Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for making my point. The things you mentioned were caused by a mutation. Did the change species or remain the same?

I thought your point was that they "can't make skin appear"? Sarah showed that you were wrong.

No species of lizard evolved from anoher species of lizard.

Where did the 6000 species of lizards come from then?

you simple have no scientific knowledge of what mutations can and can't do.

That's a bit disrespectful towards someone who took the time to type out a polite response, don't they teach you manners in church?

Maybe, instead of making such baseless comments you could point out where Sarah is in error?

 

[omega2xx]

The continued gradual accumulation of changes over generations, will inevitably lead to speciation. Every. Single. Time.

This is your usual rhetoric. You say it will, but offer no evidence to support it.

We have actually observed speciation events in real-time, both in the wild as well as the lab.

Speciation does not result in a change of species,.

Please, learn about the subject that your religious beliefs compells you to argue against...
Because you literally are extremely ignorant concerning evolution theory

I haven't mentioned my religious beliefs, why do you. This discussion is about science, not religion. Sick to the subject.

Again, this isn't even about accepting it or not.... It's just about understanding it properly.

I understand it better than you do. It is not about understanding, it is about offering the evidence for what you accept by faith alone. you cant do that, I can.

I don't see the point of being so hellbend on arguing against something that you have no clue about. You're arguing against a strawman.

And you seem to insist on continuing in your ignorance as well, because I've corrected you multiple times now.... and you keep coming back repeating the same mistakes.

What do you hope to accomplish with this willfully ignorant behaviour?

You are knowledgeable of evolution, but ignorant of science.

And gradually accumulating more and more changes according to the selection pressures in its immediate (ever changing) environment.

It seems you do not comprehend the concepts of "accumulation" and "gradual".

more rhetoric with no evidence. It seems you don't understand he need for supporting evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm actually starting to enjoy your posts now. "Post the evidence for natural selection, which I say is not true." pure gold.

It's your assertion chief, what basis do you have for such a claim?

Neither you or any other evo has posted the evidence SUPPORTING IT.. Rhetoric is not evidence. PURE GOLD.

 

[omega2xx]

Just like a Latin speaking mother, will never raise a Spanish speaking child.
Yet, the distant ancestors of Spanish speaking people, spoke Latin.



It's not a guess. Vertebrates were factually not the first living things.



No. Just like at no point did a latin speaking mother produce a spanish speaking child.

Evolution is gradual.



LOL!!
You say "exactly", but the thing you're responding to, is in direct contradiction with your statement.

Vertical speciation, is exactly the process that occurs according to evolution theory. The type of "speciation" that does NOT support evolution, is the type of speciation that you are asking for (and which doesn't happen....).

Speciation is always a matter of a species splitting into subspecies.

Cats produce cats (or eventually subspecies of cats).
Cats do not produce dogs.



1. if you would actually understand evolution theory (instead of this strawman version you keep refering to), you would realise that vertical speciation is exactly what evolution is about.

2. "kind" is not a proper biological term. it is completely meaningless in terms of cladistics / taxonomy.



You have been shown plenty of evidence in this thread alone. Handwaving it away, won't make it go away.

And at this point, I'm not even trying to support it. I'm just trying to clear the misconceptions in your head. You don't have to believe / accept evolution theory. But at least try and be correct about what evolution REALLY says.



It's not relevant if you were a christian or not.... If after 3 "college courses", you still don't understand how speciation in evolution is a vertical and gradual process that happens at the level of populations and not individuals, ...


Then I can only question the quality of those courses. Or what you remembered of them, of course.

When you have some evidence for what you say, get back to me.

 

[omega2xx]

I thought your point was that they "can't make skin appear"? Sarah showed that you were wrong.

She did not. She show I was right and you couldn't understand why I was. A mutation can' make skin appear. It can only alter the skin caused buy the parents gene for skin.

Where did the 6000 species of lizards come from then?

You tell me and don't forget the evidence.

That's a bit disrespectful towards someone who took the time to type out a polite response, don't they teach you manners in church?

Be specific. You thinking sometrhin was disrespectful, does not mean it was.

Maybe, instead of making such baseless comments you could point out where Sarah is in error?

I did. When you understand mutations, you will understand it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Neither you or any other evo has posted the evidence SUPPORTING IT.. Rhetoric is not evidence. PURE GOLD.

I asked what is your basis for the claim, it's up to you to justify it, or retract it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is your usual rhetoric. You say it will, but offer no evidence to support it.

It's not rhetoric. It's a fact. The gradual accumulation of small changes inevitably leads to large changes.

It's how accumulation works.
There's nothing in our DNA that couldn't be accomplished by the gradual accumulation of mutations, filtered by natural selection.

Furthermore, if our DNA is indeed the result of such gradual accumulation, then we can make all kinds of testable predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in our DNA.

FYI: all those predictions, match the facts.

Speciation does not result in a change of species,.

/facepalm

That's like saying that "changing colour" doesn't result in a change in colour.

I haven't mentioned my religious beliefs, why do you.

Please.....
You don't need to mention them. Creationist religious beliefs, is the red thread that unifies all evolution deniers.

I understand it better than you do

Statements like "speciation doesn't result in a change of species" are evidence of the contrary.

It is not about understanding, it is about offering the evidence for what you accept by faith alone. you cant do that, I can.

I already did and plenty of others have done so as well. You could also easily look it up yourself. Just google "the evidence for evolution", for example. Ignoring it or handwaving it away or saying "my bible disagrees", doesn't change that.

You are knowledgeable of evolution, but ignorant of science.

Uhu, uhu.... and so are all scientists I bet? You know better then all of them, I guess?

more rhetoric with no evidence

Fact: every newborn comes with a set of mutations
Fact: every newborn inherits its DNA from its parents, and with it, all the mutations of its parents
Fact: the previous 2 facts, means that mutations accumulate over generations
Fact: selection pressures of the environment pushes populations in certain directions in terms of morphology, behaviour, etc


So, do tell, which part of this is "rhetoric"?

It seems you don't understand he need for supporting evidence.

There's mountains of supporting evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

You tell me and don't forget the evidence.

You don't get this discussion thing do you? You said that they didn't evolve, it's your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions. It sounds like all you can offer is vacuous rhetoric, why do you think anyone should take you seriously?

Be specific. You thinking sometrhin was disrespectful, does not mean it was.

It was in the quote, can you not read? Do you not think saying "you simple have no scientific knowledge of what mutations can and can't do" was disrespectful?

Each to their own I suppose, Sarah is more than capable of responding herself so I'll leave it to her.

I did. When you understand mutations, you will understand it.

Did you? All I saw was "you simple have no scientific knowledge of what mutations can and can't do" which part of that points out her errors? All I see is unjustified assertion, come on, be specific.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you have some evidence for what you say, get back to me.

 

[Jimmy D]

When you understand mutations, you will understand it.

Where did you get this unusual, all encompassing understanding of mutations exactly?

 

[USincognito]

edit - delete

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ignorance of a subject doens't get anyone.

So true. So why do you keep going?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks for making my point. The things you mentioned were caused by a mutation. Did the change species or remain the same?

-_- I never said a singular mutation will result in a species transition. My response was to your claim that mutations cannot add anything. Clearly, it added stuff to those individuals, but now that I have presented this, you have shifted your conversation with me as if I was addressing a different point entirely.

No species of lizard evolved from anoher species of lizard.

The desert grassland whiptail lizard, an all female species, is the result of a cross in the past between two species that did have both males and females. This occurred within less than 5 generations.

One of the difficult aspects of observing species transitions is that, in order for us to clearly tell that it has happened, a portion of the population has to be changing differently than the rest (due to physical isolation, etc.). There's no standard by which to tell if a continuously interbreeding population has transitioned into becoming another species, thus drastic changes within populations are often not noticed as species transitions due to the fact that the entire population is affected, causing there to be nothing to compare them to. Additionally, since the species labels of animals are heavily based on breeding, populations can become quite genetically distant from each other before they are no longer capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. So, species transitions with animals are difficult to observe mostly due to the definition not covering degrees of genetic changes.

In bacteria, species are defined by genetic similarity; all individuals that share a specific degree of genetic similarity (it's in the 90s, but I don't trust my memory to the exact number) are considered to be members of the same species. After all, using sexual compatibility as a measure of species for organisms that are asexual doesn't make sense. So, species transitions in bacteria are far easier to observe without ambiguity.

you simple have no scientific knowledge of what mutations can and can't do.

There's no biological limit to how many mutations can occur, nor how much their build up can influence physiology. The only thing that comes to mind as to what mutations can't do is that they can't make it so that species that previously couldn't interbreed now can. That is, mutations aren't going to make a lineage of cats able to breed with dogs.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- I never said a singular mutation will result in a species transition. My response was to your claim that mutations cannot add anything. Clearly, it added stuff to those individuals, but now that I have presented this, you have shifted your conversation with me as if I was addressing a different point entirely.

Yes you did and so have all the other evos trying to defend evolution.

The desert grassland whiptail lizard, an all female species, is the result of a cross in the past between two species that did have both males and females. This occurred within less than 5 generations.

That is no different than 2 breeds of dogs mating. All lizards are varieties of the same species---lizard

One of the difficult aspects of observing species transitions is that, in order for us to clearly tell that it has happened, a portion of the population has to be changing differently than the rest (due to physical isolation, etc.). There's no standard by which to tell if a continuously interbreeding population has transitioned into becoming another species, thus drastic changes within populations are often not noticed as species transitions due to the fact that the entire population is affected, causing there to be nothing to compare them to. Additionally, since the species labels of animals are heavily based on breeding, populations can become quite genetically distant from each other before they are no longer capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. So, species transitions with animals are difficult to observe mostly due to the definition not covering degrees of genetic changes.

IOW you have no real evidence for what you are saying. I already knew that.

In bacteria, species are defined by genetic similarity; all individuals that share a specific degree of genetic similarity (it's in the 90s, but I don't trust my memory to the exact number) are considered to be members of the same species. After all, using sexual compatibility as a measure of species for organisms that are asexual doesn't make sense. So, species transitions in bacteria are far easier to observe without ambiguity.

When some bacteria become something other than a bacteria, get back to me.

There's no biological limit to how many mutations can occur, nor how much their build up can influence physiology. The only thing that comes to mind as to what mutations can't do is that they can't make it so that species that previously couldn't interbreed now can. That is, mutations aren't going to make a lineage of cats able to breed with dogs.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you need to abandon mutations as a mechanism for evolution. Now you have nothing left to base your defense on.

 

[omega2xx]

So true. So why do you keep going?

Why do you?

 

[omega2xx]

Still having trouble with the "proof" thing I see? Well, I'll keep explaining it to you and maybe some day you'll understand.

Youare trhe one having tgroubole with proof, not me,You haven't explained anything yet. All you have done is parrot the usual evo talking points and offered no evidence.

You say a lot of things, most of which aren't true.

Post something I said that isn't. true. Be sure to included the verifiable evidence that makes it not true. I can prove "after their kind." You can't prove even one thing the TOE PREACHES.

And if you deny that natural selection happens, I simply don't know what to say because you're clearly in over your head on this topic.

You don't know what to say because you can't say anything that proves it.

You would if you could, but you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

Where did you get this unusual, all encompassing understanding of mutations exactly?

From real scientist. Where did you get yours.

 

[omega2xx]

Nice way to avoid providing the evidence you think you have.

 

[omega2xx]

You don't get this discussion thing do you? You said that they didn't evolve, it's your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions.

You say they did. It is your responsibility to provide the evidence for your assertions.. I provided the evidence they did not, your indoctrination keeps you from understanding it.

It sounds like all you can offer is vacuous rhetoric, why do you think anyone should take you seriously?

Do you really not understand that rhetoric is not evidence. Use it all you want but not as scientific evidence. Why should anyone take you seriously? You haven't provided any evidence for what you say.

It was in the quote, can you not read? Do you not think saying "you simple have no scientific knowledge of what mutations can and can't do" was disrespectful?

Only if it isn't true. When you say I have not knowledge of evolution and science, is that not disrespectful or is this a one way street?

Each to their own I suppose, Sarah is more than capable of responding herself so I'll leave it to her.

She has responded She didn't accuse me of being disrespectful.

Did you? All I saw was "you simple have no scientific knowledge of what mutations can and can't do" which part of that points out her errors? All I see is unjustified assertion, come on, be specific.

 

[omega2xx]

It's not rhetoric. It's a fact. The gradual accumulation of small changes inevitably leads to large changes.

It's how accumulation works.
There's nothing in our DNA that couldn't be accomplished by the gradual accumulation of mutations, filtered by natural selection.

Furthermore, if our DNA is indeed the result of such gradual accumulation, then we can make all kinds of testable predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in our DNA.

FYI: all those predictions, match the facts.



/facepalm

That's like saying that "changing colour" doesn't result in a change in colour.



Please.....
You don't need to mention them. Creationist religious beliefs, is the red thread that unifies all evolution deniers.



Statements like "speciation doesn't result in a change of species" are evidence of the contrary.



I already did and plenty of others have done so as well. You could also easily look it up yourself. Just google "the evidence for evolution", for example. Ignoring it or handwaving it away or saying "my bible disagrees", doesn't change that.



Uhu, uhu.... and so are all scientists I bet? You know better then all of them, I guess?



Fact: every newborn comes with a set of mutations
Fact: every newborn inherits its DNA from its parents, and with it, all the mutations of its parents
Fact: the previous 2 facts, means that mutations accumulate over generations
Fact: selection pressures of the environment pushes populations in certain directions in terms of morphology, behaviour, etc


So, do tell, which part of this is "rhetoric"?



There's mountains of supporting evidence.

Then present some. Without the supporting evidence, it is just rhetoric.