Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[DogmaHunter]

Irrelevant. When the THEORY was later developed and taught, it included the origin of life beginning in the primordial soup as a simple, one celled form of life.

Sheesh man, how many times must it be repeated??

Let it sink in: the origins of life were never within the schope of evolution theory.
The title of Darwin's book read "The origins of species". That alone, should give you a clue...

You can't teach "common descent" without teaching its origin

Nonsense. Off course one can.
Just like you can teach about gravity and how it relates to matter with mass, without discussing the origins of matter with mass.

It is more than amusing that you don't know how it got here, what it was and what it became. You say all living things originated from dead elements. If you can't explain that, and you can't. and the absurdity of even thinking that, there is little hope for you,

"little hope" on this subject, is reserved for those people who insist on arguing strawmen.
Like you.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[omega2xx]

???

What are you talking about?
Go take a look at the post I quoted. You messed up all the quoting there, making it hard to read and reply to.

I'm just asking you to go back to that post, edit it and fix the quoting, so that I can properly respond to it.

Sorry about that. Sometime I forget and use the format of another forum I have been in for over 20 years. Give me the post number and I will fix it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are not a mechanism for a change of species.

Nobody is saying that "mutation" is what causes speciation.
This has been brought to your attention multiple times now. Why do you continue to repeat this falsehood?

Do you think it helps your case, to continue arguing strawmen?

Prove me wrong and explain how a mutation can change the species.

"a mutation" doesn't cause speciation. I lost count how many times I told you this.

Speciation is the inescapable result of the gradual accumulation of mutations that have achieved fixation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry about that. Sometime I forget and use the format of another forum I have been in for over 20 years. Give me the post number and I will fix it.

Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie


FYI: you can easily track posts up the chain of replies, by clicking the "up arrow" next to usernames in the quoted parts:

 

[omega2xx]

And that's supposedly a problem for evolution.... how exactly?

Id did explain it. If the parents don't have the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. Evolution's guess of the first life form did not have bones. At some point that which did not have bones produced something with bones,,

pssssst: speciation is a VERTICAL process.
When a population of species A gets split into 2 groups that are genetically isolated, then both populations will continue accumulating changes. They will eventually speciate. They will NOT have become "totally different species". Instead, both will be SUB-species of the ancestral species. Species A will have split into 2 sub-species: A1 and A2. They will not turn into "B".<<

Exactly and that is why speciation does not suppsort evolution. pssssst evolution preaches a change of specie.

For the upteenth time: dogs will produce dogs. And dogs are "still" canines, mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes,....

At no point in the evolution of dogs, did an ancestral population speciate into a "totally different" species.

Its very amusing that you don't realize what you have said, actually refutes evolution, and supports after their kind

Again: it's a VERTICAL process.

Only if evolution is true and so far I have seen no scientific evidence to support it. Only rhetoric.

Seriously, "3 college courses on evolution" and not a single one explained this to you? Where did you get those courses? In a creationist ministry?

I was not a Christian a that time. They gave an explanation and I accepted it.

 

[omega2xx]

Sheesh man, how many times must it be repeated??

Let it sink in: the origins of life were never within the schope of evolution theory.
The title of Darwin's book read "The origins of species". That alone, should give you a clue...




Nonsense. Off course one can.
Just like you can teach about gravity and how it relates to matter with mass, without discussing the origins of matter with mass.



"little hope" on this subject, is reserved for those people who insist on arguing strawmen.
Like you.

When you have some evidence that the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a whale, get back to me. Your rhetoric is meaningless.

 

[omega2xx]

You need to have it demonstrated to you that those who are genetically "best equipped" to survive and reproduce, actually have the best chance of doing so?

Really?

So it needs to be explained that the gazelle that can run slightly faster then the rest, has more chances of fleeing from a lion attack?

Owkay.

Do you really not understand that survival will not result in a change of species? It will only result in the species continuing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Id did explain it. If the parents don't have the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones.

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

Evolution's guess of the first life form did not have bones.

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

At some point that which did not have bones produced something with bones,,

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

Evolution is gradual.

Exactly and that is why speciation does not suppsort evolution. pssssst evolution preaches a change of specie.

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.

Its very amusing that you don't realize what you have said, actually refutes evolution, and supports after their kind

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.

Only if evolution is true and so far I have seen no scientific evidence to support it. Only rhetoric.

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.

I was not a Christian a that time. They gave an explanation and I accepted it.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you have some evidence that the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a whale, get back to me. Your rhetoric is meaningless.

Every single bone is accounted for

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you really not understand that survival will not result in a change of species?

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

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

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

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

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?

It will only result in the species continuing.

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".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks for exposing your ignorance of mutations. They are not a mechanism for a change of species. The only alter traits, they do not change them into something new. Prove me wrong and explain how a mutation can change the species. They can change skin color but they can' cause skin to appear.

Is this not a person born with 6 fingers on their hand instead of 5? http://www.se7ety.com/Files/Articles/Inline/87c870682b564b04b327e8bba9d156de.jpg

Was this child not born with a tail? https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...center,h_675,q_80,w_1200/1883d6jlb7tb0jpg.jpg

Furthermore, what makes you think a change in species demands any extreme outward physical changes? In animals, species are populations which freely interbreed to produce fertile offspring, no more and no less. A population of a lizard species doesn't have to suddenly grow a second head or feathers to branch off as an independent species.

In any case, I am not claiming that a singular mutation can usually result in a species transition. It is multiple mutations over time. Your assertion that mutations cannot cause a drastic change in body parts is easily demonstrably false (I could flood this whole thread with additional examples aside from the two I presented), and as there is no biological limit to how many mutations can occur in a lineage, there is nothing preventing mutations from building up over time to result in a new species.

 

[USincognito]

What a clever response. It certainly convinces me. Ha Ha

I can prove what I say, you can't.

You can "prove" you know more about science than Dogmahunter? Bahahahah! Every post you have made to this subforum informs us that you have no idea what science is, how it works or even basics like there is no proof and potential falsification.

 

[USincognito]

Congratulations, you finally got something right. 1 out of a 1000, isn't a good batting average.

Do you seriously think my pointing out your lie/error/whatever about all living cells having DNA is somehow a strike against me and not a strike against you?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Irrelevant. When the THEORY was later developed and taught, it included the origin of life beginning in the primordial soup as a simple, one celled form of life.

You can't teach "common descent" without teaching its origin. It is more than amusing that you don't know how it got here, what it was and what it became. You say all living things originated from dead elements. If you can't explain that, and you can't. and the absurdity of even thinking that, there is little hope for you,

lol here's the conversation so far:
omega: From the very beginning evolution taught origins of life from a primordial soup
Everyone else: No, it doesn't say anything about how life started
omega: You have no idea what you're talking about. Google "primordial soup"
me: Here's a direct quotation from the first link from my google search. It demonstrates your assertion to be false.
omega: That's irrelevant. [Movethegoalposts] The strawman I'm talking about is spelled with CAPITAL LETTERS and was developed later[/Movethegoalposts] Here are some more strawmen and nonsense claims. You can't explain them, can you? Now I've gotcha!

Everyone else:

 

[omega2xx]

lol here's the conversation so far:
omega: From the very beginning evolution taught origins of life from a primordial soup
Everyone else: No, it doesn't say anything about how life started
omega: You have no idea what you're talking about. Google "primordial soup"
me: Here's a direct quotation from the first link from my google search. It demonstrates your assertion to be false.
omega: That's irrelevant. [Movethegoalposts] The strawman I'm talking about is spelled with CAPITAL LETTERS and was developed later[/Movethegoalposts] Here are some more strawmen and nonsense claims. You can't explain them, can you? Now I've gotcha!

Everyone else:

Ignorance of a subject doens't get anyone.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you seriously think my pointing out your lie/error/whatever about all living cells having DNA is somehow a strike against me and not a strike against you?

Did you not understand what I said---you finally got something right. You offered proof. I learned something. Thanks

 

[omega2xx]

You can "prove" you know more about science than Dogmahunter? Bahahahah! Every post you have made to this subforum informs us that you have no idea what science is, how it works or even basics like there is no proof and potential falsification.

Since you think you know everything. Post what I have said that is wrong with the evidence that makes it wrong.

Then post the evidence for natural selection, which I say is not true.

I have never said their is no proof. Some evolutionists I discuss with says science doe not prove thins. That is absurd and shows a lack of science. I have also never mentioned potential falsification.

Once something has been proved, it can't be falsified. "After their kind can be proved and can't be falsified.

 

[omega2xx]

Is this not a person born with 6 fingers on their hand instead of 5? http://www.se7ety.com/Files/Articles/Inline/87c870682b564b04b327e8bba9d156de.jpg

Was this child not born with a tail? https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...center,h_675,q_80,w_1200/1883d6jlb7tb0jpg.jpg

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...center,h_675,q_80,w_1200/1883d6jlb7tb0jpg.jpg

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

Furthermore, what makes you think a change in species demands any extreme outward physical changes? In animals, species are populations which freely interbreed to produce fertile offspring, no more and no less. A population of a lizard species doesn't have to suddenly grow a second head or feathers to branch off as an independent species.

No species of lizard evolved from anoher species of lizard.

In any case, I am not claiming that a singular mutation can usually result in a species transition. It is multiple mutations over time. Your assertion that mutations cannot cause a drastic change in body parts is easily demonstrably false (I could flood this whole thread with additional examples aside from the two I presented), and as there is no biological limit to how many mutations can occur in a lineage, there is nothing preventing mutations from building up over time to result in a new species.

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

 

[Jimmy D]

Since you think you know everything. Post what I have said that is wrong with the evidence that makes it wrong.

Then post the evidence for natural selection, which I say is not true.

I have never said their is no proof. Some evolutionists I discuss with says science doe not prove thins. That is absurd and shows a lack of science. I have also never mentioned potential falsification.

Once something has been proved, it can't be falsified. "After their kind can be proved and can't be falsified.

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?