proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

You're the one who provided the quote, why don't you put it into context?

Wait...

You did actually LOOK at the original source, didn't you? I mean, surely you didn't just go to some creationist propaganda website and cut 'n' paste? Right?

If someone says something it is up to them to prove what they say.

 

[omega2xx]

Curiously enough there were a number of civilizations that continued unabated during the supposed "catastrophic change" taking place. Odd, that.

Name them and provide your source

 

[omega2xx]

For instance:

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
​

This, and many more examples found here: Some More Observed Speciation Events

The inability to reproduce does not change the species. The fruit flies remained fruit flies. The inability to feed on both may be the result of a mutation. For that example to support evolution, the fruit flies must become something mother than a fruit fly.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you accept Grasse’s authority on the subject?

Of course I do. I not I would not have quoted him.

What fault do you find with his qualifications?

 

[Jimmy D]

If someone says something it is up to them to prove what they say.

Correct, you posted the quote, it's up to you to provide the source. It is being questioned because Grasse also wrote...

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology"

link

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not the one citing it, you are. I tried looking it up and all I can find is that quote in a handle of creationist articles with a reference from 1977.

So what does the full quote say in context or do you even know?

I don't know. How can you claim it was taken out of context if you don't know the context? You can't, so you gave the usual reply to something that refutes you theology. That only shows you accept something by faith alone.

Actually the context is not necessary if you understood mutations. They only alter a characteristic the offspring would have gotten without the mutation. When a mutation causes the kid to become an albino, the species remains exactly the same as its parents.

 

[Jimmy D]

Of course I do. I not I would not have quoted him.

What fault do you find with his qualifications?

LOL, good stuff, I don't find fault with his qualifications, see above.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL, good stuff, I don't find fault with his qualifications, see above.

Then do you accept his statement as true?

 

[Jimmy D]

Then do you accept his statement as true?

How do I know, you won't provide the context, which is all important as we've seen by the way Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye has been abused by shady creationists.

I do find it strange though as Grasse accepted evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then do you accept his statement as true?

Also, you do realize that science doesn't stand or fall on the opinions of any particular scientist? I could offer a quote from Francis Collins about how common ancestry is a fact, so what, would you accept it?

I also notice that Grasse's book was written in the early seventies, our understanding of genetics has moved on a bit since then.

 

[omega2xx]

Correct, you posted the quote, it's up to you to provide the source. It is being questioned because Grasse also wrote...

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology"

link

Here is the information I have. What he said was quoted in ICR Impact statement 89, Nov 1980. Grasse wrote book, "Evolution of living Organisms." What he said was quoted by William Baur in his review of the book.

It doesn't matter if 100% of the zoologist and botanists agree unless they can offer the scientific evidence that make it true. You can't offer even one example of a mutation changing the species.

Most of the scientist of today have been taught evolution is a fact since they were in grammer school. When children only hear one side of the debate and are to young to understand science, they have not been properly educated. They have been indoctrinated.

 

[omega2xx]

How do I know, you won't provide the context, which is all important as we've seen by the way Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye has been abused by shady creationists.

If you understood mutations, the context is not necessary. What has been abused in the evolution of the eye is evolutionist saying it happened when it is genetically impossible. If you understood genetics, you would know it is impossible for the offspring to receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

I do find it strange though as Grasse accepted evolution.[/QUOTE]

I do to since mutations and time is a basic doctrine of the fundie evolutionists. Those fundies need to show how time changes a proven truth.

 

[omega2xx]

Also, you do realize that science doesn't stand or fall on the opinions of any particular scientist? I could offer a quote from Francis Collins about how common ancestry is a fact, so what, would you accept it?

It is foolish to accept what people say without some evidence to support it. I guarantee you Collins did not provide and scientific evidence for common ancestry being a fact.

I also notice that Grasse's book was written in the early seventies, our understanding of genetics has moved on a bit since then.

Not the basics. It is still impossible for an offspring to receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

Most of the discoveries made by science in the last 50 years refute evolution. Fundie evolutionist try to use similar DNA to support common descent. However DNA separates species, not links them.

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand granades.

DNA will show you and I are not biologically related, but that we are the same species. It will also show we are not related to apes.

 

[omega2xx]

That is SO GOOD! I have found that to be so true! All the links ever say is that it happened or give suppositions. They NEVER provide any evidence that it really did happen. It's all assumptive.

Right and we can point that out to the fundie evolutionists and they will not change their views. IMO then don't understand what constitutes scientific evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Here is the information I have. What he said was quoted in ICR Impact statement 89, Nov 1980. Grasse wrote book, "Evolution of living Organisms." What he said was quoted by William Baur in his review of the book.

Yes, I am well aware that you copied it from some creationist website, I didn't think you had actually read the book yourself.

It doesn't matter if 100% of the zoologist and botanists agree unless they can offer the scientific evidence that make it true.

So you no longer accept Grasse's opinion as worthwhile? Extremely hypocritical but in no way surprising.

You can't offer even one example of a mutation changing the species.

How do you know what I can "offer"?

Most of the scientist of today have been taught evolution is a fact since they were in grammer school. When children only hear one side of the debate and are to young to understand science, they have not been properly educated. They have been indoctrinated.

LOL, sure thing! None of them are as smart as you!

 

[Jimmy D]

If you understood mutations, the context is not necessary. What has been abused in the evolution of the eye is evolutionist saying it happened when it is genetically impossible. If you understood genetics, you would know it is impossible for the offspring to receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

Are you aware of the proposed pathways for the evolution of the eye and the evidence supporting them? Could you share a few of the scientific papers you've studied to arrive at that conclusion, maybe we could discuss whatever issues you have.

 

[omega2xx]

Are you aware of the proposed pathways for the evolution of the eye and the evidence supporting them? Could you share a few of the scientific papers you've studied to arrive at that conclusion, maybe we could discuss whatever issues you have.

You show me the evidence offered first and we can discuss that. I will guarantee you right now, there is no scientific evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is foolish to accept what people say without some evidence to support it. I guarantee you Collins did not provide and scientific evidence for common ancestry being a fact.

I agree, you've made a fool out of yourself by using a second or third hand Grasse quote from a creationist website.

Francis Collins is the head of the Human Genome project, I dare say that you haven't even glanced at any evidence he may have provided, would that be correct? Besides, I'm not using his quote as an argument for common descent, just as an example of the pointlessness as using quotes as authorititve in a scientific discussion.

Not the basics. It is still impossible for an offspring to receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

Why? On what do you base this assertion, citation please.

Most of the discoveries made by science in the last 50 years refute evolution. Fundie evolutionist try to use similar DNA to support common descent. However DNA separates species, not links them.

What discoveries? Citation please.

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand granades.

EH?

DNA will show you and I are not biologically related, but that we are the same species. It will also show we are not related to apes.

LOL, Have you heard of a paternity test?

Do you know what a phylogentetic tree is?

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, I am well aware that you copied it from some creationist website, I didn't think you had actually read the book yourself.



So you no longer accept Grasse's opinion as worthwhile? Extremely hypocritical but in no way surprising.

I accept what he said 110% and it was not an opinion, and if you understood mutations, you would know what he said is true then and today.

How do you know what I can "offer"?

I know you can't offer any scientific evidence to support anything in the TOE. Prove me wrong

LOL, sure thing! None of them are as smart as you!

This is not about my intellect. It about something you don't have. Supporting scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

I agree, you've made a fool out of yourself by using a second or third hand Grasse quote from a creationist website.

The fool is the one who accept what someone says with no supporting evidence. To date you have not offered one bit of evidence for you you accept by faith alone.

Francis Collins is the head of the Human Genome project, I dare say that you haven't even glanced at any evidence he may have provided, would that be correct? Besides, I'm not using his quote as an argument for common descent, just as an example of the pointlessness as using quotes as authorititve in a scientific discussion.

If you want to continue this discussion, present some evidence you accept. Stare with the evidence Collins offered. So far all you have done is blow smoke.

Why? On what do you base this assertion, citation please.



What discoveries? Citation please.



EH?

I am not going to continue this discussion unless you start offering some evidence for what you or others say.



LOL, Have you heard of a paternity test?

Do you know what a phylogentetic tree is?[/QUOTE]