My Stupid Challenge

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Part of the scientific definition of a species includes the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. So a horse and a donkey are not the same species because although they can produce an offspring (the mule), it is unable to reproduce. Gulls are a single species...so they can produce other gulls including plenty of hybrids which are ALL GULLS but they cannot interbreed with a pelican because it is a different SPECIES. In other words, a gull will always be a gull. This is high school level biology...not advanced genetics.

Except the European Herring and the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gulls don't produce offspring, so how does that fit into all this?

Proof of evolution on the most basic level would need to include an example of one species evolving into another species. Not adaptation or changes within a species (or "kind").

like the European Herring and the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gulls not producing offspring anymore?

Further more, evolution requires that life come from something/products that were not living.

No it doesn't, evolution has no position on abiogenesis.

Spontaneous generation has been proven false and it is the very basic premise of evolution.

I don't accept your claim, citation please.

Evolutionist believe that life came from non-life by some mysterious action a million billion years ago. Creationists believe that life came from life/or a Living God. Which honestly, makes more sense and is more scientific feasible. If you want to convince me otherwise, I need to know what is the mechanism that turned mud or even chemicals into the most basic & simple yet very complex form of life, the bacteria.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models for a primer. it explains the basics quite aptly, but let me know if you struggle to understand any of it....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Can I add a third person to "believe" in?

Louis Pasteur and the LAW of Biogenesis (note...not a "theory" but an accepted scientific LAW).

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observations and experiments.

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So a Scientific Law comes under, or is encompassed by a Scientific Theory.

 

[Kylie]

Then Adam would have to drop a LOT of support.

He has had support since 4004 BC.

Darwin only since 1809 AD.

Wow.

The length of time does not mean that the support is stronger.

 

[Kylie]

You can't demonstrate how mutations add up. All you do is present a coloring book version and claim they do. No citation required...only common sense.

Yes, science has shown this.

The fact that you are ignorant of it does not mean it isn't there.

 

[blackribbon]

Evolution requires the existence of self-replicating organisms which reproduce with variation. How such an organism came into existence is not known. Our lack of knowledge does not, however, invalidate the theory of evolution, which makes no claims about how such organisms arose.

Why? The theory of evolution makes no such prediction.

Note: THE THEORY...which means it is just that ... it isn't proven or scientific law...it is something that a bunch of people believe in even without proof....a faith based belief since even the most educated in the field have to rely on some "mysterious process" (which again, goes against known scientific LAW) to even start the process.

So based on this...my belief that the origin of life is God...is not that much different that the Evolutionist's also faith based belief in some mysterious 'happening'.... I personally think that the start of the process is a very important aspect in the explaining the creation of all biology.

Personally, I think that basing science on a premise that goes against known and proven science (Biogenesis) is a very big problem when making a scientific claim. Do you base your other scientific beliefs on platforms that have been proven incorrect? I personally do believe it invalidated the theory...or makes it very questionable on a scientific level. Now if you want to argue it as a "faith based" argument...well, that is exactly what it is. Then you can argue something mysterious happened a long time ago and the earth was created ... and something happened and suddenly life appear from non-life......and I will agree totally with you but I believe I know what that "something mysterious" is.

 

[blackribbon]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observations and experiments.

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So a Scientific Law comes under, or is encompassed by a Scientific Theory.

Are you seriously using WIKIPEDIA as your source of information?

If you do not have a basic understanding of the difference between the two, I don't have time tonight to teach you.

Are you really okay saying that you don't believe in the Law of Biogenesis...that if you float around in space, you might actually find a place where non-life is actively turning into life? That somehow, this is more plausible than believing in a God who created life from non-life. Have you ever looked at the biology of a bacteria? How did non-life suddenly become this complex creature capable of reproduction?

 

[blackribbon]

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook's law of elasticity.

http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-scientific-law-theory.html

So again...where does life begin? from life (God) or from non-life?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't accept your claim, citation please.

I think he may be referring to the idea of spontaneous generation shown to be unscientific by Pasteur and Tyndall, which is not abiogenesis and not relevant to this discussion. If it's the claim that 'spontaneous generation' is the basic premise of evolution, you're correct that he's wrong on that too - even if he means abiogenesis (I think he's confusing the two).

He sounds like a POE, but I think he's serious; classic Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[-57]

First of all, there is no evidence of a mutation happening between most parents and children....even in the off hand chance someone does a DNA study (you act like they do this all the time). And the plain truth is there is zero scientific evidence that a mutation ever IMPROVED any creature. Mutations are mistakes and if the mutation is bad or extreme enough, it often means that the animal can't reproduce. There is certainly no proof that a new body part or organ appears (well, that improved an animal)...and a new body part would never be considered an improvement but at horrible mutation (we work hard to keep extra limbs off our newborns). And definitely no proof of change from one species to another. That goes against the 2nd law of dynamics which basically things go from organized to disorganized and nothing gets "better" or more organized over time. There are changes within a species but this is not "evolution" but rather adaptation (meaning because white alligators are easier to see, they will be killed first ... therefore, there will be less white alligator DNA in the population and less white alligators ... but all alligators will remain 100% alligator and not turn into some other sort-of-alligator like animal).

I've been posting a long time and have never ever had an evo show how mutations can add up.

 

[Paul Finch]

Creationism and it's restrictive teachings about evolution is designed to stop creationists accepting evolution, apart from the obvious loss in the education stakes to the country it's creationists and their children who suffer the most.

 

[Paul Finch]

I've been posting a long time and have never ever had an evo show how mutations can add up.

Your blinkers are obviously of the highest quality.

 

[blackribbon]

Except the European Herring and the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gulls don't produce offspring, so how does that fit into all this?

like the European Herring and the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gulls not producing offspring anymore?

No it doesn't, evolution has no position on abiogenesis.

I don't accept your claim, citation please.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models for a primer. it explains the basics quite aptly, but let me know if you struggle to understand any of it....

Honestly, I don't know the finer aspects of bird biology (and I don't feel like learning either). These two gulls can't interbreed or don't interbreed? There is a huge difference. If they can not interbreed, then maybe you have a case...or maybe you just have the exception to the rule. Could they ever interbreed or were they just kind of stuck in the species "gull" because they didn't fit anywhere else...and this is kind of a recognized glitch in the classification system.

PS...Are you aware that using Wikipedia as a source is almost the same evidence as using no sources...at least in the academic world? They are good for general information but not a reliable source for anything evidence based.

 

[blackribbon]

Your blinkers are obviously of the highest quality.

What a FANTASTIC logical and scientific argument!

 

[blackribbon]

I've been posting a long time and have never ever had an evo show how mutations can add up.

And ironically, they don't seem to "get" that without concrete evidence, their belief is just as faith based as ours. Disagreeing with someone isn't the same as proving your point.

 

[-57]

Yes, science has shown this.

The fact that you are ignorant of it does not mean it isn't there.

When will you show us how mutations add up and form features such as the dolphins echo-location system?

 

[Speedwell]

Note: THE THEORY...which means it is just that ... it isn't proven or scientific law...it is something that a bunch of people believe in even without proof....a faith based belief since even the most educated in the field have to rely on some "mysterious process" (which again, goes against known scientific LAW) to even start the process.

So based on this...my belief that the origin of life is God...is not that much different that the Evolutionist's also faith based belief in some mysterious 'happening'.... I personally think that the start of the process is a very important aspect in the explaining the creation of all biology.

Personally, I think that basing science on a premise that goes against known and proven science (Biogenesis) is a very big problem when making a scientific claim. Do you base your other scientific beliefs on platforms that have been proven incorrect? I personally do believe it invalidated the theory...or makes it very questionable on a scientific level. Now if you want to argue it as a "faith based" argument...well, that is exactly what it is. Then you can argue something mysterious happened a long time ago and the earth was created ... and something happened and suddenly life appear from non-life......and I will agree totally with you but I believe I know what that "something mysterious" is.

I sense some confusion on your part as to whether you are arguing against the biological theory of evolution specifically, against naturalistic abiogenesis, against old Earth cosmology or just what. Certainly the theory of evolution is not offered as a "theory of all biology" merely as a theory of how life diversified after it first arose. Even so, there is considerable evidence for it, including speciation observed both in the lab and in the field.

 

[-57]

And ironically, they don't seem to "get" that without concrete evidence, their belief is just as faith based as ours. Disagreeing with someone isn't the same as proving your point.

True.

 

[-57]

including speciation observed both in the lab and in the field.

YEC's have no problem with speciation....then again you probably already knew that considering I told you that years ago....or did you forget?

 

[Speedwell]

YEC's have no problem with speciation....then again you probably already knew that considering I told you that years ago....or did you forget?

I believe that blackribbon specifically denied that there is any evidence of speciation occurring.

 

[blackribbon]

I believe that blackribbon specifically denied that there is any evidence of speciation occurring.

I do think I do deny this. This is new to me and I will admit it. What species has "evolved" to become a new species? I will be home later and will look into this. Is there positive proof that they were once a different species or is this speculation based on an original species that no one has ever actually touched and seen?

Is anyone going to answer my questions about the herring? And how do you know so much about gulls?