Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Justatruthseeker]

First of all, citation needed that a housecat can mate with a lynx, which can mate with a jaguar, which can mate with a panther, which can mate with a lion, which can mate with a tiger. And of course by mate, I mean produce viable, fertile offspring.

Even if you can do that, a housecat cannot mate with a tiger.

read it for yourself.
Felid hybrid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie-bob

http://www.furrycritter.com/resources/cats/Domestic_Lynx.htm

Doesn't matter, they are all of the same kind, else they could not interbreed at all. Kind after kind, housecat, lynx, jaguar, panther, lion, tiger, all one kind. face it, science proves creation, not evolution.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

read it for yourself.
Felid hybrid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pixie-bob - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domestic Lynx Breed Description - The Furry Critter Network

So if one species in that chain had gone extinct before we did the hybridization experiments then there would be two cat kinds?

 

[EternalDragon]

OP not going to address to my rebuttals to the claims?

I didn't want to go round and round for another 40 pages of posts.

You basically quoted the same old "similar means common ancestor" and "natural selection is evolution" rhetoric that has been stated on other numerous posts.

Extra fins or bones on a whale is not proof they walked on land or on feet at one time.

I posted links to articles by scientists describing those problems in more detail.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I didn't want to go round and round for another 40 pages of posts.

You basically quoted the same old "similar means common ancestor" and "natural selection is evolution" rhetoric that has been stated on other numerous posts.

Extra fins or bones on a whale is not proof they walked on land or on feet at one time.

I posted links to articles by scientists describing those problems in more detail.

You posted links to "creation sciemtists" but where is the data?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I didn't want to go round and round for another 40 pages of posts.

You basically quoted the same old "similar means common ancestor"

Seems to work for paternity suits. Can you explain when this concept stops working?

and "natural selection is evolution" rhetoric that has been stated on other numerous posts.

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of populations over generational time. One of the mechanisms of change is natural selection so natural selection is evolution but not all evolution is natural selection.

Extra fins or bones on a whale is not proof they walked on land or on feet at one time.

But homology has no explanation under creation.

I posted links to articles by scientists describing those problems in more detail.

LOL.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So if one species in that chain had gone extinct before we did the hybridization experiments then there would be two cat kinds?

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. There may be several what we call breeds of the one kind, but they are all felines, one kind. There has never been more than one cat kind, and never will be. Just as there is one canine kind and one human kind.

Again, your problems with classifications leads you to assume their are more than one cat kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Basically, if it was God's plan to kill off all life except for the pairs or sevens of animals He had Noah take on the ark, having a bunch of extra animals sneak on would seem to go against that plan, would it not?

Did you ever read X-ing a Paragrab, by Edgar Allan Poe?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Seems to work for paternity suits. Can you explain when this concept stops working?

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

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of populations over generational time. One of the mechanisms of change is natural selection so natural selection is evolution but not all evolution is natural selection.
But homology has no explanation under creation.
LOL.

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

Face it, you got nothing to show evolution takes place but word games. Natural selection is evolution but not all evolution is natural selection. Childish word games so one does not get pinned down to an actual answer.

Evolution has never been observed, not once.

 

[Skaloop]

read it for yourself.
Felid hybrid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pixie-bob - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domestic Lynx Breed Description - The Furry Critter Network

Doesn't matter, they are all of the same kind, else they could not interbreed at all. Kind after kind, housecat, lynx, jaguar, panther, lion, tiger, all one kind.

Yet they cannot all interbreed.

face it, science proves creation, not evolution.

Face it, it doesn't.

 

[kellhus]

Evolution has never been observed, not once.

I've given several examples, but you call it "adaptation", incorrectly, and do your best to ignore it.

The awesome thing about science is that it remains true no matter how willfully ignorant you act.

 

[Skaloop]

Did you ever read X-ing a Paragrab, by Edgar Allan Poe?

I had not even heard of it until you just mentioned it. Looking into it, it seems an interesting, if absurd, sort of story.

What, pray tell, do you mean to show by bringing it up?

 

[AV1611VET]

The awesome thing about science is that it remains true no matter how willfully ignorant you act.

Like Thalidomide?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Like Thalidomide?

Yep, the evidence that thalidomide harms developing fetuses remains true no matter what the company thought. Reality is the ultimate test, not what one wishes were true.

 

[AV1611VET]

What, pray tell, do you mean to show by bringing it up?

Sorry.

It was a wrong example to use.

That's what I get for not sticking to my own train of thought.

Once again, anyone, including a dove and a raven, getting inside the Ark would become an exception to God "destroying all flesh."

Clearly, He didn't destroy Noah's flesh, did He?

To put it bluntly, the dove and the raven were exceptions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, the evidence that thalidomide harms developing fetuses remains true no matter what the company thought. Reality is the ultimate test, not what one wishes were true.

Then why don't you scientists worry about your own problems, instead of trying to make problems for us by challenging what we hold sacred?

(Or is challenging, venting and ridiculing a popular pastime when scientists don't have anything better to do?)

 

[kellhus]

Then why don't you scientists worry about your own problems, instead of trying to make problems for us by challenging what we hold sacred?

(Or is challenging, venting and ridiculing a popular pastime when scientists don't have anything better to do?)

Mach, if you don't like people contradicting your fantasies and criticizing you for being so ridiculous and resistant to having your beliefs challenged, then don't post on the Internet about them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mach, if you don't like people contradicting your fantasies and criticizing you for being so ridiculous and resistant to having your beliefs challenged, then don't post on the Internet about them.

Geben, I'll post to my heart's content, as long as I don't break the rules.

Fair enough?

 

[Skaloop]

Geben, I'll post to my heart's content, as long as I don't break the rules.

Fair enough?

Oh yeah, post away. But on an essentially public forum like CF, don't expect to not be challenged on what you post, and don't complain about it when you are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Mach, if you don't like people contradicting your fantasies and criticizing you for being so ridiculous and resistant to having your beliefs challenged, then don't post on the Internet about them.

Exactly, so why don't you like people contradicting your fantasies and criticizing you for being so ridiculous and resistant to having your beliefs challenged?

Why do you constantly ignore what 99% of the universe is then claim it is science, when in reality it is religion? Why can't you accept the scientific fact that kind has always reproduced after kind and no other way has ever been observed? Ever!

All genetic tests have only proven kind after kind. No animal has ever been observed to evolve into another animal, ever. So why do you constantly promote your religion of evolution when none of science or observational evidence agrees?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh yeah, post away. But on an essentially public forum like CF, don't expect to not be challenged on what you post.

I don't expect not to be challenged.

In fact, I welcome it.

But challenging is one thing.

Embedding venting, ridicule and downright blasphemy in a challenge is another.

Hiding behind question marks, I call it.