Win a debate against evolution every time.

[KhaosTheory]

So which came first the horse, mule, or zebra?

Did the horse come first? Well, what came before the horse? Did evolution just not start working until after the flood or what?

Oh, and where did the "information" for making zebra stripes come from? I thought that was impossible!

You can't add new "information" remember?

Science actually has some really cool things to say about those stripes actually:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/120209-zebra-stripes-horseflies-bugs-akesson-science/

 

[pgp_protector]

I cant discuss something with someone who hasnt read the fundamental doctrine of which they ignorantly claim so much knowledge.

Have you read origin of species y/n?

Um origin of species isn't the "Fundamental doctrine" of evolution, and the theory of evolution has change much since Darwin's time.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Um origin of species isn't the "Fundamental doctrine" of evolution, and the theory of evolution has change much since Darwin's time.

I'm glad someone else chimed in on that... I was just going to ignore it.

But yeah, does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that the neo-creationists are now forced to admit that speciation does occur at least "within bounds" (since they admit it would be impossible to fit two of EVERY species on a big boat)?

Yet now they think that evolution happened in some crazy super-fast way where multiple simultaneously selected mutations would have had to occur over and over which would be virtually impossible.

...and this is the same improbability that they have been using AGAINST EVOLUTION the whole time!!!

It's unbelievable...

 

[KhaosTheory]

I'm curious, do most young earthers now subscribe to this neo-creationist claim of "micro-speciation"?

I'm guessing this whole idea was a desperate concession in order to appear to agree with modern science but then they put a set of qualifiers on the statement like "within certain limits" in order to still cling to their denial of full scale evolution.

 

[samaus12345]

Micro/Macro evolution are evolutionary biology terms. A child agrees with micro evolution. Talk origins classifies speciation as MACRO evolution. If thats all it meant a child would agree too. But the bait and switch is employed so as to intentionally deceive/confuse people.

 

[Smidlee]

Um origin of species isn't the "Fundamental doctrine" of evolution, and the theory of evolution has change much since Darwin's time.

True. The only example of marco-evolution is the evolution theory itself. It continues to lead us down the wrong path with it's failed predictions.

 

[KhaosTheory]

So you guys do believe that animals speciate to a point, right? Which point is that exactly though?

You've stated that a horse can evolve into a zebra but can a hyracotherium evolve into a horse?

Why or why not?

You've stated that a tiger can evolve into a house cat but can a viretailurus schaubi evolve into a tiger?

Why or why not?

 

[jilfe]

It doesn't matter what Science is NOW, what were trying to convey is God did NOT need or use natural laws to do His creation.

Everything God did in Creation was SUPERnatural, therefore all existence of everything came by God SUPERnaturally, only after God rested from His work, of creation did the natural laws come into existance.

It is written in the Holy Bible for EVERYone to read it for themselves, so no one can foul it up by getting bogged down on how things came into being.

So have fun with all the evolution data in the present science of natural laws, but as far as how everything came to be, can NEVER be explained scientifically, because it happened OUTSIDE science laws. SUPERnaturally.

It's all through the HOLY BIBLE, for everyone to read it for themselves.

 

[mathetes123]

It doesn't matter what Science is NOW, what were trying to convey is God did NOT need or use natural laws to do His creation.

Everything God did in Creation was SUPERnatural, therefore all existence of everything came by God SUPERnaturally, only after God rested from His work, of creation did the natural laws come into existance.

It is written in the Holy Bible for EVERYone to read it for themselves, so no one can foul it up by getting bogged down on how things came into being.

So have fun with all the evolution data in the present science of natural laws, but as far as how everything came to be, can NEVER be explained scientifically, because it happened OUTSIDE science laws. SUPERnaturally.

It's all through the HOLY BIBLE, for everyone to read it for themselves.

I agree 100%. Science will NEVER come to an understanding of the truth of our origins because it excludes the supernatural by definition. Ultimately, it does not matter what we believe about origins, but about how we respond to what Jesus did for us on the cross. That is the only question that will matter in the end at the threshold between this life and eternity.

 

[KhaosTheory]

It doesn't matter what Science is NOW, what were trying to convey is God did NOT need or use natural laws to do His creation.

Everything God did in Creation was SUPERnatural, therefore all existence of everything came by God SUPERnaturally, only after God rested from His work, of creation did the natural laws come into existance.

It is written in the Holy Bible for EVERYone to read it for themselves, so no one can foul it up by getting bogged down on how things came into being.

So have fun with all the evolution data in the present science of natural laws, but as far as how everything came to be, can NEVER be explained scientifically, because it happened OUTSIDE science laws. SUPERnaturally.

It's all through the HOLY BIBLE, for everyone to read it for themselves.

So are you saying that after God rested THEN evolution took over? Well of course. That's what I've been saying the whole time. And science backs us up on this.

I just think we are in disagreement as to how long it's been since God rested.

Also, I can't but help notice you didn't answer my previous question... "it doesn't matter" doesn't really count.

 

[jilfe]

No I am not saying that macroevolution is now working, God established a micro evolutionary course, that is agreeable on all fronts, macroevolution is not possible, because God never created any mechanism to make it work that way, He chose to keep it all on micro changes only, where everything reproduces of its OWN kind.

Again the Holy Bible has this all written down for anyone to look at and not mess it up.




,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm glad someone else chimed in on that... I was just going to ignore it.

But yeah, does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that the neo-creationists are now forced to admit that speciation does occur at least "within bounds" (since they admit it would be impossible to fit two of EVERY species on a big boat)?

Admit it? I have long wonder why Creationists would try to avoid it. Once the molecular mechanism responsible for that adaptive radiation is identified the limits of evolution will as well.

Yet now they think that evolution happened in some crazy super-fast way where multiple simultaneously selected mutations would have had to occur over and over which would be virtually impossible.

Failures of DNA repair cannot explain adaptive evolution. Selection can act only when a beneficial trait emerges, by what molecular mechanism do you think arctic wild life inherited white fur? Random mutations is a wrong answer, want to hazard a blind guess what the molecular mechanism was?

...and this is the same improbability that they have been using AGAINST EVOLUTION the whole time!!!

I couldn't agree more, the whole thing is upside down and backwards. If anything Creationists should be challenged to come up with a model for the adaptive radiation of every single lineage for birds, reptiles and mammals including humans to evolve in such a remarkably short space of time.

This whole controversy ends when Creationists realize that they are, in fact, the most radical evolutionists around. That's an accelerated evolution that would have scarred Darwin to death.

It's unbelievable...

I share your incredulity. Couldn't agree more.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Admit it? I have long wonder why Creationists would try to avoid it. Once the molecular mechanism responsible for that adaptive radiation is identified the limits of evolution will as well.

They tried to avoid it because if you can walk 20 feet you can walk 20 miles... If you admit that we have evidence that zebras came from horses or that house cats came from tigers then what's stopping horses and tigers from coming from their ancestors? and what's stopping those ancestors from coming for their ancestors and so on and so on?

Failures of DNA repair cannot explain adaptive evolution. Selection can act only when a beneficial trait emerges, by what molecular mechanism do you think arctic wild life inherited white fur? Random mutations is a wrong answer, want to hazard a blind guess what the molecular mechanism was?

You use weird terms like "adaptive evolution" and "molecular mechanism". I don't understand why you don't just use the regular words for things.

I couldn't agree more, the whole thing is upside down and backwards. If anything Creationists should be challenged to come up with a model for the adaptive radiation of every single lineage for birds, reptiles and mammals including humans to evolve in such a remarkably short space of time.

There you go again... "adaptive radiation"? You lost me.

Evolution is a lot easier to understand than far less complicated than it seems like you are trying to make it.

This whole controversy ends when Creationists realize that they are, in fact, the most radical evolutionists around. That's an accelerated evolution that would have scarred Darwin to death.

So I guess you aren't one of the neo-creationists... You still hold the old idea that speciation doesn't occur AT ALL, right?

Well, even if you are going to ignore all of the genetic evidence and fossils that prove your position wrong, can you explain how Noah fit all those different species on the ark?

 

[KhaosTheory]

No I am not saying that macroevolution is now working, God established a micro evolutionary course, that is agreeable on all fronts, macroevolution is not possible, because God never created any mechanism to make it work that way, He chose to keep it all on micro changes only, where everything reproduces of its OWN kind.

Again the Holy Bible has this all written down for anyone to look at and not mess it up.

So you don't agree with what Ken Ham and the rest of the leading creationists are now saying about speciation?

Do you agree with this picture?

Do you accept that dogs came from wolves? Do you accept that zebras came from horses?

 

[samaus12345]

Mark

Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

It is believed that the horses (horses, donkeys, and zebras) all are related because they can hybridize, and therefore they belong to a holobaramin. Additionally there is a “dog” holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the wolves, another for the hyenas, another for the coyotes, for jackals, and more for the hundreds of pet-dog breeds. “Cats” constitute another holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the lion and the tiger, for the pumas, another for the lynx, domestic cats, etc. (see O’Brien, 1997). A group of all the horses (equids), all the dogs (canids), and all the cats (felids) would be apobaraminic because no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat

 

[samaus12345]

From "Molecular biology of the cell" by Alberts et al fifth edition.

From under the title "How genomes evolve".

cells in the germline do not have specialized mechanisms for creating changes in the structures of their genomes: evolution depends instead on accidents and mistakes followed by nonrandom survival.

In this context it is referring to the fish-->everything definition of evolution. Copying mistakes +natural selection is the alleged mechanism for fish to everything.

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE) - YouTube


Lee Spetner

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution

Actually, evolutionary thinking goes like this.

1. One observes present life.
2. One then assumes that it arose in a natural way.
3. One then concocts a theory (e.g., the NDT) to account for the observation, given the assumption.

The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.

I doubt evolutionists will read the link given their extreme ignorance/inability to critically examine their own blind faith based belief but he analyzes the alleged 'saviour' mutations of NDM (neodarwinian-myth).

 

[Smidlee]

I just think we are in disagreement as to how long it's been since God rested.

Also what does it means by God rested. Jesus Christ is rested (sit down) at the right hand of the Father but this doesn't mean he doing nothing. The same with God rested on the 7th day but what about afterwards. Obviously since God sent His Son He is still involved in His creation.
Rev 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
I believe this is a hint that while creation as a whole was finished that God still directly involved in His creation. So I believe all the animal we see today didn't have to come from the Ark.

By the way it very easy to see dogs came from wolves since dogs are nothing but a variety of deformed wolves. A wiener dog has a lot of it's wolf genes lost or turn off which explains why it has so short legs. Dogs are one of the best example of artificial (man's) selection and show the limits of artificial selection. Natural selection has not to be shown to have any more power than man's selection yet dogs so far haven't evolved anything new that isn't already present in wolves.

 

[KhaosTheory]

cells in the germline do not have specialized mechanisms for creating changes in the structures of their genomes: evolution depends instead on accidents and mistakes followed by nonrandom survival.

In this context it is referring to the fish-->everything definition of evolution. Copying mistakes +natural selection is the alleged mechanism for fish to everything.

That's a terrible way of explaining it but sure, that's kind of how evolution works. what's the problem?

That's exactly what we observe in the fossil record and in genetic codes of all the creatures we've looked at so far... "copy errors" being selected and inherited by the next generation in a cumulative fashion until the daughter group is unable to interbred with the parent group and becomes a new species.

We see this over and over again in labs and in the rocks.

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE) - YouTube

Do you have any idea why he paused in that video? It's because he was roped into that interview under a false impression.

Dawkins has publicly announced that he doesn't ever want to debate creationists because that would give relevance to them, but the interviewers lied to him and promised they wouldn't talk about creationism in that interview.

He paused because he just realized that he has been duped into a creationism debate and he was beside himself.

Of course those dishonest creationists use his pause to make it seem like he didn't have an answer to their question... There is no level to which those deceitful creationists won't stoop.

Lee Spetner

I told you before. I don't really care what a mechanical engineer has to say about biology.

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

You still haven't given me a satisfactory definition of what "information" is.

I've heard in this thread that "information" is "the function of the gene" but that can't be right because new gene functions occur all the time and you can't have that because that would be adding new "information"

How did horses evolve zebra stripes hmm? Where did the "information" for making stripes come from? I thought you couldn't add new "information"?

 

[KhaosTheory]

Mark

Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms

It is believed that the horses (horses, donkeys, and zebras) all are related because they can hybridize, and therefore they belong to a holobaramin. Additionally there is a “dog” holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the wolves, another for the hyenas, another for the coyotes, for jackals, and more for the hundreds of pet-dog breeds. “Cats” constitute another holobaramin with monobaraminic branches for the lion and the tiger, for the pumas, another for the lynx, domestic cats, etc. (see O’Brien, 1997). A group of all the horses (equids), all the dogs (canids), and all the cats (felids) would be apobaraminic because no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat

Finally! A definition of "kind"! Thank you!

So a "kind" is "any group of organisms that can interbred" correct?

So we now agree that wolves evolved into dogs, horses evolved into zebras, and tigers evolved into house cats, right?

Is everyone on the same page so far? Speak up please.

 

[KhaosTheory]

I believe this is a hint that while creation as a whole was finished that God still directly involved in His creation. So I believe all the animal we see today didn't have to come from the Ark.

So you are getting around the "big boat" problem by assuming that God directly repopulated the earth with animals and plants after the flood?

Why even have a boat then? Doesn't make much sense to me...

Besides, if you are just going to sit there and make stuff up how can we have a meaningful conversation about any observable facts?

By the way it very easy to see dogs came from wolves since dogs are nothing but a variety of deformed wolves. A wiener dog has a lot of it's wolf genes lost or turn off which explains why it has so short legs.

Likewise, it's very easy to see how birds came from dinosaurs. They are just "horribly deformed" dinosaurs... That's why they have such short legs...haha!