What proof would you need?

[Split Rock]

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!

Show us ONE OBSERVABLE FACT that supports your god making a human from dirt. Go ahead. Show us all up.

 

[Astridhere]

You naturalists did not even know the moon was created after the earth untill not so long ago. The bible writers, dispute them as you may, did know this fact. They knew of washing hands. They knew of the circle of the earth. They knew around 100 scientific observed fact before your researchers and scientists knew them.

http://www.thomasharry.com/101-scientifc-facts--foreknowledge.html

You can do cart wheels offering your ridiculous data based on Hubble constants that are not constant, speed of light limits that are proving false, mysterious dark matter and energy and singularities that make no sense. You have a genomic mess when it comes to comparative genomics, your fossil evidence is so misrepresented that it borders on being fraud.

Offering these kinds of changing, debated theories should never be enough to sway any thinking creationist with reasoning ability intact into changing theor view. If this is the intention behind your trying to pick a debate you are wasting your time.

Not only are naturalists blind to the obvious FACT that the earth is unlike any other planet, they are also prepared to accept any nonsense that may support it being unremarkable and just lucky. Lucky to have the perfect address, lucky to have a molten iron core, lucky to have a magnetic field, lucky to have hydro and many other systems like tectonics, lucky to have evolved life when no other planet has been observed to have life, lucky that ERVs were smart enough to kick off mammalian pregnancy and not abort the fetus. You lot have turned mankind into more of a virus than a chimp. It would be hilarious if it were not so ridiculous. LUCK LUCK LUCK is not the answer guys and gals. The answer is God, and he is actually meant to know more than mankind. It is part of the deal.

All your observed data demonstrates that there is no evolutionary magic at play here. Rather there is a deity with complete knowledge that has designed the universe with purpose and created the various kinds. I do not need an answer to every question any more than you do!.

The thread requests what may change a creationsts view to an evo one. For me 150 years of stability may have done it. If Dawins gradual change was uphheld with supportive fossil evidence, if the chimp/human comparison was not indeed more like a holistic 30% rather than the zeroing in on the power staion, mtdna, as a misrepresentation of similarity, if all non coding DNA really was junk, if there was no confounding variables, if you actually had some idea of population size, if you didn't need bottle necks to ratify your data, and non plausible scenarios as explanations like human feet on a curved fingered 3.5ft ape, didn't have the upper thighbone of Tukana Boy so dissimilar to both human and ape thighbones that one may conclude him to be a fraud, you may have had some luck with me. When TOE stops evolving itself for a decade or so I'll be happy to reconsider. When you can provide observed evidence that amounts to more than 'it all evolved because we said so', I will also reconsider.

For now what is observed supports biblical creationism and there is no scientific observed data that contradicts biblical creationism. This is why I shall remain an ardent biblical creationist.

Perhaps a better question would be what would it take for an evolutionists to change their view to a creationist one? Observed evidence cannot be the answer as there is already plenty of that to support creationism.

 

[razeontherock]

We have something you lack. Evidence.

Really? Then I'm sure you can relate a few of these "observable facts."

Bacteria are still bacteria, after how many generations, being observed in the lab? And finches are still, finches.

 

[Orogeny]

Bacteria are still bacteria, after how many generations, being observed in the lab? And finches are still, finches.

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).

 

[Jazer]

You're right though, we do use the 'old green hymnals'.

Do you like the new worship music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ON2Cis8SWrU

 

[Jazer]

Please describe the selective pressures these groups have been under during their observation that would encourage them to change from bacteria to X?

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.

 

[Astridhere]

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).

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. No this is a misrepresentation that demonstrates nothing observed only what your biased algorithms guess at relating to comparisons of species alive today. Allele frequencies can only be observed in current population genetics. 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.

Mutation rates are not the same for all species. 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 fact, all this talk of ERVs with function demonstrates that natural selection has worked on virus that causes a fitness disadvantage, NOT an advantage. Virus need to insert huge sections of genomic data across the germ line which has been observed to be delterious and mostly fatal. It is yet another non plausible scenario, that requires more miracles than the bible even speaks to, to occur in reality.

Changes in allele frequency does not explain or demonstrate how a cow, wolf or mouse-deer can turn into a whale.

Here is a link that explains it for creationists that may not understand what Orogeny is on about.

Allele Frequency

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.

 

[Orogeny]

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.

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).

Also, so what? Echinoderms have been around since the Early Cambrian. So have annelids, brachiopods, arthropods, and corals. How does this disprove the fact of change in allele frequency in populations over time?

 

[razeontherock]

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).

No. The point was that there is observable evidence of "macro evolution." There is not.

 

[Astridhere]

Of course they do, silly me, it's just a pity only a few of us know this.

That's OK Windward. Current commonly accepted irrefuteable evidence for evolution has been falsified so many times we all know current evolutionary knowledge really means nothing at all and will likely be tossed aside tomorrow.

eg.

 

[Orogeny]

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.

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.

No this is a misrepresentation that demonstrates nothing observed only what your biased algorithms guess at relating to comparisons of species alive today.

This has nothing to do with algorithms.

Allele frequencies can only be observed in current population genetics.

So...?

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.

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.

Also, nowhere in evolutionary theory is it sated that a cat should yield anything but a cat, a human anything but a human, or a chimp anything other than a chimp. End this canard now.

Mutation rates are not the same for all species.

NO! R U SIRIUS. OH MY WORD!

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.

Would you mind defining biological evolution for me?

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.

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!

Virus that need to insert huge sections of genomic data acros the germ line which has been observed to be delterious and mostly fatal.

What?

Changes in allele frequency does not explain or demonstrate how a cow, wolf or mouse-deer can turn into a whale.

Here is a link that explains it for creationists that may not understand what Orogeny is on about.

Allele Frequency

Well done! This site affirms the biological definition of evolution in the second sentence of its reply.

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.

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.

 

[Orogeny]

No. The point was that there is observable evidence of "macro evolution." There is not.

Yes there is: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Not to mention that there is EXACTLY NO DIFFERENCE IN PROCESS BETWEEN MICRO- AND MACRO-EVOLUTION. The only difference is SCALE, and there is no magic barrier differentiating the two. For the love of sauerkraut, end this stupidity.

Also, you've failed to answer my requests. They should not be difficult to answer if you are correct. Hop to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes there is: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

'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.

 

[Orogeny]

'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.

Your uninformed opinion is noted.

 

[razeontherock]

For the love of sauerkraut, end this stupidity.

I hate sauerkraut just as much as I hate seeing you offend in the manner you complain about.

 

[Astridhere]

Orogeny show us how allele frequencies proove mankind and chimps share a common ancestor? They don't, and you are grasping at straws.

Any comparative genomics requires the use of speculative algorithms that incorporate insertion values that are also driven by speculation and an already presumed outcome. 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.

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 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. The rest is speculation. Creationists accept adaptation. Adaptation is not macroevolution no matter how many times you put up examples of somatic adaptive change.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

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...

Now lets see these 29 evidences for macroevolution. This will be fun....

 

[Astridhere]

Evidence 1 speaks to genomic similarity. This was great while the irrefuteable flavour of the month was single cell abiogenesis. Now with the advent of HGT multiple so called 'primitive cells' ( a contradiction in terms for a start with a living cell being a complex factory) are thought to have arisen.

Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LUCA is dead, although some researchers are still grappling around trying to revive her.


If multiple living cells that arose independently were so alike that they were able to share genomic material by HGT then what you have actually theorised is that all life, no matter how or when it arises on earth, is going to be based on the same genetic code. If they were of different design there would have been no HGT and you would find some life totally different than another. That would at least have provided a plausible scenario which you lot haven't as yet.

Life forms a food chain. It must have been created on a similar code for the uptake of nutrients.

Nested hiererchies use algorithms. If there is observed data that birds predate dinosaurs, which there is, I'd say your nested hierarchies are no more than nested rotten eggs. They are assumptive and speculative as you do not have dna from ancient species. You now have convergent evolution and homoplasy to hand wave away that data which does not align. No 1 again is not OBSERVED evidence for macroevolution.

Uncommon Descent | Proteins Fold As Darwin Crumbles

1.4 re bird fossils has already been falsified by bird footprints predating the supposed ancestors, despite all the woffle about jawbones.

The male human/chimp Y chromosome demonstrates that there is no relationship between mankind and chimp and your nested hierachies could demonstate our closest living relative is a turtle if that is what was required to support evolution.
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content : Abstract : Nature

Example 3 -human apes is a laugh. What you have are a bunch of apes right up to the last 2 skulls.. Flatter faces have been around in apes for 12 million years with LLuc. Even some of the Neandethal fossils are simply apes like J, K & L. Just look to the nasal cavities that are the same as apes. The reconstructions are no doubt biased.

New Hominid 12 Million Years Old Found In Spain, With 'Modern' Facial Features

I have already said your best example of erectus, Turksana Boy, is an ape. His head on side view looks like a variety of ape. His upper thigh bone is very long at the socket and does not resemple an ape or human thigh bone at all. It is all fraudulent misrepresentation.

Read this from your own
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

As for intrmediates you do not have any that demonstrate a change from ape to human or from deer to whale. What you have are totally different kinds that bear no ancestry. For example Indohyus, an early whale (wait while I stop laughing) is simply a variety of mouse deer.

Evolution of whales challenged


Then poof you have an example of an aligator or crocodile kind. Then you have a skinny whale as if you lot know what any flesh looks like an a skeleton eg. Remember the misrepresentation of neanderthal the ape man now said to be perfectly human. Ikes.How do you stand the constant instability?

the 29 evidences for macroevolution are a laugh and are all based on speculation, wish lists and misrepresentations as demonstrated.

 

[Orogeny]

Orogeny show us how allele frequencies proove mankind and chimps share a common ancestor?

How about we not move the goalposts, mmk? The point here is that biological evolution= change in a population's allele frequency over time.

Change in allele frequency over time is observed in populations from petri dish to prairie. Therefore, evolution occurs. This is not difficult to understand, is it?

Any comparative genomics requires the use of speculative algorithms that incorporate insertion values that are also driven by speculation and an already presumed outcome.

What you are talking about deals with the theories of evolution, not the fact of evolution.

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.

Define hugely.

Nevermind. Regardless of your definition, humans and chimps are more closely related than any other species within the nested hierarchy, which evolution supports with much evidence, and which intelligent design supports and/or opposes with exactly no evidence.

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.

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.

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.

In other words, change in allele frequency within the fruit fly population over time. Cool. Glad you've come around.

The rest is speculation. Creationists accept adaptation. Adaptation is not macroevolution no matter how many times you put up examples of somatic adaptive change.

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?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/abs/nature09352.html

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

From your article:

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.

Thanks for making my point!

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...

Chatter all you want, your point remains faulty. Change in allele frequency within population over time has been observed, therefore evolution.

 

[CTD]

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.

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?

...And anyone can see, there's no such thing in my actual arguments. I suggest you present your straw version for inspection. A straw ghost? Really now!

 

[CTD]

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.

Sorry, but what proof do you have that God created anything?

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?

You don't get to keep any. Evolutionism's been demonstrated false.

One can even employ Evoreasoning, restating the facts in the form of evoargument. It is an axiom of evolutionism that there be no limit to extrapolation. Therefore, if one evostory be false, we must conclude all evostories are false.

Darwin himself employs this axiom in the sacred evotext, and many have employed it since. It is essential even now: microevolution=macroevolution is current dogma.


-----------------------------

The misrepresentation is on your side, and it is that there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution. There is none.

Thanks!