proving evolution as just a "theory"

[yeshuaslavejeff]

GOOD !

YHWH tells the TRUTH, and His children believe HIM.

The Devil tells his own story, and his subjects believe him.

Everyone believes someone......

Two opposing forces, everyone on one side OR the other - no in-between...

 

[The Times]

The Evolutionist pundits blur and confuse the lines between in built adaptations within the same species, to that of evolution from one species to another through hybridization. Darwin spoke of hybridization and evolution from one species to another species, from sea based to land based and vice versa.

Here are words of English professor Terry Scambray

Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.

Such changes as occurred with these finches are sometimes referred to as "evolution in action." But these infinitesimal changes are not "evolution" in the way that Darwin meant the word. For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

DNA studies have confirmed the traditional relationships and "genetic distances" between different plants and animals which have always existed as observed by humans over thousands of years.

Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies. So also much the same thing happened with the famous "Galapagos finches" whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather. Then when food became more plentiful, the beak size of those finches that survived returned to normal. Thus the finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged. In this way, nature moves back and forth, in cycles, rather than in a permanent upward climb or downward slide. … Resistance to pesticides and antibiotics does not mean that the insects and bacteria who survive these threats have "evolved." Quite the contrary. Those organisms "resist" the antibiotic or pesticide poisoning merely because of some feature of their cellular structure that does not bind with the poison

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Evolutionist pundits blur and confuse the lines between in built adaptations within the same species, to that of evolution from one species to another through hybridization. Darwin spoke of hybridization and evolution from one species to another species, from sea based to land based and vice versa.

Here are words of English professor Terry Scambray

Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.

Such changes as occurred with these finches are sometimes referred to as "evolution in action." But these infinitesimal changes are not "evolution" in the way that Darwin meant the word. For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

DNA studies have confirmed the traditional relationships and "genetic distances" between different plants and animals which have always existed as observed by humans over thousands of years.

Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies. So also much the same thing happened with the famous "Galapagos finches" whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather. Then when food became more plentiful, the beak size of those finches that survived returned to normal. Thus the finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged. In this way, nature moves back and forth, in cycles, rather than in a permanent upward climb or downward slide. … Resistance to pesticides and antibiotics does not mean that the insects and bacteria who survive these threats have "evolved." Quite the contrary. Those organisms "resist" the antibiotic or pesticide poisoning merely because of some feature of their cellular structure that does not bind with the poison

The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, that gene broken in the same way among most primates, evidence of common descent from an original primate that started that break among the primates.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Evolutionist pundits blur and confuse the lines between in built adaptations within the same species, to that of evolution from one species to another through hybridization. Darwin spoke of hybridization and evolution from one species to another species, from sea based to land based and vice versa.

Here are words of English professor Terry Scambray

Animals and plants appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain unchanged through millions of years. No knowledgeable individual denies this.

Such changes as occurred with these finches are sometimes referred to as "evolution in action." But these infinitesimal changes are not "evolution" in the way that Darwin meant the word. For he meant to explain how nature by itself could make something new, how one animal or plant over long periods of time could transform itself into something quite different, like a trout changing into a tiger, or a bacterium into a whale.

DNA studies have confirmed the traditional relationships and "genetic distances" between different plants and animals which have always existed as observed by humans over thousands of years.

Over millions of generations of laboratory testing, fruit flies, as one example, when subjected to genetic changes have not changed into anything but mutated, crippled fruit flies. So also much the same thing happened with the famous "Galapagos finches" whose average beak size became bigger when the conditions there made it harder to find food due to bad weather. Then when food became more plentiful, the beak size of those finches that survived returned to normal. Thus the finches changed a little, adapted, while remaining fundamentally unchanged. In this way, nature moves back and forth, in cycles, rather than in a permanent upward climb or downward slide. … Resistance to pesticides and antibiotics does not mean that the insects and bacteria who survive these threats have "evolved." Quite the contrary. Those organisms "resist" the antibiotic or pesticide poisoning merely because of some feature of their cellular structure that does not bind with the poison

Why does the account of an English professor outweigh that a biology professor? Or a palentologist.

This is a classic "Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Citing an individual with no actual expertise relevant to the question and claiming theirs in an informed opinion of equal weight to the actual professionals.

Also, much of what Prof. Scambray argues above is demonstrably false. Such as his critiques of fruit flies and Darwin's Finches (and resistance in bacteria and insects).

Speciation in fruit flies has been observed in as little as EIGHT GENERATIONS. Speciation in fruit flies has been observed, under laboratory conditions, at least dozens of times (if not hundreds or thousands of times), with methods as simple as reproductive isolation and food source differentiation.

Same thing with Darwin's finches - adaptation within species is observed (for example, beak size and the thickness of the keratin) during cycles of hot/dry and cold/wet conditions. However, speciation is also observed - Peter and Rosmary Grant have written about the speciation seen in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) due to a variety of selective pressures. Since the mid 1970s.

I challenge you to actually do some reading and check up on both cases.

 

[USincognito]

Yes look at all the assumptions! It's quite amazing really. Just reading the post about mammals and their evolution. It's all one big assumption that this or that happened. Yet there actually is no evidence that what they claimed happened really did. They believe it did, they assume it did, they suppose it did, but there remains no real evidence that it actually did. Evolution loves to POOF, as you say, magical facts based upon no testing, no observation and no ability to reproduce the results.

Wow. You didn't understand my post at all did you. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but your coopting of my verbiage makes it quite humorous.

 

[The Times]

The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, that gene broken in the same way among most primates, evidence of common descent from an original primate that started that break among the primates.

I find this an incoherent reply to the arguments being made, but hey that is allright, we have come to expect this reply from those who dogmatically hold to the religion of Evolution.

 

[The Times]

Why does the account of an English professor outweigh that a biology professor? Or a palentologist.

You are deflecting the issue, for the contention is not about titles of expertise, rather it is a contention regarding observable facts. The evolution claim is a fallacy, when adaptation of the same species is not proof of observable evolution, because Darwinism never meant nor implied it within species, but rather across species, that is from a whale to a lion as the English Professor mildly put it.

This is a classic "Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Citing an individual with no actual expertise relevant to the question and claiming theirs in an informed opinion of equal weight to the actual professionals.

Again your deflecting the issue, for the contention is not about authority, but rather how observable facts are termed and what Darwin meant when using the term evolution.

Also, much of what Prof. Scambray argues above is demonstrably false. Such as his critiques of fruit flies and Darwin's Finches (and resistance in bacteria and insects).

What weight do you want me to give this statement? Are you now pushing your hearsay authority on me and others?

Speciation in fruit flies has been observed in as little as EIGHT GENERATIONS. Speciation in fruit flies has been observed, under laboratory conditions, at least dozens of times (if not hundreds or thousands of times), with methods as simple as reproductive isolation and food source differentiation.

Loose terms such as speciation cannot be used within the same species. It seems evolutionists confuse terms to push their narrative. Please correctly use the English Term Adaptations within the same species ie cats, dogs, insects, reptiles, etc.

Same thing with Darwin's finches - adaptation within species is observed (for example, beak size and the thickness of the keratin) during cycles of hot/dry and cold/wet conditions. However, speciation is also observed - Peter and Rosmary Grant have written about the speciation seen in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) due to a variety of selective pressures. Since the mid 1970s.

There is no speciation seen, unless we see neomorphing to xenomorphing from one species to another and never going back in the process. The beaks of finches change back and forth within the same species and the correct term is adaptation to environmental conditions, food conditions and threats.

I challenge you to actually do some reading and check up on both cases.

I refuse to read authors who continuously and deceptively use wrong English terminologies.

It is funny how Atheistic Evolutionists make fun of me for spelling mistakes as I write on the fly, which ironically points to how easy they use the wrong terms like evolution in describing adaptation within the same species and never across different species as Darwin meant.

In fact Evolutionists claim millions of millions of years of intermediate processes, yet when providing evidence they sight ten generations of the same species as evolution, which really is inconsistent and incoherent and should be scientifically rejected.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I find this an incoherent reply to the arguments being made, but hey that is allright, we have come to expect this reply from those who dogmatically hold to the religion of Evolution.

Its evidence, obviously a difficult concept for some.

 

[Gene2memE]

Loose terms such as speciation cannot be used within the same species. It seems evolutionists confuse terms to push their narrative. Please correctly use the English Term Adaptations within the same species ie cats, dogs, insects, reptiles, etc.

I'll use the scientific definition - because that's what we're discussing. Science. Not English literature.

There is no speciation seen, unless we see neomorphing to xenomorphing from one species to another and never going back in the process. The beaks of finches change back and forth within the same species and the correct term is adaptation to environmental conditions, food conditions and threats.

You complain about use of the term 'species', and then raise fictitious terms like "neomorphing" and "xenomorphing"? Please provide definitions of both terms, with examples of both occurring in reality.

If you really want to challenge the observation of speciation in the Galapagos finches - take it up with the Grants. Here are some references for you - enjoy the reading.

Darwin's finches tracked to reveal evolution in action : Nature News
Kyoto prize for evolution while you watch : News blog
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/legendary-biologists-clocked-evolutions-astonishing-speed/

Opps, almost forgot their Kyoto Prize references - the ones for demonstrating evolution by natural selection in the field.

Kyoto Prize, Inamori Foundation
www.kyotoprize.org/en/laureates/barbara_rosemary_grant/

If you want more papers on rapid speciation, there are plenty of others available for insects, plants, fish, lizards and even some mammals.

Here's one on fish (cichlids) in Lake Victoria: Evolution: Cichlid Models on the Runaway to Speciation - ScienceDirect

I refuse to read authors who continuously and deceptively use wrong English terminologies.

Cool. As I've done none of the above, then you'll presumable keep interacting with me.

It is funny how Atheistic Evolutionists make fun of me for spelling mistakes as I write on the fly, which ironically points to how easy they use the wrong terms like evolution in describing adaptation within the same species and never across different species as Darwin meant.

Cool. As I've done none of the above, then you'll presumable keep interacting with me.

In fact Evolutionists claim millions of millions of years of intermediate processes, yet when providing evidence they sight ten generations of the same species as evolution, which really is inconsistent and incoherent and should be scientifically rejected.

Some speciation events are rapid, some speciation events are gradual. Hence, why there was a very long, very intense debate within the scientific community about punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism. Nature is highly complex with multiple mechaisms operating at different speeds and scales. There are at least five observed types of speciation that I'm aware of that have been observed, either in the wild, in the lab or via the result of human intervention. I'm sure there are more - as my knowledge on the topic is that of an interested lay-level enthusiast with a year of tertiary level biology.

I'll quote the introduction paper on cichlids I referenced earlier:

Speciation, the origin of novel species, is a complex and multilayered process that has remained hard to understand for empiricists and theoreticians alike. Researchers have dedicated much effort to pinpointing the factors and conditions that are responsible for some taxa diversifying rapidly while others linger in a speciation stasis. Only now are we realizing that it is the coupling of different intrinsic (e.g. natural history, genetics) and extrinsic (e.g. climate, habitat, behavioral interference) factors that produces the speciation momentum of adaptive radiations ​

[/QUOTE]

 

[The Times]

Evolution as opposed to NATURES selection of inbuilt adaptations within the same species of finches, highlight that all finches have the base genetic model.

The base genetic model has subscriptions that are conditionally time enabled, when certain natures environmental inputs are processed through a time driven recursive linear algorithm, which slightly deviates along the allowable operating range of the finch species quotient linear function.

This is a time driven four dimensional model of an operating quotient that is mathematically a linear algorithmic equation, without discontinuities. Meaning that the deviation can go back and forth along this linear algorithmic equation, repeatedly, without the loss of state or the contamination of one species with another, which would yield a none linear equation. A none linear function would mean that the finch beak cannot go back from a large to a small beak in a back and forth manner continuously and consistently, without corruption to the base genetic model, which would result in death by evolutionary chance.

As death by chance through these adaptation models are not observed, then there must exist, just like gravity exists, a linear algorithmic model for every species and the observations made in nature are nature science selection of inbuilt adaptations and by no means evolution in any regard of the term evolution according to Darwinism.

Linear function of each species is therefore independent from one species to another, where speciation cannot occur, because these are the ideals for linear quotients repeatedly observed, measured and quantified and qualified in nature.

So the finches change beak sizes by a four dimensional recursive time driven quotient algorithm that is accurately modelled.

The adaptation within the same species is backed by scientific mathematical modelling and as for evolution, it is just a pure leap in faith to believe suppositions that are not mathematically grounded.

Mathematical modelling can be consistently achieved by describing observable adaptations of the same species and can be applied in text books in the future which will show how each life is adaptively modelled within a range of environmental conditions.

Evolution has absolutely no business in science and cannot be applied mathematically and must be looked upon as a quasi science, like alchemy was in its hey days.

 

[The Times]

Its evidence, obviously a difficult concept for some.

What evidence is heresay.

 

[The Times]

• The ancestors of one's ancestors are also one's ancestors (recursion step).

The Fibonacci sequence is a classic example of recursion:

Fib(0)=0 as base case 1, Fib(0) = 0 as base case 1,

Fib(1)=1 as base case 2, Fib(1) = 1 as base case 2,

For all integers n>1, Fib(n):=Fib(n−1)+Fib(n−2).
For all integers n > 1, Fib(n) := Fib(n - 1) + Fib(n - 2).

Within species the maths are firmly grounded.

 

[Gene2memE]

Evolution as opposed to NATURES selection of inbuilt adaptations within the same species of finches, highlight that all finches have the base genetic model.

The base genetic model has subscriptions that are conditionally time enabled, when certain natures environmental inputs are processed through a time driven recursive linear algorithm, which slightly deviates along the allowable operating range of the finch species quotient linear function.

This is a time driven four dimensional model of an operating quotient that is mathematically a linear algorithmic equation, without discontinuities. Meaning that the deviation can go back and forth along this linear algorithmic equation, repeatedly, without the loss of state or the contamination of one species with another, which would yield a none linear equation. A none linear function would mean that the finch beak cannot go back from a large to a small beak in a back and forth manner continuously and consistently, without corruption to the base genetic model, which would result in death by evolutionary chance.

As death by chance through these adaptation models are not observed, then there must exist, just like gravity exists, a linear algorithmic model for every species and the observations made in nature are nature science selection of inbuilt adaptations and by no means evolution in any regard of the term evolution according to Darwinism.

Linear function of each species is therefore independent from one species to another, where speciation cannot occur, because these are the ideals for linear quotients repeatedly observed, measured and quantified and qualified in nature.

So the finches change beak sizes by a four dimensional recursive time driven quotient algorithm that is accurately modelled.

The adaptation within the same species is backed by scientific mathematical modelling and as for evolution, it is just a pure leap in faith to believe suppositions that are not mathematically grounded.

Mathematical modelling can be consistently achieved by describing observable adaptations of the same species and can be applied in text books in the future which will show how each life is adaptively modelled within a range of environmental conditions.

Evolution has absolutely no business in science and cannot be applied mathematically and must be looked upon as a quasi science, like alchemy was in its hey days.

I don't have the time necessary to unpack this wibble at the moment - perhaps I never will, as I think the universe will undergo its inevitable heat death before a sufficiently cogent reply can be phrased.

None of what you've written even adequately addresses what I've written, let alone rebuts it.

Could you please try reading the Nature and Wired articles on the Grants, and how their work documents and demonstrates observable rapid speciation (not just changes in beak size or function) in nature.

Otherwise, there's nothing further to discuss.

 

[The Times]

I don't have the time necessary to unpack this wibble at the moment - perhaps I never will, as I think the universe will undergo its inevitable heat death before a sufficiently cogent reply can be phrased.

None of what you've written even adequately addresses what I've written, let alone rebuts it.

Could you please try reading the Nature and Wired articles on the Grants, and how their work documents and demonstrates observable rapid speciation (not just changes in beak size or function) in nature.

Otherwise, there's nothing further to discuss.

Are you asking me to read your bible?

 

[Skreeper]

There is no speciation seen, unless we see neomorphing to xenomorphing from one species to another and never going back in the process.

I think you may have played a bit too much Pokemon or Dead Space. Or maybe you just saw the recent Alien movie?

Neomorphing and Xenomorphing may be real in your fantasy world, but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with reality or evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Evolution as opposed to NATURES selection of inbuilt adaptations within the same species of finches, highlight that all finches have the base genetic model.

The base genetic model has subscriptions that are conditionally time enabled, when certain natures environmental inputs are processed through a time driven recursive linear algorithm, which slightly deviates along the allowable operating range of the finch species quotient linear function.

This is a time driven four dimensional model of an operating quotient that is mathematically a linear algorithmic equation, without discontinuities. Meaning that the deviation can go back and forth along this linear algorithmic equation, repeatedly, without the loss of state or the contamination of one species with another, which would yield a none linear equation. A none linear function would mean that the finch beak cannot go back from a large to a small beak in a back and forth manner continuously and consistently, without corruption to the base genetic model, which would result in death by evolutionary chance.

As death by chance through these adaptation models are not observed, then there must exist, just like gravity exists, a linear algorithmic model for every species and the observations made in nature are nature science selection of inbuilt adaptations and by no means evolution in any regard of the term evolution according to Darwinism.

Linear function of each species is therefore independent from one species to another, where speciation cannot occur, because these are the ideals for linear quotients repeatedly observed, measured and quantified and qualified in nature.

So the finches change beak sizes by a four dimensional recursive time driven quotient algorithm that is accurately modelled.

The adaptation within the same species is backed by scientific mathematical modelling and as for evolution, it is just a pure leap in faith to believe suppositions that are not mathematically grounded.

Mathematical modelling can be consistently achieved by describing observable adaptations of the same species and can be applied in text books in the future which will show how each life is adaptively modelled within a range of environmental conditions.

Evolution has absolutely no business in science and cannot be applied mathematically and must be looked upon as a quasi science, like alchemy was in its hey days.

I can understand the words and even some of the sentences, but translating this gibberish is too much for me.

Why didn't you just address the evidence that Gene2meme presented?

 

[Jimmy D]

Here are words of English professor Terry Scambray

But where are the words of Paul Crosbie and Fred Schreiber, the biologists he was debating with?

Did they demonstrate that he is talking out of his backside or concede that his incisive rhetoric has demolished 200 years worth of scientific studies?

It's telling that you have to resort to such pathetic tactics in a vain attempt to score points.

I suppose it's easier than addressing evidence though.

 

[James1971]

The philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. If I were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, I could not expect anyone to believe me solely because my assertion could not be proven wrong.

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.

 

[bhsmte]

Its evidence, obviously a difficult concept for some.

Some evidence, is down right scary and should be denied at all costs.

 

[James1971]

I agree, most dont like evidence because it challenges the very foundation of their belief system. Rational thought and logic makes many uncomfortable, especially when the questions posed goes unchallanged.