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

[46AND2]

The horse transitional lie was proved false over 50 years ago. Why do you trot out old discredited distortions?

In that case, it should be easy to point out what is wrong in Split Rock's source.

Please go on...

 

[sfs]

In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago.

Right. Because some guy on a web site knows more about science than all those dumb scientists with their PhDs and Nobel Prizes and stuff. Are you trying to make creationism look stupid? (That's a serious question: are you an anti-creationist making absurd statements to make creationists look bad?)

The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place.

Yes, it's quite obvious that birds were less fit to survive than dinosaurs, as can readily be checked by observing all of the dinosaurs roaming today's landscape, in stark contrast to the complete absence of birds in today's world.

Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other.

Please show your calculations.

Also, please respond to the links I gave you after you demanded them. And please tell us what your knowledge of science is based on, since you so willing to tell scientists how to do their jobs.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago. The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place. Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't. Third, no fossil can ever be proven to have reproduced. Just because something was born, lived and died was no promise that it produced anythingl let alone anything other than its own kind.

Less likely to survive? I see quite a few birds around and not many T-rexes. Perhaps it was beneficial?

 

[KWCrazy]

. Nowhere did the article say that abiogenesis was impossible. You have no supported your case.

Abiogenesis was proved impossible over 100 years ago. Life only comes from life. Believing that something which is impossible represents science is a shameful distortion.

Even more, abiogenesis can be false but evolution can still be true.

Kind of like "God can exist but he must be a bald faced liar," huh? If you have no science to back origination, then you have no science to support subsequent changes in that life form.

I can show that the commonality is due to common descent.

No you can't. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and life produces life. Commonality cannot be shown to prove descent. If it's not falsifiable it isn't science.

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.

You haven't observed the insertion of anything, nor have you observed the evolution of anything, nor has the evolution of any living thing been observed. There is no evidence of evolution. It is YOUR religious belief.

First, the term is beneficial mutations. Second, you have yet to show that evolution needs to produce new genetic information as you define it.

If a dinosaur has a snout and a duck has a beak, then it MUST produce new genetic information. There is no process in biology to account for it.

Modification of existing information is all that evolution needs to do in order to produce the biodiveristy we see today.

Argument from ignorance. Simple celled animals do not have the same characterists as huamnoids, which do not have the same DNA as plants.

Third, beneficial mutations have been observed and replicated such as the pocket mice referenced in the post above.

And yet, the mice remain mice. Call me when one becomes a rat.

I expect you to back your claims. You are claiming that transitional fossils do not exist.

No fossil has ever been shown to transition into anything else. Fossils are animals that were burried under sediment under intense pressure all at once. That gives evidence of a cataclysmic flood, not slow transition over millions of years. Fossils have to form very quickly. They did; under a flood.

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?

For your statement to have any validity it would require that at least one of those humans be born with gills or wings, or some other genetic information not previously encoded in it's DNA.

Mutations are certainly plentiful enough to produce the differences we see between humans and chimps.

And yet they co-exist. Amazingly, no human ever gives birth to a chimp or vice versa. If we were so closely related, why is it that no mutation ever causes the erasure of those differences?

Oh please. What next? We have to throw out fingerprint evidence in court trials because God could have planted them?

Childish and asinine.

You are simply ignoring the evidence because it is inconvenient.

I disagree with your misinterpretations of evidence.

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.

You put your faith in the false conclusions of evolution, and I'll put my faith in God. In the end, we'll see which theory is deleterious.

 

[KWCrazy]

Less likely to survive? I see quite a few birds around and not many T-rexes. Perhaps it was beneficial?

You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.

Yes, they're all long dead. Anything that came short of a bird in that line died. Your point?

 

[Golden Yak]

As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food.

Small animals do exist, though.

 

[CabVet]

You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.

Have you ever heard of birds?

 

[OllieFranz]

You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.

Have you ever heard of birds?

Yes. And I had chicken for dinner Sunday night, and I have a turkey in my freezer for Christmas.

(I'm sorry, but you just stepped into this one).

Still, the point you imply, and that Golden Yak stated stands. Small does not mean extinct.

In fact there is a lawsd in natural science that the smaller a species is, the more numerous it is. I forget the exact formula, but consider this: Many large mammals (man-sized and larger) have only one offspring at a time, and there are long gestation periods before the offspring is ready to come into the world. On the other hand, most insects lay thousands of eggs at a time. A lot of little guys mean some can escape the ravenous frogs, whereas if the lions cull a calf from the elephant herd, the mother has lost her entire genetic contribution to the future (at least for several years until she can bear another calf) and the herd loses a significant percentage of the whole investment for the future.

 

[Tomk80]

In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago. The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place. Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't. Third, no fossil can ever be proven to have reproduced. Just because something was born, lived and died was no promise that it produced anythingl let alone anything other than its own kind.

I notice that this in no way answered the question.

 

[USincognito]

In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago. The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place. Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't. Third, no fossil can ever be proven to have reproduced. Just because something was born, lived and died was no promise that it produced anythingl let alone anything other than its own kind.

Wow. Just wow...

The horse transitional lie was proved false over 50 years ago. Why do you trot out old discredited distortions?

What lie? What did they "prove false" over 50 years ago?

 

[USincognito]

(He's not a Nobel Prize winner -- you don't win a Nobel just for finding transitional fossils.)

I thought they handed the Nobel for Paleontology out between the one for Ornamental Hotriculture and the one for Daytime Television Production.

You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.

The vast majority of birds and mammals on Earth during the Jurassic and Cretaceous were very small even when compared to sauropod and larger theropod dinosaurs. Mammals didn't start getting big for quite some time and birds dominated (what was called until recently) the Tertiary.
The Rise of Birds
Phorusrhacidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a Youtube with how some Terror Bird species have made it into popular culture.
Terror birds - YouTube

 

[USincognito]

Abiogenesis was proved impossible over 100 years ago. Life only comes from life. Believing that something which is impossible represents science is a shameful distortion.

This incorrect, and I suspect it is because you're getting your science from Creationist websites. Pasteur falsified Spontaneous Generation, a concept that had been around since antiquity. Througout the millenia is proposed such things as clams and worms emerging from mud, geese from barnacles, maggots/flies from raw meat, rodents from grain and cloth, etc.

As you can see in each of these examples, they fully formed, adult or young of existing beings. Pasteur's experiment showed that if you create a closed system and make it sterile or nearly so, you don't have fully formed bacteria, mold or rodents spontaneously generating in that environment. The experiment had nothing to do with abiogenesis or the environment in which it took place.

No you can't. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and life produces life.

Who says any different? As populations evolve, they never stop being what they were. Dogs will always be dogs even if they subspeciate. They will also be caniforms, carnivores, therians, mammals, synapsids, etc.

Commonality cannot be shown to prove descent. If it's not falsifiable it isn't science.

It might not "prove" it, but it sure is powerful evidence for it. And who says it's not falisiable? If we studied sharks and dolphins or therian moles and marsupial moles and discovered they were more related to each other than different looking, but otherwise similarly classified animals, that would falsify evolution and common descent. We could find other things like birds with arms and wings, iguanas that had mammary glands, shrimp with backbones or jellyfish with vertebrate brains and any of those things would falisfy common descent.

We never find any of these things however and the more parsimonious reason is not that common descent is unfalsifiable, it's that it has not been falsified.

]If a dinosaur has a snout and a duck has a beak, then it MUST produce new genetic information. There is no process in biology to account for it.

You've never heard of mutations? And could you explain, in terms of genetics, what you mean by "new information".

No fossil has ever been shown to transition into anything else. Fossils are animals that were burried under sediment under intense pressure all at once. That gives evidence of a cataclysmic flood, not slow transition over millions of years. Fossils have to form very quickly. They did; under a flood.

There are numerous errors in this paragraph. Fossils are remains showing evidence of a being living or doing something in the past. The include plants, fungi and even bacteria in the form of Stromatolites. There are also trace fossils like footprints, raindrops, insect burrows, nests, etc. And no, they aren't "buried under sediment under intense pressure all at once".

The Messel pit from which Ida was unearthed, had an anoxic environment and lack of current at low depths. This meant that beings that died there and sunk to the bottom weren't scavanged and were slowly covered and preserved. Some other fossils, like chalk formations, simply can not form in turbid conditions and, in the case of chalk, have many other issues like the armount of carbon in the oceans at any given time so it's impossible they formed during The Flood.

And yet they co-exist. Amazingly, no human ever gives birth to a chimp or vice versa. If we were so closely related, why is it that no mutation ever causes the erasure of those differences?

That you ask this question and consider it legit tells me you're in way over your head here. I'd suggest doing less asserting and more requests for clarification.

Here's a helpful tip - nowhere in evoluitonary theory does it say a member of an extant species would give birth the a member of another extant or extinct species.

 

[sfs]

I thought they handed the Nobel for Paleontology out between the one for Ornamental Hotriculture and the one for Daytime Television Production.

I hear they'll be introducing one for Facebook posting soon.

 

[sfs]

Note the pattern: KWCrazy will make a (preposterous) claim about what science has shown. When countered with evidence that he's completely wrong, he'll drop the question as if it had never existed. A common creationist behavior, I'm afraid: interested only in supporting a pre-defined conclusion, never in learning something new.

 

[AV1611VET]

A common creationist behavior, I'm afraid: interested only in supporting a pre-defined conclusion, never in learning something new.

Speaking of learning something new, you do know that you're a creationist as well; don't you?

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is...

SOURCE

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, they're all long dead. Anything that came short of a bird in that line died. Your point?

My point is that you're taking something on FAITH which has no basis in science, which works contrary to natural selection, which has no evidence, and which meets exactly NO criteria to be considered a valid scientific theory. Yet you are pretending that it is. Either you're lying or you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Which is it? Natural selection does not take any species from predator to food.

In this you don't have any miracle of God to back you up because you take the pretext that if God exists He's a liar. You don't have science to back you up because there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to back what you're saying. You're repeating a religious belief that has no foundation and pretending that it is science.

 

[KWCrazy]

And what really amazes me is that even after all that people still believe what he had to say.

While the messenger was flawed, some of the points he made were still valid. For example, when he points out that long discredited claims and proven hoaxes are still in science books, that's easily proven by looking at one. When he points out that pertified trees have been found upright through multiple layers of strata that shows "dating by depth" is unreliable. However, it's not the things that he or others like him have said that wer just plain wrong that you object to. It's the things that poke gaping holes in the religion of evolution that make Darwinists truly hate the man. How DARE he point out flaws in the only excuse atheists have to proclaim that there is no God.

 

[KWCrazy]

Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other.
​

Please show your calculations.

Ever read anything about you're own theory? Evolution supposedly took millions of years. How is it that there aren't ANY dino-birds? Not a single one! You do not have ANYTHING to back the claim and yet you pretend it's science.

The theory would be much stronger if people didn't fill in the gaps with "must be's" and then pretend their conclusions are scientific.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, they're all long dead. Anything that came short of a bird in that line died. Your point?

Unicorns are all dead too. That's why you don't see them. Same with winged horses, dragons and Godzilla. They are all dead. Don't you DARE try to deny their existence, either. They existed because I said they did. That makes it a scientific fact, despite the fact that there isn't any evidence they ever lived.