proving evolution as just a "theory"

pitabread · Oct 19, 2017

rjs330 said:
So we haven't and are not observing the process even now.

Of course we are observing the process now. Evolution is a continual, ongoing process. It never stops.

What we can observe in our own lifetimes is a snapshot of evolutionary change. Obviously what we observe in say 100 years isn't going to demonstrate the same magnitude of change we might see if we could observe it over a longer period, say thousands or millions of years. But we have the history of that process preserved in both the genetic makeup of modern organisms and in the fossil record.

AV1611VET · Oct 19, 2017

pitabread said:
What we can observe in our own lifetimes is a snapshot of evolutionary change.

QV please:

AV1611VET said:
The fossil record, if photographed and made into an fps book, would demonstrate instant arrival of species.

pitabread · Oct 19, 2017

AV1611VET said:
QV please:

What is "instant arrival of species" supposed to even mean?

AV1611VET · Oct 19, 2017

pitabread said:
What is "instant arrival of species" supposed to even mean?

It means that one minute you're alone in a garden, then you hear something behind you, turn around, and there stands an ape; then you turn back, and there stands a tower of giraffes.

pitabread · Oct 19, 2017

AV1611VET said:
It means that one minute you're alone in a garden, then you hear something behind you, turn around, and there stands an ape; then you turn back, and there stands a tower of giraffes.

Yeah... that's not how it works. Better luck next time.

AV1611VET · Oct 19, 2017

pitabread said:
Yeah... that's not how it works. Better luck next time.

It's a matter of Darwin's Tree versus God's Groves.

pitabread · Oct 19, 2017

AV1611VET said:
It's a matter of Darwin's Tree versus God's Groves.

This... this is going nowhere. Let's just stop.

AV1611VET · Oct 19, 2017

pitabread said:
This... this is going nowhere. Let's just stop.

Don't wanna learn doctrine!?

That's your prerogative.

I don't wanna learn yours, either.

Bugeyedcreepy · Oct 19, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
I beg to differ. If monkey and man were created both from the same dust, then over time through interbreeding within each species specific traits, the similarities would still be there with the accumulated differences. Yet man and monkey need not share a common ancestor, just the same basic DNA building blocks that all life shares. After all, as countless on here have agreed trying to lessen the empirical data..... e coli remain e coli...... dogs remain dogs..... fruit flies remain fruit flies.

So tell me then, does a hedgehog and echidna share amazing similarities that indicate a recent divergent speciation event or common designer, just like man and monkey share the same basic DNA building blocks that just happen to look like they shared a recent common ancestor?

gaara4158 said:
The Chinook is not the basis of the theory of evolution. Your fixation on this particular breed is puzzling.

A Mastiff is a Mastiff and a Husky is a Husky. And yet they are related, and you have no problem with that. They are descended from wolves, and you have no problem with that. And yet, you deny that there must have been transitional forms between the wolf and the Mastiff, the wolf and the Husky. How do you think these breeds came about?

I'd like to see him point to what wolf these different breeds came from too - it seems he also lacks the basics of human evolution/creation, even by his own religious texts given everyone supposedly came from Adam and Eve...

Justatruthseeker said:
The Chinook is what you believe evolution to be. Your ignoring this clear change in form from interbreeding instead of never observed mutation is what is puzzling......

The forms between are not transitional as you would have them be. They are one and all the same species...... So perhaps you should rethink those in the fossil record? Just a suggestion based upon the empirical data, mind you.

I think they came about through interbreeding, not any form of mutation or evolution. That you refuse to apply the empirical evidence to the fossil record is something you must learn to live with. Apparently you have learned to ignore how new forms actually appear within the species, instead proposing some mythical process never observed instead. I simply ask you to apply how you know those new forms appeared in the species to the fossil record. Nothing unreasonable or non-scientific. You refuse to do so, even though you seem to be aware just how those new forms came about, and know it required no evolution at all. I find that to be very unscientific, since its the only time you have observed changes in form. Every Mastiff born undergoes mutations. Every Husky born does so as well. Yet they dont change forms. Only when those two mate does a new form appear. Why do you find it necessary to refuse to apply this observed change in form to the fossil record?

......aaaaannnnd still no explanation for how wolves gave way to huskies and mastiffs in the first place....

pitabread said:
I asked you this before and you never answered: Do you believe that individual 'pure bred' dog breeds were originally created?

Where did Huskies and Mastiff's come from?

.....so, ^^^ This! ^^^ Along with African, Asian and Caucasian humans too, how did we all come about to be these unique ethnicities in the first place to be able to produce your 'Afro-Asians', etc...?

USincognito · Oct 19, 2017

rjs330 said:
Yes because you have no scientific evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. You have supposition, and assumption, but have no way to test or reproduce or observe the phenomenon.

You can keep repeating that flasehood, but it won't be any less false. You can also keep shouting your magic words, but they won't make the evidence disappear.

USincognito · Oct 19, 2017

rjs330 said:
Look around, all your so called evidence of common ancestor is actually evidence of common design from a designer. But I can't test or reproduce that any more than you can evolution from a common ancestor.

Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?
Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?
Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?
Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?

Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.

gaara4158 · Oct 20, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
The Chinook is what you believe evolution to be. Your ignoring this clear change in form from interbreeding instead of never observed mutation is what is puzzling......

The forms between are not transitional as you would have them be. They are one and all the same species...... So perhaps you should rethink those in the fossil record? Just a suggestion based upon the empirical data, mind you.

I think they came about through interbreeding, not any form of mutation or evolution. That you refuse to apply the empirical evidence to the fossil record is something you must learn to live with. Apparently you have learned to ignore how new forms actually appear within the species, instead proposing some mythical process never observed instead. I simply ask you to apply how you know those new forms appeared in the species to the fossil record. Nothing unreasonable or non-scientific. You refuse to do so, even though you seem to be aware just how those new forms came about, and know it required no evolution at all. I find that to be very unscientific, since its the only time you have observed changes in form. Every Mastiff born undergoes mutations. Every Husky born does so as well. Yet they dont change forms. Only when those two mate does a new form appear. Why do you find it necessary to refuse to apply this observed change in form to the fossil record?

Interbreeding with what, exactly? What did a wolf interbreed with to produce a Husky? A Mastiff? A Pomeranian?

Scientists do not simply consider the size and shape of a fossil to determine where it belongs in the fossil record. They consider its age, the region where it was found, the degree of homogeny with other fossils, etc. Scientists rummaging the skeletons of huskies, chinooks, and mastiffs wouldn’t assume one evolved from the other because they would see that they existed contemporaneously. They would conclude a common ancestor with possible interbreeding. And that’s exactly what they did with humans and Neanderthals.

I’m not the one refusing to understand here, you are.

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
If you find primates next to trilobites you'd falsify Creation, since water animals were created before crawling things and on down the list. Most creationists just like to ignore the second word of the second verse of the Bible and not realize those six days are representative of the six periods of creation, along with the 5 destructions....

I just ignore the entire bible.

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Because dogs dont change species. Neither do finches, but since Darwin called them separate species based upon the mistaken belief they were reproductively isolated, they simply refuse to admit to that mistake and reclassify them as all the same species.

They also simply incorrectly classify subspecies in the fossil record as separate species to support their belief in speciation.

Speciation is an observed process and thus a fact.

But anyway, let me get this straight.... you feel dog breeding programs contradict evolution, because dogs in such programs produce more dogs? Is that it?

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

HiEv said:
And if you care about believing the truth, you should choose a well-substantiated scientific theory over blind religious dogma every time. Due to the formal methods, rigorous testing, and the built-in error correction mechanism, the former has a far better track record than the latter.

That's rather optimistic, knowing that the average dogmatic believer will simply consider "reality" to be wrong, when reality contradicts their beliefs.

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Yes and no one has ever shown me a beneficial mutation.

That's a straight up lie. Plenty of people have done so, including myself.
I could easily do it again, but what would be the point?

We know that all things work out for the best. We know that God causes good to come out of evil. But mutations are evil, it is God that is able to turn evil around and cause good to come out of the evil we find here in the world we live in.

We live in a fallen world and mutations are a part of the fall. It is God that is doing a work to bring about redemption. This is His desire to restore all of creation to His plan and purpose. He is going to undo the harm and the damage that the devil and man has inflicted on His Creation.

All that is baseless superstitious belief that you can't support in any way or form.

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
The internet is public, the forum itself is on a private server. The rules are you can only complain about comment made about you. They do not allow you to complain about comments made to someone else.

Get over yourself. It's a public forum and a public thread. You posted a comment and I posted a reply about your comment, not about your person.

If you post irrelevant statements, I get to point it out.
You get to do the same to me. So it's all fair.

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
No, because if you dont keep changing your story, it will end up being falsified.

It's called "learning" and "making progress".

You don't like learning and progress?

And I support science 100 percent

...as long as it doesn't contradict your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Ophiolite · Oct 20, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
The internet is public, the forum itself is on a private server. The rules are you can only complain about comment made about you. They do not allow you to complain about comments made to someone else.

That means you are not allowed to complain to staff. It most certainly does not prohibit one from commenting upon questions, answers, observations and the like made by others. If you disagree simply Report all the offending posts.

DogmaHunter · Oct 20, 2017

rjs330 said:
A correction to be accurate has to be factual. Any so called correction is based on the assumptive reasoning of evolution and thus not a factual correction.

That the collective DNA of life, as well as anatomy, falls into a nested hierarchy is a fact, not an assumption.

still have yet to see an observation and testable evidence that it occurred.

Google "observed speciation".
And every genome being sequenced is a test of the nested hierarchy.
Every fossil found is a test of the logical progression.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Gen Alpha Dad

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Code Monkey

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency