proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

Well the conversation was started by claiming I was telling something that was a lie. That by all definitions is calling someone a liar -unless you clarify by saying something to the effect that "they are being deceived into believing a spreading a lie."

Ok.


But you could also just be ignorant and didn't know that what you suggested was a lie.

To date no one has yet presented me with the only two forms of evidence that would set evolution out ahead of creation.

And what would those 2 types be?

And why should others be constrained to your idiosyncratic views?

I see a lot of "beating on the chest" and "belittling" but still nothing in the way of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another.

Weirdest thing - I get the same when I ask creationists for evidence that the flood happened, or for the mechanism by which God transformed silicates into organic molecules, or how we get diversity from 4 inbreeding pairs of related humans.

Well, that and threats of damnation.

And still not a single example of an observation under a controlled experiment where an information gaining type of a random mutation occurred that was beneficial to the organism.

So, you dismiss the evidence that has been presented to you in favor of holding out for your idiosyncratic pet beliefs.

I note that like all creationists that make "information" arguments you do not seem to grasp the biology involved.

for example, tell us all, with your vast Information theory as it applies to biology knowledge, what is going on here:


A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

"Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription
of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and
up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

When you answer, I will deal with the rest.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

I believe because of the evidence. Over 100 breeds of dogs came from the wolf. Why do you find it hard to believe 12 to 15 races came from two?

There’s plenty of evidence, just open your eyes and see everything mating and stop believing in fantasy.

Asian remain Asian, African remain African. Only when African mate with Asian does a new variation come into existence, the Afro-Asian. Husky remain Husky. Mastiff remain Mastiff. Only when the two mate does a new variation come into existence. Neither Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian, they stay the same. Neither Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook, they remain the same.

Just as EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL in the fossil record remains the same from the oldest one found for that type to the youngest fossil found for that type. And the new variation appears suddenly. Fossil A or B did not evolve into fossil C. Fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced fossil C, just like we observe in real life. You just can’t see that mating from a pile of bones from a creature you never observed in life, like you can observe happening for EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL alive today.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dust of the ground on a newly created earth would have been primarily silicates.

What process did God use to transform silicates into lipids, amino acids, etc., and how do you know?

No one knows, just as evolutionists don’t know how that dust turned into life......

I’d suggest energy though, since electromagnetic forces dominate at the atomic level.....

 

[Astrophile]

Funny you should ask...
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, mankind began to develop chemical techniques sufficiently accurate for analysis of protoplasm and mineral residues. After analysis of the mineral residue in the human body, we learned that our bodies are made up of 43.5% calcium, 4.3% chlorine, 4.3% sodium, 10.2% potassium, 7.1% sulfur, 1.4% magnesium, 29.1% phosphorus, and .1% iron. What does all this mean? This is all the exact same minerals found in plain ordinary earth (dust). Genesis 3:19 says, "For dust thou art, and dust shalt thou become." The Bible said all along that man was made from the dust of the earth.

First, there should be a lot of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen in the bodies of living things. Second, one of the main elements in rocks and soil is silicon (about 26% of the earth's crust), which is not included in your list of the elements of the human body.

 

[pitabread]

I believe because of the evidence.

No, no you don't. When presented with real, scientific evidence, you hand-waved it away as "evolutionary PR" and continued to engage in the same auto-repeat silliness.

 

[Astrophile]

Before that I just took it for granite that evolution was true

Rock-solid evidence?

 

[ruthiesea]

since whale and dolphin shared a common descent according to evolution both should not be able to smell. and if you cant make a prediction base on your model then its not a scientific explanation.

That's not necessarily true. For example, bats come from common descent, but not all possess sonar location

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, no you don't. When presented with real, scientific evidence, you hand-waved it away as "evolutionary PR" and continued to engage in the same auto-repeat silliness.

And yet I’m not the one ignoring the definition of subspecies.

Nor am I the one ignoring Asian remain Asian, African remain African, and despite all their accumulated mutations neither one evolved into the Afro-Asian.

I’m not the one refusing to apply observation of that change to the fossil record, even if every single fossil type always remains the same, and like that Afro-Asian or Chinook, new forms appear suddenly.

You haven’t a clue what ignoring evidence is because you refuse to look into that mirror when you say it.

 

[pitabread]

And yet I’m not the one ignoring the definition of subspecies.

Nor am I the one ignoring Asian remain Asian, African remain African, and despite all their accumulated mutations neither one evolved into the Afro-Asian.

I’m not the one refusing to apply observation of that change to the fossil record, even if every single fossil type always remains the same, and like that Afro-Asian or Chinook, new forms appear suddenly.

What you are doing is constructing a strawman view of biology and refusing to accept that things don't work the way you think they work. In effect, you've built an armor of immunity to criticism.

And that's fine. You can continue to believe whatever you want to believe. Real biological science will still be waiting for you, if you ever choose to learn it instead.

You haven’t a clue what ignoring evidence is because you refuse to look into that mirror when you say it.

I presented you a legit, peer-reviewed example of scientific evidence specifically in relation to diversity of human skin pigmentation and you hand-waved it away as "evolutionary PR". A more blatant example of denial you'll be hard pressed to find.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's not necessarily true. For example, bats come from common descent, but not all possess sonar location

So we agree that the reverse, thinking something shared means common descent may not be true as well, since traits may even in your theory be randomly acquired across separate species?

 

[rjs330]

I notice a lot of this is plagiarized from this "article", not cool.

Oh good grief. Everything said here on the informational level is taken from somewhere. None of us including you are experts on anything regarding this topic. We get our information by reading. This is not a forum where we are writing dissertation or doctorate papers. We know people get stuff from the internet. If you want to know where people get their info just ask.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting about the finches, and a good example of hybridaization thanks, I think you're a bit prone to exaggeration regarding their interbreeding but that's neither here nor there.

But it's illogical and incorrect to suppose that hybridization is solely responsible for speciation, you seem to be placing too much emphasis on it for some reason. There is just as much evidence for the much more common modes of evolution - particularly allopatric speciation.

I notice the page that you posted also has an article about the case Central European Black Caps. Do you also accept that as an example of the beginning of a speciation event?

I think they are interbreeding just like those finches and you keep ignoring the definition of subspecies when you talk of mythical hybridization.

Overestimating interbreeding? I think you are ignoring it.

“The immigrant paired up with a local female ground finch (who also happened to carry some cactus finch genes), and the Grants followed these birds' descendants for the next 28 years.

After four generations, the island experienced a severe drought, which killed many of the finches. The two surviving descendents of the immigrant finch mated with each other, and this appears to have set the stage for speciation. “

But here we go again...

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh good grief. Everything said here on the informational level is taken from somewhere. None of us including you are experts on anything regarding this topic. We get our information by reading. This is not a forum where we are writing dissertation or doctorate papers. We know people get stuff from the internet. If you want to know where people get their info just ask.

Umm, if I’m not mistaken those they claim are experts got their information by reading too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, here are the only options according to what you wrote:

1. Adam was tetraploid. That is the only way to take half of his chromosomes and make Eve, since humans are diploid (2 copies/sets of chromosomes). If half of Adam's chromosomes were used to make Eve, then he had to have 4 copies, and was thus tetraploid. This is lethal in humans.

And yet some animals have different numbers including 4. So it’s ok for something to evolve from one to 4 but not go from 4 to 2? Ahh, so when man fused chromosomes of course that wasn’t learhal or even harmful, but beneficial, because that’s your belief, yes?

Would that coincide with your belief that a person can’t have two blood types?

https://pictorial.jezebel.com/one-person-two-sets-of-dna-the-strange-case-of-the-hu-1689290862

It seems the more we learn, the less likely your claims become.

The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics

2. You mean that one half of the diploid number was taken from Adam to make Eve. This means that Adam and Eve suffered from monosomy 1-23. Lethal.

See above, the more we learn....

3. You mean that one copy of Adam's chromosomes were copied and used to make Eve, meaning that there were a total of three "genetic strains" - 2 possibly heterozygous in Adam, and 2 identical copies in Eve, for a total of 3 possible 'genetic strains.'

which is it?



How is that possible?

Are you claiming that a grand total of no more than 3 'allies' can recombine to form all possible eye colors? Skin colors? General morphology? Height? weight?

Please do yourself a favor and take high school and then college genetics before you make your next utterly absurd and laughably ridiculous post on this subject.

This is like talking rocket science with a 3rd grader.

Tell me, did that single celled organism that reproduced by cloning, die out when it split its chromosomes to become both male and female? Exactly how did it do this? What was the exact mechanism?

Ahh, you don’t have a clue, but it’s ok for you to not know the exact mechanism, just not for creationists, right? The arrogance of people that can’t even explain their own theory then expect of others what they can’t provide.

Then you should go back to school to learn how single celled organisms did it, oh wait, they don’t know either...... this is where we insert the magic word mutation, as if that solves the problem, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ah so it does fall on interpretation. They don't have any real evidence. They interpret what they find. So my point remains. Evolution is the Only viable answer if God and creation are removed from the equation. That's not real science. It's guesswork and assumptions.

Evolution can’t explain it even if you remove God and creation.

Asians don’t evolve into Afro-Asians, they remain Asians. Not a single animal on this planet evolves into something else, they always remain the same. Only when they mate with another subspecies does variation happen.

Fossil A mated with fossil B to produce fossil C. Neither fossil A nor fossil B evolved into fossil C.

Evolution can’t explain reality even if you remove God totally from the picture.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it's not "similarities". It's patterns. Specifically patterns we would expect to observe if life has changed via an evolutionary process and shared common ancestry.

Patterns, what patterns? Saying patterns is quite broad you know and says nothing really.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

actually those limbs may be a vestigial fins. so it doesnt prove any evolution rather then a degeneration.

It’s like even their own theory fins evolved first, but now legs which came later evolve back into fins. Definitely degeneration. But that assumes whales actually evolved from land animals, a big stretch, since the claimed ancestors skull is missing just the two parts of its skull that would lend credence to or kill their theory. Convenient?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution is a continual process we observe in nature whereby populations of organisms change over time.

Common ancestry of life on Earth is a by-product of that process.

Say the change over time of 28 weeks when the Chinook is born? Or the change over time of 9 months when the Afro-Asian is born?

Funny, you keep objecting to that change over time and applying it to the fossil record. So it isn’t really change over time you actually mean, but change by mutation over millions of years when you say evolution. Otherwise you’d accept the observational evidence of those changes over time and apply it to the past.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What you are doing is constructing a strawman view of biology and refusing to accept that things don't work the way you think they work. In effect, you've built an armor of immunity to criticism.

There you go again, lost your mirror already?

It works exactly like I think it does. Show me an Asian that becomes something other than an Asian without mating with another? Show me any animal that does this?

And that's fine. You can continue to believe whatever you want to believe. Real biological science will still be waiting for you, if you ever choose to learn it instead.

Real biology understands the Afro-Asian comes about from the mating of the Asian and African, not from mutation or evolution. Granted their are those that claim to understand biology while claiming others don’t, that refuse to accept this variation, or change over time because it doesn’t fit their mutational beliefs. Observe change over time 9 months, but reject the change over time because it didn’t involve mutations or millions of years. So scientific that.

I presented you a legit, peer-reviewed example of scientific evidence specifically in relation to diversity of human skin pigmentation and you hand-waved it away as "evolutionary PR". A more blatant example of denial you'll be hard pressed to find.

I already said mutation might change skin color or hair color long ago and many pages ago. But if you believe skin color is what makes annAfrican African or an Asian Asian, or hair color is what makes a Husky Husky, I’d consider that quite racist. Asians are distinctive genetically, the color of their skin has nothing to do with it at all.

I can test a DNA sample at a crime scene and know if it was an Asian, African or Latino or Caucasian without knowing what color their skin was. Evolutionary PR at its finest.

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh good grief. Everything said here on the informational level is taken from somewhere. None of us including you are experts on anything regarding this topic. We get our information by reading. This is not a forum where we are writing dissertation or doctorate papers. We know people get stuff from the internet. If you want to know where people get their info just ask.

And we all cite our sources.

I could also have pointed out that exact same post is taken verbatim from another forum (EvC) where the points have been addressed.