Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Just as I suspected and now know. You don't have a clue about what constitutes evidence. Let me give you a clue, rhetoric does not qualify.

I gave you actual examples of the banana we find in nature and the banana that we eat today, which we obtained through cultivating many generations of banana's.

How's that "rhetoric"?

Do you agree that it's the DNA that determines what the resulting banana will look like?
Do you agree that the difference between the wild banana and the chiquita banana, is found in the DNA?

So, HOW did humans succeed in changing the DNA of the wild banana into the DNA of the banana you can buy at the store today? Considering this happened before we even knew what DNA is....

Please explain. How did the DNA change?
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
I gave you actual examples of the banana we find in nature and the banana that we eat today, which we obtained through cultivating many generations of banana's.

How's that "rhetoric"?

So man has learned to cultivate bananas. That does not indicate nature did it. Both are still bananas. No evolution.

Do you agree that it's the DNA that determines what the resulting banana will look like?
Do you agree that the difference between the wild banana and the chiquita banana, is found in the DNA?

If the DNA is different in wild and Chiquita bananas is different and I assume it it, that only points to them being different species. It in no way points to the domesticated banana evolving from wild bananas.

So, HOW did humans succeed in changing the DNA of the wild banana into the DNA of the banana you can buy at the store today? Considering this happened before we even knew what DNA is....
What you have suggest is no different than breeding 2 varieties of dogs. The DNA will be different but it will still show the offspring to be a dog.

Please explain. How did the DNA change?

Even if the DNA did change, it is not evidence that one evolved from the other. They are only different varieties of the same species.
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
Is that your way of saying that you don't have a response to the points raised?

No it is my way of saying you haven't said anything I haven heard before and it is not evidence.
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
Except for the fact that it can now do something that it previously couldn't.

You can argue the facts all you want, but it is what it is.

The ability to do something different is not evidence of evolution. For all we know they have always had that ability, but it was dormant until a mutation made it come out.
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
A scientist is more likely to say, "What can be seen and repeated and can't be falsified has been confirmed."

When something has been confirmed, it has been proved.

The term "proof" is generally reserved for axiomatic formal systems like logic and math.[/QUOTE]

Only by those who have finally realized nothing in the TOE can be proved.

Has evolution been proved? If not, why do you believe it.

Has natural selection been proved? If not why do you use it to try and prove evolution.

Has it been proved that a dog leg and become a whale fin? If not why do you use it to try and support whale evolution?
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
You're wrong. It's completely impossible to prove anything in science. 100% certainty can never be achieved and all we can do is find the most probable answer based on our current data.

Pure evo bolony. Science has PROVED there is more than one blood type and that cannot be falsified. To say the obvious is not proved is the heights of a phony and unscientific indoctrination.
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
I did that, and the definitions in the dictionary are the ones the rest of us use. But you don't use those definitions. So I'm asking you to provide your definitions so we can try to understand what you are attempting to communicate. I won't insist that you type the words in a post, you may provide a link to your definition. Some of us are prepared to read linked material :oldthumbsup:

None of you ever show genetically HOW natural selection works. You can't even show HOW natural selection is possible. You just say it happens. Even if it is true, it might cause the species to survive, they use to call it "the survival of the fittest," but it will still not be a mechanism for a change of species. If you think it can, expleain HOW.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,899.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
None of you ever show genetically HOW natural selection works. You can't even show HOW natural selection is possible. You just say it happens. Even if it is true, it might cause the species to survive, they use to call it "the survival of the fittest," but it will still not be a mechanism for a change of species. If you think it can, expleain HOW.

Here's an article that shows "genetically HOW natural selection works", in this instance it's about the Galapagos finches.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-evolution-darwin-finches-beaks.html

Please read it, it's not a scientific paper, it's an article discussing the paper so it's in fairly easy to understand language.

The EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE on which the article is based on can be found here.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,472
26,902
Pacific Northwest
✟732,737.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
None of you ever show genetically HOW natural selection works. You can't even show HOW natural selection is possible. You just say it happens. Even if it is true, it might cause the species to survive, they use to call it "the survival of the fittest," but it will still not be a mechanism for a change of species. If you think it can, expleain HOW.

If a mutation ends up being beneficial to the survival of a species, then the likelihood of survival is greater. If those changes accumulate over successive generations in a population of a species, that is a change. If those changes result in a population no longer being able to produce fertile offspring with other populations, then speciation has occurred.

If we take an organism, let's called it a gyullip, and the gyullip lives in a forest of dark oak trees where its dark coloration makes it harder to be seen by predators then it is more likely to live long enough to mate and pass on its genes to the next generation. Mutations happen which means that not every gyullip is exactly identical to the next, some are slightly larger some are slightly smaller, some are born with a white coloration due to a mutation in their genes. These white gyullips are easy prey because they stand out on the dark oak trees, they are rare and rarely live long enough to find a mate.

Now the dark oak gyullip forest over time starts to disappear, a parasitic organism has been introduced into the area that slowly kills the roots of the dark oak trees, and over many years the forest begins to disappear--however the smaller white birch trees aren't affected by the parasite and where where the dark oaks used to stand the birch trees have begun to thrive, slowly replacing the dark oak forest with a white birch forest.

As the dark oak forest has disappeared, the dark colored gyullips have been having a harder and harder time surviving, competition over food, the dark oak trees, and over predation has lowered their numbers. However, remember the rare white gyullips? Well they were easy prey in the dark oak forest, and so that gene expression almost always resulted in the death of the gyullip. However white gyullips have been fairing far better with the new white birch trees, and so a split in the population has taken place--where the birch trees have come to dominate white gyullips are more plentiful and where there are still dark oak trees the dark colored gyullips have remained more plentiful. And so a natural separation of the two populations has occurred, and as such dark gyullips mate with other dark gyullips and white gyullips mate with other white gyullips, and these two populations of gyullips exist where there was only one before.

Now, of course, the white coloration mutation isn't the only mutation--as of course not every gyullip is identical to the next, there have always been various differences, some are smaller some are bigger as noted. There are also many mutations without an outward observable result. Slight changes in the chromosomes, or slightly different shaped proteins being made in the cells.

If the two populations, over time, are no longer capable of mating and producing fertile offspring together, we have speciation. Perhaps the white gyullips have also been getting smaller over generations because the smaller birch trees means larger white gyullips have a hard time competing for food and so smaller white gyullips had better opportunity to successfully mate and pass on their genes.

That, in an extremely over-simplified way, is natural selection and how it results in changes over time and can result in new species.

These things aren't just said to have happened, we observe these things happening.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/peppered-moth

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Survival is not a mechanism for a change of species.
If nearly all yellow butterflies in a butterfly species die every year, and half of all brown butterflies in that species die every year, chances are that the yellow coloration will eventually disappear, and thus the traits of the species would change.

However, this response of yours is entirely inadequate for my previous post.

All you have done is parrot the usual, non-provable talking points of evolution. Do you really not understand what constitutes evidence?
I am beginning to think you either don't read my posts, or you misunderstand them in the extreme. I've offered to give you directions on how to test certain aspects of evolution and genetics (such as the horizontal gene transfer you deny the existence of) with only 1 requirement for me posting it: that you ask for it. Make your next post say "Sarah, I want to know how to test horizontal gene transfer", and behold, I will provide an experimental procedure by which to do it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The ability to do something different is not evidence of evolution

It most certainly is, if the ability is regulated by genetics, was the result of specific mutations and if those mutations achieved fixation in the population, making the vast majority of individuals in the population capable of the ability.

And that's certainly the case here...

For all we know they have always had that ability

They did not.

, but it was dormant until a mutation made it come out.

A mutation... you mean a genetic change that was then inherited by off spring and which spread throughout the population, thanks to the clear advantage it gave those with the mutation over their peers without the mutation, giving them all the ability to do something they previously could not, without the mutation?


Certainly sounds like "descend with modification followed by natural selection" to me........................................
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Only by those who have finally realized nothing in the TOE can be proved.

No theory in science is ever considered proven.

Has evolution been proved?

No.

If not, why do you believe it.

Because of the endless mountains of supportive evidence.

The same reason for why we accept (not "believe") atomic theory, plate tectonics, relativity, germ theory of deseases, etc.
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
No theory in science is ever considered proven.



No.



Because of the endless mountains of supportive evidence.

The same reason for why we accept (not "believe") atomic theory, plate tectonics, relativity, germ theory of deseases, etc.

If evidence cant be proved, it isn't evidence and is not worth beans.
 
Upvote 0

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
If a mutation ends up being beneficial to the survival of a species, then the likelihood of survival is greater. If those changes accumulate over successive generations in a population of a species, that is a change. If those changes result in a population no longer being able to produce fertile offspring with other populations, then speciation has occurred.

If we take an organism, let's called it a gyullip, and the gyullip lives in a forest of dark oak trees where its dark coloration makes it harder to be seen by predators then it is more likely to live long enough to mate and pass on its genes to the next generation. Mutations happen which means that not every gyullip is exactly identical to the next, some are slightly larger some are slightly smaller, some are born with a white coloration due to a mutation in their genes. These white gyullips are easy prey because they stand out on the dark oak trees, they are rare and rarely live long enough to find a mate.

Now the dark oak gyullip forest over time starts to disappear, a parasitic organism has been introduced into the area that slowly kills the roots of the dark oak trees, and over many years the forest begins to disappear--however the smaller white birch trees aren't affected by the parasite and where where the dark oaks used to stand the birch trees have begun to thrive, slowly replacing the dark oak forest with a white birch forest.

As the dark oak forest has disappeared, the dark colored gyullips have been having a harder and harder time surviving, competition over food, the dark oak trees, and over predation has lowered their numbers. However, remember the rare white gyullips? Well they were easy prey in the dark oak forest, and so that gene expression almost always resulted in the death of the gyullip. However white gyullips have been fairing far better with the new white birch trees, and so a split in the population has taken place--where the birch trees have come to dominate white gyullips are more plentiful and where there are still dark oak trees the dark colored gyullips have remained more plentiful. And so a natural separation of the two populations has occurred, and as such dark gyullips mate with other dark gyullips and white gyullips mate with other white gyullips, and these two populations of gyullips exist where there was only one before.

Now, of course, the white coloration mutation isn't the only mutation--as of course not every gyullip is identical to the next, there have always been various differences, some are smaller some are bigger as noted. There are also many mutations without an outward observable result. Slight changes in the chromosomes, or slightly different shaped proteins being made in the cells.

If the two populations, over time, are no longer capable of mating and producing fertile offspring together, we have speciation. Perhaps the white gyullips have also been getting smaller over generations because the smaller birch trees means larger white gyullips have a hard time competing for food and so smaller white gyullips had better opportunity to successfully mate and pass on their genes.

That, in an extremely over-simplified way, is natural selection and how it results in changes over time and can result in new species.

These things aren't just said to have happened, we observe these things happening.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/peppered-moth

-CryptoLutheran

IF, IF, IF. If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butt when they jumped/
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If evidence cant be proved, it isn't evidence and is not worth beans.

Theories are supported by evidence.
Evidence = data, facts, observations, ...

Evidence is not something that requires any "proving".
Evidence is simply data that supports the thing that requires evidence.

You need to learn how science is done, because clearly you are very confused.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Theories are supported by evidence.
Evidence = data, facts, observations, ...

Evidence is not something that requires any "proving".
Evidence is simply data that supports the thing that requires evidence.

You need to learn how science is done, because clearly you are very confused.
At least we're finally getting an idea what @omega2xx means by "evidence". It's not surprising he claims we don't know what evidence is if this is his definition lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
How do you know that for sure?

Because we can test it and have tested it over and over again while getting consistent succesfull results.

To the point that I can be as certain as I can be that when I put normal water in the freezer, it will turn into ice after some time.

To the point that we can also know that if the water does NOT freeze, that there must be some special explanation for that, without having to discard the general rule that water will freeze when temperature goes below a certain level...
One such special explanation would be that there is salt in the water.

Just to illustrate, the "if's" in the post you replied to weren't "what-if's" that only exist in your imagination.

They were more like "under this and this existing condition - that will happen".
As in: "if condition A and condition B, then result X".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So man has learned to cultivate bananas. That does not indicate nature did it. Both are still bananas. No evolution.

If the DNA is different in wild and Chiquita bananas is different and I assume it it, that only points to them being different species. It in no way points to the domesticated banana evolving from wild bananas.

What you have suggest is no different than breeding 2 varieties of dogs. The DNA will be different but it will still show the offspring to be a dog.

Even if the DNA did change, it is not evidence that one evolved from the other. They are only different varieties of the same species.
Serious?? Are you aware the Banana you buy from your local grocer didn't exist until 1836? You know, DID NOT EXIST BEFORE 1836?? That's even before Charles Darwin made the biggest scientific discovery of our age.
 
Upvote 0