proving evolution as just a "theory"

[TLK Valentine]

First let’s clear up your misconception. Hybridization is an evolutionary term.

Try selectively breeding for specific traits.

View attachment 212974
Wolf + wolf + selectively breeding for a trait + that trait + wolf + again selecting for a trait + that trait + wolf led to every dog breed you see today.

The evidence is right there before your eyes. Stop ignoring it.

Indeed -- you've just described an evolutionary mechanism known as "artificial selection."

Thanks for the assist!

 

[xianghua]

-_- I don't know what you are talking about, since that ground is all chunky from fallen rocks.

and they are clearly not stalactites.

Also, you never answered my question: wouldn't it be better to use stalagmites rather than stalactites, because they are more structurally stable and form essentially the same way?

im not sure. if i remember correctly stalagmites growth faster then stalactites. they are also too few compare to stalactites.

 

[xianghua]

That's a lovely ad hoc response, it doesn't actually explain why the Intelligent Designer would place a whole bunch of virus DNA in humans and chimpanzees .

who said they are the result of viral insertions? its only a belief.

 

[PsychoSarah]

and they are clearly not stalactites.

Not stalactites in a single piece, no. But honestly, a shattered stalactite wouldn't look much different from a pile of rocks. In fact, it would be a pile of rocks.

im not sure. if i remember correctly stalagmites growth faster then stalactites. they are also too few compare to stalactites.

Ha, what? There are plenty of stalagmites, I see tons of them in those pictures. Also, why would it matter if they grow faster? You could just adjust the math equation for that. Not that I am sure that stalagmites do grow faster; I'm not a geologist.

 

[BradB]

About 1550 miles, or about 2500 km. Remember that the Moon's average distance is 238,900 miles (384,400 km) and that the difference between the average distance and its closest distance (perigee) is about 17400 miles (28,000 km), so that since the time of T-rex the Moon has receded less than a tenth of the difference between its average distance and its closest distance.

Are you taking into account that the rate at which the moon is receding away is directly proportional to the distance it is from the earth? It's recession is caused by the tidal forces created by its own pull producing angular momentum? That means that the drift rate would actually be slowing down now and appear more stable. Which of course means that the speed at which it is drifting away gets faster the closer the moon is. There is also another problem known as the Roche Limit which limits the closest distance the moon could have ever been without just breaking apart.

 

[BradB]

So what does "Special Creation" mean to you in terms of the fossil record? A continuous sequence of de novo species creation and extinction events such that the extinct species, if arranged in time order, appear to form a developmental series?

What if what they "appeared" as, was simply a case of a biased view causing a misinterpretation of those observations? To give you an understanding of just how easy this is, listen to this short analogy. If I said one day I left home and walked to the corner and stopped. I then turned left and started running but suddenly noticing a man was chasing me. I turned left at the next corner and ran as fast as I could. When I made it to the next corner I stopped and looked and noticed it was safe so I went left again and started running home. However about half way there I could see a man in a mask waiting for me. What should I do? Your response to what I should do is based upon your perception of what is happening. Some who think my life may be in danger would say run the other way. However if you understand that I am in the middle of a baseball game then you would tell me to...SLIDE HOME.

What if the strata we observed was not laid down over great amounts of time but rather was laid down over one year long world wide global flood event? What if the separating of the lower life forms to the more advanced life forms, had nothing to do with "development" over vast amounts of time, but everything to do with mobility, geographic location, and intelligence level during this one catastrophic event? Less mobile and intelligent organisms being the first to be covered in strata, followed by more advanced life trying to flee and struggle, all the way up to the most intelligent fleeing to higher locations to escape. Therefore those animals that went extinct would be those who could not reproduce enough fast enough to survive as a kind after the event. The remains of those who survived the flood, but died off, would not have been fossilized and therefore in the fossil record we would only see them just disappear suddenly.

Creation was not cursed until after man sinned. When this happened sin and death entered into the world for the first time. Prior to that God's creation was "good." Therefore if the Bible is true then there could not have been hundreds of millions of years of death (and fossilization) prior to the creation of man. It's a proven fact that fossilization can happen rather quickly. In only hundreds rather than thousands or millions of years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sure I asked how the phylogentetic trees in that paper provided evidence for your claims about the diversity we see distributed in the human population.

Can you expand on this? What mutation theory are you referring to and how is it falsified?

How is it falsified? really? Apparently what I wrote didn’t register in your consciousness. If mutations are random events, capable of changing the genome, then classifying animals based on whether or not a specific location is A, C, T or G is futile. It could randomly be any of those, not pointing to any type of shared ancestory, since the letters can be changed at random at any random time.

But we know from how genetics are inherited, that we can expect a G to be in the same place on descendants. So we know mutations are affecting nothing really, as we can continue to consider a G being in secveral shared places to show relationship. This would not be the case if mutations were randomly altering the genome at these specific sites. Instead it would be random, and no claims of shared ancestory could be made. That a specific site might contain a G could simply be a random event....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What if what they "appeared" as, was simply a case of a biased view causing a misinterpretation of those observations? To give you an understanding of just how easy this is, listen to this short analogy. If I said one day I left home and walked to the corner and stopped. I then turned left and started running but suddenly noticing a man was chasing me. I turned left at the next corner and ran as fast as I could. When I made it to the next corner I stopped and looked and noticed it was safe so I went left again and started running home. However about half way there I could see a man in a mask waiting for me. What should I do? Your response to what I should do is based upon your perception of what is happening. Some who think my life may be in danger would say run the other way. However if you understand that I am in the middle of a baseball game then you would tell me to...SLIDE HOME.

What if the strata we observed was not laid down over great amounts of time but rather was laid down over one year long world wide global flood event? What if the separating of the lower life forms to the more advanced life forms, had nothing to do with "development" over vast amounts of time, but everything to do with mobility, geographic location, and intelligence level during this one catastrophic event? Less mobile and intelligent organisms being the first to be covered in strata, followed by more advanced life trying to flee and struggle, all the way up to the most intelligent fleeing to higher locations to escape. Therefore those animals that went extinct would be those who could not reproduce enough fast enough to survive as a kind after the event. The remains of those who survived the flood, but died off, would not have been fossilized and therefore in the fossil record we would only see them just disappear suddenly.

Creation was not cursed until after man sinned. When this happened sin and death entered into the world for the first time. Prior to that God's creation was "good." Therefore if the Bible is true then there could not have been hundreds of millions of years of death (and fossilization) prior to the creation of man. It's a proven fact that fossilization can happen rather quickly. In only hundreds rather than thousands or millions of years.

Also they continue to refuse to apply observation to the fossil record.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Mastiff mates with a Husky is variation (the Chinook) seen to appear in the record suddenly. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. We can apply this to any animal in existence.

Just as in the fossil record fossil A and B (and every single one of them) remain the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found, just like the Husky and Mastiff. When fossil A mated with Fossil B, fossil C was produced, which appears suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed, just as does the Chinook. Neither fossil A nor fossil B evolved into fossil C.

Ignoring how life actually propagates and variation enters the species, combined with their propensity for naming everything slightly different as a separate species, leads them to incorrect beliefs.

Allthough personally I believe there have been six creations and five destructions, with man being part of the sixth. Soon there will be a sixth destruction followed by a seventh and final creation.

But most misinterpret hayah, the second word in the second verse of the Bible as meaning “was”, when that is not even listed as a possible meaning of the word in any concordance.

Strong's Hebrew: 1961. הָיָה (hayah) -- to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Instead the earth “became - hayah” desolate and waste, and darkness became upon..... this was the fifth destruction, the extinction of the dinosaurs. The sixth creation then commenced.

The Bible only concerns itself with man’s creation, not what went before, but the works of God do declare His Glory. Therefore a study of the works, not just the Bible must be undertaken to get the entire picture, because God penned them both, not just one.

EDIT: you say there could not be hundreds of years of death. Tell me, how long did it take Adam to name all the animals? How would Adam understand what death was, had he not observed animals live out their lives, mate, reproduce and die? Do you believe God would punish Adam without Adam being able to understand what death meant? If you had never seen anything die, would you understand what it meant? And Adam was NOT immortal, nor were the animals. Least he stretch forth his hand and also eat of the tree of life..... and live forever.......

The punishment for sin was death, because upon disobedience the tree of life would be withheld. And Adam eventually died.

This is also backed up by the 12 trees which are for the healing of the nations. Does anyone here really believe that humans resurrected to an immortal life of perfection would be required to partake of the food of trees to be healed? No, instead they must continue to eat to continue to live for eternity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not arguing their findings at all. I'm saying how much of genome I think is functional or non-functional is irrelevant here.

How much “was” functional is quite relevant, as is how much is non-functional now. Because depending on how much “is” non-functional, we can deduce backwards to how much “was” functional.

I know you don’t want to have to admit that accumulated errors rendering portions of the genome non-functional meant there was once more functioning genomes. It’s ok, I understand your reluctance in discussing this and answering the question.

I'm asking you to support your argument, but you're not doing so.



I know quite well how mutations work. I just don't understand whatever point you are trying to make. DNA replication is by definition replication of existing error. Mutations are errors in that replication process. It's a source of genetic variation in populations.

So your point is... ?



I'm asking you to provide genetic evidence for your so-called original "perfect genomes" and all you do is waffle.

Can you provide evidence or not? (Thus far, all you've done is the latter.)



When a person asks a question about someone's position and the answer is another question, it shows that the person is question doesn't have a strong position. It's a form of deflection. If you want to keep deflecting that's fine, but all it does is demonstrate you have nothing to support your assertions.



That's not how it works kiddo. You make a claim, you back it up.

To re-iterate, you said, "But there you go again, ignoring that perfect genome from the beginning".

Now, can you support your contention that this "perfect genome" existed? Because so far you clearly cannot.

There’s no sense giving you the answer, you won’t accept it unless it comes from you.

Once again, do you believe we can get wolves from poodles?

It’s a simple question. You either believe we can or we can’t.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Indeed -- you've just described an evolutionary mechanism known as "artificial selection."

Thanks for the assist!

Except there is nothing evolutionary about it.

What you see in dogs, without man’s interference would have taken millions of years if left to natural means. And in the end we all understand every single one of them remains the same species.

You just agreed speciation doesn’t exist. And now we both agree it is simply incorrect classifications in the fossil record.

Thanks for the assist!

Ahh, but now they don’t really count, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's a lovely ad hoc response, it doesn't actually explain why the Intelligent Designer (remember, my response was to the claim of common design) would place a whole bunch of virus DNA in humans and chimpanzees plus the other broken genes/gene pathways.

Umm, retroviruses, foreign invaders, remember?

It’s why we can use virus to do specific genetic alterations, because they have specific attack routines developed for specific cells. Otherwise they would be useless for genetic alterations or they would randomly alter undesired cells and sites.

I am surprised you don’t understand that an ERV is a foreign invader, not something placed there.... you just confuse the fact that they attack specific sites in similar creatures and are then passed forward as meaning shared ancestory, when it is simply when man’s ancestors lived in close proximity to ape ancestors and both were infected by the virus. You simply confuse time of insertion as meaning shared ancestory.

 

[Job 33:6]

What if the strata we observed was not laid down over great amounts of time but rather was laid down over one year long world wide global flood event? What if the separating of the lower life forms to the more advanced life forms, had nothing to do with "development" over vast amounts of time, but everything to do with mobility, geographic location, and intelligence level during this one catastrophic event? Less mobile and intelligent organisms being the first to be covered in strata, followed by more advanced life trying to flee and struggle, all the way up to the most intelligent fleeing to higher locations to escape. Therefore those animals that went extinct would be those who could not reproduce enough fast enough to survive as a kind after the event. The remains of those who survived the flood, but died off, would not have been fossilized and therefore in the fossil record we would only see them just disappear suddenly.

There is no consistency to support the bolded words above. Its just not the way the faunal succession exists. And with that, it can be disregarded in its likelyhood.

If you disagree, then perhaps you should try giving an example, and lets see just how consistent your example is, with your words above.

 

[pitabread]

How much “was” functional is quite relevant, as is how much is non-functional now. Because depending on how much “is” non-functional, we can deduce backwards to how much “was” functional.

Then go ahead and deduce. But so far you still haven't presented anything.

I know you don’t want to have to admit that accumulated errors rendering portions of the genome non-functional meant there was once more functioning genomes. It’s ok, I understand your reluctance in discussing this and answering the question.

You completely misunderstand my position. I'm saying that I don't have a particularly huge vested interest on the specific % of "non-functional" genome (whatever "non-functional" means).

I'm (still) just waiting for you to present your case and you are (still) stalling.

There’s no sense giving you the answer, you won’t accept it unless it comes from you.

And here come the excuses...

All you've done is continually demonstrate you don't have a viable position here; it's just a bluff. You have nothing to support it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Neither... To the evolution deniers

They didn’t happen to tell you that bacteria pick up genes from other bacteria did they, or from viruses, or even from the environment when they claimed new genes that didn’t exist?

http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

“Bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance genes from other bacteria in several ways. By undergoing a simple mating process called "conjugation," bacteria can transfer genetic material, including genes encoding resistance to antibiotics (found on plasmids and transposons) from one bacterium to another. Viruses are another mechanism for passing resistance traits between bacteria. The resistance traits from one bacterium are packaged into the head portion of the virus. The virus then injects the resistance traits into any new bacteria it attacks. Bacteria also have the ability to acquire naked, "free" DNA from their environment.”

But I see nothing that assured none of these processes occurred. So back to square one we go.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All you've done is continually demonstrate you don't have a viable position here; it's just a bluff. You have nothing to support it.

If you believe that then why continue to avoid the question? You show your fear, because you know I have support, which your answer will do one of two things. Show you rely on faith, or show my assertions correct.

Do you believe we can get wolves from poodles?

 

[pitabread]

If you believe that then why continue to avoid the question? You show your fear, because you know I have support, which your answer will do one of two things. Show you rely on faith, or show my assertions correct.

Look kid, I asked you to support your claims of "perfect genomes". All you've done since is duck, dodge, and evade to avoid providing support.

You can accuse me of whatever you want, but it's a simple thing. If you have real support for your contention, present it. If you don't, then don't. Given your evasion, it's patently obvious you don't.

But these continued games you keep trying to play are tiresome and lame. If you're just here to troll, then back to the ignore list you can go.

 

[Jimmy D]

How is it falsified? really? Apparently what I wrote didn’t register in your consciousness. If mutations are random events, capable of changing the genome, then classifying animals based on whether or not a specific location is A, C, T or G is futile. It could randomly be any of those, not pointing to any type of shared ancestory, since the letters can be changed at random at any random time.

Why is it futile?

Can we not use the differences and similarities in sequences to determine relatedness?

Are you suggesting phylogenetic trees don't exist?

This seems like a very strange position to take, there are almost 900,000 results on google scholar alone for "phylogenetic tree based on molecular data", it seems that it biologists consider them to have some merit.

But we know from how genetics are inherited, that we can expect a G to be in the same place on descendants. So we know mutations are affecting nothing really, as we can continue to consider a G being in secveral shared places to show relationship. This would not be the case if mutations were randomly altering the genome at these specific sites. Instead it would be random, and no claims of shared ancestory could be made. That a specific site might contain a G could simply be a random event....

I'm no molecular biologist but this simplistic and obviously erroneous statement makes it seem like you have absolutely no clue as to what goes on in modern biology. What the heck?

 

[tas8831]

Well just in case you weren't clear we are not doing "work" here or writing master pieces. We're having a discussion. We are allowed to copy other creationists and or evolutionists comments and throw them into the conversation if they best answer to the discussion.
I'm done with this subject.

OK, so let's see how this went -

1. It isn't plagiarism!
2. Fair use, so blah!
3. OK, so it is plagiarism, but so what? we're just chatting here.
4. I'm done.


Pretty predictable.

As I have explained more than once - it is 1. an honesty issue and 2. a competence issue.


If you can take the time to seek out sources that you think support your cause, copy sections from the writings, occasionally alter a word here and there, then present it as your 'argument' without attribution, then you almost certainly:

1. do not understand the material well enough to make your own argument
2. are inherently dishonest for presenting the words of others as your own and therefore
3. are not trustworthy and
4. desperate


Those are my conclusions, and given the histories and antics of those that I have caught doing this, my conclusions are pretty valid and accurate, IMO.

I just find it so odd - and telling - that so many Christians do this, then upon getting caught, try to justify it or deny it instead of apologizing and moving on. It is almost as if they have an aversion to admitting that they were both uninformed about something and to be seen as being wrong about something, even something trivial.

Sad.

 

[tas8831]

Umm...no. Evolutionist say a circle evolved into a star and the evidence is that they are both geometric two dimensional shapes.

When a creationist uses an inapt analogy to 'prove' their point, I know that they have nothing of merit to offer.

We say "but there's this guy who left a note claiming he made the star and made the circle at the same time."

And naturally, you take the note at face value and ignore evidence to the contrary.

I get it.

I KNOW that is what creationists do, and silly analogies will not change that.

No we never ask to see "step by step."

Right.

Not 'step by step', just an "actual finely graduated chain".

But not step-by-step.


This is why I generally do not trust creationists or generally see them as honest brokers.

But we also don't expect to have to check our brains at the door with the hats. If there is evidence in the fossil record that shows evolution rather than creation happened, then we want to see the process happen at least once. Is that too great to ask? I think not.

Same with creation - why can't creationists show us an "actual finely graduated chain" of steps taken to get a man from dust?

To produce a world-wide flood that left no evidence?

Why does only ONE side have to produce an "actual finely graduated chain" of evidence, and one side can just rely on a collection of stories from olden times?

Why the double standard?

And to, in essence, dismiss the evidence there is in lieu of an "actual finely graduated chain" of something?

That is a cop out, and deep down, creationists know it.

But they also know that that little trick is, literally, about all they have.

If you had something real to present FOR your case, we would have seen it by now.


If you think dismissing the evidence that there is by declaring it 'not good enough', please don't get indignant when we dismiss your reliance upon scripture as your 'evidence.'

 

[tas8831]

If mutations are random events, capable of changing the genome, then classifying animals based on whether or not a specific location is A, C, T or G is futile. It could randomly be any of those, not pointing to any type of shared ancestory, since the letters can be changed at random at any random time.

In your naivete, you fail to understand the scope of the issue.

First, in limited genomes (e.g., mitochondrial, bacterial), we DO see more than 1 mutation occurring at specific loci. This is called homoplasy. We know about it, understand it, and take it into account.

Second, in eukaryotic genomes, which are much, much larger than prokaryotic genomes, the rate of mutation is substantially less. Recent estimates put the number of new mutations any given person has at birth to be about 100-200 (probably closer to 100).

That is 0.000003% of the genome.

The probability that any 2 organisms possess the same mutation at the same locus by chance alone is vanishingly small (something like 0.00000000000000001%). That is just a 'random' sharing of a single SNP. Consider that we see THOUSANDS of these unique shared SNPs or indels (which are much less common than SNPs) - the numbers soon exceed the limits of Borel's law (which I frankly could not care less about, but IDcreationists seem to think it is important - a quick back of the envelope calculation shows that 6 organisms sharing a single unique mutation by chance alone in a genome of 3 billion bps is 1 in 1.37*10^-57).

Add to that the articles I have cited several times documenting the accuracy and reliability of molecular phylogenetics methods when tested on knowns, and arguing against this area of evidence comes across as little more than ignorant desperation.