proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

Not the ability, the actuality. That old smear tactic no longer works. No one here is saying God couldn't have done it, only that He didn't.

Then why believe in redemption? Why believe in God at all if one believes God didn’t do it?

Sure, I understand there are those that see a universe of precision, and then believe it all happened randomly, but only those saying that it didn’t.

Some say random creates order, yet I’ve not once observed anything such. I’ve only seen order when intelligence ordered that chaos.

 

[HitchSlap]

What's interesting the evolutionists will deny the ability of all humans coming from two, but will wholeheartedly believe that all things human or not came from one thing.

What’s interesting, is what creationists allow themselves to believe without any evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Who’s obfuscating. Have you ever seen a black bear become other than a black bear unless it mates with another variant of bear?


I am manning up, I’ve never seen a Mastiff become anything other than a Mastiff. No new breed appears until it mates with the Husky.

Maybe you should look in the mirror when you utter the words man up and admit it.



Through interbreeding yes. Mutations to skin color don’t affect the Mastiff at all except to make it black or brown, doesn’t change what a Mastiff is, or the Husky. The only thing that makes a new variation is when those two mate.

But I’m glad you are beginning to accept that before a mutation, like skin or hair color to become fixed in the population, they must all be descended from two. At least that is a start in the right direction.

I see you've stopped with the "inbreeding" stuff. It's good to see you can take correction even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why believe in redemption? Why believe in God at all if one believes God didn’t do it?

Of course I believe God did it; I just don't believe he did according to the creationists' shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.

 

[xianghua]

And that supports your position how?

that even if we will see a cat evolving into a dog- evolutionists will claim that the fact its happened prove creationists are wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm curious, according to your argument all these (sub)species of Galapogos finches interbreed, is that correct?

And when two subspecies interbreed an new one is created, is that correct?

Have there been any new (sub)species recorded since Darwin's first visit?

Why yes, three of them are interbreeding so profusely, they term it merging into one. That they havent yet, officially recognized it as a new one is understandable, being they’ll first argue amongst themselves for years, before finally declaring a new species.

But remember, every single one of those “claimed” species, is no longer the same as what Darwin originally recorded, because of interbreeding.

I’m not sure if you can distinguish the subtlety, but I’ll try. Africans have not inbred for multiple specific traits like we have with dogs. So when an African and Asian mate the difference in offspring is more subtle, but still distinct. Not like dogs which have repeatedly been bred for specific traits. So that when Mastiff and Husky mate, the difference is more dramatic. Each one contains less overall variability.

The same with finches, man has not interfered, so like all animals subspecies tend to mate only within the same subspecies for survival reasons. So when they do interbreed, the differences are also less dramatic.

But why are you asking, read the grants paper yourself.

Or the others where they too observed it right before their eyes. Granted they are simply confused about species and subspecies, but since you asked.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

But let’s notice with those finches it required a different subspecies to make it happen....

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

that even if we will see a cat evolving into a dog- evolutionists will claim that the fact its happened prove creationists are wrong.

If a cat gave birth to a dog, evolution would be falsified.

 

[xianghua]

What sources?

this one for instance:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

"A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course I believe God did it; I just don't believe he did according to the creationists' shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.

Neither do I, but then I have researched the Hebrew words. But I certainly don’t believe we evolved from a shallow and scientifically inadequate interpretation of reality from single celled organism.

It’s what I’ve been trying to get them to understand. Husky remain Husky, Mastiff remain Mastiff, the Chinook appears suddenly.

Just as in the fossil record all life remains the same and new variants appear suddenly. They simply can’t see the mating that happened from a pile of bones.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If a cat gave birth to a dog, evolution would be falsified.

But a fish becoming a man and a giraffe over time, of course supports evolution......

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

But a fish becoming a man and a giraffe over time, of course supports evolution......

That's not how evolution works. You've spent enough time in these forums to know that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What’s interesting, is what creationists allow themselves to believe without any evidence.

I’ve got evidence.

Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff. When they mate a new variation suddenly appears. Just like in the fossil record where everything remains the same and new variation suddenly appears. You just can’t see the mating that happened from a pile of bones.

I’m not the one denying the evidence that Kind remain Kind and classifying incorrectly those subspecies in the fossil record as separate species, to support my belief. Especially when we understand that the Chinook is not a new species, and you have never seen it happen any other way.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's not how evolution works. You've spent enough time in these forums to know that.

So are you now claiming all life didn’t evolve from single celled organisms, to fish, to land animals and eventually to man?

I’m glad you understand that impossibility and that each was created separately.

 

[tas8831]

You keep ignoring that Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.

You keep ignoring that your model requires the Asian to somehow come from true-breeding middle easterners.

How does that work?

That for the genetic trait of Asian to be set into the population, the descendants must all come from one family.

Just one family?

Are you just descended from one family?

Did all of the fixed 'allies' (that still cracks me up) that you posses come from a single family?


They must have, according to your model.

So tell me - from which side of your family - your mother's or father's - did ALL of your allies/genetic strains come from?

Because according to what you just wrote, you can only have genetic strains from one side.

 

[tas8831]

I’ve got evidence.

Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff.

And both came from wolves.

So where did the genetic strains for Mastiff and Husky come from?

Are you claiming the wolf-kind had all the genetic strains in it for that much variation?

Please explain then where the actual genetic evidence for this is.

If what you claim had merit, it should be easy for you to look up the wolf genome and show us that it has 5, 10, 15 different allies per locus, unlike basically every living thing.

When they mate a new variation suddenly appears.

So are you saying when 2 dog breeds mate, we have a new group of allies/genetic strains?

So this 'Masky' offspring - could we breed two of them and get a Mastiff and a Husky? Or the original wolf-kind?

Why or why not?

Why, in your bizarro genetics, do not breeding pairs of chihuahuas occasionally give birth to a wolf or a mastiff?

EXPLAIN with something beyond your 4th grade 'genetic strain/Asian breeds Asian' mantras.

 

[HitchSlap]

this one for instance:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

"A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists"

This.

 

[tas8831]

this one for instance:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

"A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists"

The sentence before that:

"One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science..."

That is about 0.14% of 'U.S. earth and life scientists'.


So 5% total, but less that 1% of those with relevant backgrounds.

Hmmm....

 

[Ophiolite]

The sentence before that:

"One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science..."

That is about 0.14% of 'U.S. earth and life scientists'.


So 5% total, but less that 1% of those with relevant backgrounds.

Hmmm....

I always said those physicists were nuts!

 

[tas8831]

that even if we will see a cat evolving into a dog- evolutionists will claim that the fact its happened prove creationists are wrong.

Well, it would, but why would an evolutionist think that such a ting is even possible? we generally do not accept strawmen.

 

[gaara4158]

There is no such thing as two unrelated members of a species. It’s the fact that they are related that makes them the same species.

You're using the term "related" so broadly that all breeding is to be considered inbreeding. You then respond to each of his replies reiterating your absurdly broad definition so you don't have to admit you were wrong. What an intellectually dishonest practice.