Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Show us ONE OBSERVABLE FACT that supports your god making a human from dirt. Go ahead. Show us all up.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is typical of a hypocritical evolutionist to request more credible and substantiated evidence for opposing stances than they themselves are able to supply.
Besides..the observed FACTS and data support creation. Fantasy based on myth and algorithms is what upholds evolution like sticky tape. So far today none of you have successfully refuted this claim with any more than woffle and opinion.
You loose!
We have something you lack. Evidence.
Really? Then I'm sure you can relate a few of these "observable facts."
Please describe the selective pressures these groups have been under during their observation that would encourage them to change from bacteria to X? and from finch to Y?, respectively. Explain why these selective pressures, given the amount of observation time, should result in a change in domain (for bacteria) or family (for finches). Explain empirically how you know these selective pressures should result in these changes.Bacteria are still bacteria, after how many generations, being observed in the lab? And finches are still, finches.
Do you like the new worship music?You're right though, we do use the 'old green hymnals'.
You just shot yourself in the foot. Bacteria has been around from the beginning and can be found just about anywhere on earth you go. So the "selective pressures" are all the same as everything else.Please describe the selective pressures these groups have been under during their observation that would encourage them to change from bacteria to X?
Please describe the selective pressures these groups have been under during their observation that would encourage them to change from bacteria to X? and from finch to Y?, respectively. Explain why these selective pressures, given the amount of observation time, should result in a change in domain (for bacteria) or family (for finches). Explain empirically how you know these selective pressures should result in these changes.
Finally, explain why this disproves the fact of evolution (which is, specifically, the observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time).
Explain what your last sentence means, and why it validates your first and second sentence. Explain why this disproves the fact of evolution (which is, specifically, the observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time).You just shot yourself in the foot. Bacteria has been around from the beginning and can be found just about anywhere on earth you go. So the "selective pressures" are all the same as everything else.
Please describe the selective pressures these groups have been under during their observation that would encourage them to change from bacteria to X? and from finch to Y?, respectively. Explain why these selective pressures, given the amount of observation time, should result in a change in domain (for bacteria) or family (for finches). Explain empirically how you know these selective pressures should result in these changes.
Finally, explain why this disproves the fact of evolution (which is, specifically, the observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time).
Of course they do, silly me, it's just a pity only a few of us know this.
I have made no such presumption. I am simply asking why bacteria not changing into something that isn't bacteria during the historical period of observation invalidates the observation of change in allele frequency in populations over time.Your questions are presumptive to begin with Orogeny. You have presumed that allele frequencies show some tie say from Mankind to who? Turkana Boy maybe. To who? Lucy who is not an ancestor. To who? Indohyus the mouse deer variation and a whale.
This has nothing to do with algorithms.No this is a misrepresentation that demonstrates nothing observed only what your biased algorithms guess at relating to comparisons of species alive today.
So...?Allele frequencies can only be observed in current population genetics.
False. This has nothing to do with algorithms. We can observe a population, be it a town, a state, a family of fruit flies, or a culture in a petri dish. Populations at all of these scales, given generations of observation, show changes in allelic frequency. Thus, the populations evolve.It takes the guess work of population size, genetic bottlenecks, based on unknown and undescribed and non genetically tested common ancestors and algorithms that really demonstrate nothing to use this ploy of allele frequency change to demonstrate a cat was ever anything other than a cat. The same goes for all kinds including mankind and chimps.
NO! R U SIRIUS. OH MY WORD!Mutation rates are not the same for all species.
Would you mind defining biological evolution for me?That is observed in todays species and is a fact. This whole allele frequency thing does not prove anything more than adaptive and in kind change.
In other words, natural selection functions to remove a portion of the population, resulting in a change in allele frequency. Yep. That's pretty much evolution. Thanks for playing!In fact, all this talk of ERVs with function demonstrates that natural selection has worked on virus that causes a fitness disadvantage, NOT an advantage.
What?Virus that need to insert huge sections of genomic data acros the germ line which has been observed to be delterious and mostly fatal.
Changes in allele frequency does not explain or demonstrate how a cow, wolf or mouse-deer can turn into a whale.
Well done! This site affirms the biological definition of evolution in the second sentence of its reply.
The misrepresentation is on your side, and it is that there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution. There is none. Biological evolution is simply the change in allele frequency of a population over time. It's that simple. It is a continuum, with nothing separating micro from macro. Stop your misrepresentation, please.We biblical creationists will find that this is the sort of misrepresentation typical of evolutionary supporters as they desperately struggle to provide evidence for the macroevolutionary myth that just aint there.
Yes there is: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1No. The point was that there is observable evidence of "macro evolution." There is not.
'Evidences' being the operative word here?Yes there is: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Your uninformed opinion is noted.'Evidences' being the operative word here?
In my opinion, macroevolution has NEVER been observed, and is a feat reserved for the Antichirst to demonstrate.
BUT ...
... even if macroevolution were to be observed, this does not mean mankind came from mildew.
For the love of sauerkraut, end this stupidity.
How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.Orogeny show us how allele frequencies proove mankind and chimps share a common ancestor?
What you are talking about deals with the theories of evolution, not the fact of evolution.Any comparative genomics requires the use of speculative algorithms that incorporate insertion values that are also driven by speculation and an already presumed outcome.
Define hugely.This is further demonstrated by the 30% difference in the male human/chimp genome that has been handwaved away with the non plausible scenario of 'accelerated evolution" or God knows what else. The plain and simple fact that is observed is that mankind and chimps are hugely different. This satisfies the creatioist paradigm and requires non credible non plausible scenarios to explain why some genomic regions are more different than others.
At no point did I say anything of the kind. I simply stated that change in allele frequency has been observed within populations over time. Please stop trying to turn my arguments into pretty little strawpeople.You lot have no idea more than speculation as to what any intial bacteria may or may not have looked like genetically. Nor do you have a complete DNA sequence from say Homo erectus, much less any other human ancestor, most of ehich have been discredited to cousins and sister and what not. To purport that allele frequence demonstrates ancestry from mankind to chimp is simply a misrepresentation and you have got to realise it. Yet you persist.
In other words, change in allele frequency within the fruit fly population over time. Cool. Glad you've come around.In labs bacteria have remained bacteria, fruitflies have remained fruit flys despite legs hanging off their heads. Fruitflys could not even set an allele for advanced development over 600 generations, equal to 12,000 human years, in the population. Those flys that did retain this trait suffered lower birth rates and less resisitence to starvation. That is what has been observed.
How many more times do we have to say 'There is no magical roadblock on the continuum of change in allele frequency' before you understand that there is no magical roadblock on the continuum of change in allele frequency?The rest is speculation. Creationists accept adaptation. Adaptation is not macroevolution no matter how many times you put up examples of somatic adaptive change.
From your article:
Thanks for making my point!Burke et al. said:On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls.
Chatter all you want, your point remains faulty. Change in allele frequency within population over time has been observed, therefore evolution.and more importanty I do not think evolutionists even know what evidence looks like any more and will keep speaking to this sort of nonsense indefinitely as this is all they have...MISREPRESENTATIONS and miraculous extrapolations that have not been observed...
What have you disproven? To what do you refer when you say 'gravity'? Newton's law? The observed phenomenon? The vain attempts of quacks to explain the observation without explaining anything? What?In fact, taking from your argument in this thread I can "disprove" gravity. Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. Therefore, The Universal Theory of Gravity is disproven.
If the statement "God didn't create as He says He did" is false, as I demonstrated, deductive logic & the law of non-contradiction compel one to conclude what?Sorry, but what proof do you have that God created anything?What's the number one lie in the whole pile? "God didn't create as He says He did." You don't get to keep that one. If it was the strongest, you should've played it when you had the chance.
Thanks!The misrepresentation is on your side, and it is that there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution. There is none.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?