Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[tas8831]

DNA is far to complex for it to have come into being by accident..

Please provide your demonstration that this is the case.

But first, show that your statement is not a strawman.

 

[Speedwell]

DNA is far to complex for it to have come into being by accident..

you are quite right. DNA is far too complex to have come into being by accident. That is why scientists hold that it came into being by the orderly operation of a stochastic process.

 

[omega2xx]

you are quite right. DNA is far too complex to have come into being by accident. That is why scientists hold that it came into being by the orderly operation of a stochastic process.

When they can prove it, get back to me. They can't even explain how the elements came into existence.

 

[omega2xx]

Please provide your demonstration that this is the case.

But first, show that your statement is not a strawman.

Its not my case. It is the case of most real scientists.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- but the post you were responding to wasn't about this topic. I don't interrupt conversations with material from previous ones unless said material contradicts claims currently being made. Which is not the case here.

Furthermore, I have never once stated that it is typical for a single mutation to result in a species transition. It is hypothetically possible (I can only imagine it occurring in asexual species and species with hermaphrodites). Plus, the definition of species as it applies to bacteria which uses percent genomic similarity to define species most definitely means that an organism can transition to another species via a single ADDITIONAL mutation (because populations are mutating continuously). However, it is extremely unlikely that a single mutation in a bacterium would be so large as to result in the offspring being a different species than the parent.



-_- by that logic, humans and chimpanzees are the same species. How do you not realize that the lowest taxonomy category shared by all lizards is broader than the one humans share with chimps? How can you even justify this view when the capacity to reproduce to produce fertile offspring is such a huge component in species labels in animals?




So sayeth the guy that thinks my bearded dragon is the same species as a Komodo dragon. Even the people that try to categorize animals as "kinds" generally don't try to say that "kinds" means species or assert that all lizards are the same species.



-_- to assume that bacteria would have to become "not bacteria" to demonstrate evolution is more outrageous than viewing a lineage of dogs giving rise to a 6 legged herbivore as "not evolution". That's a kingdom level classification transition, of which there have been less than 10 in the over 3.5 billion years life has existed on this planet. For that to even occur would likely demand the annihilation of all members of at least one of the already existing kingdoms just so that enough niches are opened up.



Lol, what? All I said is that the only thing mutations can't feasibly do is make reproductively incompatible species become compatible. The reason isn't because one can't determine the changes necessary to accomplish it, but rather that the mutations required for it to occur are extremely numerous, specific, and have no selective pressures for them. There are tons of mutations that can result in extra limbs, muscles, the formation of eyes, etc. But in order for two incompatible lineages to re-merge, both populations would have to experience extraordinarily similar mutations in conjunction with mutations that eliminate factors that made them incompatible to begin with, such as differences in chromosome number.

No such thing has ever been observed, so I see no issues here. Care to point the ones you see out? That is, there is no indication ever of organisms that can't reproduce with each other being able to do so later on thanks to mutation. Perhaps from hybridization with a third species that is compatible with both, but never via mutation. Evolution doesn't have to explain phenomena that have never been observed; no theory has to do that.

If evolution says an A eventually became a B, they do indeed have to explain such a phenomena. The can't just say it happened, they must give the science that makes it possible.

 

[tas8831]

Its not my case. It is the case of most real scientists.

And yet you offer nothing but assertions.

Almost as if... you CAN'T support your own assertion.

 

[omega2xx]

You need evidence that demonstrates natural selection?
Really?

You need it proved to you that natural selection is a valid idea?
The idea, that says that those best equipped to survive in a certain environment, will be most likely to survive?

You don't buy that idea?

You think that the worst equipped to survive, are the most likely to survive?

Do you really not understand that the ability to survive, is not a mechanism for a species changing?

You know.... there is this line beyond which I can no longer take people seriously. You just crossed it.

Thanks for admitting you can't prove one thing you believie about evolution.


Ignorance is bliss.

 

[tas8831]

Ignorance is bliss.

The irony is staggering.

 

[omega2xx]

Plenty of people have presented you with evidence, me included.

Why would I do it again?

Einstein once defined "insanity" as doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.

You have not presented the science behind your so-called evidence. No one, including you has presented the evidence for natural selection. You don't even understand your own rhetoric,

 

[omega2xx]

Apparantly you didn't get the joke.
The gif is from an interview with dawkins concerning an interview he did with some woman of some creationist organization.

She kept saying "show me the evidence, show me the evidence"
Dawkins kept responding with evidence "here, this and that..."
And she kept coming back "show me the evidence, show me the evidence..." while completely ignoring the evidence presented.

Exactly like you keep doing.

There comes a point where it becomes an exercise in futility.

I guess jokes are all you have. You certainly don't have any evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

And you have no evidence for your claim.

The difference between us is that you actually believe what you are claiming without evidence and want other people to believe it for no reason, while I don't actually believe in a statue of Elvis on Pluto. I'm just using it as a rhetorical device to show your argument for what it is.

I can prove after heir kind and you can't disprove it and it refutes evolution. You can't prove common descent or anything else he "TOE preaches. You have no clue what the first life for was, how it originated or what it became. Your whole theology starts with a guess and evolutionist have been guessing for 100+ years.

 

[omega2xx]

Why would a detailed exposition of the theory of evolution be part of an archaeology class?

I didn't say it was detailed.

 

[omega2xx]

Ah, OK - 68 years ago, that might explain it; you seem to have forgotten what they taught you.

Go check your course notes.

I haven't forgotten what evolution preaches.

Examples of natural selection? All living things that die of natural causes.

Thanks for offering an example that is not part of the doctrine of natural selection. It seems if you ever learned the "evidence" for natural selection offered by evolutionists,, you have forgotten it. I know more about what evoution offers as evidence for natural selection than you do.

 

[Jimmy D]

You have not presented the science behind your so-called evidence. No one, including you has presented the evidence for natural selection. You don't even understand your own rhetoric,

LIAR


Remember this....

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you really not understand that the ability to survive, is not a mechanism for a species changing?

It is, if you realise that every newborn comes with a set of mutations that potentially increases or decreases fitness, which natural selection then "selects" for or against.

Thanks for admitting you can't prove one thing you believie about evolution.

Not at all.

Ignorance is bliss.

irony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have not presented the science behind your so-called evidence. No one, including you has presented the evidence for natural selection. You don't even understand your own rhetoric,

lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

I guess jokes are all you have. You certainly don't have any evidence.

Ignoring, it doesn't make it go away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can prove after heir kind and you can't disprove it and it refutes evolution.

"after their kind", supports evolution.
It is the opposite that would refute evolution.

Mammals produce more mammals.
Primates produce more primates.
Cats produce more cats.

Mammals don't produce reptiles.
Cats don't produce dogs.

Every organism stays within the "bloodline" of its ancestry.

You can't prove common descent

Yes, we can.
Just like we can demonstrate that your sibling, is your actual sibling and thus that you share biological ancestry. Without having access to that ancestry.

DNA allows us to establish kinship and the level thereof.

or anything else he "TOE preaches.

Scientific theories don't "preach", instead they explain.

You have no clue what the first life for was

Which is not relevant to the facts of evolution, which existing life is subject to.

, how it originated

Which again is not relevant to the facts of evolution.

or what it became

Evolution explains bio-diversity.

Your whole theology starts with a guess

Scientific theory isn't theology, it's science.
And there is no guessing involved either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LIAR


Remember this....

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

Kind of ironic right, that this level of dishonesty is shown by a creationist in a thread titled "Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie"

 

[Speedwell]

When they can prove it, get back to me. They can't even explain how the elements came into existence.

So what? The theory of evolution is not about physical chemistry, it's about how God brought about the diversity of life.

So, how much math do you know?