Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Skaloop]

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

Who's excluding Newton?

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not believe for one minute that all the fossils are in a nice, orderly fashion as depicted in clever drawings.

Then show me a sediment that contains both modern birds and trilobites.

I asked for evidence for that in another thread and no one could produce even one shred.

You were shown that evidence. Why do you ignore the evidence?

Here is a marine fossil that was found in Iraq, that was laying out on a mule track, being used as a stepping stone. Not buried in many layers of sediment..

Have you not heard of erosion?

 

[Loudmouth]

We do, you just don't like to mention them because it doesn't fit your theory.

Dinosaur Fossil 'Wasn't Supposed to Be There'

Why are these the exceptions instead of the rule? Why isn't the whole of the fossil record large grained sediments with all of life all jumbled up?

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove to me all cats are not the same kind.

What criteria are you using to determine if two species belong to the same kind?

Told you 25 times already. What is a species? What is a Family? What is a Phylum? You have the classification problem, not me.

You are the one who can't list any criteria for determining a kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, if one went extinct like the saber-tooth, then others of that kind would just continue on. Only one cat kind, not two, not four not one hundred, but one. Just different appearances of the same kind.

How do you determine which appearances belong to the same kind?

 

[Split Rock]

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

When did I exclude him? You promoted the idea that he was the pinnacle of science, and science has gone downhill since. I mearly pointed out that he has been corrected by those who came after him, so you are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you started ignoring it even when the data showed every cat is a feline. Works just fine there too. And every whale is a whale. Works just fine there too.

Every human is a vertebrate. Works just fine there too.

What does genetic test have to do with evolution since you have not one shred of DNA from an extinct species to test?

We have DNA from our cousins.

No, evolution would be a rat becoming a cat or dog.

All three of those are in the mammal kind.

Adaptation is a cat changing appearance because of genetic isolation, food supply, etc, but still always remaining a feline. Exactly what we have observed scientifically.

Humans are still vertebrates, still mammals, and still primates.

Face it, you got nothing to show evolution takes place but word games.

So far, a word game is all you have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like Thalidomide?

Is thalidomide no longer considered a risk to developing fetuses?

 

[Loudmouth]

Kind after kind which is all that has ever been observed?

That is all that evolution needs to do in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.

Show me genetic evidence where a rat has become anything other than a rat?

Show me a human that is no longer a primate, a mammal, or a vertebrate.

Oh that's right, you got not one shred of evidence do you,

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Loudmouth]

Seems that's the only data you got on it, that it caused genetic mutations that were harmful in every single case and not beneficial in a single solitary instance. Funny how that works.

I have millions of mutations in humans that are responsible for our specific adaptations. They are the mutations that separate us from chimps.

 

[AV1611VET]

You promoted the idea that he was the pinnacle of science, and science has gone downhill since.

Morally.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Humans are a different appearance of primates.

Humans are a different appearance of mammals.

Humans are a different appearance of vertebrates.

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

You haven't given one definition yet. You haven't given us one criteria that you use to determine if two species belong to the same kind.

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

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

You have never observed a feline become anything but another feline.

We have never observed a primate becoming anything but another primate. We have never observed a mammal becoming anything but another mammal. We have never observed a vertebrate becoming anything but another vertebrate.

So why are you arguing against your very own science which has proved beyond doubt that cats never become anything but cats?

Why are you arguing against the science which demonstrates that humans belong to the vertebrate kind?

Almost every single mutation is harmful,

Evidence please. We differ from chimps at millions of positions in our genomes. Are you saying that almost every single one of those mutations is harmful to either chimps or humans?

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

There were no chihuahuas at one time, now there are.

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

We have genetic tests showing that chihuahuas came from non-chihuahuas.

This is a scientifically proven fact that I accept, why can you not accept what your very own science is telling you?

Why can't you accept that humans are part of the vertebrate kind?

That mutations in nature die, and do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

Then there should only be one single species in existence. There isn't. Obviously, genomes can be different without causing death.

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

Those are all in the vertebrate kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

All those journals agree that humans, fish, birds, mammals, and lizards belong to the vertebrate kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Define it how you like.

Ok. Eukaryote is a kind.

That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid.

Irony at its best.

 

[Split Rock]

Morally.

So, how was Newton morally superior to those who followed him?

 

[StormanNorman]

So, how was Newton morally superior to those who followed him?

Probably because he was a creationist (I'm assuming).

 

[lasthero]

He also believed you could turn lead into gold.

It's funny how quick creationists are to bring up that Newton believed in God, but how they always seem to ignore his rather cultish beliefs, like how he thought he was specifically chosen by God and how he tried to mathematically predict the end of the world.

 

[EternalDragon]

I have millions of mutations in humans that are responsible for our specific adaptations. They are the mutations that separate us from chimps.

I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.

There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Morally.

I wonder what Leibnez would have to say about that.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.

There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.

But the heritable differences are all mutations.