My Stupid Challenge

Speedwell said:

Interesting point. In fact it wouldn't matter if Darwin was an imaginary person, just a character in a story, because the ideas he expressed have been tested and confirmed by real evidence.

Click to expand...

Am I to assume you are saying events in the bible were not confirmed?

Speedwell said:

Interesting point. In fact it wouldn't matter if Darwin was an imaginary person, just a character in a story, because the ideas he expressed have been tested and confirmed by real evidence.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ Speedwell, it's not an interesting point, it's a transparent attempt to avoid answering. (Although I agree with the rest of your point).

Kenny'sID said:

Do you think the tales of, or about Darwin were written down at the time they were conceived, and if so, was that something you saw for yourself, or did you just read it from a book.

Click to expand...

Since you're avoiding my question I'll try a different one.... How long after the events of the creation story do you think they were recorded?

Kenny'sID said:

Am I to assume you are saying events in the bible were not confirmed?

Click to expand...

Some of them have been, mostly not.

There still was a starting point. And that is what is silly to deny

Jimmy D said:

Since you're avoiding my question I'll try a different one.... How long after the events of the creation story do you think they were recorded?

Click to expand...

Not avoiding, I had no answer, but if you insist on something then, I don't know... why do you ask?

And why are you avoiding my question?

Speedwell said:

Some of them have been, some not.

Click to expand...

Which ones have not? I mean in line with this topic of course, not all.

miknik5 said:

This also will not hold

it depends on what America is being "dumbed down" to

Click to expand...

That would be stupidness.

miknik5 said:

Will we be fixing these unexpressed genes?

Click to expand...

I don't remember saying anything "unexpressed genes".
What makes you think none of these mutations have actual effect on phenotypes?

There are enough mutations in humans that DO have an effect.
Unique Tibetan genes that make them more fit to live at high altitudes come to mind...
Immunity to certain deseases is another.
Blue eyes - also a mutation.

Etc etc

Further, "fixing" ones genetic makeup so that future generational children are "outwardly perfect" still doesn't resolve the inner imperfection of men

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about and something tells me that YOU don't even know what you are talking about.

I was responding to 57 who said that it can't be demonstrated that "mutations add up" over generations. That is utterly false.
Not only CAN that be demonstrated, it HAS been demonstrated.

It IS being demonstrated everyday, on every farm, in every breeding program,... all around the world.

It literally is how we turned the banana on the right, into the banana on the left over many many generations of banana's:

blackribbon said:

Um...you have proven ADAPTATION

Click to expand...

Same thing.

, not evolution or that these genes are MUTATIONS...

Click to expand...

Adaption doesn't happen by magic. It happens by genetic mutations.

As for paternity test....they are NOT genetic studies for mutations.... Have you had a genetic study done on you or your kids...or your parents...one focused on finding genetic MUTATIONS? No, these are not common.

Click to expand...

Think it through, will ya....
DNA is inherited by off spring.
So my DNA is a mix of the DNA of my mom and dad.
Meaning that there shouldn't be ANYTHING in my DNA that isn't ALSO in the DNA of my mom or dad - if mutations do not occur.

But this is not the case. I DO have stuff in my DNA that doesn't come from either one - it is unique to me. These unique things are mutations.

Each human, on average, has about 50 mutations.

It's called "the mutation rate" of a species. Look it up.

Kenny'sID said:

Which ones have not? I mean in line with this topic of course, not all.

Click to expand...

Nothing in Gen 1-22. There is not even any confirmation that those stories were even meant to be more than legendary.

blackribbon said:

I do understand how evolution is supposed to work and it makes no sense scientifically.

Click to expand...

Biologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, biochemists, etc, overwhelmingly disagree with your layman's opinion.

And they actually know what they are talking about - while you obviously don't.

Spontaneous generation is not possible and is considered scientifically false

Click to expand...

1. the origins of life is out-of-scope for evolution. in fact, it is a question that lives in a different field of science entirely.

2. "spontaneous generation" is an idea from more then a century ago which has been discarded for also about a century or so. It seems you need to brush up a bit, since you are way behind. The modern hypothesis is found under abiogenesis and it is a work in progress.

However, it is the very basic premise of evolution.

Click to expand...

It's not.
Evolution assumes that life exists and that's it. Which seems like a pretty safe assumption. It doesn't matter to evolution AT ALL, how life came to be.

Evolution requires some sort of magic to have even started the process

Click to expand...

No. It just requires life to exist- by whatever means.
It doesn't matter at all. Evolution is a process that existing life is subject to.
It's called the origin of species.

...and magic isn't scientific.

Click to expand...

Says the creationist....

In order to believe in evolution, a person has to have faith in the unknown and unseen

Click to expand...

No. Life demonstrably exists and we can study it.

...which kind of sounds like religion and not science.

Click to expand...

Most of all, it sounds like a strawman. And a big, fat one at that...

Evolution doesn't have any tangible proof...

Click to expand...

Funny. +200.000 scientific papers on the subject, says otherwise.

if it did, I would expect that there would be at least one human example of a person who wasn't completely human in some medical study by now.

Click to expand...

You only expect that, because you obviously have no clue how evolution works.
Individuals don't speciate. Populations do.
And only vertically as well, never horizontally. Species don't jump branches.

As in: every individual that ever lived, was of the same species as its direct parents.
Just like every human that ever lived, spoke the same language as the parents that human was raised by. But yet, latin became french, spanish, italian, portugese,...

But, as the Dawkins likes to say, no latin speaking mother ever gave birth to a spanish speaking child.

Here's a tip for you: before trying to argue against (or for, for that matter) a scientific model, please first inform you about said model.

Because at this point, you are just arguing against strawmen and exposing your utter ignorance on the model.

That's fine though, there's no shame in ignorance. Ignorance, furthermore, is easily fixed with a bit of studying. But please... don't pretend to be qualified to argue about matters you clearly have no knowledge of.

However, even in my major huge hospital, we only treat regular humans...not a single unit for not fully human beings...and even all the babies keep turning out to be fully human....even the genetically damaged or mutated ones in the NICU.

Click to expand...

Here's the sarcasting silver line: if this wouldn't be the case, then the evolutionary model would be demonstrated to be wrong.

If a human would give birth to a non-human, then evolution as currently understood would be falsified.

See? The kind of "evidence" you would like to see in SUPPORT of evolution, would actually falsify it instead. That's how little you understand about this theory.

Do yourself a favor, and inform yourself on some basic biology. Because this is a waste of time and energy for everybody here - you most of all.

Speedwell said:

Nothing in Gen 1-22. There is not even any confirmation that those stories were even meant to be more than legendary.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume Adam didn't keep records?

dlamberth said:

That would be stupidness.

Click to expand...

"Stupidness" to_________?

Science?
Or the SOVEREIGNTY of GOD over all temporal things?

blackribbon said:

Note: THE THEORY...which means it is just that ... it isn't proven or scientific law...

Click to expand...

For crying out loud.............

"really good theories" don't become "facts" or "laws" in science.

Theories are hypothesis that are so supported that they "graduate" into theories. There is nothing beyond theories in science. It is the highest level any idea in science can achieve.

Here's some explanation concerning this jargon:

- Facts: observation; pieces of data (ie: apples fall down and not up)
- Laws: abstractions of sets of facts; (ie: things with mass attract other things with mass)
- Hypothesis: proposed explanation of a set of facts and laws
- Theory: accepted hypothesis.

Hypthesis/theories are explanations of sets of facts AND laws.

http://notjustatheory.com/

-57 said:

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

Click to expand...

DNA is inheritable and every newborn has x-amount of mutations. For humans, X averages to about 50.

2 people have sex and pass on their DNA, including the mutations.

Done.

Kenny'sID said:

Why do you assume Adam didn't keep records?

Click to expand...

If there was an Adam he may have done, assuming he could write.

blackribbon said:

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?

Click to expand...

Google "observed speciation".

TagliatelliMonster said:

I don't remember saying anything "unexpressed genes".
What makes you think none of these mutations have actual effect on phenotypes?

There are enough mutations in humans that DO have an effect.
Unique Tibetan genes that make them more fit to live at high altitudes come to mind...
Immunity to certain deseases is another.
Blue eyes - also a mutation.

Etc etc



I have no idea what you are talking about and something tells me that YOU don't even know what you are talking about.

I was responding to 57 who said that it can't be demonstrated that "mutations add up" over generations. That is utterly false.
Not only CAN that be demonstrated, it HAS been demonstrated.

It IS being demonstrated everyday, on every farm, in every breeding program,... all around the world.

It literally is how we turned the banana on the right, into the banana on the left over many many generations of banana's:

View attachment 185520

Click to expand...

Yes this is what I think was the intent of the poster who said something about our "fear of mutation"

Somehow getting the outside to look perfect (like the banana)

Again that does not (and actually will not) gaurantee that the inner man (not discussing his genes or DNA now) will be perfect