Atheists are in fact Creationists

[rusra02]

Oh great, you used to use the word "kind", now you are using "type". I wonder if those are the same thing.



So after all these years and all the patient education extended to you, you still think that evolution means "human popping out of monkey's vagina." Cool.



You do know that lying is not socially desirable behaviour, right?

Use of ridicule in defending the indefensible ToE seems to be all that is left to its apologists. As to experiential evidence debunking the theory, Anyone is free to research this for themselves, rather than drink the ToE Kool-aid. This quote from "Was Life Created" presents evidence; "Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
I believe the ToE is a lie.

 

[secret2]

...Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one...
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
I believe the ToE is a lie.

Those phrases betray your ignorance, my friend. What is an "entirely new" species? How can a "kind" be "completely new"? You are a somewhat different species from your parents, and they are a somewhat different species from your grandparents. Nothing is "entirely" or "completely" new. Of course, you are not going to listen. Of course, you will relapse into accusing everyone but yourself of being in the wrong. But what the hell, it has already been explained to you a hundred times already, doesn't hurt to give it one more try.

 

[Ouroboros]

micro-evolution is the incorrect term, I thought any intelligent person would have known this.

The real word is pseudo-evolution

Not to be mixed up with tiny evolution and super-duper-gigornoums evolution. Honestly, I don't believe in Left Evolution, but only in Right Evolution. So much better. Everything evolves to the right instead of left. And green organic evolution is great too.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, like I said, that argument doesn't satisfy me.

It isn't an argument, its a simple fact. The theory of evolution offers no explanation for the origin of biological life because... it is not a theory about the origin of biological life.

Evolution, to me, is a house built on shifting sand.

That's fine; you may think the house is built on an improper, or incomplete at least, foundation, but the house itself is completely sound.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Use of ridicule in defending the indefensible ToE seems to be all that is left to its apologists. As to experiential evidence debunking the theory, Anyone is free to research this for themselves, rather than drink the ToE Kool-aid. This quote from "Was Life Created" presents evidence; "Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

We have already observed mutations produce new species.

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no!

Now you're using different language. What constitutes a different "kind" of creature, exactly? We have already directly observed speciation multiple times.

Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Really? What are these boundaries? Where is his evidence? Do you just believe the words of anyone, regardless of credibility of reasoning, that happens to agree with your point of view?

I believe the ToE is a lie.

Well, you have zero credibility considering you still don't understand the theory.

 

[fantome profane]

Not to be mixed up with tiny evolution and super-duper-gigornoums evolution. Honestly, I don't believe in Left Evolution, but only in Right Evolution. So much better. Everything evolves to the right instead of left. And green organic evolution is great too.

Sure, but the best evolution of all has to be Dance Dance Evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Those phrases betray your ignorance, my friend. What is an "entirely new" species? How can a "kind" be "completely new"? You are a somewhat different species from your parents, and they are a somewhat different species from your grandparents. Nothing is "entirely" or "completely" new. Of course, you are not going to listen. Of course, you will relapse into accusing everyone but yourself of being in the wrong. But what the hell, it has already been explained to you a hundred times already, doesn't hurt to give it one more try.

Do you seriously believe you are a "different species from your parent?"

 

[rusra02]

We have already observed mutations produce new species.


Now you're using different language. What constitutes a different "kind" of creature, exactly? We have already directly observed speciation multiple times.


Really? What are these boundaries? Where is his evidence? Do you just believe the words of anyone, regardless of credibility of reasoning, that happens to agree with your point of view?


Well, you have zero credibility considering you still don't understand the theory.

Can you name a new species?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Can you name a new species?

How about 10?
Top 10 New Species 2013 | Amazing & Wacky Animal Photos | LiveScience

You have to be extremely ignorant to think there are no new species anywhere.

 

[secret2]

Do you seriously believe you are a "different species from your parent?"

I know how strange it must sound to someone like you, who doesn't really know what species means in modern biology, and who thinks that evolution amounts to cat giving birth to dog. It's okay.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you name a new species?

Here's a website that updates daily with newly discovered species:
ScienceDaily: New Species News

Here's an article with links and references to observed speciation events:
Observed Instances of Speciation

Here is a list of named species which evolved into separate species:
Observed Evolutionary Changes

Among the many other observed species to evolve from a single population of anolis are:
Anolis cuvieri, Anolis garmani, Anolis garridoi, Anolis occultus, Anolis cybotes, Anolis lineatopus, Anolis alumina and Anolis alutaceus (Source: Caribbean Lizards Suggest Evolution More Predictable Than Thought | LiveScience)

These are just the new species that we have observed arise from a single population of lizards. I found all of this information out within about ten minutes. If you wish for any more examples, I would be glad to provide them.

 

[BioStudent]

"A new species of mosquito in London
The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)"

That's a quote from the third link posted by ImmortalFlame. How long has the London Underground existed? Not enough time for evolution, riiiight.... :clap

 

[rusra02]

Here's a website that updates daily with newly discovered species:
ScienceDaily: New Species News

Here's an article with links and references to observed speciation events:
Observed Instances of Speciation

Here is a list of named species which evolved into separate species:
Observed Evolutionary Changes

Among the many other observed species to evolve from a single population of anolis are:
Anolis cuvieri, Anolis garmani, Anolis garridoi, Anolis occultus, Anolis cybotes, Anolis lineatopus, Anolis alumina and Anolis alutaceus (Source: Caribbean Lizards Suggest Evolution More Predictable Than Thought | LiveScience)

These are just the new species that we have observed arise from a single population of lizards. I found all of this information out within about ten minutes. If you wish for any more examples, I would be glad to provide them.

So all the species you named are variations of an existing species. No entirely new and different species. A finch is a finch is a finch and an anolis is... well, you know.

 

[rusra02]

"A new species of mosquito in London
The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)"

That's a quote from the third link posted by ImmortalFlame. How long has the London Underground existed? Not enough time for evolution, riiiight.... :clap

So it's still a mosquito, right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So all the species you named are variations of an existing species. No entirely new and different species. A finch is a finch is a finch and an anolis is... well, you know.

Can you stop saying species? It IS a new species. There are 3000 species of mosquito. You are just showing a lack of understanding of the theories you're arguing against.

 

[BioStudent]

So all the species you named are variations of an existing species. No entirely new and different species. A finch is a finch is a finch and an anolis is... well, you know.

These mosquitoes are defined as a separate species from those living on the surface (from which they evolved) by several important differences, both behavioral and biological. They die much more easily in the cold, do not hibernate in the winter, and feeds on mice, rats, and humans (the parent species only feeds on birds). Also, most importantly, the two species cannot produce fertile hybrids, which is one of the classic hallmarks of different species.

 

[secret2]

So all the species you named are variations of an existing species. No entirely new and different species. A finch is a finch is a finch and an anolis is... well, you know.

Can you name one species that is NOT "variations of an existing species" (or an existed species)?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So all the species you named are variations of an existing species. No entirely new and different species. A finch is a finch is a finch and an anolis is... well, you know.

No, they are different species of anolis. When you asked for examples of new species, did you mean something else? Perhaps you are unaware of what the word "species" means.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can you name one species that is NOT "variations of an existing species" (or an existed species)?

Surprisingly, there is no claim that evolution means a mosquito begets a chimp.

 

[rusra02]

Can you stop saying species? It IS a new species. There are 3000 species of mosquito. You are just showing a lack of understanding of the theories you're arguing against.

Yes, I understand. my point is, what is observed is variety within like kinds, whether mosquito or dog or whatever. There is no credible evidence one creature changes into an entirely new creature, as evolution theory claims.