Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[bhsmte]

When you can prove my claims wrong, get back to me.

What claims? All i see is denial of evidence. LOL

 

[PsychoSarah]

When you offers some evidence instead of ranting, we can continue.

I did, have you already forgotten about horizontal gene transfer between bacteria. I repeat, bacteria can integrate genes from individuals they are unrelated to, so your "law of genetics" that "offspring can only inherit genes from the parent gene pool" is entirely incorrect. Heck, I've even performed an experiment in which I created ideal conditions for bacteria to integrate a specific gene, and was able to easily observe the results because the gene they integrated caused them to glow in the dark.

Admit that your "law of genetics" is wrong, and maybe you can redeem yourself just a little bit.

 

[omega2xx]

I did, have you already forgotten about horizontal gene transfer between bacteria. I repeat, bacteria can integrate genes from individuals they are unrelated to, so your "law of genetics" that "offspring can only inherit genes from the parent gene pool" is entirely incorrect. Heck, I've even performed an experiment in which I created ideal conditions for bacteria to integrate a specific gene, and was able to easily observe the results because the gene they integrated caused them to glow in the dark.

Did the offspring change its species or just acquire a new characteristic? Your experiment does not offer evidence of evolution.

Admit that your "law of genetics" is wrong, and maybe you can redeem yourself just a little bit.

Why won't you say if the law I presented is true or false and show that you do understand basic genetics and redeem yourself a little bit?

 

[omega2xx]

What claims? All i see is denial of evidence. LOL

An offspring can't acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. True or false?

 

[omega2xx]

What claims? Have you made any claims?

An offspring can only receive the characteristics of what is in the gene pool of its parents. True or false?

All I can see is a refusal to accept the Theory of Evolution... based on a lack of understanding of the subject.

The theory of evolution is not rocket surgery. I was taught it in high school and in college. Be specific, what do I not understand about it?

You never have got around to providing the evidence for natural selection. Why not?

 

[Jimmy D]

An offspring can only receive the characteristics of what is in the gene pool of its parents. True or false?

False.

The theory of evolution is not rocket surgery. I was taught it in high school and in college. Be specific, what do I not understand about it?

Given that you state your age as 85, Watson and Crick hadn't even unlocked the mysteries of DNA until after you had left school, I'd suggest that your education in the subject is woefully out of date.

Anyway....

"I know hox genes have something to do with bone development.
If neither parent has a hox gene, they cannot have a kid with bones."

"natural selection is another unprovable but necessary invention of the evolution evangelist to give the faithful their faith is not in vain."

"the fossil record is useless in trying to support evolution."

"The first guess evolution made about the origin of life was a single celled blob of some kind. They originally said it was a simple cell, but when DNA was discovered, they had to walk that back. "

"Speciation is not continuous and it does not result in a change of species."

"Mutations don't affect our DNA, they affect our genes"

"Some genes are dormant but no land animal has aquatic genes"

"Corn always produces the same variety of corn."

"Surviving is not a mechanism for a change of species."

"you need to start with evolution's unprovable guess as to what the first life form was, how did it originate, and what did it evolve into?"

"Nothing, especially diet contributes to natural selection."

" I will ask you why all monkeys have not evolved into humans? They have had millions of years to do it."

"Explain what ERV stands for and how it proves evolution, and I will explain why it does not support evolution."

"Being homologous only indicates they serve the same purpose---the ability to breath air. There is no way the nose of a land animal can become a blowhole; there is no way legs can become fins; there is no way a tail can become a flapper. "

"It is absurd to think a land animal surviving very well on land would need to enter a more hostile environment and become something different. That is natural selection in reverse."

"The hox gene produces bones, not fins"

"You should take your own advice and provide some objective science to prove for example how and why a dog-like animal surviving very well on land could eventually become a whale. That refutes a basic doctrine of evolution---natural selection."

"The length of the [giraffe's] neck is the result of the genes of its parents, not stretching to get food...... if surviving depended on a neck stretching, eventually all food would be out of its reach and it would become extinct."

(Although this one isn't entirely wrong I included it because it demonstrates your lack of understanding of selective processes... and is quite funny)

Me: "You think "ape" a species?"

"I don't think it is, I know it is."

I could go on, most of your posts contain some level of misunderstanding, but frankly I can't be bothered.

You never have got around to providing the evidence for natural selection. Why not?

Why should I? Other than you I have never seen anyone deny that natural selection occurs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Did the offspring change its species or just acquire a new characteristic? Your experiment does not offer evidence of evolution.

-_- I do not know why you think that "change in species" is the minimal amount of change needed to demonstrate evolution, when there is no barrier to mutation number over generations. That is, populations don't mutate to a certain point and then stop or revert to prevent the species barrier from being crossed.

Also, what if those bacteria did change species as the result of the experiment? You just presumed that they didn't and thus asserted that the experiment wasn't evidence of evolution. There isn't a limit to horizontal gene transfer either. It'd actually be very easy to change an initial bacteria population into a different species by performing that experiment over and over. And yes, this does happen in the wild, just not as fast. But hey, since you demanded it, I will provide a specific example of a new species being generated.

The fastest generation of a new multicellular species I know of was 2 generations and pertains to the desert grassland whiptail lizard, an entirely female species that was produced via the crossing of two other species and then back crossing into one of the original parent species, which produces a tetraploid individual that reproduces asexually instead of sexually. I'd think that a change within reproduction method, gender distribution, and chromosome number doubling within 2 generations would be quite the significant evolutionary change within so few generations, don't you think? It's rare for such a significant evolutionary change to occur within so few generations, but hey, you want extreme examples.

Why won't you say if the law I presented is true or false and show that you do understand basic genetics and redeem yourself a little bit?

-_- I stated in the post this is a direct response to that it's false, and gave an example of why (horizontal gene transfer). Also, all evidence points to your statement not matching any scientific law that has ever existed, so I was being charitable by even addressing it.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- I do not know why you think that "change in species" is the minimal amount of change needed to demonstrate evolution, when there is no barrier to mutation number over generations. That is, populations don't mutate to a certain point and then stop or revert to prevent the species barrier from being crossed.

You can't demonstrate evolution without a change of species. That is the basic theology of evolution.

There is a barrier. Mutations, no matter how many or for how long will not change a species. No one has ever seen a mutation cause a change of species. You have to put it way out in evo lala land.

Population do not mutate at all. Mutations only affect genes and they only alter characteristics and the kid ALWAYS remains the same species.

Also, what if those bacteria did change species as the result of the experiment? You just presumed that they didn't and thus asserted that the experiment wasn't evidence of evolution.

By you own admission they did not change species. So it is not my assumption. They only acquired a new characteristic, and that is all mutations can do.

There isn't a limit to horizontal gene transfer either.

There is no such thing as horizontal gene transfer. That is just another necessary invention of evolutionist to give the faithful hope they have not believed in vain.

It'd actually be very easy to change an initial bacteria population into a different species by performing that experiment over and over.

That is like saying breeding dogs over and over will eventually change a species. That is foolishness.

And yes, this does happen in the wild, just not as fast.

Then prove it.

But hey, since you demanded it, I will provide a specific example of a new species being generated.

I won't hold my breath until you do.

The fastest generation of a new multicellular species I know of was 2 generations and pertains to the desert grassland whiptail lizard, an entirely female species that was produced via the crossing of two other species and then back crossing into one of the original parent species, which produces a tetraploid individual that reproduces asexually instead of sexually. I'd think that a change within reproduction method, gender distribution, and chromosome number doubling within 2 generations would be quite the significant evolutionary change within so few generations, don't you think? It's rare for such a significant evolutionary change to occur within so few generations, but hey, you want extreme examples.

Wonderful. Be sure to include the science that makes it possible.

-_- I stated in the post this is a direct response to that it's false, and gave an example of why (horizontal gene transfer). Also, all evidence points to your statement not matching any scientific law that has ever existed, so I was being charitable by even addressing it.

All you do is give made up examples but NEVER say HOW it happened.

 

[omega2xx]

False.



Given that you state your age as 85, Watson and Crick hadn't even unlocked the mysteries of DNA until after you had left school, I'd suggest that your education in the subject is woefully out of date.

Anyway....

"I know hox genes have something to do with bone development.
If neither parent has a hox gene, they cannot have a kid with bones."

"natural selection is another unprovable but necessary invention of the evolution evangelist to give the faithful their faith is not in vain."

"the fossil record is useless in trying to support evolution."

"The first guess evolution made about the origin of life was a single celled blob of some kind. They originally said it was a simple cell, but when DNA was discovered, they had to walk that back. "

"Speciation is not continuous and it does not result in a change of species."

"Mutations don't affect our DNA, they affect our genes"

"Some genes are dormant but no land animal has aquatic genes"

"Corn always produces the same variety of corn."

"Surviving is not a mechanism for a change of species."

"you need to start with evolution's unprovable guess as to what the first life form was, how did it originate, and what did it evolve into?"

"Nothing, especially diet contributes to natural selection."

" I will ask you why all monkeys have not evolved into humans? They have had millions of years to do it."

"Explain what ERV stands for and how it proves evolution, and I will explain why it does not support evolution."

"Being homologous only indicates they serve the same purpose---the ability to breath air. There is no way the nose of a land animal can become a blowhole; there is no way legs can become fins; there is no way a tail can become a flapper. "

"It is absurd to think a land animal surviving very well on land would need to enter a more hostile environment and become something different. That is natural selection in reverse."

"The hox gene produces bones, not fins"

"You should take your own advice and provide some objective science to prove for example how and why a dog-like animal surviving very well on land could eventually become a whale. That refutes a basic doctrine of evolution---natural selection."

"The length of the [giraffe's] neck is the result of the genes of its parents, not stretching to get food...... if surviving depended on a neck stretching, eventually all food would be out of its reach and it would become extinct."

(Although this one isn't entirely wrong I included it because it demonstrates your lack of understanding of selective processes... and is quite funny)

Me: "You think "ape" a species?"

"I don't think it is, I know it is."

I could go on, most of your posts contain some level of misunderstanding, but frankly I can't be bothered.




Why should I? Other than you I have never seen anyone deny that natural selection occurs.

What bothers you is a lack of evidence for what you believe and can't disprove anything I say.

Have a + day.

 

[Jimmy D]

What bothers you is a lack of evidence for what you believe and can't disprove anything I say.

Have a + day.

Why do you think that I would be concerned about a "lack of evidence"? There are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers examining, applying and demonstrating the evidence.

It's not my problem if you are not interested, the rest of the world carries on regardless.

As for not being able to disprove what you say, I'll just choose one example...

"Corn always produces the same variety of corn."

❉AlchemYegg AumniVerse❉ =alchemy - egg - am - universe=: Vegetable Corn Domestication Evolves in the Span of Ten Millennia Producing the Modern Varieties We See Today

 

[pitabread]

Why is asking for evidence bating?

Because you're not being honest in your request. If you were truly interested in evidence, you'd be off combing the literature, not posting bait on an internet forum. You also wouldn't refuse to actually look at off-site literature people have presented (instead demanding people summarize (pre-chew) the material for you just so you can dismiss it).

What you are doing is issuing a challenge to start an argument. Especially when posting things like this:

"When you can prove my claims wrong, get back to me."

I have been asking for the proof of natural selection being a mechanism for a change o species. Would you like to be the first to offer the evidence for what you THINK is true?"​

You're not here for evidence, you're not here to learn, you don't even appear to be here to preach. You're here because you want a fight.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Arguments can be fun. Just be honest about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can't demonstrate evolution without a change of species. That is the basic theology of evolution.

The sentences that let me know you don't know the definition of "evolution" or "theology", seeing as they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Population do not mutate at all. Mutations only affect genes and they only alter characteristics and the kid ALWAYS remains the same species.

-_- everyone has mutations. Unless you are a bacterium or something, every generation will have mutations. The altered characteristics build up over time. Heck, I've argued that chihuahuas and Great Danes shouldn't be considered the same species, since it would be impossible for a female chihuahua to be able to mate successfully with a male Great Dane and manage to take the pregnancy to term, because the genetics of body size would dictate that said offspring would have to exceed the size of their female parent long before they were born, and obviously, the chihuahua wouldn't be able to survive that.

By you own admission they did not change species. So it is not my assumption. They only acquired a new characteristic, and that is all mutations can do.

Singular mutations do not change species. Multiple mutations together can. It's like how one log of wood doesn't make for a pile of wood, but multiple logs do.

There is no such thing as horizontal gene transfer. That is just another necessary invention of evolutionist to give the faithful hope they have not believed in vain.

Lol, I can actually provide directions for an experiment in which that is easily observed. I've even performed it myself before. Heck, the discoverer of it figured it out when mice injected with dead infectious bacteria and a living noninfectious strain consistently became ill as if they had been injected with living infectious bacteria. Discovered by Frederick Griffith in 1928, look it up and educate yourself because you refuse to read sources people link for you. It's also referred to by lateral gene transfer.

That is like saying breeding dogs over and over will eventually change a species. That is foolishness.

Try breeding a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane and see how well that turns out.

Then prove it.

Give an example of horizontal gene transfer happening in the wild? Sure, the virulence of members of the bacteria genus Pasteurellaceae is due to the fact that different species within that genus very readily transfer the gene for producing leukotoxin, as was observed in goats and sheep.
source you won't bother to read: Phylogenetic diversity of Pasteurellaceae and horizontal gene transfer of leukotoxin in wild and domestic sheep. - PubMed - NCBI

I won't hold my breath until you do.



Wonderful. Be sure to include the science that makes it possible.

-_- Did you not understand that the two species from which the all female species is derived are diploid, like humans? The crossing of those species resulted in improper separation of chromosomes such that the offspring had their chromosomes in triplets rather than pairs. That's the "science" that makes it possible.

All you do is give made up examples but NEVER say HOW it happened.

I could explain how horizontal gene transfer works, or how that species of all female lizards came to be as a result of hybridization. Or, much more easily, I could link you to sources that describe it better than I ever could. Or you could freaking Google it for yourself rather than asserting that since I don't post every detail that a person that claims to know a lot about genetics SHOULD ALREADY KNOW that I must be wrong.

But, alas, I did promise to copy and paste, so enjoy:
Horizontal gene transfer, or the process of swapping genetic material between neighboring “contemporary” bacteria, is another means by which resistance can be acquired. Many of the antibiotic resistance genes are carried on plasmids, transposons or integrons that can act as vectors that transfer these genes to other members of the same bacterial species, as well as to bacteria in another genus or species. Horizontal gene transfer may occur via three main mechanisms: transformation, transduction or conjugation.

Transformation involves uptake of short fragments of naked DNA by naturally transformable bacteria. Transduction involves transfer of DNA from one bacterium into another via bacteriophages. Conjugation involves transfer of DNA via sexual pilus and requires cell –to-cell contact. DNA fragments that contain resistance genes from resistant donors can then make previously susceptible bacteria express resistance as coded by these newly acquired resistance genes.

This image is great for demonstrating the concepts https://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/images/pharm/HORIZONTAL-GENE-TRANSFER-1.jpg

source for that: Horizontal Gene Transfer — Antimicrobial Resistance Learning Site For Veterinary Students

Lizards:

The lizard is a triploid unisexual species that reproduce asexually. The lizards were a result from a cross breed of two bisexual species, A. inornata and A. burti. This then produced a diploid unisexual, which backcrossed to inornata and produced triploid uniparens.

And a source for that: Desert Grassland Whiptail - Tucson Herpetological Society

 

[omega2xx]

The sentences that let me know you don't know the definition of "evolution" or "theology", seeing as they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.



-_- everyone has mutations. Unless you are a bacterium or something, every generation will have mutations. The altered characteristics build up over time. Heck, I've argued that chihuahuas and Great Danes shouldn't be considered the same species, since it would be impossible for a female chihuahua to be able to mate successfully with a male Great Dane and manage to take the pregnancy to term, because the genetics of body size would dictate that said offspring would have to exceed the size of their female parent long before they were born, and obviously, the chihuahua wouldn't be able to survive that.



Singular mutations do not change species. Multiple mutations together can. It's like how one log of wood doesn't make for a pile of wood, but multiple logs do.



Lol, I can actually provide directions for an experiment in which that is easily observed. I've even performed it myself before. Heck, the discoverer of it figured it out when mice injected with dead infectious bacteria and a living noninfectious strain consistently became ill as if they had been injected with living infectious bacteria. Discovered by Frederick Griffith in 1928, look it up and educate yourself because you refuse to read sources people link for you. It's also referred to by lateral gene transfer.




Try breeding a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane and see how well that turns out.



Give an example of horizontal gene transfer happening in the wild? Sure, the virulence of members of the bacteria genus Pasteurellaceae is due to the fact that different species within that genus very readily transfer the gene for producing leukotoxin, as was observed in goats and sheep.
source you won't bother to read: Phylogenetic diversity of Pasteurellaceae and horizontal gene transfer of leukotoxin in wild and domestic sheep. - PubMed - NCBI



-_- Did you not understand that the two species from which the all female species is derived are diploid, like humans? The crossing of those species resulted in improper separation of chromosomes such that the offspring had their chromosomes in triplets rather than pairs. That's the "science" that makes it possible.



I could explain how horizontal gene transfer works, or how that species of all female lizards came to be as a result of hybridization. Or, much more easily, I could link you to sources that describe it better than I ever could. Or you could freaking Google it for yourself rather than asserting that since I don't post every detail that a person that claims to know a lot about genetics SHOULD ALREADY KNOW that I must be wrong.

But, alas, I did promise to copy and paste, so enjoy:
Horizontal gene transfer, or the process of swapping genetic material between neighboring “contemporary” bacteria, is another means by which resistance can be acquired. Many of the antibiotic resistance genes are carried on plasmids, transposons or integrons that can act as vectors that transfer these genes to other members of the same bacterial species, as well as to bacteria in another genus or species. Horizontal gene transfer may occur via three main mechanisms: transformation, transduction or conjugation.

Transformation involves uptake of short fragments of naked DNA by naturally transformable bacteria. Transduction involves transfer of DNA from one bacterium into another via bacteriophages. Conjugation involves transfer of DNA via sexual pilus and requires cell –to-cell contact. DNA fragments that contain resistance genes from resistant donors can then make previously susceptible bacteria express resistance as coded by these newly acquired resistance genes.

This image is great for demonstrating the concepts https://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/images/pharm/HORIZONTAL-GENE-TRANSFER-1.jpg

source for that: Horizontal Gene Transfer — Antimicrobial Resistance Learning Site For Veterinary Students

Lizards:

The lizard is a triploid unisexual species that reproduce asexually. The lizards were a result from a cross breed of two bisexual species, A. inornata and A. burti. This then produced a diploid unisexual, which backcrossed to inornata and produced triploid uniparens.

And a source for that: Desert Grassland Whiptail - Tucson Herpetological Society

When your post include some verifiable, scientific evidence, I will respond.

This discussion has become a waste of time.

 

[omega2xx]

Because you're not being honest in your request. If you were truly interested in evidence, you'd be off combing the literature, not posting bait on an internet forum.

Asking IS NOT bating. You complain because you can't post any real evidence.

You also wouldn't refuse to actually look at off-site literature people have presented (instead demanding people summarize (pre-chew) the material for you just so you can dismiss it).

And you are not willing to take 5 minuets to cut and paste the evidence for your links. I looked at the evo links for 20 years and none have ever offered any real verifiable evidence.

Asking is also not demanding.

What you are doing is issuing a challenge to start an argument. Especially when posting things like this:

"When you can prove my claims wrong, get back to me."​

Asksing is also not starting an argument.

I have been asking for the proof of natural selection being a mechanism for a change o species. Would you like to be the first to offer the evidence for what you THINK is true?"

​

You're not here for evidence, you're not here to learn, you don't even appear to be here to preach. You're here because you want a fight.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Arguments can be fun. Just be honest about it.

You are the one being dishonest. You accuse me of things that are not true for just asking. You are upset because you can't provide any real scientific evidence.

The FACT that you are unwilling to cut and paste what you consider evidence reinforces that you can't.

If you challenge me to post the evidence for what I believe, I will do it in the next post or admit I can't.

That is the honest thing to do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

An offspring can't acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. True or false?

False.

Just one example: Lenski's E.Coli experiment starting with 12 identical and genetically isolated E Coli populations.

Before generation 31.000, no population was capable of aerobic growth on citrate.
After generation 31.000, one of the 12 populations WAS capable of doing so and the mutations that made it possible have been identified.

So there you go.... off spring that acquired a capability regulated by genes that was not present in ancestors.

You may now begin your denial / special pleading about how this doesn't count for some mysterious reason.

 

[omega2xx]

Why do you think that I would be concerned about a "lack of evidence"? There are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers examining, applying and demonstrating the evidence.

Then post some of it and shut me up.

It's not my problem if you are not interested, the rest of the world carries on regardless.

If I was not interested this would be a waste of time. I don't continue thinking I will convince the fundy evos. Not everyone in the forum has their idea on this debate set in cement like we do. They need to see the other side of the coin.

As for not being able to disprove what you say, I'll just choose one example...

"Corn always produces the same variety of corn."

❉AlchemYegg AumniVerse❉ =alchemy - egg - am - universe=: Vegetable Corn Domestication Evolves in the Span of Ten Millennia Producing the Modern Varieties We See Today[/QUOTE]

Amusing. You still think pictures are evidence.

Get some seeds from each of the varities you pictured, plant them and you will get "after their kind:, not a different variety. What makes you think it will ever change?

It is amusing that whenever the discussion goes to plant life, they only example evos ever use is corn.

What was cabbage before it was cabbage? What did it evolve into?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You never have got around to providing the evidence for natural selection. Why not?

You really need evidence for the simple concept of "those better equiped to survive or reproduce, have the most chance of surviving and reproducing"?


Seriously?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then post some of it and shut me up.



If I was not interested this would be a waste of time. I don't continue thinking I will convince the fundy evos. Not everyone in the forum has their idea on this debate set in cement like we do. They need to see the other side of the coin.

As for not being able to disprove what you say, I'll just choose one example...

"Corn always produces the same variety of corn."

❉AlchemYegg AumniVerse❉ =alchemy - egg - am - universe=: Vegetable Corn Domestication Evolves in the Span of Ten Millennia Producing the Modern Varieties We See Today

Amusing. You still think pictures are evidence.

Get some seeds from each of the varities you pictured, plant them and you will get "after their kind:, not a different variety. What makes you think it will ever change?

It is amusing that whenever the discussion goes to plant life, they only example evos ever use is corn.

What was cabbage before it was cabbage? What did it evolve into?

A st Bernard and a chihuahua. Both descendends from the same ancestral species.

Another denial round in 3...2....1....

 

[Jimmy D]

It is amusing that whenever the discussion goes to plant life, they only example evos ever use is corn.

What was cabbage before it was cabbage? What did it evolve into?

LOL, I was responding to your assertion about corn.

If you're interested in cabbages look at this picture...

The answer to your question is Brassica oleracea.

And no, that picture is not supposed to be "evidence", it's an illustration of what is well known. Dismiss it if you like, you're only making yourself and the "cause" your representing look ignorant.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What was cabbage before it was cabbage? What did it evolve into?

Wild cabbage became domesticated cabbage which then evolved into kale, cauliflower, broccoli, savoy cabbage, kohlrabi and brussel sprouts.

Will you ignore, deny or handwave that away?