Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[kellhus]

And yet all those journals agree that cats are cats, and none have ever observed something else evolve into a cat, nor a cat evolve into something else.

I'm guessing you find this significant for some reason.

 

[StormanNorman]

And yet all those journals agree that cats are cats, and none have ever observed something else evolve into a cat, nor a cat evolve into something else.

If you have genetic evidence to the contrary that a cat has become something other than a cat? Or was something other than a cat before it evolved into a cat?

No? None at all? Why, I might be tempted to call faith without evidence a religion. A mere belief in the existence of something never observed.

Does the theory of evolution state that individual organisms (like a cat) can evolve into something they are not? You might want to educate yourself on that one.

 

[Skaloop]

Your argument might be worthwhile if you stopped refusing to accept the definition of kind I have given close to 28 times already.

You have provided no definition of 'kind'.

All felines are one kind, what is your problem with understanding that?

That's not a definition.

I am not, I am blaming you for your failures of being unable to define what a species is.

A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Not a perfect definition, but at least it's a definition. Something you have yet to provide for 'kind'.

Agreed, kind after kind with appearance changes, exactly as we have observed. You have never observed a feline become anything but another feline. You have never observed anything become anything else.

And we never will, nor do we expect to.

Almost every single mutation is harmful, and the gene itself has safeguards to protect itself from mutations.

True. But you say almost. That's not all. So mutations can be beneficial.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.

From there, it started going downhill morally.

Kids today and their so called science, it's just noise and I can't even understand the words. How are you meant to dance to that.

 

[Skaloop]

Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.

From there, it started going downhill morally.

And Hal was wrong. There is no pinnacle; there are always higher peaks to reach. As Newton said, he stood on the shoulders of giants. And there are greater giants upon whose shoulders we now stand.

Besides, science is amoral. It doesn't go uphill nor downhill morally.

 

[AV1611VET]

From there, [science] started going downhill morally.

Besides, science is amoral.

When did it hit rock bottom?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

You mean that populations of kinds diverge into different appearances, yet still remain the same kind.

Yes that's precisely what I mean. Eukaryotes will always be eukaryotes, tetrapods will only give birth to tetrapods, mammals remain mammals, Carnivora remain Carnivora and felidae remain felidae.

That cats diverge into a variety of appearences, but are still felines. I agree, kind after kind.

Great.

Your argument might be worthwhile if you stopped refusing to accept the definition of kind I have given close to 28 times already.

Only ever seen examples, not a single definition.

All felines are one kind, what is your problem with understanding that?

No problem. So what are echidna an platypus? One kind? Two kinds? More? What objective criteria would you use to work that out?

I am not, I am blaming you for your failures of being unable to define what a species is.

Species is the lowest taxonomic rank and consists, in sexually reproducing eukaryotes, of an interbreeding population.

Agreed, kind after kind with appearance changes, exactly as we have observed. You have never observed a feline become anything but another feline. You have never observed anything become anything else.

So?

That it has shown kind after kind is undisputed, I agree. So why are you arguing against your very own science which has proved beyond doubt that cats never become anything but cats?

I'm not arguing with you. You just can't take yes for an answer.

Almost every single mutation is harmful, and the gene itself has safeguards to protect itself from mutations.

Demonstrably untrue. Almost every mutation has no effect. You and I have around 50-150 single base mutations that neither of our parents had. Given the human population there is mutations at every single non-lethal site in the genome which is most of it.

Not my fault you need a proven harmful state to change an animal into another kind because you can't accept the truth.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are several beneficial mutations recorded in certain human populations.

The truth that you at no time have ever observed a single creature evolve into something other than what it originally was. Ever!

As I said I'm not arguing with that, as you said, only diversity within kinds, within tetrapod kind, within primate kind, within eukaryotes kind, within life kind.

You have not a single genetic test to show that any creature has ever become another creature.

That's because creatures vary but populations evolve.

It has always been kind after kind, will always be kind after kind.

No argument. I just understand the concept better than you do.

This is a scientifically proven fact that I accept, why can you not accept what your very own science is telling you? Not someone's interpretation and twisting of the data, but the cold hard facts that every single cat, no matter its appearance, is a cat and has always been a cat.

When did I say otherwise?

That every single mutation science has caused in an animal or human has been harmful.

Mutations just happen science or no, and most are neutral.

That mutations in nature die, and do not pass their genes on to the next generation. That adaptation of form, not genetic structure is all that you have ever observed.

You can't get a population to change with respect to its heritable characteristics without change occurring in the genome.

This is how we know we are humans, cats are cats, dogs are dogs, whales are whales, and fish are fish. Just as birds are birds, and apes are apes.

Tetrapods are tetrapods, eukaryotes are eukaryotes, yeah I get it. Do you?

Kind after kind, always has been, always will be.

"Kind" which you have yet to define beyond a vague "sort".

 

[Skaloop]

When did it hit rock bottom?

Amoral. Not immoral. There's no rock bottom to hit. Never has been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did it hit rock bottom?

You have already been corrected on this, but I thought one more example would help. The God of the Old Testament is immoral, meaning that his morals are bad. Science is amoral, that means it has no morals good or bad. Just like a hammer. A hammer is amoral. It has neither good nor bad morals. It can be used to beat someone's head in or it can be used to build a hospital. The hammer is still a hammer regardless of its use.

I guess I gave you a twofer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes that's precisely what I mean. Eukaryotes will always be eukaryotes, tetrapods will only give birth to tetrapods, mammals remain mammals, Carnivora remain Carnivora and felidae remain felidae.

Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.

Only ever seen examples, not a single definition.

Define it how you like. Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid. You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.

So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?

No problem. So what are echidna an platypus? One kind? Two kinds? More? What objective criteria would you use to work that out?

Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.

I'm not arguing with you. You just can't take yes for an answer.

I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.

Demonstrably untrue. Almost every mutation has no effect. You and I have around 50-150 single base mutations that neither of our parents had. Given the human population there is mutations at every single non-lethal site in the genome which is most of it.

We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer. Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all. Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?

There are several beneficial mutations recorded in certain human populations.

So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.

As I said I'm not arguing with that, as you said, only diversity within kinds, within tetrapod kind, within primate kind, within eukaryotes kind, within life kind.

That's because creatures vary but populations evolve.

No argument. I just understand the concept better than you do.

I doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.

Mutations just happen science or no, and most are neutral.

Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.

You can't get a population to change with respect to its heritable characteristics without change occurring in the genome.

Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.

Tetrapods are tetrapods, eukaryotes are eukaryotes, yeah I get it. Do you?

"Kind" which you have yet to define beyond a vague "sort".

Which you still seem to have trouble with, being that you want to divide different kinds into different species, even when that classification violates your own definition of what a species is.

Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.

And don't forget the rest of that definition of species:

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae

So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?

 

[biggles53]

Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.




Define it how you like. Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid. You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.

So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?




Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.



I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.




We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer. Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all. Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?



So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.






I doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.



Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.



Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.




Which you still seem to have trouble with, being that you want to divide different kinds into different species, even when that classification violates your own definition of what a species is.

Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.

And don't forget the rest of that definition of species:



So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?

Why do you feel the need to lie on behalf of your belief system..?

Is it so fragile....?

 

[lasthero]

Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.

It would help if you defined it.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.

Thanks. So tetrapod is a kind which includes cat kind dog kind primate kind etc.

Define it how you like.

Thanks again. Will do.

Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid.

But I'm not sub-dividing. Eukaryote kind includes grasshopper kind, cat kind and dog kind.

You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.

Do they form interbreeding populations or do the populations remain distinct?

So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?

Several. 41 sounds about right. In the Feliformia kind there are even more species which include the felidae kind.

Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.

Why is that a problem? It's what we'd expect given evolution is true. Bit of a problem for special creation though.

I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.

There's plenty of evidence for evolution, look at the 41 cat species for a start, you can't get them without change in the heritable characteristics of populations over generations aka evolution.

We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer.

Every one of us, fifty to one and fifty point mutations that were not in either our mother or father. Look it up.

Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all.

Just point mutations, not other types of mutation, between fifty to one hundred and fifty per live birth.

Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?

You are simply in denial. Given the human population size and the measured mutation rate there is a mutation somewhere in the population at every non-lethal point on the human genome. We're all Muties.

So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.

Nope a base pair substitution ie a point mutation.

I doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.

Happens all the time or you'd be able to take the same flu shot as last year.

Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.

Do you know that the repair enzymes will introduce mutations depending on the damage? A double strand break will be repaired with repeats that weren't there before. That's a mutation.

Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.

And humans are still mammals, just diversity within a kind.

Which you still seem to have trouble with, being that you want to divide different kinds into different species, even when that classification violates your own definition of what a species is.

Nope, not dividing. You are the one dividing tetrapod kind into cats and dogs and humans.

Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.

And don't forget the rest of that definition of species:



So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?

Well what do you expect with all of the genetic change constantly going on? Rigid kinds???

 

[gluadys]

Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.

So are you saying you are comfortable with the concept of kinds within kinds i.e. new kinds emerging from an already established kind?

For example, duck kind emerging from bird kind or ant kind emerging from insect kind?

Define it how you like.

Well, if your answer to the above questions is positive, I think you have defined "kind" as equivalent to "clade".

I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.

Kind changing basic appearance IS evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

They stopped using well demonstrated science 100 years ago. We just got to wait until they start using it again. For those claiming to follow science I notice a tendency to ignore the facts. Have you ever observed a cat evolve into something other than a cat? Yah, me either, but hey, it happened in the past where none can prove it but that's science. Just make sure you don't claim something happened in the past where you can't prove it, it might be called a religion.

Strange then that technology continues to snowball, even though we gave up on "well demonstrated" science 100 years ago.... maybe its all based on your prayers... no? Hmmm...

How many times do we have to tell you, that evolution does not mean that one can escape one's heredity? Cats will always give rise to cats, just as mammals give rise to mammals and primates to primates. We happen to be both.

Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.

From there, it started going downhill morally.

Funny how it turns out that Newton was wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how it turns out that Newton was wrong.

All scientists are wrong.

In fact, I've been told here that some can't wait to have a mainline theory falsified in the name of progress.

 

[Split Rock]

Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.

So why isn't mammal a "kind?"

Why isn't primate a "kind?"

Define it how you like. Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid. You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.

Actually , the definition of biological species as defined by Mayr includes the provision that separate species do not interbreed in nature. That is why we don't see these outside of zoos. In any case, the theory of evolution dictates that species are fluid and not static. They are related by genetic descent. "Kinds' are not related by genetic descent, yet you guys seem to have trouble defining them. Why is that?

So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?

Which is it.. one cat "kind" or 20?

Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.

Your compatriot claimed there were two cat "kinds," why can't you agree? As I said, species are fluid and closely related species share common ancestors. Why is it surprising that under unnatural circumstances, we can get them to interbreed?

I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.

That IS evolution. Sorry, you guys are not going to get anywhere trying to redefine evolution. We won't let you.

We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer. Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all. Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?

This is a blatant falsehood. You yourself have a number of mutations, and you don't have cancer. In fact, recent studies indicate we have on average 60 mutations that distinguish us from our parents.

How Many Genetic Mutations Do I Have? | LiveScience
The Average Human Has 60 New Genetic Mutations - Slashdot

So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.

A mutation is a change in the sequence of the genetic material, DNA. Go ahead and redefine that now, too....

I doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.

Another blatant falsehood. E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.

Yet another falsehood! We have a triple-header, folks! Most mutations are neutral.

Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.

Your understanding of mutations is flawed. I'll ask you again to explain why a mammal is not a "kind," as mammals only give rise to mammals.

So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?

"Kind" shouldn't be vague at all, since your god created each "kind" separately and uniquely. Yet, you cannot define what a "kind" is. Why is that??

 

[bhsmte]

All scientists are wrong.

In fact, I've been told here that some can't wait to have a mainline theory falsified in the name of progress.

All scientists are wrong?

Now, thats one for the books!

 

[Split Rock]

All scientists are wrong.

In fact, I've been told here that some can't wait to have a mainline theory falsified in the name of progress.

Yes, we call correcting mistakes and improving our understanding of reality, progress. You guys call that, "blasphemy," "anti-God," and "the big lie."

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, we call correcting mistakes and improving our understanding of reality, progress. You guys call that, "blasphemy," "anti-God," and "the big lie."

Then don't try and exclude Isaac Newton and expect me to agree.