Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

Loudmouth said:

I have yet to find a single creationist who can back this claim with one scintilla of evidence. I bet you can't either.

Click to expand...

You are framing your challenge as if evolution (advanced complexity) is true. I don't accept that. I believe organisms can maintain themselves in good condition if all their needs are met, but not become more complex.

Phred said:

Well... technically your mind is closed to a strawman of evolution.

Click to expand...

No. My mind is closed to the notion that a simple organism can change over time into a complex organism, no matter the environmental changes or the mysterious force called natural selection. I just don't believe you can get here from there.

Phred said:

No parents ever gave birth to a child they did not recognize. That's important. It means that there are no sudden examples of gorillas giving birth to human beings. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. As has been stated ad infinitum, change happens gradually over vast periods of time.

Click to expand...

And as has been stated ad infintium, your entire beliefs are contradicted by direct observation.

Except that is NOT what you observe when different breeds within the species mate.

This:


Mates with this:

And produces this:


And I can assure you the Mastiff would NOT recognize it as being of it's breed. Being of the dog species, yes, but the offspring looks very little like either of the parents. Right off the bat we can show an example of where your entire imaginings are contrary to what we observe.

It did not take long periods of time, it did not happen slowly, and there were no transitory species between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook, which appeared suddenly in the record.

Your entire evolutionary theory is based on nothing we observe in nature. You constantly incorrectly classify fossil creatures as different species when in actuality they are of the same breed within the species.

These:


Are no more separate species than these are:


Yet you are going to ignore what you observe in the real world to postulate that everything in the past was a separate species. It's totally unbelievable and entirely unscientific. Half of them are babies and adults they incorrectly classified as separate species. All in their rush to get their names in the books as the discoverer of a new species.

They did the exact same thing with Darwin's Finches. Classifying them as separate species based upon flawed beliefs before even studying them. Then when they do get around to studying them they find they have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands. And still refuse to correct the flawed classification of them as separate species. Ignoring the science over and over again to perpetuate the lie of speciation.

There is nothing scientific about evolution. All that is done is that they rely on incorrect classifications of creatures never observed in life, and then refuse to correct their mistakes when creatures are still alive and show them to be wrong. Hoping everybody is too stupid and enthralled by their claims of expertise to realize speciation never occurred in the first place, since they were never reproductively isolated. But those features that came about did so from breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species. All by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. There was and never has been evolution by mutation involved.

And then they want us to believe that these finches (on each and every island) developed beaks suited to their food supply from "random" mutation. As if those "mutations" were a conscious thinking creature planning for the future and insuring the birds survival. It's like "natural selection" knew the birds needed new beaks to eat a specific food it didn't eat before. Almost as if it was an intelligently driven process wouldn't you say?

OldWiseGuy said:

You are framing your challenge as if evolution (advanced complexity) is true.

Click to expand...

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED THAT MOST MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL.

Are you going to back this with evidence or not?

Justatruthseeker said:

Except that is NOT what you observe when different breeds within the species mate.

Click to expand...

We aren't talking about different breeds of dogs.

OldWiseGuy said:

No need. My mind is closed to evolution.

Click to expand...

Well then what are you doing here?

The Cadet said:

Well then what are you doing here?

Click to expand...

I'm trying to help Phred understand that some of us just don't buy it no matter how much 'proof' is presented.

OldWiseGuy said:

I'm trying to help Phred understand that some of us just don't buy it no matter how much 'proof' is presented.

Click to expand...

I reckon he doesn't care. Most of us? We're here for the people who care about what's true. If you don't care, that's fine. Go right ahead believing what you want to believe. But please do it somewhere else. This thread is for people who do care about the truth, and for you to say "I won't believe and I don't care what evidence you have" accomplishes nothing.

The Cadet said:

I reckon he doesn't care. Most of us? We're here for the people who care about what's true. If you don't care, that's fine. Go right ahead believing what you want to believe. But please do it somewhere else. This thread is for people who do care about the truth, and for you to say "I won't believe and I don't care what evidence you have" accomplishes nothing.

Click to expand...

Read the OP. Phred is preaching to the unconverted. That be me.

The Cadet said:

This thread is for people who do care about the truth, . . .

Click to expand...

yes, well you can start with "the origin at 150" a pay for article from NCBI.
the following is from "the new biology, beyond the modern synthesis" available for free from NCBI.
"We should be equally clear that, in arguing for the necessity of this intellectual transformation, we do not think that those who based their research on the Modern Synthesis were "bad scientists" and those who now abandon it are "good scientists." We are simply offering an overview of how a large number of us have changed our thinking, our biological Weltanschauung."

yes indeed, let's have some truth about this matter.

Loudmouth said:

We aren't talking about different breeds of dogs.

Click to expand...

I know, we are talking about birds evolving from dinosaurs, which is why you ignore Darwin's Finches and what it really tells you. Run from it because you know it's all a lie.

It's why you ignore all the science and accept only pseudo-science. It's why you refuse to accept they have incorrectly classified 90% of the fossil record.

From adults and babies

to man

and refuse to correct your mistakes, refuse to wipe them from the books, when you know you should. Knowing every species can recognize it's own species - regardless of the variation within breeds of that species - you still attempt to link completely separate species (whales, man) - and separate the same species (birds, dinosaurs - all fossils). They are in such a rush to be the discoverer of a new species - they can't even see different breeds amongst the same species - or babies and adults.

And as for humans - Asian remains Asian and African remains African, until the two mate and produce an Afro-Asian. Why are you even pretending evolution by mutation had anything to do with that variation observed? There is no variation until two mate and genes are recombined and new dominant and recessive traits are made. You are NEVER going to pass down any genes that do not already exist in your reproductive genes. And those genes are only going to be passed down to your generations and will never fix in the population unless your family is the sole population, or by lateral gene transfer.

So you need to decide how you want mutations to magically fix in the population outside of the host and it's descendants it occurred in, since you all seem to reject that LGT - the only even plausible way for any such claim of population fix to occur. And if you accept that to keep your faith alive - than we have also solved the transfer of genes from one species to the next. Which destroys your claims of lineage based upon all of your incorrect classifications.

Knowing the variation possible in breeds amongst a species - you have yet to justify any of your classifications of the fossil record, when your own evolutionists are arguing you have incorrectly classified them. But you ignore them and refuse to even consider it, because it is not something you want to hear.

OldWiseGuy said:

My mind is closed to the notion that a simple organism can change over time into a complex organism, no matter the environmental changes or the mysterious force called natural selection. I just don't believe you can get here from there.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but it is a bit misleading in the way you said it. Rather than saying from a simple organism to a complex organism, might I suggest saying, from a population of simple organisms to a population of complex organisms over time due to any number of environmental and/or biological changes/influences. The key being there that ToE doesn't say individuals evolve, rather populations evolve.

whois said:

yes, well you can start with "the origin at 150" a pay for article from NCBI.
the following is from "the new biology, beyond the modern synthesis" available for free from NCBI.
"We should be equally clear that, in arguing for the necessity of this intellectual transformation, we do not think that those who based their research on the Modern Synthesis were "bad scientists" and those who now abandon it are "good scientists." We are simply offering an overview of how a large number of us have changed our thinking, our biological Weltanschauung."

yes indeed, let's have some truth about this matter.

Click to expand...

You are aware that this proposed overhaul still contains:
- Descent with modification
- Universal or at least near-universal common ancestry
- Survival of the Fittest
- A largely unchanged Eukaryotic tree of life

...Right? Help me out here, the more I think about it, the less I understand your principled objections to "darwinism". You seem to be loudly and with great furor supporting a position... Which very few of us actually see much objection with. What in the modern theory of evolution do you actually disagree with?

whois said:

yes, well you can start with "the origin at 150" a pay for article from NCBI.
the following is from "the new biology, beyond the modern synthesis" available for free from NCBI.
"We should be equally clear that, in arguing for the necessity of this intellectual transformation, we do not think that those who based their research on the Modern Synthesis were "bad scientists" and those who now abandon it are "good scientists." We are simply offering an overview of how a large number of us have changed our thinking, our biological Weltanschauung."

yes indeed, let's have some truth about this matter.

Click to expand...

But they don't want to hear about HGT or LGT, so won't bother to look those up. Won't bother to read about those new fields emerging in modern biology, but only want to talk about those fields currently in the process of being overturned by that intellectual transformation. It's not that they were bad scientists, just that what they believed was wrong when new technology and advancements are applied.

The Cadet said:

You are aware that this proposed overhaul still contains:
- Descent with modification
- Universal or at least near-universal common ancestry
- Survival of the Fittest
- A largely unchanged Eukaryotic tree of life

...Right? Help me out here, the more I think about it, the less I understand your principled objections to "darwinism". You seem to be loudly and with great furor supporting a position... Which very few of us actually see much objection with. What in the modern theory of evolution do you actually disagree with?

Click to expand...

Which still can not hope to explain how a mutation in an individual would ever become fixed in the population - unless that individuals descendants are the entire population? So a mutation that occurred today in say, Bob - will never affect anyone except his descendants, which will never be the population, but only a fraction thereof. Unless you are going to kill off everyone else to ensure this happens?

The Cadet said:

What in the modern theory of evolution do you actually disagree with?

Click to expand...

quite simply, the evidence does not support the modern synthesis.

also, the fact that the origin of life is close to being solved.
this is also not true, science does not have a plausible scenario much less a working model.

given all that is known about genetics, DNA, and how it works, science has yet to transform one animal into a different kind.

all of evolution is based on theories and hypothesis, with not a shred of empirical evidence to support it.

so yes, let's have some truth.

Justatruthseeker said:

But they don't want to hear about HGT or LGT

Click to expand...

...Those are the exact same thing, Justa. And the modern theory of evolution has an awful lot to say about HGT... And how virtually meaningless it is among eukaryotes. The fact that you know nothing about the literature does nothing to reflect on this fact or what it has to do with evolution.

Justatruthseeker said:

Which still can not hope to explain how a mutation in an individual would ever become fixed in the population - unless that individuals descendants are the entire population? So a mutation that occurred today in say, Bob - will never affect anyone except his descendants, which will never be the population, but only a fraction thereof.

Click to expand...

And we've already been over why this claim is completely wrong. The most recent universal common human ancestor (that is, the most recent person to whom every single person alive can trace direct ancestry) almost certainly lived within recorded history. In fact, I addressed this in the very first post of my other thread; you never responded to this point. The most recent human common ancestor may very well have lived after Confucius.

And that's humans. A species which spans the entire globe, contains billions of individuals, and which up until very recently lacked easy mechanisms to spread within their various groups, as well as non-trivial cultural prohibitions in many cases. What would it be among a specific population of british moths, who reproduce much faster, have much shorter lifespans, are considerably more geologically contained, and are much more likely to undergo genetic bottleneck events due to how easily a shift in tree color could cause their main protection from predators to stop working? It's trivial to understand how a beneficial mutation can spread through the entire populace.

whois said:

quite simply, the evidence does not support the modern synthesis.

Click to expand...

Which part? What in the modern synthesis is not supported by the evidence, or must be supplanted by new evidence?

also, the fact that the origin of life is close to being solved.

Click to expand...

Not a claim of the modern evolutionary synthesis in any meaningful way. I can't even think of any scientists who would make that claim.

given all that is known about genetics, DNA, and how it works, science has yet to transform one animal into a different kind.

Click to expand...

Define "kind".

all of evolution is based on theories and hypothesis, with not a shred of empirical evidence to support it.

Click to expand...

Have you checked out this thread? http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/