Answers In Genesis on Facebook

[Misunderstood]

I'm not sure you understand. I'm talking about scientists watching a population evolve in real time, and then writing up a description of what they observed. Would you consider that to be evidence of evolution?

Do you have something in mind to share?

It would be interesting to see, just not sure without seeing if I could agree or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hope some you guys will share your knowledge of evolution on their facebook page because my scientific abilities are limited.

Don't worry about that. The problem with "Creationism", particularly of the AiG variety, is not helped by offering actual knowledge.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

A few people go to that page to try to convince them evolution is true but to no avail partly because the articles posted on the facebook page is very convincing to them.

Why would our arguments do any better? Not even Bill Nye could open their eyes; you can't save everyone, and sometimes it's best not to even try.

 

[LukeS]

Isn't it true, some militants not only want to destroy creationism, but take the whole church with it? Like an "outdated theory" .

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And with denial of climate change... Well, it's not like we've got our only home at stake or anything.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I have been on the Answers In Genesis facebook page for a couple of months. They post articles and arguments that their numerous followers eat up. They think evolution is ridiculous, athiestic and part of a plan to undermine the bible. A few people go to that page to try to convince them evolution is true but to no avail partly because the articles posted on the facebook page is very convincing to them.

I hope some you guys will share your knowledge of evolution on their facebook page because my scientific abilities are limited.

There would be no point - might as well bang our heads against a brick wall.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not sure you understand. I'm talking about scientists watching a population evolve in real time, and then writing up a description of what they observed. Would you consider that to be evidence of evolution?


Sure, they would describe the ways in which the population evolved.

No they won't. They will only say it happened. For example they must give the science that causes it to happen. For example they must show genetically how a dogs leg can become a whale fin.

I will give you an easy one---how can natural selection be a mechanism for a change of species. Pick any example you want. Just cut and pasts what is offered as evidence.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Isn't it true, some militants not only want to destroy creationism, but take the whole church with it? Like an "outdated theory" .

Ah yes, those 'militants' with their facts and their West Coast elitist verifiable evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Yeah, so that's not how logic works.

My challenge is not about logic. It is about a simple task or cutting and pasting.

If you want to make it about logic, it is illogical that after many months, not one person as done what i ask. IMO, knowing human nature, some have gone to an evo sight and found they did not provide any evidence but they are unwilling to acknowledge I am right.

Why don't you do the logical thing and cut and paste some evidence it offered. My crystal ball says you will not.

 

[omega2xx]

We know how it happened - mutations and natural selection.

This is a perfect example of an opinion with no evidence. Tell me HOW a mutation can be the mechanism for a change of species. Saying that proves you only read and not evaluate what is said and that you don't understand mutations. Same for natural selection.

It didn't. Whales didn't evolve from dogs.

You better check with your whale experts. They have pakicetus one generation from a whale.

This is a very odd request. Here are my personal favourite links:

Observed Instances of Speciation

The salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. What is called a new species are those who could no longer reproduce but their species did not change.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Name one that resulted in a change of species.

Don't post me links. Cut and post the evidence they offered.

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

Wonderful. Now cut and paste the evidence the provided to support their OPINIONS.

My crystal ball say you will not.

 

[metis]

Get your facts straight. Science has not confirmed evolution. Real science rejects it.

You simply do not know what you're talking about, and why we know this is the case with you is further indicated with your comments below.

Unless your are willing to post the evidence, your words a meaningless opinions.

We have over and over again done this, including providing links, and yet you keep returning back to foolish and disingenuous statements like this. You do not use science but use a rather foolish interpretation of the Genesis accounts because your "knowledge" of theology is shallow. You simply do not understand the use of allegory, metaphors, and other symbolic forms of early Jewish literature, and without that knowledge you will just continue to wallow around in theological ignorance.

There are scientist far more qualified than you are who reject evolution.

Now your level of dishonesty is showing because you simply do not have a clue how much I may or may not know on this topic, and yet you continue to make such prejudicial statements. By making such claims, you only demean yourself and your cause.

For several months now I have challenged you evos to cut and past the evidence from any link you choose. The FACT that no o0ne has done so speaks volumes with just 8 words---they would if they could, but hey can't.

See above,

 

[metis]

Tell me HOW a mutation can be the mechanism for a change of species.

OK:

Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Not all mutations matter to evolution

Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

For example, the golden color on half of this Red Delicious apple was caused by a somatic mutation. The seeds of this apple do not carry the mutation. --- Mutations

So, here's a cut & paste for you, including the link, which now you will ignore or try to explain away with some absurd excuse(s).

 

[metis]

I will give you an easy one---how can natural selection be a mechanism for a change of species.

Natural selection works in conjunction with mutation and genetic drift, so here is another cut & paste just for you:

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

1. There is variation in traits.
   For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

1. There is differential reproduction.
   Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

1. There is heredity.
   The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

1. End result:
   The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

Download this series of graphics from the Image library.
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.-- Natural selection

There omega, two cut & pastes, which you will just pooh-pooh or ignore, so please stop the whining about us not doing this when we have.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm not sure you understand. I'm talking about scientists watching a population evolve in real time, and then writing up a description of what they observed. Would you consider that to be evidence of evolution?


Sure, they would describe the ways in which the population evolved.

Wonderful. Now cut and paste the evidence they offered.

 

[Altfish]

The only evidence Omega2xx will accept is Bible v2; good try chaps but you are wasting your time he/she does not want to learn, unless it reinforces their deeply held belief.
btw I hope Omega2xx never needs anti-biotics

 

[omega2xx]

You simply do not know what you're talking about, and why we know this is the case with you is further indicated with your comments below.

Right. If I disagree with you and what you belieive, I can' be right. How self-serving and arrogant that is.

We have over and over again done this, including providing links, and yet you keep returning back to foolish and disingenuous statements like this. You do not use science but use a rather foolish interpretation of the Genesis accounts because your "knowledge" of theology is shallow. You simply do not understand the use of allegory, metaphors, and other symbolic forms of early Jewish literature, and without that knowledge you will just continue to wallow around in theological ignorance.

Wong on all accounts. Why wont you do such a simple thing as to cut and pasted the evidence from one of your links. First I don't use the Bible when discussing evolution and you are not qualified to determine if my interpretation of Genesis is foolish. It is liberal theology that is shallow, and I know far more about the use of figurative language in both testaments than you do.

Now your level of dishonesty is showing because you simply do not have a clue how much I may or may not know on this topic, and yet you continue to make such prejudicial statements. By making such claims, you only demean yourself and your cause.
I know you have a liberal theology and that liberal theology is ALWAYS wrong. I am not concerned if any with a liberal theology, think I demean my self. IMO you demean your self with ignorant statement like that.

See above,[/QUOTE]

Why? Nothing you have said is true

You won't even do a simple thing as cutting and pasting what you consider evidence. You would if you could but you can't. Until you do, your credibility with me is a big fat zero.

 

[metis]

Wong on all accounts. Why wont you do such a simple thing as to cut and pasted the evidence from one of your links.

I just did from a science source!

It is liberal theology that is shallow, and I know far more about the use of figurative language in both testaments than you do.

Keep telling yourself that, especially since you have so little "knowledge" of early Jewish literature, and to excuse this as "liberal theology" is just so unbelievably bizarre.

You won't even do a simple thing as cutting and pasting what you consider evidence.

Wow, no wonder you like Trump-- two peas in a pod.

Until you do, your credibility with me is a big fat zero.

I'm done with your disingenuousness and your prejudicial judgmentalism-- have you no shame whatsoever? We do what you demand and then you just claim that we didn't. You only making a mockery of yourself and your denomination by acting in these ways.

Good bye.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My challenge is not about logic. It is about a simple task or cutting and pasting.

If you want to make it about logic, it is illogical that after many months, not one person as done what i ask. IMO, knowing human nature, some have gone to an evo sight and found they did not provide any evidence but they are unwilling to acknowledge I am right.

Why don't you do the logical thing and cut and paste some evidence it offered. My crystal ball says you will not.

Has nothing to do with my comment. I never bother buying into the creationist vs evolution thing.

But 'if you won't show me, it proves I'm right' is epically poor logic. That was my (only) point.

 

[omega2xx]

OK:

Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Not true, A mutation only affect one gene in the gene pool of the parents. The mutation will only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation It will not add a new characteristic.

"Mutations hve no final evolutionary effect." Pierre Paul Grasse.

>>Mutations are random<<
Right.

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Right.

Not all mutations matter to evolution

None of the matter to evolution.

Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

For example, the golden color on half of this Red Delicious apple was caused by a somatic mutation. The seeds of this apple do not carry the mutation. --- Mutations

So, here's a cut & paste for you, including the link, which now you will ignore or try to explain away with some absurd excuse(s).[/QUOTE]


There is no evidence that mutation are responsible for a change of species,. The apple is still an apple. At lest you tried, which is more than any of the other have done.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a perfect example of an opinion with no evidence. Tell me HOW a mutation can be the mechanism for a change of species. Saying that proves you only read and not evaluate what is said and that you don't understand mutations. Same for natural selection.

So you don't understand how evolution actually works?

Everything that reproduces does so with variation. Every individual organism has around 60 completely unique mutations in its genetic code. Most of these mutations produce little difference in the life or survivability of that organism, but a very small number will produce benefits and will increase either the likelihood of survival to reproduce or an improvement in reproductive potential overall. This improvement is largely determined by the environment a population lives in, which naturally sets the conditions under which certain mutations will be "successful" over others. From this point on, those organisms more likely to survive and/or thrive will tend to do so and produce more copies of themselves, which will proliferate into subsequent generations. Over time, this will affect the overall allele frequency in a population, or create a separate population altogether (leading to such things as ring species). This is how a single population of organisms diversifies or changes over time, and how new populations - and even new species - arise out of old ones, and this is how evolution works.

You better check with your whale experts. They have pakicetus one generation from a whale.

Pakicetus was not a dog, and it was certainly not "one generation from a whale". Pakicestus were around about 48-49 million years ago, and the earliest whales didn't appear until around 34 million years ago.
SOURCE: Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia

The salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. What is called a new species are those who could no longer reproduce but their species did not change.

Then you don't know what a "species" is. Ring species is a clear and observed instance of a single population of organisms diverging and becoming two separate and distinct species, and proves that there is no genetic barrier at the level of "species" that prevents evolution beyond that level.

Name one that resulted in a change of species.

I've already given you two links which list observed instances of speciation.

Don't post me links. Cut and post the evidence they offered.

Like I said, this is an odd request considering the information would be exactly the same, and further considering that posts have a word limit. Here are just a couple of examples from the links I already provided:

From Observed Instances of Speciation:
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow
Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.


5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.


From Some More Observed Speciation Events:
Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Wonderful. Now cut and paste the evidence the provided to support their OPINIONS.

Observation is not a matter of opinion.

My crystal ball say you will not.

You should throw out your crystal ball.