Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[OllieFranz]

Logically flawed?

Yes, Logically flawed. The logic used in the form of your argument is flawed. VerySincere broke down the form of your argument by taking out the premise and conclusion and replacing them with generic (empty) statements. to highlight that the flaw was in the logic itself. And you responded with four more examples of the same flawed logic.

If you believe in abiogenesis you understand nothing about chemistry or biology. If you believe in magical mutations that have never been shown to advance a species, you know nothing about science. If you think that the fossil record shows anything other than dead animals without any transitional fossils, you know nothing about the fossil record. I find your post quite laughable. If you had any evidence whatever of th three things I mentioned you would have posted them, Instead you show the simpleness of your argument. It convinces nobody.

I'm ignoring the rest of this paragraph, because whether it is true or not, it does not change the flawed nature of the logic in the form the arguments take. Nowhere in my post did I even consider what your premises and conclusions were, much less whether or not they were true.

Actually, there are millions of theories. Every evolutionist seems to have his own, and all are quite convinced hey are right despite the lack of proof from either side.

We would probably disagree on what is meant by "millions of theories," but the very fact that you acknowledge that there are more than two indicates the fact that your statement that Verysincere's pointing out of the logical flaws in the form of your argument somehow validates his position. I did not see him advancing any position in that post. I know that I did not in mine.

Which is exactly what your post just did.

Yes I did. I pointed out that your argument was logically flawed in its form. Therefore it is not a good argument. Just because your premise and your conclusion are true (which have not been established, or even considered in this case), it does not make a flawed argument a good argument. "The sky is blue, so it must be Tuesday" is not a good argument, even though the sky is blue and today is Tuesday. (The sky will still be blue tomorrow, but it will not be Tuesday.)

However, showing the contradictions in another's argument IS a good strategy. The arguments from science must be based only on science. There can be nothing supernatural like abiogenesis to help it along. The argument that there is a God but He lies about hoe He does things has no basis in either science or religion.

Again, your actual premises and conclusions do not enter into my analysis of the form of your argument. (Although I do have some thoughts on these statements that I can expand on in a later post if you are interested.)

If the facts of science contra-indicate your opinion, then you can't say that your opinion is scientifically sound.

True that, but I did not express an opinion of science. I only analyzed the logic of the form of your argument.

I've already taken a courses on logic. By what ignorance do you pretend to know my education?

My statement was based on the fact that you did not seem to understand that VerySincere was criticizing the form of your argument, or that it was logically flawed. Your response here seems to confirm that you do not understand logic.

You know nothing about me, and yet you try to make this personal. Understand, in debate we attack the argument. Losers attack their opponents.

It was not an attack. It was advice. If you want to be taken serious, you have to know the rules of the game. You don't. Because you don't, I didn't even look at your premises and conclusions. I didn't attack your argument because you don't have an argument to attack.

I may say that your argument is completely off base or that what you post has no scientific validity, but I don't pretend to know your level of education or lack thereof. Neither do I assail your character or integrity. That seems to be the fallback position of every evolutionist I encounter.

Amen, brother, you're there now. Learn to debate without bebasing. Your tone is hostile and your arguments are thin. We will not converse any more in the future. Congratulations on being the first to volunteer for my ignore list. Have a wonderful day.

Well, I tried. I guess you just don't want to be taken seriously.

 

[KWCrazy]

Everything you've written here is false.

Your lips move, but I can't hear what you say. If you are going to make a claim that what I say is false, then I expect you to document your assertion.

Show me the Nobel Prize winning chemist who successfully demonstrated abiogenesis.

Show me the evidence of benevolent mutations creating new genetic information from nothing and encoding it into the reproductive system.

Show me the "tweeners" in the fossil record, and the Nobel Prize winning evolutionist who discovered them.

I stated, "If you had any evidence whatever of the three things I mentioned you would have posted them." I didn't see the links on your post. I expect to see them on your next post. Everything I posted is easily disproved if any of these discoveries have been made lately that I am not aware of. You stating that I am wrong without evidence is a waste of pixles. I stated facts. Refute them or say nothing.

Do you know any scientists?

Irrelevant to the facts.

Have you read any scientific papers on abiogenesis or mutations or fossils or evolution?

Obviously I have, since I've posted links and you have not. I stated facts and you just choose not to believe them. I care nothing for your opinion. Give me verifiable facts or don't pretend that you know what you're talking about.

 

[And-U-Say]

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, any theory which defers to abiogenesis is scientifically invalid.

Present knowledge is NOT that abiogenesis is impossible. Again, your poor level of Science comprehension makes it impossible for you to understand why this is wrong.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species. Therefore, any theory which defers to benevolent mutations is scientifically invalid.

See above.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the fossil record shows creatures that lived and died without ancestors or descendants. Therefore, any theory which uses the fossil record to show common ancestry is scientifically invalid.

I could just keep saying "see above", but it gets repetitive. You absolutely must stop reading anything from AIG and the like. They lie to you. They are incompetent.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the reproductive cycle slows as size increases. Observations show that after thousands of generations of irradiation, fruit flies are still fruit flies. Therefore, any theory which pretends dinosaurs evolved into anything else is scientifically invalid.

<sigh>

We could do this all day.

Repetition of false knowledge does not magically start to make it true.

And yet after all this time evolutionists have yet to demonstrate even that evolution COULD happen; much less that it DID happen.

Wow! We live at just the right time in history to say that if we don't know it now, we will never know it! The progress of Science stopped at 10:22 AM EST today! Lucky you, all your claims will not be fulfilled because nothing will ever be discovered from here on out!

I know. It's sad how that validate your theory you rely on science that invalidates your theory.

No.

[The above illustrates why both the fabricated lies of evolutionists are slowly unravelling. The Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy is too easily exposed.]

This really doesn't translate well. you need to do a better job of rewording if your effort here is really going to make sense and have that snarky little effect that you are hoping for.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was referring in in nature, not inside the human body.

Your body is part of nature. Your body produces proteins through natural processes. If it is impossible for proteins to form, how can your cells do it?

...oxygen was evidently present on the early earth -- but the presence of oxygen prohibits the development of organic compounds...

Proteins don't need to form on Earth either. They can form in meteors, and could even have been transported from other planets such as Mars.

Let's play the reverse of your little game. Has anyone observed a deity forming proteins? No, you say? Then it had to be abiogenesis since magical poofing is impossible.

 

[Loudmouth]

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, any theory which defers to abiogenesis is scientifically invalid.

Argument from personal incredulity plus a false dichotomy. That is two logical fallacies for the price of one.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species.

Completely false.

The DNA differences between chimps and humans are examples of beneficial mutations in each lineage.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the fossil record shows creatures that lived and died without ancestors or descendants.

How can you tell from fossils whether or not they had parents of children? Please tell us how this is done.

Also, please tell us what a real transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes would look like. What features should it have? If you are going to claim that it doesn't exist you have to be willing to tell us what a real one would look like.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the reproductive cycle slows as size increases.

Gestation does weakly correlate with body size, but what does this have to do with anything.

Observations show that after thousands of generations of irradiation, fruit flies are still fruit flies.

And humans are still apes, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. Why is this a problem?

What mutations produce is fruit flies that never existed before then in the same way that humans are a species of ape that never existed, a species of mammal that never existed, and a vertebrate species that never existed up to that point. It would appear that you don't even understand how evolution works, and yet you have the audacity to claim that it doesn't happen.

We could do this all day.

Yes, we could use your posts to show others how logical fallacies work all day long.

And yet after all this time evolutionists have yet to demonstrate even that evolution COULD happen; much less that it DID happen.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/
​

Humans and chimps share hundreds of thousands of ERV insertions at the same location in their genomes. This is insanely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor with chimps. We have shown that evolution has occurred, and we have done so with evidence.

Where is the evidence that humans were magically poofed into being by a magical deity? You can present that evidence any time now.

It's sad how that validate your theory you rely on science that invalidates your theory.

How do ERV's invalidate evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you think that the fossil record shows anything other than dead animals without any transitional fossils, you know nothing about the fossil record.

Then please tell us what a real transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes should look like. Describe the features such a transitional should have, and then we will compare your criteria to the hominid fossils that have been found.

Are you up for it? Or are you just going to claim that no fossils is transitional because your religious beliefs force you to this conclusion?

However, showing the contradictions in another's argument IS a good strategy.

Let's review your flawed arguments thus far.

1. An argument from incredulity being used to against abiogenesis.

2. A false dichotomy being used to evidence creationism.

3. Unfalsifiable statements about fossils not being intermediate.

4. Empty assertions about species not having beneficial mutations.

5. Absolutely no evidence for creationism.

Does that about cover it?

The arguments from science must be based only on science.

Then ERV's are ample evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

I've already taken a courses on logic.

And yet you still commit the most common logical fallacies. Are you doing it on purpose?

 

[KWCrazy]

Present knowledge is NOT that abiogenesis is impossible. Again, your poor level of Science comprehension makes it impossible for you to understand why this is wrong.

Perhaps it's because everything I've read confirms that abiogenesis is impossible, and people like you are making assertions to the contrary without evidence. Again, if you can't validate what you say, say nothing. I've posted evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. There has been NOTHING posted to show where it has been replicated.

Since like the others who wish to attack my "poor level of science comprehension" you can't post anything to validate your opinion, I'll allow you one more post to evidence your claims ot be moved to the ignore list. I have no time for those who flame others with unfounded assertions. Put up or shut up.

Repetition of false knowledge does not magically start to make it true.

True, but that seems to be all your side has. Evidence your claim or say nothing.

Wow! We live at just the right time in history to say that if we don't know it now, we will never know it!

Actually, the intelligent man has never claimed that something has been the driving force of anything when it has never been proven to actually happen. When you state that benevalent mutations drove all the speciation in the world and yet no experiment has ever validated this claim, then you are lying. It's one thing to say that you BELIEVE it to be the process. It's quite another to attack an opposing viewpoint when the learned facts of science are on their side, not yours.

This really doesn't translate well. you need to do a better job of rewording if your effort here is really going to make sense

The above illustrates why the fabricated lies of evolutionists are slowly unravelling. The Argument from Personal Incredulity is too easily exposed. Better? Next time you want to challenge my facts do so with evidence. I've seen nothing but unfounded claims from your side. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if any of you understand any of it yourselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, if you can't validate what you say, say nothing.

Right back atcha.

You are aware that the presence of low amounts of oxygen does not mean that all places on Earth have oxygen present, right?

Currently, the bottom of lakes are anoxic. There is no oxygen present there. There are other places on Earth that lack oxygen, even now. Even more, the formation of proteins can occur on comets and meteors and then be seeded on Earth. So how exactly is the presence of proteins on an Early Earth impossible?

There has been NOTHING posted to show where it has been replicated.

Where has anyone observed a supernatural deity magically poofing life into being?

When you state that benevalent mutations drove all the speciation in the world and yet no experiment has ever validated this claim, then you are lying.

Compare the human and chimp genomes. Amongst those differences are the beneficial mutations that occurred in each lineage.

We could also look at pocket mice if you prefer:

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

That paper details the evolution of beneficial melanism in pocket mice due to beneficial mutations in the MC1R gene.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity is too easily exposed.

So says the person using the fallacy.

Next time you want to challenge my facts do so with evidence.

You are not offering facts. You are offering unfounded assertions.

 

[KWCrazy]

Your body is part of nature. Your body produces proteins through natural processes. If it is impossible for proteins to form, how can your cells do it?

I already posted the answer to that. I was referring to abiogenesis, not the internal functions of organs. The link demonstrated that proteins could not have formed in the environment, and further that the required pairs of left handed proteins could not form and sequence to produce even the simplest of life forms.

Proteins don't need to form on Earth either. They can form in meteors, and could even have been transported from other planets such as Mars.

Moving the petry dish doesn't change what's going on in that petry dish. Even if you somewhere found a magical planet where the conditions were perfect, 200 proteins would have to form at random, all of which must be left handed. Then that life form has to get onto a meteor and crash into earth, somehow surviving re-entry without burning up. Then it needs to find a food source and figure out how to reproduce. Panspermia theory just moves the impossibility. It doeosn't overcome it.

Let's play the reverse of your little game. Has anyone observed a deity forming proteins?

Why not just ask if anyone observed the diety creating life out of nothingness? The answer is "no," because Adam was the last one formed and he was asleep when God created Eve. However, nobody is suggesting that God as the creator of natural law is limited by it. Science cannot cite a supernatural creation and must rely on physical evidence. You have none.

magical poofing is impossible.

So is the resurrection, and every other miracle listed in the Bible. God has done the impossible since the beginning. Impossible miracles still happen, and they baffle science.

 

[Loudmouth]

[/COLOR]
I was referring to abiogenesis, not the internal functions of organs. The link demonstrated that proteins could not have formed in the environment, and further that the required pairs of left handed proteins could not form and sequence to produce even the simplest of life forms.

Where did that link show that? There are places with anoxic environments on the Earth right now, even though there is oxygen in the atmosphere. Also, you haven't even shown that proteins are necessary for abiogenesis to begin with.

Even if you somewhere found a magical planet where the conditions were perfect, 200 proteins would have to form at random, all of which must be left handed.

You haven't even shown that proteins are necessary.

Why not just ask if anyone observed the diety creating life out of nothingness? The answer is "no," because Adam was the last one formed and he was asleep when God created Eve.

Where is the evidence for this claim? If you can not present evidence, then by your own criteria it is impossible.

So is the resurrection, and every other miracle listed in the Bible. God has done the impossible since the beginning. Impossible miracles still happen, and they baffle science.

Evidence please. Last I checked, science is not baffled by humans writing mythology.

 

[Split Rock]

Show me the Nobel Prize winning chemist who successfully demonstrated abiogenesis.

There isn't any. That is why there is no theory of abiogenesis... only hypotheses. Have you accepted yet that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution explaining the diversity and distribution of life on earth? Yes or no, please.

Show me the evidence of benevolent mutations creating new genetic information from nothing and encoding it into the reproductive system.

Straw man argument. Why would anyone be able to show you something no one claims ever happens? Mutations obviously cannot create new genetic information from "nothing." That is not how it works.

Show me the "tweeners" in the fossil record, and the Nobel Prize winning evolutionist who discovered them.

There are plenty of transitionals in the fossil record. It is unlikely sufficient to gain a Nobel Prize nowadays, especially since there isn't one for Biology nor Paleontology. Some examples in any case:
1. The horse transitional series.. basically as complete as it gets: Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years Horse Evolution
2. Whale transitionals, including those with tiny rear legs: Philip D. Gingerich
3. Mammal-like reptiles... guess what they are transitional between? Often ignored by creationists because of the painful abundance of fossils: http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/410Cynodontia/410.000.html
4. Fishapods.. guess what they are transitional between? Tiktaalik being the most famous nowadays, but there are others as well. (No, it wasn't a crocodile): Devonian Times - Front Page

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps it's because everything I've read confirms that abiogenesis is impossible, and people like you are making assertions to the contrary without evidence.

God or Aliens could have planted a simple replicator on Earth, and then life could have evolved as proposed over the next 4 billion years. The theory of evolution would be unchanged if abiogenesis on Earth is false. Do you understand this or not? Do you understand that Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things?

Since like the others who wish to attack my "poor level of science comprehension" you can't post anything to validate your opinion, I'll allow you one more post to evidence your claims ot be moved to the ignore list. I have no time for those who flame others with unfounded assertions. Put up or shut up.

You continued equivocation of abiogenesis and evolution is one example.

When you state that benevalent mutations drove all the speciation in the world and yet no experiment has ever validated this claim, then you are lying. It's one thing to say that you BELIEVE it to be the process. It's quite another to attack an opposing viewpoint when the learned facts of science are on their side, not yours.

So are the DNA differences between humans and chimps harmful to humans and chimps? Or are they beneficial and neutral for the most part?

 

[KWCrazy]

Argument from personal incredulity plus a false dichotomy. That is two logical fallacies for the price of one.

False claim. I posted a link which supports my position. I have yet to see you post a validated example of abiogenesis.

The DNA differences between chimps and humans are examples of beneficial mutations in each lineage.

False. You can show commonality but not common descent. Benevolent mutations have never been observed or replicated, and have never produced new genetic information; only modified existing information.

How can you tell from fossils whether or not they had parents of children?

There are no verifiable transitional fossils. For example, if you claim that a dinosaur evolved into a chicken, there should be hundreds of in between species that were increasingly less dino and more fowl. There aren't. Evolutionists claim all fossils are transitional, but that's changing the evidence to match the theory not vice versa.

Also, please tell us what a real transitional between humans and a common ancestor with other apes would look like. What features should it have? If you are going to claim that it doesn't exist you have to be willing to tell us what a real one would look like.

You expect me to validate your claim? The problem with chimp-to-man is that both are humaniod and the skeletal structures of both are going to be close. Show me something more provable, like dino to rooster.

Gestation does weakly correlate with body size, but what does this have to do with anything.

The rarity of mutations require of thousand of generations to produce any significant change, even by evo standards. This get prohibitively time expansive as the gestation period slows.

What mutations produce is fruit flies that never existed before then in the same way that humans are a species of ape that never existed, a species of mammal that never existed, and a vertebrate species that never existed up to that point.

Yet, the experiment with fruit flies only produces fruit flies with messed uop wings that revert to normal in subsequent generations after the radiation is removed. That would indicate that inter-species mutations are transient.

It would appear that you don't even understand how evolution works, and yet you have the audacity to claim that it doesn't happen.

You don't appear to understand how God works either, and yet you have the AUDACITY to pretend that your unproven assertions have more validity than the Creator of the universe. Two can play at that, you know.

Yes, we could use your posts to show others how logical fallacies work all day long.

Just as we can use your posts to demonstrate how NOT to properly argue a point in debate.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/

Well, at least you attempt to validate a claim, which is more than your bretheren do. Let's look at the verbiage here. "(M)ultiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely.... Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor."
The problem is that showing commonality neither shows cause nor descent. A real scientist would never use the word "proof", but would rather say it shows "evidence." Proof is derived from a summation of evidence. Even a videotape taken at the scene of a crime is not called "proof," but "evidence." Proof has to be incontrovertible. Since we cannot know the mind of the Creator and why He chose to create exactly as He did, we cannot rule out that such a physical design has a purpose which we simply have not discovered. I could show you my driver license as evidence of my current residence, but since I could have moved or used a fake address, it is not incontrovertible proof.

Humans and chimps share hundreds of thousands of ERV insertions at the same location in their genomes. This is insanely strong evidence that we share a common ancestor with chimps.

It could also show that the same Creator at the same time in the same location used the same blueprint for life to create each out of the same elements. While that is actually one of the more compelling cases for descent (the phony skull arrangement doesn't cut it), it is still only proof for the person who accepts it in exclusion to rebuttal evidence. Personally, I've seen far greater evidence of the existence of God. Perhaps you have not.

We have shown that evolution has occurred, and we have done so with evidence.

No, you have shown commonalities which could be caused by descent, but you have not disproven all other possibilites.

Where is the evidence that humans were magically poofed into being by a magical deity?

Again, you have to look at the totality of the evidence, much of which you only find if you actually seek the Creator. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to those who seek it, but as Jesus pointed out, God remains in secret to the world. There is no physical proof that God exists. If there was, there would be no element of faith, and faith alone is the salvation of mankind.

How do ERV's invalidate evolution?

They don't, but neither do they offer conclusive proof to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

 

[sfs]

Your lips move, but I can't hear what you say.

I don't think you're supposed to admit that.

If you are going to make a claim that what I say is false, then I expect you to document your assertion.
Show me the Nobel Prize winning chemist who successfully demonstrated abiogenesis.

I didn't say that science had showed that abiogenesis was possible; I said that you were wrong to say that science had shown it to be impossible. See the difference? There are certainly Nobel prize winners who think abiogenesis is possible. Start with Jack Szostak's lab

Show me the evidence of benevolent mutations creating new genetic information from nothing and encoding it into the reproductive system.

Here is an example that was published last month. They started with bacteria that lacked a gene for a key function (tryptophan synthesis), and they watched while an existing gene first evolved a weak ability to provide the needed function, then duplicated into two copies, each of which evolved further to specialize, one for the original function and one for the missing function. End result: new information in the genome, beneficial to the organism, passed on to offspring, and all the product of mutation and natural selection.

Show me the "tweeners" in the fossil record, and the Nobel Prize winning evolutionist who discovered them.

Here is Philip Gingerich's web page, which provides lots of information about the transitional fossils of early whales he's dug up, including photos. (He's not a Nobel Prize winner -- you don't win a Nobel just for finding transitional fossils.)

I note that you did not answer my questions. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of any of the science involved here? Or are you repeating claims made by others?

 

[Loudmouth]

[/color]
False claim. I posted a link which supports my position. I have yet to see you post a validated example of abiogenesis.

You posted an article that claimed that oxygen was present on the early Earth. Nowhere did the article say that abiogenesis was impossible. You have no supported your case.

Even more, abiogenesis can be false but evolution can still be true. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.

False. You can show commonality but not common descent.

I can show that the commonality is due to common descent. That is what the ERV evidence demonstrates. We observe that common descent produces descendants with shared ERV's at the same locations in their genomes. We observe that retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of potential insertion sites within a genome. We observe that shared ERV's fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by common descent and evolution. The evidence is solid.

Nowhere do we observe supernatural deities inserting ERV's into genomes, and yet you want to ignore all of the above observations for your unevidence religious belief.

Benevolent mutations have never been observed or replicated, and have never produced new genetic information; only modified existing information.

First, the term is beneficial mutations. Second, you have yet to show that evolution needs to produce new genetic information as you define it. Modification of existing information is all that evolution needs to do in order to produce the biodiveristy we see today. Third, beneficial mutations have been observed and replicated such as the pocket mice referenced in the post above.

There are no verifiable transitional fossils.

What features would a real transitional fossil between humans and a common ancestor with apes look like? You can't claim that transitional fossils do not exist until you can tell us the criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

Evolutionists claim all fossils are transitional, but that's changing the evidence to match the theory not vice versa.

Then what would a real transitional look like?

You expect me to validate your claim?

I expect you to back your claims. You are claiming that transitional fossils do not exist. This requires you to have a working list of criteria to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. What are those criteria?

Show me something more provable, like dino to rooster.

What features would this type of transitional need in order to be transitional?

The rarity of mutations require of thousand of generations to produce any significant change, even by evo standards. This get prohibitively time expansive as the gestation period slows.

The rarity of mutations? What? You were born with between 50 and 150 mutations. They are hardly rare. With 7 billion people, that is 700 billion mutations in just one generation of humans. That is enough to cover the 3 billion base haploid human genome several fold in just one generation. Rare? Really?

Let's do even more math. Let's use a 25 year generation time, a steady population of 100,000 individuals, 5 million years since humans and chimps diverged, and 100 mutations per person per generation. In that time there have been 200,000 generations each with 100,000 individuals each with 100 mutations for a grand total of 2 trillion mutations, or 2x10^12. So how many mutations differ between chimps and humans? About 65 million mutational events. That is just 0.003% of the mutations that have happened. Mutations are certainly plentiful enough to produce the differences we see between humans and chimps.

Yet, the experiment with fruit flies only produces fruit flies with messed uop wings that revert to normal in subsequent generations after the radiation is removed. That would indicate that inter-species mutations are transient.

How would they revert to normal?

You don't appear to understand how God works either, and yet you have the AUDACITY to pretend that your unproven assertions have more validity than the Creator of the universe. Two can play at that, you know.

You haven't shown evidence of how God works. All we have are your empty assertions.

Well, at least you attempt to validate a claim, which is more than your bretheren do. Let's look at the verbiage here. "(M)ultiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely.... Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor."

The problem is that showing commonality neither shows cause nor descent.

Yes, it does show descent. There is no way of getting around it. It is proof.

Proof has to be incontrovertible. Since we cannot know the mind of the Creator and why He chose to create exactly as He did, we cannot rule out that such a physical design has a purpose which we simply have not discovered.

Oh please. What next? We have to throw out fingerprint evidence in court trials because God could have planted them? You are simply ignoring the evidence because it is inconvenient. No one has ever observed a supernatural deity inserting retroviral sequences into genomes. No one. Until you do present this evidence, then we will go with the observed mechanism of retroviral insertion.

It could also show that the same Creator at the same time in the same location used the same blueprint for life to create each out of the same elements.

Based on what evidence? Again, you might as well claim that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes.

While that is actually one of the more compelling cases for descent (the phony skull arrangement doesn't cut it), it is still only proof for the person who accepts it in exclusion to rebuttal evidence.

What rebuttal evidence? All we have is your unevidenced claims.

No, you have shown commonalities which could be caused by descent, but you have not disproven all other possibilites.

If I am a prosecuting attorney, do I have to disprove that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes.

I don't have to disprove that which is unevidenced. You claims about God putting ERV's into genomes is not eviedenced. It is an empty assertion.

Again, you have to look at the totality of the evidence, much of which you only find if you actually seek the Creator. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to those who seek it, but as Jesus pointed out, God remains in secret to the world. There is no physical proof that God exists. If there was, there would be no element of faith, and faith alone is the salvation of mankind.

You tell me that I am ignoring evidence, and then you claim that there is no evidence. You need to make up your mind.


They don't, but neither do they offer conclusive proof to the exclusion of all other possibilities.[/quote]

 

[Person of]

YEC=

 

[Split Rock]

False. You can show commonality but not common descent. Benevolent mutations have never been observed or replicated, and have never produced new genetic information; only modified existing information.

Beneficial mutations have been observed, though as I explained in a previous post, they of course modify existing information. That is the definition of a mutation.

Here's an example in any case: Glyphosate resistance in goosegrass caused by a single point mutation:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

There are no verifiable transitional fossils. For example, if you claim that a dinosaur evolved into a chicken, there should be hundreds of in between species that were increasingly less dino and more fowl. There aren't. Evolutionists claim all fossils are transitional, but that's changing the evidence to match the theory not vice versa.

I gave you a list of 4 sets of examples... I will give you time to look them over.

You expect me to validate your claim? The problem with chimp-to-man is that both are humaniod and the skeletal structures of both are going to be close. Show me something more provable, like dino to rooster.

Chimps are not normally called "humanoids." Why are they so much like us, btw? Is it one of God's little jokes that he made them so much like his "perfect" creation?

Yet, the experiment with fruit flies only produces fruit flies with messed uop wings that revert to normal in subsequent generations after the radiation is removed. That would indicate that inter-species mutations are transient.

I can give you a list of observed speciations, if you like.

 

[Split Rock]

Here is an example that was published last month. They started with bacteria that lacked a gene for a key function (tryptophan synthesis), and they watched while an existing gene first evolved a weak ability to provide the needed function, then duplicated into two copies, each of which evolved further to specialize, one for the original function and one for the missing function. End result: new information in the genome, beneficial to the organism, passed on to offspring, and all the product of mutation and natural selection.

A nice example, but note the entire request he made (emphasis mine):

"Show me the evidence of benevolent mutations creating new genetic information from nothing and encoding it into the reproductive system."

This shows either a startling lack of understanding of what mutations are and how they occur, or an intentional straw man argument.

 

[46AND2]

If you believe there is a God, then you think He's a liar. You believe that God lied when He told Moses how He created the world in six days. You believe He made up the forth commandment to support that lie. Further, you believe that Jesus was lying when He affirmed that the Torah was the inspired word of God; that God created the first man and union and ordained marriage; and that Noah was a real person who survived a floof that destroyed the rest of the world.


Interestingly, the god that you must believe in to support what you post cannot, by definition, be God.

I don't believe in God. But evolution has nothing to do with that lack of belief.

If I were to believe in God, then I would still accept evolution. One of two things would also be true in that case.

1. My interpretation of the Bible would not include a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. It is not God which contradicts evolution, but your interpretation of Genesis.

OR

2. I would indeed believe that God was a liar. What reason do you have to believe that he is not a liar? Because he said so? Is that not exactly what a liar would tell you? Couldn't a mischievous god exist?

If you would love to believe then you DON'T believe, which illustrates point number one.

Correct, I do not believe in God. This point number two was based on a reply to your comment which essentially said I wanted to believe in anything BUT God. This is an incorrect statement on your part.

Personally, I find the evidence of God's creation to be far more compelling. Having long ago accepted Christ as my personal savior, God has revealed Himself to me in many other ways. To the unbeliever, God remains in secret. It's only through faith that God reveals himself to man.

In reference to the part in bold: If this is the case, then God is unjust. For I, and many, many other people, belief is not possible without him revealing himself to us. I cannot simply chose to believe in something for which I have no evidence. Belief is not a choice. It's a conviction based on stimuli you have experienced. If God does not provide adequate stimuli, then I cannot believe.

The fossil record shows me only that there were a lot of animals that died suddenly and were encased in sediment; a sure sign of a great flood.

The fossil record cannot support the flood model. A flood could NEVER, EVER sort the fossils in the ORDER in which we find them. We also have fossils which were encased in subaerial volcanic rock, which also fits the same order that we see in sediment encased fossils.

We also have examples of fossils that were clearly weathered prior to being fossilized. Not all fossils were the result of immediate burial.

Geologists 200 years ago were creationists who specifically set out to try to find evidence to support the flood story of the Bible. They were honest enough to admit that the flood was wholly inconsistent with the geology that we see. If these people who studied it for a living could admit this, why can't you?

DNA evidence proves a common Creator. The evidence convinces you only of what you already believe. It can be interopreted either way, which is why there is still room for faith in a world of skeptics.

Then YOU believe in a lying God, because DNA is far more than just similarity between species. It provides a pattern that is wholly consistent with common descent. Some of these patterns are based on broken genes and inserted viruses. They are broken and inserted in exactly the same way in certain species.

And they are broken and inserted in the same pattern as what we had ALREADY determined by the pattern of similarity we had observed through other fields like paleontology, embryology, etc.

 

[CabVet]

A nice example, but note the entire request he made (emphasis mine):

"Show me the evidence of benevolent mutations creating new genetic information from nothing and encoding it into the reproductive system."

This shows either a startling lack of understanding of what mutations are and how they occur, or an intentional straw man argument.

I am pretty sure it is a combination of both: an exaggeration made because he lacks the understanding of what mutations are.