proving evolution as just a "theory"

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

pitabread said:
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.

Yet I can observe change of form in the species in a mere 26 weeks, just mate a Husky or Mastiff, A Lion or Tiger, a Grizzly or polar bear. Now it might take hundreds of thousands of years without man before those mate on their own and produce the forms you observe in the fossil record and simply confuse as evolution. So why not apply the process of how you observe new forms appear to the fossil record, instead of just imagining how it supposedly happens?

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

pitabread said:
Perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with the concept of a genotype: Genotype - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should stop ignoring that the Husky despite all those mutations at every birth remains Husky, and that the Chinook is easily distinguished genetically from the Husky...

Your posts generally demonstrate a clear gap with your knowledge of the subject of which you continue to attempt to critique. Which isn't a problem if you take steps to rectify it.

Otherwise expecting to be able to critique a scientific topic without first understanding what that topic is about is quite unreasonable. Downright silly even.

Your post always demonstrate a clear refusal to accept the empirical evidence right in front of your eyes. Avoidance of the subject will not change the facts.

Consistently you ignore that every Mastif puppy ever born with mutations remained Mastiff. That the only time you observed a change in form, or genetic type, was when it mated with a Husky.

You can try to double talk all you like. You can try to attack the poster all you like (both simply showing your inability to counter the argument) and avoid the subject at hand. But it will never change the fact that the only time a new form arises in the species is when two interbreed.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

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?

If you dont know, why are you in this conversation? Do I need to spell out that they were bred from wolves by interbreeding those with specific traits? You mean pure breed like Asian and African, instead of a mixed breed like Afro-Asian?

AV1611VET · Oct 21, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
So why not apply the process of how you observe new forms appear to the fossil record, instead of just imagining how it supposedly happens?

I think arguing the fossil record is one of the biggest wastes of time, as evolutionists will tell you that, even without the fossil record, evolution stands.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

Just to put some claims to rest.

Coelacanth - The Full Wiki

"They were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938."

Sadly that link is still missing.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
I think arguing the fossil record is one of the biggest wastes of time, as evolutionists will tell you that, even without the fossil record, evolution stands.

Where? Husky remains husky despite all those mutations every Husky is born with, as does the Mastiff. The only time a new form has appeared in the line is when one mates with the other. I simply ask them to apply how they know new forms arise to the fossil record.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

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

You know, when for example a Husky and Mastiff mate and produce a Chinook and because you only have bones name it a separate species.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 21, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
Anyway, just stopped by to see if anyone had proven evolution a fact yet...

Depends on what you mean by "evolution". Even Dr Dino believes in micro evolution. The problem is that people do not accept macro evolution.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

Bugeyedcreepy said:
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?

Common design.

But I'm sure based on no evidence at all youll claim otherwise.

Echidna - Wikipedia

"The first divergence between oviparous (egg-laying) and viviparous (offspring develop internally) mammals is believed to have occurred during the Triassic period.[25] However, there is still some disagreement on this estimated time of divergence. Though most findings from genetics studies (especially those concerning nuclear genes) are in agreement with the paleontological findings, some results from other techniques and sources, like mitochondrial DNA, are in slight disagreement with findings from fossils"

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...

Prehistoric fossils suggest modern dogs evolved from a single population of wolves

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

Through interbreedng of specific traits during domestication. But that would require you to read.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...tten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/

.....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...?

Through interbreeding of specific traits. Your own evolutionists tell you that all dog breeds came from one wolf stock. Why do you find it difficult to believe the same of humans. Just like we bred those with Husky traits together to eventually get the Husky, so too those with Asian traits tended to mate until we got Asian. Is your biology that poor you cant understand such a simple thing? Oh that's right, from wolf to Husky didnt take millions of years or mutations, so you cant comprehend it. I understand.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
It's called "learning" and "making progress".

You don't like learning and progress?

Just you dont. You refuse to see that despite all the mutations every Husky puppy and Mastiff puppy is born with it remains the same. That the only time a new form appeared was when those two mated.

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

Haven't seen any yet that once the evolutionary PR is removed, contradicts it in the least, but actually supports it. And my belief isnt fundamentalist. I disagree with many of the English translation of words in the Bible which leads to incorrect thoughts. I am not a fundamentalist like you that will agree with everything his high priests of evolution tell him to believe.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Then what was Y2K?

That was an invention of Bill Gates to put enough money in his pocket so he could retire. Everyone everywhere thought they had to buy a new computer in the year 2000. People were afraid airplanes would drop out of the sky at midnight on the first day of the year 2000. Gates and his buddies laughed all the way to the bank. It does not surprise me at all because I know how gullible people are. It is very easy to cash in and make money the way Gates did. A quick look at this form shows how easy people are to tricked and deceived. It is the truth that people seem to want to reject.

gaara4158 · Oct 21, 2017

xianghua said:
ok. take the snap trap of some carnivorous plants. this mechanism make the leaf moving. so you will need at least several parts to ferform such function.

Show how each part could not have served a different purpose before becoming a part of the snaptrap system. Details, please.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
"common design" does not result in a nested hierarchy.

I submit ALL manufactured goods by any and all brands/companies as evidence.
Not a single one falls into a nested hierarchy.

In context of evolution, a nested hierarchy is the only possible outcome.

So... in other words... the pattern we observe in life is exactly what we expect if evolution is accurate. And if creation is accurate, it is the exact patter that we would not expect.

Nope. If an engineer at sony would build a productline with a nested hierarchy, the dude would be fired on the ground of being incompetent, wasteful and inneficient.

The design of life is ineficient and wasteful, if it was done on purpose.

Sorry, all life follows a nested hierarchy because male and female mate and produce offspring. Not once has one evolved into something different.

You are the same species as your parents, who were the same species as theirs, on and on as far back as you care to go. And as far into the future as you care to go.

New species do not appear, new forms in the species appear. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. You have simply confused the appearance of new forms in the fossil record from interbreeding as a new species.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
And again with same nonsense that was corrected not more then a day or two ago in this very thread.

Mutations factually happen. There is no such thing as "mutation theory". We observe them to happen. We KNOW they happen. It happens in EVERY newborn.

We agree. Every Asian born remains Asian. Every African born remains African. The only time an actual change happens is when those two interbreed. All the mutations in the world wont change that fact.

The theory of evolution is about one very specific aspect of reality: the origins of species; the process by which variation and diversity is introduced into populations.

No its not. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Asian mates with African and produces the Afro-Asian. Thats how variation and diversity is introduced in the real world.

To say that evolution shows the bible to be "100% accurate" is ridiculous to the highest degree.

Agreed, there is no evolution. Asian remains Asian, African African, Husky Husky, despite all those claimed mutations.

If you limit the bible to just those parts where it talks about the origins of creatures (genesis) then one thing is painfully clear: it does NOT match with reality. Not even remotely. Not even with a big imagination. The only way to marry both is by saying that while the bible writes "white", it really means "black".

Or simply by saying that it is a metaphorical story used to impart a lesson on ethics or morals or whatever, and it should not be understand as an actual account of how living things come about.

Sophisticated theists are smart enough to go for that last option. One of them, is your hero Francis Collins. Another is the pope. And with him, most catholics.

And yet mutations never change an Asian or African into anything else. Only when those two mate is a new race formed.

Right, the pope, those who forbid priests to marry, despite the Bible telling them an overseer of the flock must be married and able to Shepard his own household before the flock. Those who worship graven images. Yah, I'll get right to believing that guy.

In evolution, sexual reproduction evolved from asexual reproduction. Which means that there was a time where there were no females or males.

Asexual reproduction produces only clones.........

AV1611VET · Oct 21, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Where? Husky remains husky despite all those mutations every Husky is born with, as does the Mastiff. The only time a new form has appeared in the line is when one mates with the other. I simply ask them to apply how they know new forms arise to the fossil record.

I understand that.

But you're dealing with people who play connect-the-dots.

And they don't even have to label the dots, just connect them and call them a "common ancestor."

Since the fossil record is an fps book and not a daisy chain, it points to creationism.

But since evolutionists don't believe in creationism, they made up their own term: punctuated equilibrium, where the daisy chain goes "underground" and doesn't have to actually exist.

xianghua · Oct 21, 2017

gaara4158 said:
Show how each part could not have served a different purpose before becoming a part of the snaptrap system. Details, please.

we know that a part of a complex biological system will not work (if you will remove the part that send the signal to the leaf for instance). so we know that each part isnt functional by itself. exactly like the car example.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
killing gay people for being gay ?

Isnt that what you support, survival of the fittest? What, you are not going to stand up for your own beliefs? Dont you support discarding the weak and old and infirm? Every animal in the animal kingdom does it. Are we not just evolved animals? Or do you want to bring the Bible in and discuss ethics and morality?

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
I understand that.

But you're dealing with people who play connect-the-dots.

So am I, Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the new form of the Chinook, suddenly, fully formed. I'm just trying to get them to use reality in their game of connect the dots.

And they don't even have to label the dots, just connect them and call them a "common ancestor."

But every "common ancestor" on every single tree is missing........

Since the fossil record is an fps book and not a daisy chain, it points to creationism.

Agreed, it's a history of the prior six creations and the five destructions. As soon there will be a fps page of the sixth destruction before the seventh and final creation.

But since evolutionists don't believe in creationism, they made up their own term: punctuated equilibrium, where the daisy chain goes "underground" and doesn't have to actually exist.

Because each of those snapshots is from the destruction of the previously created life. This is why they cant connect them, life was created anew after every destruction, except for the few that survived each destruction.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Actually I was merely pointing out where you have been shown examples of beneficial mutations in the past, after you claimed you hadn't.

I agree in beneficial mutations, but it still doesnt change an Asian into anything other than an Asian or an African into anything other than an African. Only the interbreeding of those two races creates a nbew race.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 21, 2017

USincognito said:
Why are you having such trouble learning that using magic words like "assumptions" does not actually address the evidence or make it go away?
View attachment 210550

Agreed. The evidence that every husky born with mutations remains Husky and every Mastiff born with mutations remains Mastiff and only when Husky and Mastiff mate will a new form appear will never go away.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency