A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

Then all your demands for us to substantiate our claims were not in good faith....you never were going to look at them anyway. Such is the dishonest nature of creationism.

I have been saying that for many weeks, and I have told you why. If you don't like the way I do thins, put me on ignore.

That you say that immediately after saying the above is testament to just how dishonest your approach to this subject is.

Do you want to discuss the subject or just insult me?

SInce you agree that resistance to antibiotics is a trait, then the evolution of new traits that were not present in the parents' genomes is an observed fact, as evidenced by a common BIO 101 experiment, and the experiments described in the papers I posted.

I didn't agree, I said it depened on how you define a trait.

You being too scared to look at them does not make them go away.

You fearing to cut and past, will not make them scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

We understand.
Far to much truth to handle.
No worries.
Baby steps.
Baby steps.

It is amusing to me that I have told all you evos why I quit checking them and invited you to cut and past the evidence they offered. Guess what. NOT ONE SINGLE EVO has done that. I have to assume you actually started thinking about what was said and lo and behold it was not really scientific evidence. You can now prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what they offered. Wouldn't it be worth it to shut me up and stop making you doubt the DD---Darwinism doctrines.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have quit checking evo links. If you want to go to your link and cut and past the evidence they provided, I will respond.

I will only copy and past a part from the first article, since we have to consider DMCA and copyright laws. The first article is from San Diego State U.

Deletion and insertion mutations can be formed in two ways: deletions or insertions of short regions can occur by strand slippage, and deletions or insertions of longer regions can occur via homologous recombination.

Strand slippage occurs by mispairing of the template strand and the newly synthesized strand during DNA replication. If the newly synthesized strand denatures from the template during DNA synthesis and if it is complementary to different stretches of the template strand, it will occasionally pair with the wrong sequence. Such mispairing occurs in runs of a single nucleotide or in short, directly repeated sequences. If the template strand loops out, then a deletion will result.

...

Second link is to a textbook in genetics. That one, I fear I would break more copyright laws if I pasted it. But the link is to the Google library text, so you should be fine opening the page.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is amusing to me that I have told all you evos why I quit checking them and invited you to cut and past the evidence they offered. Guess what. NOT ONE SINGLE EVO has done that.

In my case because of a Federal Law called DMCA. I'm very careful copy-pasting text from educational textbooks and university websites. It's better for you to go there and read it in complete yourself. And it saves space and money for the forum.

Evidence isn't based on what a person might copy-past or not, but on your attitude towards and willingness to study, research, and read, which you obviously lack completely.

I have to assume you actually started thinking about what was said and lo and behold it was not really scientific evidence. You can now prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what they offered. Wouldn't it be worth it to shut me up and stop making you doubt the DD---Darwinism doctrines.

It's easy to shut you up. I'd put you on ignore and it would be like you didn't even exist.

 

[Ganondorf]

When will you folks ever understand bacteria remaining bacteria is not evidence of evolution?

1. You claimed that gaining genetic information is impossible. I showed you that's wrong, with the reference to the concept of gene duplication and to a study.
Address the point, instead of changing the subject.

2. Bacteria is a large category of prokaryotic organisms.
So your objection would be just as ridiculous as someone, after seeing mouse-like population evolve into an elephant-like one, saying "But, it's still a mammal!! That doesn't prove evolution!".

Not true. Prove me wrong with an example.

You have a plausible mechanism to get a new feature in the study, that's all that is required to falsify the claimed impossibility.
And simply saying "nu-uh!" is not a valid objection, sorry.

>>The research paper features a phylogenetic tree made from comparing human, chimp and gorilla genomes, thus backing up the picture from The Scientific American and my claim that we can group humans with apes genetically.<<
Not true.

Read the paper again, the phylogenetic tree is the Figure 1.a.

DNA separates species into separate classes. As long as DNA can distinguish wht is man and what is ape, putting them into the same species is not valid.

I did not intend to say chimps and humans are genetically same species. Of course, we can tell apart a human genome from a chimp's. But my point is that you can genetically group different species in supergroups, hence the previous example with the boxes.

So eye position should not be used to join species,

As long as you combine it with other criteria, it's restrictive and thus can and should be used.
If you know any placental mammal (other than humans and primates)
with not only face-forwarding eyes but also flat nails, I'm all hears!

You can tweek this til the cows come home but until an ape can talk, you have no real basis for making such a statement.

Address my answer in detail, don't just repeat your assertion.

 

[omega2xx]

1. You claimed that gaining genetic information is impossible. I showed you that's wrong, with the reference to the concept of gene duplication and to a study.
Address it, instead of changing the subject.

2. Bacteria is a large category of prokaryotic organisms.
So your objection would be just as ridiculous as someone, after seeing mouse-like population evolve into an elephant-like one, saying "But, it's still a mammal!! That doesn't prove evolution!".


You have a plausible mechanism to get a new feature in the study, that's all that is required to falsify the claimed impossibility.
And simply saying "nu-uh!" is not a valid objection, sorry.



Read the paper again, the phylogenetic tree is the Figure 1.a.



I did not intend to say chimps and humans are genetically same species. Of course, we can tell apart a human genome from a chimp's. But my point is that you can genetically group different species in supergroups, hence the previous example with the boxes.



As long as you combine it with other criteria, it's restrictive and thus can and should be used.
If you know any placental mammal (other than humans and primates)
with not only face-forwarding eyes but also flat fingernails, I'm all hears!




Address my answer in detail, don't just repeat your assertion.

yawn

 

[Ganondorf]

yawn

Responding to a whole set of arguments with a one word long answer. That's so typical of people who really care to engage in mature, constructive discussions and who can really defend their view with reason!

 

[Shad]

Theological or not, the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

No that is an theological point of view not an academic one. IE You are making a statement of faith and tradition, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

Give me the verses and I will respond. Otherwise, have a nice day.

The Bloodlines, Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38

 

[Shad]

Or you don't understand what specific means.

Mentioning bloodline should be specific enough. You want a citation. There is a difference.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am fully aware of what evidence is and it is why I accept evolution.

 

[McBell]

It is amusing to me that I have told all you evos why I quit checking them and invited you to cut and past the evidence they offered. Guess what. NOT ONE SINGLE EVO has done that. I have to assume you actually started thinking about what was said and lo and behold it was not really scientific evidence. You can now prove me wrong by cutting and pasting what they offered. Wouldn't it be worth it to shut me up and stop making you doubt the DD---Darwinism doctrines.

You have been shown wrong more often than you have been shown right.
Problem is that you seem unable to understand that little fact.

 

[omega2xx]

Responding to a whole set of arguments with a one word long answer. That's so typical of people who really care to engage in mature, constructive discussions and who can really defend their view with reason!

When you say something I haven't heard 100 times I will respond. Do you ever offer any evidence for what you belieive?

 

[omega2xx]

The Bloodlines, Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38

That is easily reconciled if you understand a leverite marriage.

 

[omega2xx]

I am fully aware of what evidence is and it is why I accept evolution.

If you know what evidence is, post the evidence for a dog like land animal being in the line of a sea creature.

 

[omega2xx]

You have been shown wrong more often than you have been shown right.
Problem is that you seem unable to understand that little fact.

What I understand is that you will continue blowing smoke because you can't provide any scientific evidence to support what the TOE preaches. None of you evos will even cut and paste the evidence your links provided. Could it be you do understand evidence and now realize what they said was opinion, not real evidence.

 

[Ganondorf]

When you say something I haven't heard 100 times I will respond. Do you ever offer any evidence for what you belieive?

I did post sources. But apparently, what you want us to do is to justify what a scientific source says each time we cite one, otherwise you think it doesn't count.

1. Do you realize I'm not an expert, nor a teacher, nor a science communicator and that my time is a bit precious? It's not my job to spoon-feed you. What I can do best is give you food for thought to orient your personal research for you to assess my arguments.
Deferring to scientific sources is acceptable and ultimately even inevitable, we can't have expertise on every subject and can't have immediate access to all the data, so your "all-or-nothing" approach towards sources is all the more disingenuous.

2. I did present the evidence from a scientific paper at least once. Your reaction? "But it's just a picture!".
It would just as surreal as, after being told there is equal proportion of green, blue and black individuals in a species of fly in Killimanjaro and given a research paper dedicated to that subject with a pie chart, someone saying "it's just a circle, that doesn't count!"
Your reaction suggests you could handwave anything satisfying your standard with "but that's just a bunch of letters on a screen!".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you know what evidence is, post the evidence for a dog like land animal being in the line of a sea creature.

Dogs wouldn't have a sea creature in its direct lineage since we split from fish as Tetrapods. If you have failed to accept evidence in the form of fossils and DNA provided by scientists then I doubt I can convince you of anything over a thread in a religious forum. But I can however, point out you are wrong.

 

[james bond]

God created plants and flowers. You cannot make a flower from plants.

 

[Ouroboros]

None of you evos will even cut and paste the evidence your links provided.

You really don't understand. Since the DMCA (Digital Milenium Copyright Act) was instituted, honest people have learned to be more careful with copy-paste, at least I am. There's been cases where even forums have got into trouble for copy-pasting a whole article from someone without permission. The best way is to provide links and let people go to the original sites and read for themselves.

Could it be you do understand evidence and now realize what they said was opinion, not real evidence.

*rolleyes*

I'm putting you on ignore because I can tell we'll never have a meaningful conversation.