Why Evolution is True (2)

[AustinMiles89]

What? How do you "know" this. It is another foolish and ridiculous statement. Speciation is shown when two species can still hybridize, but their offspring are usually sterile. That is why lions and tigers are different species. They can mate, but their offspring have very low fertility rates. The same applies to horses and donkeys. Mules, their offspring are almost always sterile. We can see speication in action too. Check out the concept of ring species some day.




Sorry, but that is pure creationist twaddle.

Now I gave you what you asked for. Are you going to be honest and move along or are you going to try to move the goal posts.

i posed a rational question for proof of one species evolving into another from within its own gene pool.
the lists you provided of observed speciation have shown only the rearrangement of existing genetic material.

but for the theory of evolution to hold, it requires the creation of new genetic material.

otherwise the observed speciation you have listed supports only adaptation, not evolution.

do you believe that the adaptations you listed are all that is required for single celled organisms to evolve into the variety of animals we see today?

 

[rockytopva]

How you are able to keep your cool and keep replying to their nonsense is beyond me.

Anger over such stuff... Hmmm... Sounds pretty demonic to me!

 

[Subduction Zone]

i posed a rational question for proof of one species evolving into another from within its own gene pool.
the lists you provided of observed speciation have shown only the rearrangement of existing genetic material.

No, you didn't. You posted a list of nonsense reasons why it evolution supposedly did not happen. I corrected you. Then I asked for your best example and I showed how we have observed speciation, true that is where evolution starts, but it is the one of the easiest forms of evolution to observe. I even gave you a chance to back out and pick some better "evidence" against evolution and you stuck with your speciation claim. So I gave two sources that listed several cases each of observed speciatioin.

but for the theory of evolution to hold, it requires the creation of new genetic material.

Yes. And that has been observed in the laboratory too.

otherwise the observed speciation you have listed supports only adaptation, not evolution.

No, I explained why it was more than adaption, namely the inability of hybrids between two populations to breed any longer. That shows evolution in progress. That is beyond adaptation.

do you believe that the adaptations you listed are all that is required for single celled organisms to evolve into the variety of animals we see today?

Now you are again nearing breaking the Ninth Commandment. That is a false witness. You know they were not adaptations. You lost this one. I will let you try once again with some different "evidence".

Meanwhile do you have any evidence for creationism? Supposed evidence for evolution is not evidence for creationism. If creationists had theory of creationism what could they predict that we would see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How you are able to keep your cool and keep replying to their nonsense is beyond me.

I have gotten in trouble a couple of times here for responding more appropriately towards dishonest people here. Though Miles has not been particularly dishonest yet. He has only been listening to dishonest people. You learn to keep your cool after a while.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anger over such stuff... Hmmm... Sounds pretty demonic to me!

You are kidding I hope. Sooner or later creationists tend to get annoyingly dishonest as the debate goes on. They either break the Ninth Commandment directly or indirectly. Very few of them are willing to learn. I am always willing to give them the courtesy of believing their initial claims when they get here, but if I catch them directly lying I do tend to get angry.

 

[AustinMiles89]

No, you didn't. You posted a list of nonsense reasons why it evolution supposedly did not happen. I corrected you. Then I asked for your best example and I showed how we have observed speciation, true that is where evolution starts, but it is the one of the easiest forms of evolution to observe. I even gave you a chance to back out and pick some better "evidence" against evolution and you stuck with your speciation claim. So I gave two sources that listed several cases each of observed speciatioin.




Yes. And that has been observed in the laboratory too.



No, I explained why it was more than adaption, namely the inability of hybrids between two populations to breed any longer. That shows evolution in progress. That is beyond adaptation.




Now you are again nearing breaking the Ninth Commandment. That is a false witness. You know they were not adaptations. You lost this one. I will let you try once again with some different "evidence".

Meanwhile do you have any evidence for creationism? Supposed evidence for evolution is not evidence for creationism. If creationists had theory of creationism what could they predict that we would see?

please explain how cross breeding animals of similar genetic material, who are then rendered incapable of breeding, fulfills the requirements for evolution?

the new species should be at least as capable of survival as a species, as the original; just to sustain itself. and more effective as a wholly new species, to give credence to progressive evolution.

where has this been observed that an animal has evolved into a completely unrelated animal, that was at least as capable of self sustaining their life?

im not asking for genetic drift, cross breeding, or adaptations which only reorganize existing dna.

where is the fossil evidence for species developing into other species? why do animals who change under differing conditions not simply morph into a completely different creature?

the dna of a creature must be capable of mutating beyond the bounds of its current coding, in order for differentiation of species to culminate from a singular organism.

are you familiar with genetic entropy? what is your opinion on it?

if creationism were a scientific theory we would surmise that all the variation of life on earth, with the exception of adaptation, was existent from the beginning of all life on earth; and would thus dwindle as resources and surroundings change, and as carnivorous animals survive off the depletion of other species.
it would also logically follow that if the worlds atmosphere were to at any point change to a more harsh environment, a mass extinction of animals who require a very large amount of sustenance would happen in rapid succession.
it would also logically follow that the laws of entropy would dictate a decline in the strength of the genetic coding of all life.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry, you should not use liars for Jesus. Chien himself has admitted that he does not qualify for the job he holds at the Discovery Toot:

Paul Chien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please give proper sources for your claims. Lying creationist sources are not proper sources.

"firstly: wikipedia states regarding his discovery institute position that he was not a paleontologist: "Paleontology Research program",[4] in spite of the fact that, by his own admission, he has no credentials in the field"

however one not need be to study the cambrian.

in fact HE is a professor of Biology at UCSF

"Paul K. Chien is Professor of Biology. He received his B.S. in both Biology and Chemistry from Chung Chi College, N.T., Hong Kong, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine. Prof. Chien is interested in the physiology and ecology of inter-tidal organisms. His research has involved the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes and the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions."
https://www.usfca.edu/facultydetails.aspx?id=4294969776

Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com

secondly looks like you need another source:

also: wikipedia has been known to be wrong:

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

thirdly, Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.

thirdly, when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily, there is red tape and hindrance of free speech from other non decreed pseudo-professionals who come from a common sometimes outdated view of said thing in question.


at least my source has a degree in a related field, and has a reputable job in the field. (chairman of biology USF)

 

[Ada Lovelace]

imagine the pieces of an intricate puzzle being interchangeable. the original had its own pattern and created a particular image. but you could rearrange those pieces to make a new picture. odd thing is the new picture looks almost exactly like the old one, because it uses all of the same pieces.

I'm not intending to be irreverent to your personal beliefs, but this part of your post reminded me of this:

Link to the source: Think Outside The Box (The Cutest Response to Creationism Ever!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

please explain how cross breeding animals of similar genetic material, who are then rendered incapable of breeding, fulfills the requirements for evolution?

It shows that they are no longer the same species. That is one of the definitions of species. Animals that can have fertile offspring are of the same species. If they can't they aren't and since they would quickly die out if you took the males of one population and combined them with the females of another it should be obvious even to you.

the new species should be at least as capable of survival as a species, as the original; just to sustain itself. and more effective as a wholly new species, to give credence to progressive evolution.

No, why do you make that claim? All it has to be able to do is to survive in an environment.

where has this been observed that an animal has evolved into a completely unrelated animal, that was at least as capable of self sustaining their life?

Evolution does not make that claim so why would we expect to see that. In fact evolution says that all life is related.

im not asking for genetic drift, cross breeding, or adaptations which only reorganize existing dna.

And that is not what I gave you.

where is the fossil evidence for species developing into other species? why do animals who change under differing conditions not simply morph into a completely different creature?

The fossil evidence for the evolution of man is very strong. So is that of horses, and rhinos.

the dna of a creature must be capable of mutating beyond the bounds of its current coding, in order for differentiation of species to culminate from a singular organism.

What "bounds"? Creationists make this claim and then don't back it up. Or worse they claim it is shown by animals that can no longer breed together, but that is the sort of evolutionary change that I linked.

are you familiar with genetic entropy? what is your opinion on it?

Yes, I am. And it is ridiculous. Jon Sanford's book was debunked before it was even published. That is because he tried to cheat and get a "peer review" stamp that his book did not merit and he got caught cheating. He submitted a biology book to an Information Science branch of a publishing house. The reviewers were not biologists so they missed Sanford's obvious errors and were just about to say it passed peer review when his duplicity was exposed. They held up publishing, the book was properly reviewed and failed to get a peer review stamp.

if creationism were a scientific theory we would surmise that all the variation of life on earth, with the exception of adaptation, was existent from the beginning of all life on earth; and would thus dwindle as resources and surroundings change, and as carnivorous animals survive off the depletion of other species.

But the fossil record easily debunks that claim. We can show continual addition of new forms of life. It is the opposite of what you predicted. Your hypothesis failed and so now you no longer have a hypothesis, therefore you no longer have any evidence.

it would also logically follow that if the worlds atmosphere were to at any point change to a more harsh environment, a mass extinction of animals who require a very large amount of sustenance would happen in rapid succession.
it would also logically follow that the laws of entropy would dictate a decline in the strength of the genetic coding of all life.

Your first claim is illegible. The atmosphere has changed several times in the past. First a poisonous new substance started to appear. It was the waste product of life. Life evolved to deal with that poisonous gas. Today we call that gas "Oxygen". The amount of oxygen increased for a couple of billion years until it maxed out at about 30%. It has decreased since then. Life has evolved to life with the changing amounts of oxygen. The changes were much greater than simple "adaptation".

 

[Subduction Zone]

"firstly: wikipedia states regarding his discovery institute position that he was not a paleontologist: "Paleontology Research program",[4] in spite of the fact that, by his own admission, he has no credentials in the field"

however one not need be to study the cambrian.

Actually, you really do. He is the head of a department at the Discovery Toot, a proven dishonest organization, of a subject that he does not understand. Perfect.

in fact HE is a professor of Biology at UCSF

"Paul K. Chien is Professor of Biology. He received his B.S. in both Biology and Chemistry from Chung Chi College, N.T., Hong Kong, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine. Prof. Chien is interested in the physiology and ecology of inter-tidal organisms. His research has involved the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes and the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions."
https://www.usfca.edu/facultydetails.aspx?id=4294969776

Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com

secondly looks like you need another source:

also: wikipedia has been known to be wrong:

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online
Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online

thirdly, Wikipedia is edited and created by the public, no degree necessary.

thirdly, when Wikipedia is in error, the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily, there is red tape and hindrance of free speech from other non decreed pseudo-professionals who come from a common sometimes outdated view of said thing in question.


at least my source has a degree in a related field, and has a reputable job in the field. (chairman of biology USF)

No, Chien is not a professor at "UCSF". He is a professor at USF, the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit school.

Plus you included a strawman argument about evolution. Evolution makes no claims that life has to get more complex. It only claims that the increase in complexity that we observe is from evolution. Do you understand the difference? It seems even your so called professor got that wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the number of phyla dropping as the environments change. In fact extinction of life as major new features evolve, such as the ability to form a hard shell, is an obvious outcome of evolution. Before the Cambrian it life had not evolved the ability to form a hard shell. That is probably because the water chemistry was not right for it and that would be due to a shortage of oxygen in the air. Ever since life first appeared the amount of oxygen built in the Precambrian. The Cambrian merely marks the boundary where increased oxygen content made the formation of CaCO3 possible.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually, you really do. He is the head of a department at the Discovery Toot, a proven dishonest organization, of a subject that he does not understand. Perfect.



No, Chien is not a professor at "UCSF". He is a professor at USF, the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit school.

Plus you included a strawman argument about evolution. Evolution makes no claims that life has to get more complex. It only claims that the increase in complexity that we observe is from evolution. Do you understand the difference? It seems even your so called professor got that wrong.

There is nothing wrong with the number of phyla dropping as the environments change. In fact extinction of life as major new features evolve, such as the ability to form a hard shell, is an obvious outcome of evolution. Before the Cambrian it life had not evolved the ability to form a hard shell. That is probably because the water chemistry was not right for it and that would be due to a shortage of oxygen in the air. Ever since life first appeared the amount of oxygen built in the Precambrian. The Cambrian merely marks the boundary where increased oxygen content made the formation of CaCO3 possible.

are you disagreeing with chein? please layout your arguments so we may continue with the Cambrian.

 

[Naturalism]

where has this been observed that an animal has evolved into a completely unrelated animal, that was at least as capable of self sustaining their life?

That. Is. Not. How. Evolution. Works.

No animal, or organism for that matter, is genetically able to give birth to a completely & utterly different animal (e.g cat to a dog) in a single generation. That would actually go against certain Law's in Biology.

Read up on how a zygote forms as the complementary sex cells combine, you're not going to get a viable offspring that even divides as an embryo if the parental DNA is too different.

Speciation itself is only the first level of descent with modification whereby gene pools are sufficiently isolated to where gene flow is negated between the parent and daughter populations.

where is the fossil evidence for species developing into other species?

(A few) transitional fossils

why do animals who change under differing conditions not simply morph into a completely different creature?

That. Is. Not. How. Evolution. Works.

Evolution occurs over numerous generations, it's a successive & cumulatitivce process, not a process that occurs in a single generation or in generation zero.

the dna of a creature must be capable of mutating beyond the bounds of its current coding

Bounds, what bounds?

if creationism were a scientific theory we would surmise that all the variation of life on earth, with the exception of adaptation, was existent from the beginning of all life on earth

Great, then where are all of tetrapoda in the beginning of all life on earth?

 

[createdtoworship]

please explain how cross breeding animals of similar genetic material, who are then rendered incapable of breeding, fulfills the requirements for evolution?

the new species should be at least as capable of survival as a species, as the original; just to sustain itself. and more effective as a wholly new species, to give credence to progressive evolution.

where has this been observed that an animal has evolved into a completely unrelated animal, that was at least as capable of self sustaining their life?

im not asking for genetic drift, cross breeding, or adaptations which only reorganize existing dna.

where is the fossil evidence for species developing into other species? why do animals who change under differing conditions not simply morph into a completely different creature?

the dna of a creature must be capable of mutating beyond the bounds of its current coding, in order for differentiation of species to culminate from a singular organism.

are you familiar with genetic entropy? what is your opinion on it?

if creationism were a scientific theory we would surmise that all the variation of life on earth, with the exception of adaptation, was existent from the beginning of all life on earth; and would thus dwindle as resources and surroundings change, and as carnivorous animals survive off the depletion of other species.
it would also logically follow that if the worlds atmosphere were to at any point change to a more harsh environment, a mass extinction of animals who require a very large amount of sustenance would happen in rapid succession.
it would also logically follow that the laws of entropy would dictate a decline in the strength of the genetic coding of all life.

I lile to ask them to provide evidence of macro evolution. ( evolution between genus) as evolution can happen on the species level (micro evolution) and still produce fertile offspring. but not so on the genus level. no answer in 10 year of debate with these folk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you disagreeing with chein? please layout your arguments so we may continue with the Cambrian.

Yes, there are several gross errors in this quote:

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”

First the theory of evolution does not predict that the number of phyla will continually go up. There is nothing wrong with the number of phyla dropping, especially when a major environmental change occurs. In fact it predicts that there will be a loss of phyla when a major environmental change occurs. Second, the diversity of life has increased. Of course there are times when they have dropped, but that again is predicted. When a giant asteroid hits the Earth one would expect a few animals to die. Life has always followed the predictions of the theory of evolution that is why it is so well received.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I lile to ask them to provide evidence of macro evolution. ( evolution between genus) as evolution can happen on the species level (micro evolution) and still produce fertile offspring. but not so on the genus level. no answer in 10 year of debate with these folk.

And it has been provided many times. You keep forgetting that there are more ways than one to observe an event.

You should not claim that you have not received and answer when you have been given answers. I gave you answers myself to this question. Breaking the Ninth Commandment is a sin according to Christians.

 

[Naturalism]

I lile to ask them to provide evidence of macro evolution. ( evolution between genus) as evolution can happen on the species level (micro evolution) and still produce fertile offspring. but not so on the genus level. no answer in 10 year of debate with these folk.

Do ERV's count as sufficient evidence?

Does evidence like human chromosome 2 fusion count?

 

[dad]

Why does that fact bother you so much dad?

I know from other posts of yours that you are very squeamish when it comes to a natural bodily function. Sex is not dirty. It is not sinful. It is merely an act that can result in reproduction, or be a highly enjoyable experience.

You have me confused with someone else apparently. The issue with worms being responsible for mankind is not that they or us have sex!

The issue is a degrading lie, foisted on kids and people in general, that has come in the disguise of 'science'. A lie that has not the slightest proof or merit.


.

 

[dad]

Do ERV's count as sufficient evidence?

No. The issue there is how they were inserted...what laws and nature existed.

Does evidence like human chromosome 2 fusion count?

Do you have some of this for the creatures pre KT layer?


.

 

[dad]

...biological evolution (macro evolution) is unobserved as well.

I think they hide behind the imaginary long ages for that. Kind of like 'gee, it happened but there was no people to see it yet..'


.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do ERV's count as sufficient evidence?

Does evidence like human chromosome 2 fusion count?

ERV's are not a solid link for ancestry.

any small amount of similiarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similiar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

here is the 96% similiarity as well to pigs:
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.

Secondly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similiar designer, not a similar ancestor. Do we have shared ancestors with pigs, or cats? Well we are very similar to both. So the allegations are unfounded.