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

[KWCrazy]

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

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. - evolutionist Boyce Rensberger

This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe.

In other words, they had no direct relationship with each other.

More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.

source

Not one bit of science went into the lie of horse evolution, only the arrangements of drawings that were lined up to show progression by dishonest people trying to prove a theory without evidence. It's the same with the fish to man chart and the dino to bird chart. Drawing pictures is NOT science. Sitting in your dad's basement pretending to be someone your not doesn't make you a scientist. Evolution is nothing more than a false religion that people latch on to because the existence of a real God is too scary to comtemplate. It's lie on top of falshood on top of distortion.

 

[verysincere]

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.

It takes a lot for me to start feeling sympathetic and embarrassed for the Young Earth Creationists and anti-evolution people who are cringing as they read KW's Crazy-ness. But I do agree with a previous post which labelled KW intent on mocking and marginalizing the YEC position. At the very least, there is some sort of satirical role-playing exercise at work----perhaps seeing just how extremely absurd he can take his arguments (and even his definitions) before he grows tired of the attention. If I were still a Young Earth Creationist, I would be very angry that someone would be working so hard to discredit my position on origins.

---------------------------------------

And for those who are interested in the topic of dishonest quote-mines, see Quote #3.4 at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

....for a full context and exposure of his popular there's-no-horse-evolution ploy misusing the Boyce Rensberger quotation.

As a Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I hasten to emphasize that neither the teachings of Jesus nor the Biblical texts in general justify bearing false witness for the sake of the Kingdom. And obviously, most of the world's Christians have no problems with evolutionary processes, deep time, and the entire panoply of scientific evidence we observe throughout creation. The teaching of Christ should not be evaluated based upon the behaviors or traditions of a particular sect(s) which claims to be the only reliable spokesmen for the scriptures.

 

[KWCrazy]

This incorrect,

It is NOT incorrect! Pasteur showed that life comes only from life. Even under a controlled environment in a lab scientists can't create life. Knowing what we now know about chirality we know that the possiblity of even one protein forming under natural circumstances is extremely unlikely, and that the formation of 200 left handed proteins perfectly sequenced is a mathematical absurdity. Abiogenesis has been falsified as surely as alchemy; which I suppose you will try to defend as well.

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.

You aren't mentioning that he bucked "science" in the process, and by providing a perfect environment for new life nothing happened because life comes only from life. For 150 years science has been trying to prove that something can "evolve" into something else. It never has.

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.

Common descent is falsified by the very fact that it has no proof, only comparable DNA in plants and animals with the same Creator. I can make tacos, burritos, tostados, fajitas or taco salad with the exact same ingredients. The only difference is the structure and appearance of each. We have one Creator and one perfect blueprint for life. In that structure, humans have 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil. If evolution were true, especially if abiogenesis were true, we would have unrelated life forms that developed with a different blueprint. The commonalitity of all living things buoy the common creation every bit as much if not more than common descent. However, symbiotic reltionships within the plant and animal kingdom are problematic for creation deniers. They suggest near simultaneous creation and a circle of life that was designed from the beginiing.

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.

NO! You would claim that they PROVE descent because those characteristics were carried over from earlier branches of descent.

the more parsimonious reason is not that common descent is unfalsifiable, it's that it has not been falsified.

Neither has special creation. Falsification is subjective. I look at the inerrrant word of God and the entire ToE is falsified. I've seen nothing which would make me believe more in the science of man than in the word of God. At 50, I've seen a LOT of things that buoy my faith in God; many of which science could not and would not ever explain. Considering that only 15% of Americans are atheists and 25% of Americans say they've experienced a miracle, I'd say I'm in good company.

You've never heard of mutations?

Condescending tripe. I heard about mutations in kindergarten.

And could you explain, in terms of genetics, what you mean by "new information"

New information is information that doesn't exist. For example, humans and frogs have different DNA. However, for common deescent to be true, the genetic information for ALL living things must reside in ALL living things. For a fish to become an amphibian it must have the information to form lungs. For the amphibian to gro legs it must have that information. For it it sprout wings it must have that information. Either that new gentic information has to magically develop; a process that does not exist in nature; or the fish must carry the genetic information to become either a butterfly or a buffalo.

Either new information has to form, or it all had to exist with the earliest abiogenesis created cell.

There are numerous errors in this paragraph. Fossils are remains showing evidence of a being living or doing something in the past.

I would hope that was in the past, though my sixth grade math teacher was a fossil; or so we called him.

And no, they aren't "buried under sediment under intense pressure all at once".

Most are. Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock and show no signs of decay. Some fossilized clams were found still closed. though when it dies a clam shell opens.
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.
Except that chalk formations seem to have formed without any land derived sediment.

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.

For common descent to be true, it would have to be a possibility. You can say that genetic information is lost through adaptation, but if that was the case then every more advanced species would have LESS information that the lesser advanced species that preceded it. Either that our you're going to have to figure out how a fish grows feet, because for evolutionary ascent to happen you have to get the genetic information from somewhere.

 

[KWCrazy]

If I were still a Young Earth Creationist, I would be very angry that someone would be working so hard to discredit my position on origins.

Obviously you have no concept of analogy, so I'll explain using small words so you can understand. I was told that the reason there is no evidence of a dino-bird is because they are dead. Similarly, I used the same argument for other mythical creatures. Inventing something that must be so because it fits the theory is the reverse of the scientific method. There is every bit as much evidence for Godzilla as for your mythical 'tweeners.

As a Bible-affirming Christ-follower,

You can say that with a straight face? You are on a CHRISTIAN web site attacking the Bible and preaching the false religion of evolution. You've denied everything the Bible states while pretending to be some Biblical expert. When pressed for the original translations, you never provide them. You call Genesis a lie. You call the Great Flood a lie. When Jesus confirmed that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; that the flood happened; and that God created the first man and woman you are calling Jesus a liar. For what intent? Do you follow a liar or did Christ tell the truth? If Christ told the truth when He spoke of Noah, then are you lying?

What part of the Bible to you affirm? What aspects of Christ do you follow and which parts do you consider a lie? I suspect that everything you've ever posted on here is a fraud. I expect atheists to attack the Bible, but I do NOT expect that from "Bible-affirming Christ followers." You are here to deceive and to tell people that everything in their Bible is wrong. Not once have you validated that claim. You say that you are an expert on the original text, and yet there seems to be no portion of it with which you agree.

Tell me what you DO believe. Give proof that the Bible is wrong and I may have more respect for your opinion. As it stands. you have all the traits of a pretender who has no other goal than to undermine the faith of others. Demonstrate some credibility or join the ignore list.

I hasten to emphasize that neither the teachings of Jesus nor the Biblical texts in general justify bearing false witness for the sake of the Kingdom.

For whose kingdom are you bearing false witness??

And obviously, most of the world's Christians have no problems with evolutionary processes,

Distortion. Irrelevant. The Bible is not authenticated by consensus, but by the Word itself. Most people don't beleive in Jesus. However, Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the light. Nobody comes to the Father but by me." So will a Muslim come to God? Not according to Jesus. Are Muslims religious? Very! God isn't interested in the intensity of your faith in religion. God is interested in your faith in Christ.

The teaching of Christ should not be evaluated based upon the behaviors or traditions of a particular sect(s)

This distortion is getting old. There are at least a couple dozen contemporary Bibles, all of which say the same thing in different words. It's not a matter of "sects." That is a blatant lie and you know it. We're talking about the word of God, not any religious belief NOT founded in the word. Validate your claim or never post to me again.

 

[KWCrazy]

And to the mods: You can call this flaming if you want, but it isn't. When you claim to be an expert on the Bible and you do nothing but attack everything it says, that we have the right to know upon what text or translation that is based. VerySincere has basically called the word of God a collection of lies and has called those who believe in it members of fringe sects. We have a right to know the basis of his allegations.

 

[Split Rock]

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

The question should be why are you trotting out old discredited distortions? Horse evolution was never discredited, which you would know if you had actually read either of the links I provided.... but you didn't, did you? Instead you relied on professioanl creationist lies about horse evolution. Horse evolution is more complicated than was originally thought, when it was invisioned as a straight lineage leading directly to the modern horse, Equus. We now know that the lineage that lead to Equus was just one of many branches of a complex tree. Nevertheless, we have most of the parts of that tree, including horses with three toes and even horses with one toe and two long splints. All the transitions are represented in the fossil record, which is exactly what you asked for. As usual, it isn't enough, and in fact, you won't even bother examining the real evidence. All you do here is troll and repeat creationist "talking points." You haven't bothered to answer any of my other questions either... Have you figured out what you are asking for when you refer to "information" yet?

 

[KimberlyAA]

It does not confuse the meaning of evolution at all. If you're going to use evolution to explain the diversity & abundance of life you see around you then you have to be able to answer those fundamental questions like "how did life originate?" & "how did the DNA code originate"? They also, ask about mutations, natural selection, biochemical pathways, multicellular life, sex, living fossils & chemistry. All of these are pertinent to evolution & are good honest questions that need to be asked. Idk why it bothers you so much. Maybe you can answer all.

 

[AV1611VET]

And to the mods: You can call this flaming if you want, but it isn't. When you claim to be an expert on the Bible and you do nothing but attack everything it says, that we have the right to know upon what text or translation that is based. VerySincere has basically called the word of God a collection of lies and has called those who believe in it members of fringe sects. We have a right to know the basis of his allegations.

Don't let this guy wear you down, KW.

Ignore his, "Yea, hath God said?" tirades, and instead ...

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not confuse the meaning of evolution at all. If you're going to use evolution to explain the diversity & abundance of life you see around you then you have to be able to answer those fundamental questions like "how did life originate?" & "how did the DNA code originate"? They also, ask about mutations, natural selection, biochemical pathways, multicellular life, sex, living fossils & chemistry. All of these are pertinent to evolution & are good honest questions that need to be asked. Idk why it bothers you so much. Maybe you can answer all.

I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.

All they can come up with is a vague term ... abiogenesis ... which simply means, "it wasn't biogenesis."

 

[sfs]

Ever read anything about you're own theory?

Yes, many things.

Evolution supposedly took millions of years. How is it that there aren't ANY dino-birds? Not a single one!

How is that you don't know about all of the many "dino-birds" that have been found? Are you just making stuff up?

And of course: no calculations to back up his claim that there should be millions of transitional bird fossils. No evidence to back up claim that there aren't any transitionals. No response when shown evidence of mutations that add information. No response when shown evidence that scientists do think abiogenesis is possible. No response to photos of transitional fossils that he claimed didn't exist.

In short, a whole lot of nothing from this guy.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

First, there is no such thing as devolving. Second, being smaller does not mean that a species is less fit.

Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't.

I will repeat my question, since you seem to have ignored it again.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between non-avian dinosaurs and modern birds?

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.

And yet you are confident that none of them of them have living descendants. How can that be?

 

[Loudmouth]

The horse transitional lie was proved false over 50 years ago.

How was it discredited?

 

[Split Rock]

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. - evolutionist Boyce Rensberger

Oh goody.. a quote mine! Don't bother responding to the evidence I provided you with out of context quotes. And oh, btw.. Boyce Rensberger isn't an "evolutionist," he is (or was) a reporter for the Houston Chronicle. Your quote mine source didn't bother to explain that, did it??
Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

Maybe you should actually read the links I provided you.

This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe.

In other words, they had no direct relationship with each other.

Absolute nonsense. All the species are from North America. They are not from vastly different periods. Read the links, instead of creationist lies from "Creation Ministry" websites.

More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.

Oh great... the "Eohippus was a hydrax" lie. I have a little challenge for you... Do a Google search for "Eohippus skull" and another one for "Hydrax skull" and then tell me if they are similar.

source

Not one bit of science went into the lie of horse evolution, only the arrangements of drawings that were lined up to show progression by dishonest people trying to prove a theory without evidence. It's the same with the fish to man chart and the dino to bird chart. Drawing pictures is NOT science. Sitting in your dad's basement pretending to be someone your not doesn't make you a scientist. Evolution is nothing more than a false religion that people latch on to because the existence of a real God is too scary to comtemplate. It's lie on top of falshood on top of distortion.

Garbage. The scientists are the ones going out there into the desert, or other inhospitible locations and digging these fossils up. The lying professional creationists you thing so highly of are the ones sitting on their coach looking for quotes they can take out of context and post to their favoritie "Creation Minisitry" websites for lemmings like you to read and gobble up like gluttons. Then you come here and regurgitate it all for us.

Please read the links I provided you. Or are you afraid of the truth?

 

[Tomk80]

It does not confuse the meaning of evolution at all. If you're going to use evolution to explain the diversity & abundance of life you see around you then you have to be able to answer those fundamental questions like "how did life originate?" & "how did the DNA code originate"?

Given that evolution pertains to the development of life from other life, with DNA already present, we do not have to be able to answer those questions.

They also, ask about mutations, natural selection, biochemical pathways, multicellular life, sex, living fossils & chemistry.

No, they do not.

All of these are pertinent to evolution & are good honest questions that need to be asked.

Of course the latter questions are pertinent to evolution. And yes, the latter are good and honest questions. We just do not need to know anything about the origin of life and the origin of DNA to be able to answer them. In fact, we can answer all of them without knowing exactly how the origin of life happened.

Idk why it bothers you so much. Maybe you can answer all.

It doesn't bother us. You are just portraying your ignorance by stating that it does.

 

[KWCrazy]

no calculations to back up his claim that there should be millions of transitional bird fossils.

Hey, you're the ones claiming that millions of years overcomes the impossibilities of creating entirely new species. If that's the case, then there should either be millions of 'tweeners or some very strange looking million year old mutants. 'Ain't seen neither!

No evidence to back up claim that there aren't any transitionals.

How do you evidence a negative? You haven't provided me evidence there is no Godzilla, either.

No response when shown evidence of mutations that add information.

I don't actually live on here, but if you have this magical evidence I'll go back and try to find it.

No response when shown evidence that scientists do think abiogenesis is possible.

Since when is science even remotely interested in what people think? Science, at least when I was in school, was about what people could PROVE! It has been prved that life only comes from life. Until you prove life anc be created from no life, then abiogenesis remains inpossible. If you want to teach abiogenesis, then I DEMAND you give equal time to unicorns, flying horses and Godzilla.

No response to photos of transitional fossils that he claimed didn't exist.

Or what you CLAIM are transitional fossils. I could look at a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and show transition. That doesn't make it so. Science is about what you can prove. I haven't seen any proof.

 

[Person of]

YEC logic=

Conspiracy nut=YEC: Where did the hamburger come from?

Answerer: I don't know.

Conspiracy nut=YEC: Then it doesn't exist.

Answerer: But it's right in front of your face.

Conspiracy nut=YEC: I need to know the the exact address of where it came from, the exact time it was made, who made it, how tall was he, what clothes he was wearing, and his place of birth and date of birth with the exact time and a recorded video of his birth.

Answerer: BUT it's right in front of your face!

Conspiracy nut=YEC: I don't see anything.

Answerer: It's right here!

Conspiracy nut=YEC: Lalalalalalalalalal I don't see anything

 

[Loudmouth]

[/COLOR]
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.

How did Pasteur's experiments disprove the hypothesis that RNA replicators can give rise to life? Please tell us. What methods did Pasteur use to test for RNA replicators? What volumes and time periods did Pasteur use to model the early Earth?

Kind of like "God can exist but he must be a bald faced liar," huh?

I am not the one claiming that the Bible must be interpretted so that it is contradicted by the evidence. That would be you.

If you have no science to back origination, then you have no science to support subsequent changes in that life form.

Complete baloney. We don't need to know where germs came from in order to conclude that germs cause disease. In the same vein, we don't need to know where the first life came from in order to understand how life changed once it was here. You have not offered any rebuttal to this argument at all, except to repeat your false claims.

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

Humans and their common ancestor with other apes was also an ape. Humans are still apes. Humans and their common ancestor with mammals was a mammal, and humans are still mammals. Humans and their common ancestor with vertebrates was a vertebrate, and humans are still vertebrates. Humans and their common ancestor with eukaryotes was a eukaryote, and humans are still eukaryotes.

Evolution is apes producing apes, mammals producing mammals, vertebrates producing vertebrates, and eukaryotes producing eukaryotes. This is the same as dogs producing dogs and cats producing cats.

Commonality cannot be shown to prove descent.

Yes, it can, and it has.

If it's not falsifiable it isn't science.

It is absolutely falsifiable. All you need to find to falsify common descent through evolution is to find clear and consistent violations of a nested hierarchy. For example, a species with teats and feathers would clearly violate the predictions made by evolution. You can also falsify common descent temporally by finding a rabbit in Precambrian strata. Using our ERV example, you can show that there is no nested hierarchy amongst shared or non-orthologous ERV's. You are absolutely, flatly wrong with your arguments.

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.

We have observed the production of beneficial mutations. We have observed the production of new species. We have observed the insertion of retroviruses into genomes. We have even brought back ancient retroviruses by piecing together HERV-K insertions found in the human genome. Those are retroviral insertions because we observe that those sequences produce a retrovirus. We observe that beneficial mutations increase in frequency within populations. We observe every single step of evolution, and we observe the evidence I have been giving you.

Anyone reading this thread will see a creationist who refuses to look at the evidence.

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.

No, it wouldn't. All it would require is a change in the information that is already present. It does not require new information from nothing as you have required. Evolution does not need to do the things you require of it in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. You have defined "new information" in a way that is completely irrelevant to how evolution really works.

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

You and I don't have the exact same characteristics. You and I don't have the same DNA. Does that mean that we were each separately created? Or do we share a common ancestor?

Also, all eukaryotes, including protists, animals, and plants do share characteristics.

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

And you illustrate your ignorance of biology once again. An existing species does not evolve into another already existing species. That's not how it works. Also, all descendants of mice will be mice, no matter how much they change. You do not evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we are STILL MAMMALS. Evolution is descent with modification, not descent into something completely different, or something that already exists.

No fossil has ever been shown to transition into anything else.

What are the criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

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 dating of the rocks around them show that they were not formed recently, nor at the same time across the globe. While rapid burial may be important for some fossils, that in no way demonstrates that they were buried by a recent global flood. Local floods happened throughout history.

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.

Every person is born with encoded DNA that is not found in either parent. Every person has a genome that has never existed before they were born.

Also, evolution does make species repeat their ancestry. In order for humans to be evolving they don't have to grow gills. That is the most pathetic attempt at an argument against evolution that I have seen in a while. If anything, the evolution of whales shows how wrong you really are.

And yet they co-exist. Amazingly, no human ever gives birth to a chimp or vice versa.

Why would this need to occur in order for humans and chimps to share a common ancestor. In order for you to share a common ancestor with your cousins, do you have to give birth to you cousins? Of the mutations that occur in your cousins, how do those transfer over to your genome?

Do you even understand how inheritance works? Here you are lecturing us on how stupid evolution is, and yet you can't even understand the basics of inheritance. What does that tell you?

If we were so closely related, why is it that no mutation ever causes the erasure of those differences?

For the same reason that we do not see the same Powerball lottery results in every drawing. The chances of a reverse mutation occuring is 1 in 3 billion. The chances of a mutation resulting in a novel sequence is 2,999,999,999 in 3,000,000,000.

Childish and asinine.

Answer the question. Do we need to rule out God planting fingerprints if we use forensic evidence in court? If not, then why would we need to rule out God planting ERV's in genomes?

I disagree with your misinterpretations of evidence.

Then demonstrate how the evidence has been misinterpretted.

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.

I don't need faith. I have evidence to back my conclusions.

 

[sfs]

Hey, you're the ones claiming that millions of years overcomes the impossibilities of creating entirely new species. If that's the case, then there should either be millions of 'tweeners or some very strange looking million year old mutants. 'Ain't seen neither!

Still no calculations. Now with a new claim, that the creation of "entirely new" species is impossible. Evidence for this claim, please.

How do you evidence a negative? You haven't provided me evidence there is no Godzilla, either.

Well, you could read the responses people write to you. Or you could pick up a book, or read a Wikipedia page. Pretty much anything at all you tried would show you that transitional fossils exist.

I don't actually live on here, but if you have this magical evidence I'll go back and try to find it.

Sorry, I don't deal in magical evidence -- just the physical kind. (As a matter of interest, do you have some goal in mind with your continual sarcasm? It's not making you look very good.) The evidence I gave was here

Since when is science even remotely interested in what people think? Science, at least when I was in school, was about what people could PROVE!

The deficiencies in your science education can still be remedied, if you put in some work.

It has been prved that life only comes from life. Until you prove life anc be created from no life, then abiogenesis remains inpossible.

No, it has never been proven that life only comes from life. If you think otherwise, please present the "proof". (And no, Pasteur certainly didn't prove that life can only come from life.) To further your science education a little, let me tell you that if something isn't known to be possible, it doesn't automatically become impossible.

If you want to teach abiogenesis, then I DEMAND you give equal time to unicorns, flying horses and Godzilla.

By all means, make your demands; the views and evidence of scientists are likely to carry a little more weight, however. And if you want to have the slightest effect on scientists, you'll have to start presenting real evidence and valid arguments.

In any case, I don't want to "teach abiogenesis", since there is no coherent scientific model for abiogenesis to teach. Hypotheses about abiogenesis should be taught, but should be presented as hypothetical, and evidence for and against different ideas should be presented.

Or what you CLAIM are transitional fossils.

No, what experts in fossils claim are transitional fossils. You said there weren't any. There are.

I could look at a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and show transition. That doesn't make it so. Science is about what you can prove. I haven't seen any proof.

Science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. There is abundant evidence that some fossils are transitional (and far more evidence for evolution from other fields). Of course you haven't seen it, since you've never looked for and won't look at it even when shown. You don't want evolution to be true, and so you bluster and rage while keeping your eyes screwed shut against any and all evidence. People like you are great at convincing scientists that religion is for people who are scared of reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, you're the ones claiming that millions of years overcomes the impossibilities of creating entirely new species.

I already showed you the math. Only a tiny portion of the mutations that have occurred in our lineage need to be selected for in order to produce the differrences we see between us and other ape species. There is nothing impossible about it.

How do you evidence a negative? You haven't provided me evidence there is no Godzilla, either.

Why do you insist on using negative arguments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Since when is science even remotely interested in what people think? Science, at least when I was in school, was about what people could PROVE!

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 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.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

​

That is the test. You compare the ERV's found in humans and other apes, and see if they are found at the same loci. If they are, and if they fall into the expected nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution, then it is proof that we share a common ancestor. We have shown you the science, but you refuse to accept it.

It has been prved that life only comes from life.

That is all that evolution requires.

Until you prove life anc be created from no life, then abiogenesis remains inpossible.

So until someone built an airplane powered flight was impossible? Or was it possible the entire time?

Until Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, it was impossible? Was there some sort of force field that magically disappeared that day? Or was it possible the entire history of the Moon?

If you want to teach abiogenesis, then I DEMAND you give equal time to unicorns, flying horses and Godzilla.

Why can't we teach the actual science that is going on in the field of abiogenesis?

Or what you CLAIM are transitional fossils. I could look at a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and show transition. That doesn't make it so. Science is about what you can prove. I haven't seen any proof.

So what would make it so? What features does a transitional fossil need according to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Conspiracy nut=YEC: Where did the hamburger come from?

Answerer: I don't know.

Try this one:

Q: Where did the hamburger come from?

A: It came from a process known as ameatgenesis.