Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[omega2xx]

I don't want to be rude but that is probably the most ignorant thing one can say about science. Not only has real science prove there is more than one type of blood, they can prove what type you have. The can also prove if they give you certain types, it will kill you. Science has also proved all living things have DNA and your DNA will prove what species you are. My DNA will prove you and I are related by species, homo sapian, but we are not related biologically. If you need a list of things real science has proved check what Nobel prizes have been given for since it began. You won't fin them giving their prize for opinions. Has evolution been proved? Has natural selection been proved?

Do you think it doesn't exist?

I can't tell if it exist without some supporting evidencn. Feel free to explain why you think it does.



The environment may cause a species to become extinct, but it will have no effect on a species ability to reproduce.



Has science proved that or is that just an opinion? In any case that statement is not true. Alleles are in the genes of the parents and the offspring can't get a gene not in the gene pool of its parents.



Has science proved that or is it just another opinion? Any way that statement is not true, and points to you not understanding what mutations can and can't do. Time w3ill not change genes.



Has that been proved or is it just anothe opinion?



Congratulations, you finally god something that can be proved. It will also be proved that when that offspring does reproduce, it will be after it kind.



Has that been proved or is it jut another opinion?



Has that been proved or is it just another opinion?

It seems a little hypocritical to say all of what you said is true if science doesn't prove anything,[/QUOTE]

It is evolution, not real science, that can't prove what it says.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you mean speciation? Speciation has been observed.

Yes it has . Now tell me how it can cause a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

Have you heard of DNA? Ta-dah. There's all the evidence you could ever wish for.

DNA separates, it does not link except by species, and that refutes evolution. It will prove man is not relted to apes. Ta-dah.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

DNA separates, it does not link except by species, and that refutes evolution.

Handwaving and unsupported claims are not refutation. You may not like the evidence, but that doesn't make it go away. DNA is all the evidence needed. Like it or lump it.

It will prove man is not relted to apes. Ta-dah.

Thanks for the Christmas joke

Merry Christmas.

You too

 

[USincognito]

I don't want to be rude but that is probably the most ignorant thing one can say about science.

Uh huh.. before we continue I'd like you to read this:
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

 

[USincognito]

I don't want to be rude but that is probably the most ignorant thing one can say about science.

And this:
Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.​

And this:
Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.​

 

[USincognito]

I can't tell if it exist without some supporting evidencn. Feel free to explain why you think it does.

Natural selection is how the environment provides a passive filtering system for reproductive success. It has been tested with the Peppered moth by Kettlewell in the 1950s and his results were replicated during a 7 year study by Majerus in the 2000s.

The environment may cause a species to become extinct, but it will have no effect on a species ability to reproduce.

Actually it does. We see that with human and cockroaches. Both of us are tropical species, but as humans adapted to live in temperate environments, cockroaches spread far beyond their original territory. In the Southern Pine Beetle, we see it's range increasing as the earth gets warmer.

{snip} In any case that statement is not true. Alleles are in the genes of the parents and the offspring can't get a gene not in the gene pool of its parents.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not correct. Every human, for example, is born with about 60 novel alleles that neither parent had. Mutations occur in every individual and every generation.

to be continued.

 

[USincognito]

{snip}Any way that statement is not true, and points to you not understanding what mutations can and can't do. Time w3ill not change genes.

No one is asserting that "time" changes genes. It has been long understood that DNA replicates imperfectly and mutation rates have been measured for decades now. As I stated above, each offspring is born with dozens to hundreds of novel alleles not found in either parents genome. That's just the nature of DNA and how it replicates.

Has that been proved or is it just anothe opinion?

I would appreciate and actual response to what I wrote.

{snip}It will also be proved that when that offspring does reproduce, it will be after it kind.

No Creationist has ever given a scientifically useful definition of "kind". Further no Creationist has ever shown a mechanism to exist preventing so-called "kinds" from sharing common ancestry. Personally I have seen "kind" defined as anything from a species (human) to a domain (bacteria). The simple fact is descendants never stop being what their ancestors were. So humans will always be humans, no matte what we evolve into, and we are still apes, primates, euarchontoglires, mammals, synapsids, etc. etc.

Has that been proved or is it jut another opinion?

Again, I would appreciate and actual response to what I wrote.

Has that been proved or is it just another opinion?

Again, I would appreciate and actual response to what I wrote.

It seems a little hypocritical to say all of what you said is true if science doesn't prove anything,

Please read posts #325 and 326 including the link provided and get back to me on this.

 

[omega2xx]

Uh huh.. before we continue I'd like you to read this:
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

That was one man's opinion; he is not even a scientist and he admits not all agree with him.

To say science has not proved there is more than one blood type is laughable. To say science can't prove what type you have is hilarious. To deny what is obvious is the height of illogic.

Is there more than one blood type? How do we know there is?

 

[omega2xx]

No one is asserting that "time" changes genes.

The explanation I always get about mutations being a mechanism for a change of species is that they result in many small changes of a long period of time. For that to be true it means at some point in the process a gene for a certain characteristic would have to change for the offspring to become a different species than it parents.

has been long understood that DNA replicates imperfectly and mutation rates have been measured for decades now.

True but mutations do not change a species. The only alter characteristics, most of which are not benefical.

As I stated above, each offspring is born with dozens to hundreds of novel alleles not found in either parents genome. That's just the nature of DNA and how it replicates.

You can state anything you want to, proving what you state is your problem.

I would appreciate and actual response to what I wrote.

I did. I said you have no evidence for what you said.

No Creationist has ever given a scientifically useful definition of "kind".

Sure they have. You just didn't agree because it refutes evolution so you found an excuse to reject it. "Kind" and "species" is the same term.

Further no Creationist has ever shown a mechanism to exist preventing so-called "kinds" from sharing common ancestry.

The mechanism is the laws of genetics.

Personally I have seen "kind" defined as anything from a species (human) to a domain (bacteria).

Then get a good book on the subject and get a reliable definition.

simple fact is descendants never stop being what their ancestors were. So humans will always be humans, no matte what we evolve into, and we are still apes, primates, euarchontoglires, mammals, synapsids, etc. etc.

You need to pay attention to yourself: descendants never stop being what their ancestors were, but they evolve into something their parents were not. If man evolved from apes, why is our DNA different? Why will ape DNA NEVER show it came from homo sapian?

QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Again, I would appreciate and actual response to what I wrote. [/QUOTE]

I would appreciate you providing evidence for what you say so I can respond to it.

Please read posts #325 and 326 including the link provided and get back to me on this.

I think I did. If not, repeat your questions.

 

[omega2xx]

Handwaving and unsupported claims are not refutation. You may not like the evidence, but that doesn't make it go away. DNA is all the evidence needed. Like it or lump it.

Thanks for the Christmas joke

You too

Thanks for confirming what I already knew---you do not understand DNA.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Thanks for confirming what I already knew---you do not understand DNA.

Thanks for another Christmas joke. You're on fire at the moment.

 

[USincognito]

That was one man's opinion; he is not even a scientist and he admits not all agree with him.

Hmm, the two authors who agree with him in post #326 are scientists.

To say science has not proved there is more than one blood type is laughable. To say science can't prove what type you have is hilarious. To deny what is obvious is the height of illogic.

Is there more than one blood type? How do we know there is?

I'd suggest reading all three again. The lack of proof for scientific facts are not about what we know now, but what we might discover in the future.

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks for another Christmas joke. You're on fire at the moment.

Your welcome.

Thanks for confirming not only do you not understand real science and what it does, you don't understand Christmas and what it means.

Have a very + day, make that a week.

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks for another Christmas joke. You're on fire at the moment.

Thanks for confirming something else I already know---You can't produce and verifiable evidence, so you beat around the bush. Thanks

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your welcome.

Thanks for confirming not only do you not understand real science and what it does, you don't understand Christmas and what it means.

Have a very + day, make that a week.

Oh, I suspect I understand the real meaning of Christmas better than you. I had an awesome couple of days full of pagan festivities and commercial over-indulgences. Living in Asia allows one to truly accept the circus show for what it really is. Muslims in santa hats, Christmas greetings from Hindus and Taoist temples beautifully decorated. It's a truly awesome commercial festival embraced by all

 

[AV1611VET]

I had an awesome couple of days full of pagan festivities and commercial over-indulgences. Living in Asia allows one to truly accept the circus show for what it really is.

You sure that wasn't 9/11 you were talking about?

 

[USincognito]

The explanation I always get about mutations being a mechanism for a change of species is that they result in many small changes of a long period of time. For that to be true it means at some point in the process a gene for a certain characteristic would have to change for the offspring to become a different species than it parents.

Change in allele representations in populations over time due to mutations. Not due merely to time however.

True but mutations do not change a species. The only alter characteristics, most of which are not benefical.

That is a false. Most mutations are to non-coding DNA and have zero effect on fitness. A higher percentage cause genetic diseases rather than cause benefits, but the latter do happen. As those mutations build up over time, they cause speciation to happen.

You can state anything you want to, proving what you state is your problem.

Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News

Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.​

I did. I said you have no evidence for what you said.

No, >> Has science proved that or is that just an opinion? <<, is hand waving and avoiding addressing the evidence. Since I was talking about the number of mutations humans have every generation, see the above link/excerpt.

Sure they have. You just didn't agree because it refutes evolution so you found an excuse to reject it. "Kind" and "species" is the same term.

This simply isn't true. Creationists don't define "kind". In one breath they claim it means interfertile populations. In the next it means anything from a genus to a domain. If "they have" defined it, then perhaps you could provide us with this supposed definition.

cont.

 

[USincognito]

The mechanism is the laws of genetics.

There there is no law of genetics that prevents taxa from being related by common ancestry.

Then get a good book on the subject and get a reliable definition.

No such book and no such definition exits.

You need to pay attention to yourself: descendants never stop being what their ancestors were, but they evolve into something their parents were not.

Humans didn't stop being apes. Apes didn't stop being primates. Primates didn't stop being euarchontoglires. Euarchontoglires didn't stop being mammals. Etc.

If man evolved from apes, why is our DNA different? Why will ape DNA NEVER show it came from homo sapian?

Every species has different DNA. If they had the same DNA, then they would be the same species. And since humans are apes, our DNA is, axiomatically, ape DNA.

I would appreciate you providing evidence for what you say so I can respond to it.

Whole genome duplication in stem vertebrates.
Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate
α D -Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
Whole-Genome Duplications Spurred the Functional Diversification of the Globin Gene Superfamily in Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins - ScienceDirect

ARHGAP11B
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1465
SRGAP2C
http://www.nature.com/news/human-brain-shaped-by-duplicate-genes-1.10584

 

[bhsmte]

Cognitive dissonance seems to get stronger over the holidays.