Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 73069806" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>I'll ask as I ask every evolutionist.</p><p></p><p>What evidence?</p><p></p><p>Fossils that remain the same for every single creature from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type of creature?????</p><p></p><p>New forms that appear suddenly in the fossil record without intermediaries, similar to the variation appearing that we see in dogs????</p><p></p><p>Don't get me wrong, I understand that if they had never seen a dog in real life, but only found bits and pieces of their fossil remains, They would conclude that they were separate species and that evolution from one species to another had occurred. This is understandable. Incorrect, but understandable being they have never observed these creatures in life...</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]238080[/ATTACH] </p><p></p><p>So with only bits and pieces to go from, it is not surprising at all that they simply mistake variation "within" the species as variation into new species.</p><p></p><p>Variation is not surprising, can you not see the variation capable "within" a species?</p><p></p><p>Evolution is nothing but incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications, error after uncorrected error. They can't even consistently classify what is a species because they have no consistent definition, so it is no wonder they have a "species problem" and classify 60% of the fossil record incorrectly.</p><p></p><p>Or perhaps we would care to look at fruit flies...</p><p></p><p>"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.</p><p></p><p> “A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” Nilsson, p. 1186."</p><p></p><p>None of them are found in nature, they can only survive in the favorable conditions of the laboratory where there is no competition and food is provided.... And they are all still "Fruit Flies"........</p><p></p><p>There is no evidence for evolution except incorrect classification of species, due to that "species problem".......</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 73069806, member: 332164"] I'll ask as I ask every evolutionist. What evidence? Fossils that remain the same for every single creature from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type of creature????? New forms that appear suddenly in the fossil record without intermediaries, similar to the variation appearing that we see in dogs???? Don't get me wrong, I understand that if they had never seen a dog in real life, but only found bits and pieces of their fossil remains, They would conclude that they were separate species and that evolution from one species to another had occurred. This is understandable. Incorrect, but understandable being they have never observed these creatures in life... [ATTACH=full]238080[/ATTACH] So with only bits and pieces to go from, it is not surprising at all that they simply mistake variation "within" the species as variation into new species. Variation is not surprising, can you not see the variation capable "within" a species? Evolution is nothing but incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications, error after uncorrected error. They can't even consistently classify what is a species because they have no consistent definition, so it is no wonder they have a "species problem" and classify 60% of the fossil record incorrectly. Or perhaps we would care to look at fruit flies... "Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105. “A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” Nilsson, p. 1186." None of them are found in nature, they can only survive in the favorable conditions of the laboratory where there is no competition and food is provided.... And they are all still "Fruit Flies"........ There is no evidence for evolution except incorrect classification of species, due to that "species problem"....... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?
Top
Bottom