recorded in 1595-1605, hybrid is from the Latin word hybrida, hibridaa crossbred animal - the definition of hybrid

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, no, no. Hybridization is a evolutionary made up term to dismiss following science of two subspecies mating, so they can claim its two species mating.

You do dismiss the evidence.
View attachment 212978
Wolf + wolf + selecting specific traits + wolf + that trait + wolf + selecting again for that trait + wolf + that trait, led to every single breed we see today.

Stop ignoring what is right in front of your nose.

But then you never actually read the fox domestication experiment performed in Russia did you.

Uh... everything you are saying here contradicts the position you have been presenting for ages, unless you think a wolf that is born with slightly floppy ears compared to the parents never happens and you think there were always some floppy eared individuals. Actually, why don't you point out a wolf that has that trait? Surely humans couldn't have collected all of them.

Also, it's a fact that new traits appear spontaneously in populations, which is how paradox bearded dragons came into existence. A breeder had one born that lost it's normal pigment in splotches, a trait never seen before which appeared in a population of bearded dragons that had never had that trait (it's a dominant gene, so no bearded dragon could have been a passive carrier of that gene). They bred it a ton, and now it's an expensive coloration of bearded dragon.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Uh... everything you are saying here contradicts the position you have been presenting for ages, unless you think a wolf that is born with slightly floppy ears compared to the parents never happens and you think there were always some floppy eared individuals. Actually, why don't you point out a wolf that has that trait? Surely humans couldn't have collected all of them.

Because you have never bothered to read the silver fox domestication experiment performed in Russia. In which foxes that have never been observed to have floppy years in the wild, developed floppy ears under domestication.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...DD39A88?doi=10.1.1.722.7853&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Any other strawmen you want to posit?

Also, it's a fact that new traits appear spontaneously in populations, which is how paradox bearded dragons came into existence. A breeder had one born that lost it's normal pigment in splotches, a trait never seen before which appeared in a population of bearded dragons that had never had that trait (it's a dominant gene, so no bearded dragon could have been a passive carrier of that gene). They bred it a ton, and now it's an expensive coloration of bearded dragon.

And show me where I ever said skin color could not be a mutation? Sarah you and I have been through this many times. Skin color, or hair color means nothing.

Even your own evolutionary biologists preach this.

Genetic Study Shows Skin Color Is Only Skin Deep | Smart News | Smithsonian

Skin color, or hair color has nothing to do with anything.

And guess what? Despite coloration, they are still bearded dragons, now aren’t they...... and why? Because you haven’t bred them with another breed, or selected for traits that would lead to one distinct enough to be called a new breed.

Next straw man argument please....

As if having to deal with your attempts to turn it into racism when discussing Asians and Africans, now you are trying to turn it into racism when talking about dogs. Get it through your head. The color of ones skin or hair or fur (or feathers for that matter), has nothing to do with what separates subspecies.

 

[pitabread]

As if having to deal with your attempts to turn it into racism when discussing Asians and Africans

The irony being the one who started the whole discussion of "Asians" and "Africans" was you. Now you're accusing others of racism for the discussing the very same???

 

[tas8831]

No, no, no. Hybridization is a evolutionary made up term to dismiss following science of two subspecies mating, so they can claim its two species mating.

According to you, 2 subspecies (races) mated a few generations removed from Adam (whom, we are also told had a 'perfect' genome) and produced Asians and Africans, whom, upon mating, produce an Afro-asian.

You have yet to explain what those two subspecies that mated to produce Asians and Africans in the first place were, and what hybridization event produced THEM.


And you cannot do this because your "hypothesis" is middle school level nonsense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

According to you, 2 subspecies (races) mated a few generations removed from Adam (whom, we are also told had a 'perfect' genome) and produced Asians and Africans, whom, upon mating, produce an Afro-asian.

You have yet to explain what those two subspecies that mated to produce Asians and Africans in the first place were, and what hybridization event produced THEM.


And you cannot do this because your "hypothesis" is middle school level nonsense.

Oh I would hazard a guess that Adam and Eve were homo antecessor and that they produced the subspecies Neanderthal and Denisovans.

Oldest ever human genome sequence may rewrite human history

It’s not my problem you all can’t accept the scientific definitions of subspecies.....

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs”

Stop calling them separate species and your confusion will go away, really. Just accept that they are subspecies of the original pair.....

Yours is grade school, since you can’t even follow your own definitions. No, not even grade school, as they start teaching scientific definitions then.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think you can get from there (the earliest life form) to here (complex life forms) by any 'natural' process, thus my incredulity.

Well, there’s no good response to an incredulous stare. If that’s all you’ve got, move along.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, there’s no good response to an incredulous stare. If that’s all you’ve got, move along.

Yah well, scientists have been trying for a few hundred years to get simple life to mutate into something more complex, going through billions of generations in months. All we got from them in the end was an incredulous stare, because those simple life forms just wouldn’t cooperate....

 

[gaara4158]

Yah well, scientists have been trying for a few hundred years to get simple life to mutate into something more complex, going through billions of generations in months. All we got from them in the end was an incredulous stare, because those simple life forms just wouldn’t cooperate....

I don’t know where you’re getting “billions of generations in months” from. With one generation per second, that would take 31.7 years. That would be phenomenal. Do you have a link to that study?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don’t know where you’re getting “billions of generations in months” from. With one generation per second, that would take 31.7 years. That would be phenomenal. Do you have a link to that study?

In 2017 100,000 strains were completed.

In human equivalency that would be 12,000,000 years of evolution for the human race. E. coli, like humans, can live for hundreds of years. The process was accelerated in the laboratory. So basically after 12 million years of evolution, we ended up with what we started with. E. coli with no more genetic complexity than before. Supposedly we went from a missing common ancestor to fully human and chimp in less than a couple million. What, and you can’t get past a single cell in 12?

And in the end ended up with bacteria, no more advanced then what he started with. The test is still ongoing. Want to make a bet that in another 100,000 strains, or 12 million years of evolution, we end up with just more E. coli? How confident in your beliefs are you? I am quite confident in mine.

You will never get from simple to complex until a genetic engineer splices the genes and creates it....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, there’s no good response to an incredulous stare. If that’s all you’ve got, move along.

It's a well thought out stare, and I've moved way past that tired old theory (I drop in now and then to let old friends know that I'm still faithful to my beliefs).