Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[xianghua]

I want to put it on the record that I hate the name of this gene: The Sonic the Hedgehog gene. Develops gills and other respiratory structures in fish, and contributes to jaws and limbs in vertebrates such as ourselves. The reason for the difference being other genes contributing to embryonic development. Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

ok. but the sth gene is functional and you said its a pseudogene.

Regardless as to whether or not our limbs evolved from the process that produces the respiratory system of fish or not, you cannot deny that there are genes relevant to gill formation in fish in the human genome.

true. many genes are multifunctional and do different things even in the s ame creature. human also has genes for feathers development. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok. but the sth gene is functional and you said its a pseudogene.

I lost track of my pseudogene source, my bad on that, so I substituted this one. It's a difficult thing to look up, since most studies focus on what genes organisms share that do have function. However, considering that we are about 85% genetically the same as zebrafish, I kinda figure there are a few pieces relevant to some fish traits in our DNA. Even if I was extraordinarily generous and acted as if 50% of our DNA has some function, that'd leave a lot that doesn't, and fish generally don't have nearly as much junk DNA as land mammals do (especially humans, our DNA is a mess).

true. many genes are multifunctional and do different things even in the s ame creature. human also has genes for feathers development. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Humans have 0 genes specific to feathers. You seem to misunderstand gene relationships greatly. The genes responsible for feathers, scales, and hair are all mutated versions of the same gene, and the differences between these structures are due to the different mutations. You could swap the Sonic the Hedgehog gene sequence of a fish with that of a human and practically no difference would result. The same cannot be said of the genes for feather and hair development.

 

[xianghua]

Humans have 0 genes specific to feathers.

again: the sth gene isnt gills specific too (if it has any connection to gills at all).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wikepedia

That's funny, because the first sentence in the Wikipedia article for genes is "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function."
And don't get super nitpicky and say that the disambiguation sentence counts as the first just to derail, you obviously couldn't have gotten the idea that genes aren't literally sequences of DNA from Wikipedia.

I don't think you even got it from a creationist site, I think you just misunderstood what genes are and are doubling down on it rather than admitting error. Which makes it extra silly that you decided that learning this stuff from Wikipedia made your position defensible.

Genes carry the codes for characteristics and the kid can only receive a characteristic from a gene in the gene pool of its parents. If neither parent doe snot have the gene for bone, they can not have a kid with bones. It is as simple as that.

-_- what about people born with hemophilia with no family history of the disease? Obviously, humans didn't start out with 6 fingers on each hand, but lo and behold, sometimes people are born with that trait and guess what? No family history. This is because our cells are imperfect at replication, resulting in every person being born with 40-60 mutations their parents DO NOT have (in the case of humans specifically). This is objectively measurable; one can be born with traits neither parent has or is a carrier of. It is simply far more likely that any given trait you have was inherited from your parents rather than the result of mutation, given that those 40-60 mutations are comparatively few to the number of genes you have, and those mutations don't necessarily impact gene sequences, since the majority of human DNA is junk.

Tell me who told you the hox gene in humans and fruit flies is the same so I can slap them silly.

HOX genes, I said some of the HOX genes in fruit flies are identical to those in humans, which indicates it is not a singular gene. The fact that you didn't know it was multiple genes gives you no right to slap anyone.

All genes are different. That is why some have green eyes, blue eyes, etc.

No... that is an example of a trait that varies thanks to different alleles (variations of the same gene), sure, but not every gene has multiple alleles with relevant differences. Having a different eye color isn't going to cause any harm, but a change in the gene that determines what becomes your eyes definitely will, which is why mutations on HOX genes are heavily associated with miscarriages and still births. This is why these genes are so heavily conserved, even between organisms that are as dissimilar as humans and insects.

Environment may play a role i the survival of a species, but it does not have the ability to change a species.

Species adapt to the environment, and are shaped by it. The only way the environment could not be an influence would be if it never changed, and that situation doesn't exist.

Pure evo bolony. Mutations never change the species.

Species is a label of human invention, and it isn't even the same between different domains. Since bacterial species are distinguished by genetic similarity, a bacterium can be a single mutation away from becoming a different species, since there are no limits on how many mutations a population can experience over generations.

They only altar the characteristic of the gene it affected. When the gene for skin pigment is affected by a mutation, the kid remains homo sapian and its kids may or masy not be albino.

Sure, and that's just 1 mutation. I am not saying that 1 mutation alone is going to change a species of animal to another, because animals are not classified purely based on genetic similarity and dissimilarity. If animals were classified that way, on the same scale that bacteria are, humans and chimpanzees would be considered the same species.

This is also why I mentioned that evolution doesn't claim a lizard can lay a bird egg. It takes many generations and the mutations that come with them to transition one species from another, and the line is rather gray, since nature doesn't conform to the boxes we make for it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Species represents nature exactly. Speciation is not continuous and it does not result in a change of species.

But, but....

Nevermind.

 

[Jimmy D]

The Bible does not support natural selection and you cant provide any scientific evidence to support it. To quote a Christian on some subject is not . The majority of Christians will not accept natural selection as proved.

I didn't say that the bible "supports natural selection", my point was that even the most vocal creationists accept that natural selection occurs.

What makes you say that the majority of Christians don't accept natural selection?

It's becoming obvious that you understand these topics less than it first appeared when you started posting, which is quite a feat!

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't say that the bible "supports natural selection", my point was that even the most vocal creationists accept that natural selection occurs.

That may be true in liberal Christianity, but not in conservative Christianity. It really does n't matter if some creationists support it, you have no scientific evidence to support it.

What makes you say that the majority of Christians don't accept natural selection?

I haven't said that.

It's becoming obvious that you understand these topics less than it first appeared when you started posting, which is quite a feat!

Right. Agree with the omnipotent one or you don't understand the subject. The truth is I do understand it. That is why I reject it.

What has become obvious since you can't support natural selection, you have to beat around the bush hoping some will not not notice your lack of evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

That's funny, because the first sentence in the Wikipedia article for genes is "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function."
And don't get super nitpicky and say that the disambiguation sentence counts as the first just to derail, you obviously couldn't have gotten the idea that genes aren't literally sequences of DNA from Wikipedia.

It may be a sequence of DNA, but if the sequence does not have the gene for bones, the parents will never have a kid with bones.

I don't think you even got it from a creationist site, I think you just misunderstood what genes are and are doubling down on it rather than admitting error. Which makes it extra silly that you decided that learning this stuff from Wikipedia made your position defensible.

My defense comes from the laws of genetics, which obviously you don't understand.

-_- what about people born with hemophilia with no family history of the disease? Obviously, humans didn't start out with 6 fingers on each hand, but lo and behold, sometimes people are born with that trait and guess what? No family history. This is because our cells are imperfect at replication, resulting in every person being born with 40-60 mutations their parents DO NOT have (in the case of humans specifically). This is objectively measurable; one can be born with traits neither parent has or is a carrier of. It is simply far more likely that any given trait you have was inherited from your parents rather than the result of mutation, given that those 40-60 mutations are comparatively few to the number of genes you have, and those mutations don't necessarily impact gene sequences, since the majority of human DNA is junk.

That is easily explained---a mutation. Now when that happens, does the species change?

HOX genes, I said some of the HOX genes in fruit flies are identical to those in humans, which indicates it is not a singular gene. The fact that you didn't know it was multiple genes gives you no right to slap anyone.

Disagreeing is not slapping. If it is, you continually slap me. "Some" is irrelevant. Humans continue to producer humans not fruit flies. Fruit flies continue to produce fruit flies, not I doubt that statement. Can you give me your source?

No... that is an example of a trait that varies thanks to different alleles (variations of the same gene), sure, but not every gene has multiple alleles with relevant differences. Having a different eye color isn't going to cause any harm, but a change in the gene that determines what becomes your eyes definitely will, which is why mutations on HOX genes are heavily associated with miscarriages and still births. This is why these genes are so heavily conserved, even between organisms that are as dissimilar as humans and insects

You continue to just beat around the bush. Do you have any real evidence to support natural selection?

Species adapt to the environment, and are shaped by it. The only way the environment could not be an influence would be if it never changed, and that situation doesn't exist.

If there is a drastic change in the environment species either adapt or become extinct, but they do not evolve into another species.

Species is a label of human invention, and it isn't even the same between different domains.

Many human inventions are valid.

Since bacterial species are distinguished by genetic similarity, a bacterium can be a single mutation away from becoming a different species, since there are no limits on how many mutations a population can experience over generations.

You also don't understand the limitations of mutations. They only alter a characteristic in the gene pool of the parents. They are not a mechanism for a change of species.

Sure, and that's just 1 mutation. I am not saying that 1 mutation alone is going to change a species of animal to another, because animals are not classified purely based on genetic similarity and dissimilarity. If animals were classified that way, on the same scale that bacteria are, humans and chimpanzees would be considered the same species.

I will give you as many mutations as you need and as much time as you need. Neither will change the laws of genetics.

This is also why I mentioned that evolution doesn't claim a lizard can lay a bird egg. It takes many generations and the mutations that come with them to transition one species from another, and the line is rather gray, since nature doesn't conform to the boxes we make for it.

As I just said, time will not change the proven laws of genetics. Nature conforms to the boxes God made for each kind. That is why it has NEVER been observed and any species ever produces something other that what it was.

 

[Jimmy D]

That may be true in liberal Christianity, but not in conservative Christianity.

Right, Ken Ham's really representative of "Liberal Christianity".

It really does n't matter if some creationists support it, you have no scientific evidence to support it.

Right, right, you mean apart from the 1000's of published scientific papers on the topic, including the one that I posted which you failed to understand but dismissed for some vague reason.

I haven't said that.

LOL, you literally said it in the post I quoted...

"The majority of Christians will not accept natural selection as proved."

Right. Agree with the omnipotent one or you don't understand the subject. The truth is I do understand it. That is why I reject it.

No, your constant misrepresentaion of evolution, saying silly things like "DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA" and your refusal to look at scientific sources makes you appear that you haven't got even a school boy understanding of the topic.

When presented with evidence you either run away (you still haven't addressed the ERV evidence) or just dismiss it out of hand with no more justification than "nuh huh".

What has become obvious since you can't support natural selection, you have to beat around the bush hoping some will not not notice your lack of evidence.

"Evidence for natural selection" indeed.

Do you deny the following....

Natural selection is the process where organisms that are best suited to their environment survive and pass on their genetic traits in increasing number to successive generations. At the same time, organisms that are less adapted fail to survive or multiply at a lower rate, and tend to be eliminated from the ecosystem.

In other words, the fittest organisms survive and multiply.

 

[omega2xx]

Right, Ken Ham's really representative of "Liberal Christianity".

It is more than amusing that all you evo always mention Ken Ham. not other Christians scientist who also reject evolution. Yet you can't prove anything he says is wrong.

Right, right, you mean apart from the 1000's of published scientific papers on the topic, including the one that I posted which you failed to understand but dismissed for some vague reason.

Scientific evidence, which was not in anything you posted, without some verifiable scientific evidence belongs in the bathroom. It might be useful there. Keep in mind that pictures, no matt er how pretty, are not evidene

LOL, you literally said it in the post I quoted...

Without a backquote I have no idea what youare referring to.

"The majority of Christians will not accept natural selection as proved."

Make that "conservative Christians.'

No, your constant misrepresentaion of evolution, saying silly things like "DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA" and your refusal to look at scientific sources makes you appear that you haven't got even a school boy understanding of the topic.[/QUOTE]

You need to concentrate on accuracy. I have never said DNA carries genetic instructions. Mutations do only affect the characteristic the gene would have produced, but they NEVER result in a chance of species.

Evolution has to ASSUME AND put their faith in "many small changes over long periods of time a if proven scientific laws change over time. You have never seen a mutation cause of species. You accept that it does by faith alone.

When presented with evidence you either run away (you still haven't addressed the ERV evidence) or just dismiss it out of hand with no more justification than "nuh huh".

You don't even understand what verifiable evidence is. What you presented as evidence of ERV was not verifiable for what you said it proved, and I did address it.

"Evidence for natural selection" indeed.

Do you deny the following....

Natural selection is the process where organisms that are best suited to their environment survive and pass on their genetic traits in increasing number to successive generations. At the same time, organisms that are less adapted fail to survive or multiply at a lower rate, and tend to be eliminated from the ecosystem.

Here is a good example of what I just said. Definitions,like pictures are not evidence.

Passing on trait to survive might cause the species to survive but it WILL NOT will not cause a change of the specie. That is an unprovable statement of faith, not science.

In other words, the fittest organisms survive and multiply.

Right, and they will Continue to multiply 'After their kind," which as been proved thousands off times every day since time began.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is more than amusing that all you evo always mention Ken Ham. not other Christians scientist who also reject evolution. Yet you can't prove anything he says is wrong.

Given your inability to follow a simple conversation I don't have high hopes for your chances of overturning an established scientific theory.

If you cast you mind back (or even click back one page) I said the following in response to your ignorant assertions that no evidence exists for "natural selection"......

"LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...

"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.

...........................................

Ken Ham (and the other Creationist I quoted) is saying that there is evidence for natural selection.

What I am saying is that even Creationists have to accept natural selection because evidence for it is so strong.

And why do you think that I'm interested in "proving" Ken Ham wrong? What he said was more or less correct in this instance, it's you disagreeing with him, not me.

 

[Jimmy D]

Scientific evidence, which was not in anything you posted, without some verifiable scientific evidence belongs in the bathroom. It might be useful there. Keep in mind that pictures, no matt er how pretty, are not evidene

Well, firstly, there was evidence in what I cited, and it was applied to yield empirical results, saying "nuh" doesn't make it go away. As I said though, I didn't really expect you to understand it. I also posted ERV evidence which you keep ignoring, so I suggest you stop lying, or is your conservative christian political agenda more important to you than the 10 commandments?

Without a backquote I have no idea what youare referring to.

Poor thing, is it too taxing for you to read back 2 or 3 posts? Here you go...

"The majority of Christians will not accept natural selection as proved."
link

Make that "conservative Christians.'

Where have those goal posts gone now?!?

You're heading down the logically fallacy route now by the way, I don't care how many untrained laymen have a view on the topic, it's irrelevant.

Besides, you're completely wrong, look at any conservative christian creationist website, they do accept natural selection, as those links I just posted demonstrate, or are "Answers in Genesis" not conservative enough for you?

You need to concentrate on accuracy. I have never said DNA carries genetic instructions. Mutations do only affect the characteristic the gene would have produced, but they NEVER result in a chance of species.

LOL. I was directly quoting you. See the quote below. Link

DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA

......................................................

Evolution has to ASSUME AND put their faith in "many small changes over long periods of time a if proven scientific laws change over time. You have never seen a mutation cause of species. You accept that it does by faith alone.

Do you really think that the Theory of Evolution suggests that a mutation can cause a change of species?

You don't even understand what verifiable evidence is. What you presented as evidence of ERV was not verifiable for what you said it proved, and I did address it.

LOL, Do you know what the ERV evidence demonstrates or why? Actually, do you even know what "verifiable" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.

Here is a good example of what I just said. Definitions,like pictures are not evidence.

I was trying to help you out there so you might not embarrass yourself quite so much, it's not supposed to be evidence of anything, just an explanation of natural selection.

Passing on trait to survive might cause the species to survive but it WILL NOT will not cause a change of the specie.

Why not if those tiny changes accumulate over of thousands of years?

Right, and they will Continue to multiply 'After their kind," which as been proved thousands off times every day since time began.

So your argument is based on your understanding of the bible rather than the science?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It may be a sequence of DNA, but if the sequence does not have the gene for bones, the parents will never have a kid with bones.

-_- thanks to mutation, there is always the possibility that an organism without bones could birth one which has some of the genes for bone production, and so on and so forth until its lineage gives rise to organisms with internal skeletons. It's not like I think a jellyfish egg hatched with a skeleton or something equally outrageous. You are simply presuming that individual mutations that contributed to the formation of skeletons would have been useless independently.

My defense comes from the laws of genetics, which obviously you don't understand.

I'm a Biomedical Sciences major, and I can tell you this much: there aren't any so called "laws of genetics", aside from those written by Mendel... which have nothing to do with mutations and cover inheritance patterns. Heck, I even did a Google search to double check to see if there were any, and Mendel's laws are the only thing to pop up. I don't appreciate you making assumptions on how much I know about genetics.

That is easily explained---a mutation. Now when that happens, does the species change?

It takes multiple mutations for a species transition to occur naturally. I've never seen anyone even imply otherwise.

Disagreeing is not slapping. If it is, you continually slap me. "Some" is irrelevant. Humans continue to producer humans not fruit flies. Fruit flies continue to produce fruit flies, not I doubt that statement. Can you give me your source?.

-_- are you assuming that having the same HOX genes would inevitably result in the same organism being produced, even if other genes were different? That makes absolutely no sense if that's the case, but here's a source since you won't bother to look up what HOX genes are Hox genes

You continue to just beat around the bush. Do you have any real evidence to support natural selection?

-_- continuing to explain what HOX genes are to you was not "beating around the bush".

If there is a drastic change in the environment species either adapt or become extinct, but they do not evolve into another species.

There are too many fossil species from the past to coexist in the same ecosystem as all modern species.

Many human inventions are valid.

-_- I didn't say that taxonomy has no use, only that our labels are imperfect because living populations are dynamically changing entities. Population A and population B may be able to interbreed, and population B and C may be able to interbreed, but population A and C can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This creates a conundrum when the species designations for animals are heavily based on the ability for all members of a species to be able to interbreed. A and C clearly can't be considered the same species, and B can't be counted as two different species at the same time.

You also don't understand the limitations of mutations. They only alter a characteristic in the gene pool of the parents. They are not a mechanism for a change of species.

A much better way of saying that would be: "sure, a mutation could result in a person being born with more fingers, but having fingers at all was a trait the parents had to begin with. If the parents didn't have genes for finger production, their offspring couldn't possibly have fingers."

Not that the point has any merit, since projections of tissue are present in all multicellular organisms, and mutations can modify such projections into becoming limbs.

I will give you as many mutations as you need and as much time as you need. Neither will change the laws of genetics.

List the laws of genetics, and who proposed them. I'm curious as to what you are referring to.

As I just said, time will not change the proven laws of genetics. Nature conforms to the boxes God made for each kind. That is why it has NEVER been observed and any species ever produces something other that what it was.

Weird that you think that your god created a species of lesbian lizards. I'm not joking, there is a lizard species composed entirely of females, and genetics indicates that this species is the result of two other species hybridizing.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- thanks to mutation, there is always the possibility that an organism without bones could birth one which has some of the genes for bone production, and so on and so forth until its lineage gives rise to organisms with internal skeletons. It's not like I think a jellyfish egg hatched with a skeleton or something equally outrageous. You are simply presuming that individual mutations that contributed to the formation of skeletons would have been useless independently.

Not only do you not understand genetics, you also don't understand mutations. Mutations NEVER change the species,and you can't give me one example of when it does. You have to put way off in evolution lala land where no one was around o witness it. You can't even verify one of the small changes you need to make your theology viable.

I'm a Biomedical Sciences major, and I can tell you this much: there aren't any so called "laws of genetics", aside from those written by Mendel... which have nothing to do with mutations and cover inheritance patterns. Heck, I even did a Google search to double check to see if there were any, and Mendel's laws are the only thing to pop up. I don't appreciate you making assumptions on how much I know about genetics.

I will give you a law of genetics and you can show me where it is not true: The offspring can only receive characteristics in the gene pool of its parents. IOW if neither parent has the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. 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.

It takes multiple mutations for a species transition to occur naturally. I've never seen anyone even imply otherwise.

That is a non-scientific, necessary assumption for which you have no evidence. You need to get out of evo lala land.

-_- are you assuming that having the same HOX genes would inevitably result in the same organism being produced, even if other genes were different? That makes absolutely no sense if that's the case, but here's a source since you won't bother to look up what HOX genes are Hox genes

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/hoxgenes_01

I am not assuming anything , you are. 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. I have quit reading evo links. They never include any scientific evidence. Now you have a chance o prove me wrong by cutting and pasting the evidence provided in your link, but you won't do that will you?

There are too many fossil species from the past to coexist in the same ecosystem as all modern species.

That simply isn't true. another claim for which you have no evidence. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and you do not even have one.

-_- I didn't say that taxonomy has no use, only that our labels are imperfect because living populations are dynamically changing entities. Population A and population B may be able to interbreed, and population B and C may be able to interbreed, but population A and C can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This creates a conundrum when the species designations for animals are heavily based on the ability for all members of a species to be able to interbreed. A and C clearly can't be considered the same species, and B can't be counted as two different species at the same time.

The usual evo mumbo jumbo when they have no verifiable evidence to support their non-scientific guesses.

A much better way of saying that would be: "sure, a mutation could result in a person being born with more fingers, but having fingers at all was a trait the parents had to begin with. If the parents didn't have genes for finger production, their offspring couldn't possibly have fingers."

You finally got something right an used a basic law of genetics to do it. Thanks.

Not that the point has any merit, since projections of tissue are present in all multicellular organisms, and mutations can modify such projections into becoming limbs.

You are still in evo lala land. You have no evidence to support that necessary guess.

List the laws of genetics, and who proposed them. I'm curious as to what you are referring to.

I gave you one basic law. Prove i wrong an I will give you another.



Weird that you think that your god created a species of lesbian lizards. I'm not joking, there is a lizard species composed entirely of females, and genetics indicates that this species is the result of two other species hybridizing.[/QUOTE]

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[omega2xx]

Well, firstly, there was evidence in what I cited, and it was applied to yield empirical results, saying "nuh" doesn't make it go away. As I said though, I didn't really expect you to understand it. I also posted ERV evidence which you keep ignoring, so I suggest you stop lying, or is your conservative christian political agenda more important to you than the 10 commandments?

Firstly you posted what YOU considered evidence, but you did no include the HOW it caused it. Even if ERV is true and one person discussing it said, "the data MAY BE," your proof is down the tubes.

Even if ERV is true, and it may b e, it will not be a mechanism for a change of species.

It is amusing that when you evo can't prove your theology, you try to make what i say based on my religion. Stick to science if you can.


You posted what you considered evidence, but it was not. Evidence must include the science that shows HOW it did what you claim.

Don't be concerned with my Christian agenda, which is not political. It is amusing that when you evos can't provide any scientific evidence for you necessary assumptions, you try to make what I believe based on my religion. Try sticking to science.

"The majority of Christians will not accept natural selection as proved."
link

Your link was to general an did not address what conservative Christians believe.

Where have those goal posts gone now?!?

You tell me. You are he one that widen them by trying to bring religion into the discussion. Stick to science if you can.

You're heading down the logically fallacy route now by the way, I don't care how many untrained laymen have a view on the topic, it's irrelevant.

The usual evo response---agree with me or you are illogical. Let me assure you the scientist at ICR and Answers in Genesis, are more qualified than you are and they reject evolution as being based on science.

Besides, you're completely wrong, look at any conservative christian creationist website, they do accept natural selection, as those links I just posted demonstrate, or are "Answers in Genesis" not conservative enough for you?

I will have to check that.

LOL. I was directly quoting you. See the quote below. Link

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...al-yec-in-a-lie.8034754/page-24#post-72185421

I will have to check that.



......................................................




Do you really think that the Theory of Evolution suggests that a mutation can cause a change of species?

LOL, Do you know what the ERV evidence demonstrates or why?

From what I read it did not provide a way for it to change the species. Besides it has not been proved yet. Like evolution it i still a tgeory.

Actually, do you even know what "verifiable" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.

From some things you have presented as verifiable evidence, it is obvious you don't understand the term.

I was trying to help you out there so you might not embarrass yourself quite so much, it's not supposed to be evidence of anything, just an explanation of natural selection.

Your sweet but I don't need your help in this discussion. If an explanation can't be proved and relied on, it should not be to try and prove something. You explained it because you can't prove it.

Why not if those tiny changes accumulate over of thousands of years?

First of all mutations do not make tiny changes and most of them are harmful and time will not change proven laws of genetics.

So your argument is based on your understanding of the bible rather than the science?

I have not mentioned the Bible, why do you?











......................................................




Do you really think that the Theory of Evolution suggests that a mutation can cause a change of species?



LOL, Do you know what the ERV evidence demonstrates or why? Actually, do you even know what "verifiable" means? Because it doesn't sound like it.



I was trying to help you out there so you might not embarrass yourself quite so much, it's not supposed to be evidence of anything, just an explanation of natural selection.



Why not if those tiny changes accumulate over of thousands of years?



So your argument is based on your understanding of the bible rather than the science?[/QUOTE]

 

[Jimmy D]

Not only do you not understand genetics, you also don't understand mutations.

LOL

Mutations NEVER change the species,and you can't give me one example of when it does. You have to put way off in evolution lala land where no one was around o witness it. You can't even verify one of the small changes you need to make your theology viable.

There are countless examples if you cared to look. It's happened to the European Black Caps within thirty generations for example.

Speciation in real time

I will give you a law of genetics and you can show me where it is not true: The offspring can only receive characteristics in the gene pool of its parents. IOW if neither parent has the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones.

Strawman. Study some real biology.

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.

What are you prattling about? Who said that?

That is a non-scientific, necessary assumption for which you have no evidence. You need to get out of evo lala land.

Why is it non-scientific? Don't you think populations can change over time? Because there's reams of evidence that says they do.

Take the various species of finch on the Galapogos Islands for example... are you suggesting that they are all separately "created" or have they adapted to different niches in the environment over time?

Take the European Black Caps, we have physically observed them diverging into two genetically distinct populations, we know which mutation played part and we can observe them becoming increasingly genetically distinct.

This isn't an "assumption", it's an observation.

I am not assuming anything , you are. 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.

LOL

I have quit reading evo links. They never include any scientific evidence. Now you have a chance o prove me wrong by cutting and pasting the evidence provided in your link, but you won't do that will you?

It doesn't appear like that you ever read any "evo links".

That simply isn't true. another claim for which you have no evidence. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and you do not even have one.

What do you think a transitional fossil is exactly?

The usual evo mumbo jumbo when they have no verifiable evidence to support their non-scientific guesses.

You finally got something right an used a basic law of genetics to do it. Thanks.

You are still in evo lala land. You have no evidence to support that necessary guess.

Excellent rebuttals professor!

 

[omega2xx]

Given your inability to follow a simple conversation I don't have high hopes for your chances of overturning an established scientific theory.

If you cast you mind back (or even click back one page) I said the following in response to your ignorant assertions that no evidence exists for "natural selection"......

"LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...

"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.

...........................................

Ken Ham (and the other Creationist I quoted) is saying that there is evidence for natural selection.

What I am saying is that even Creationists have to accept natural selection because evidence for it is so strong.

And why do you think that I'm interested in "proving" Ken Ham wrong? What he said was more or less correct in this instance, it's you disagreeing with him, not me.

 

[omega2xx]

Given your inability to follow a simple conversation I don't have high hopes for your chances of overturning an established scientific theory.

If you cast you mind back (or even click back one page) I said the following in response to your ignorant assertions that no evidence exists for "natural selection"......

When one can't disprove what other say, they have to result to insults.

"LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...

"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.

...........................................

Ken Ham (and the other Creationist I quoted) is saying that there is evidence for natural selection.

What I am saying is that even Creationists have to accept natural selection because evidence for it is so strong.

And why do you think that I'm interested in "proving" Ken Ham wrong? What he said was more or less correct in this instance, it's you disagreeing with him, not me.

Given your inability to follow a simple conversation I don't have high hopes for your chances of overturning an established scientific theory.

If you cast you mind back (or even click back one page) I said the following in response to your ignorant assertions that no evidence exists for "natural selection"......

"LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...

"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.

...........................................

Ken Ham (and the other Creationist I quoted) is saying that there is evidence for natural selection.

What I am saying is that even Creationists have to accept natural selection because evidence for it is so strong.

And why do you think that I'm interested in "proving" Ken Ham wrong? What he said was more or less correct in this instance, it's you disagreeing with him, not me.

When what someone says can't be disproved, they have to resort to insults. I have quit responding to insults, professor. If you had any evidence to support your assumptions, you would not need to b e insulting. However I enjoy you insults, they speak more of you than of mt. Thanks for revealing your true nature.

You say their is strong evidence for natural selection, so why did you explain it instead of posting the evidence for it?

 

[Jimmy D]

Firstly you posted what YOU considered evidence, but you did no include the HOW it caused it. Even if ERV is true and one person discussing it said, "the data MAY BE," your proof is down the tubes.

Even if ERV is true, and it may b e, it will not be a mechanism for a change of species.

LOL, no one said that "ERV is a mechanism for a change of species", you really haven't got a clue what you're talking about have you?

And what do you mean "even if ERV is true"?

It is amusing that when you evo can't prove your theology, you try to make what i say based on my religion. Stick to science if you can.

I was referring to your behaviour actually.

You posted what you considered evidence, but it was not. Evidence must include the science that shows HOW it did what you claim.

LOL

Don't be concerned with my Christian agenda, which is not political. It is amusing that when you evos can't provide any scientific evidence for you necessary assumptions, you try to make what I believe based on my religion. Try sticking to science.

Of course I'm concerned, if you aren't aware of the underlying political agendas of creationism you have even less idea of what your discussing than I first thought.

Your link was to general an did not address what conservative Christians believe.

Grow up, it's there in black and white. I merely responded to something you posted.

You tell me. You are he one that widen them by trying to bring religion into the discussion. Stick to science if you can.

I suggest you re-read what you wrote.

The usual evo response---agree with me or you are illogical. Let me assure you the scientist at ICR and Answers in Genesis, are more qualified than you are and they reject evolution as being based on science.

They specifically state that any evidence that disagrees with their YEC reading of the bible should be automatically dismissed, is that how science should be done?

I will have to check that.

I'd suggest that you have already checked it, and discovered I'm right. Is it really so painful to admit that you were in error?

From what I read it did not provide a way for it to change the species. Besides it has not been proved yet. Like evolution it i still a tgeory.

You obviously don't know what an ERV is or how it demonstrates common descent, you've overplayed your hand with this sentence and your bluffing is exposed for all to see.

Your sweet but I don't need your help in this discussion. If an explanation can't be proved and relied on, it should not be to try and prove something. You explained it because you can't prove it.

I was merely offering a definition of natural selection.

First of all mutations do not make tiny changes and most of them are harmful and time will not change proven laws of genetics.

Citation required.

I have not mentioned the Bible, why do you?

Because other than an ignorance of science there is no other reason to doubt that common descent is a fact.