Christian Evolutionist:

[ThuggishSplicer]

micro-EVOLUTION

YEEESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT HAS THE WORD...EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sleepr]

Aaa genetic mutation...does not = evolution. Your conditions in the lab, is not the same as the conditions 'billions' of years ago. Your ecoli, did not originate from a blob of goo. You did not take the blob of goo and transform it into E coli. And then watched it under the same conditions as millions of years ago, to see it change genetically into something else. Your e coli did also not go from ecoli to a human being.

This from a researcher holding a degree in chemistry? Very perplexing,indeed. I'd love to read one of your papers.

All of your responses in this thread, and some others, are very curious.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

This from a researcher holding a degree in chemistry? Very perplexing,indeed. I'd love to read one of your papers.

All of your responses in this thread, and some others, are very curious.

Yes...
What is a "researcher holding a degree in chemistry" doing saying the things that they have?????
I have not the answer to this paradox.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

micro-EVOLUTION

YEEESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT HAS THE WORD...EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any reason why you keep going on about "micro-evolution"? There's no such thing - there's just evolution.

"Micro-evolution" is just a creationist term meaning "the parts of evolution that even we can't pretend aren't true any more."

 

[Heneni]

Heneni,


We documented the appearance of a new trait via genetic mutation and natural selection. That, whether you choose to admit it or not, is evolution.


That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. You would be well-advised to learn the basics of a subject before attempting to debate it.


?????? Is that what you think evolution is, E. coli turning into H. sapiens?

Has it ever occured to you that the problem may not be with the science, but with your understanding of it?

There is nothing really interesting about evolution. I have to admit that what you are doing in the lab is interesting.

But..you are saying its evolution, because some guy called darwin said it was evolution. So that makes you a darwin disciple not a scientist.

Also...i can make fire but i cant make the sun. If you can mutate things, you cant necessarily make them evolve.

Scientifically you have to be able to reproduce the orginal conditions that darwin says was there when evolotion started to prove that its right.

Evolutionists are suppose to be able to predict what we will evolve into next. They cant. You can mutate bacteria...mutate flies...mutate mutate..bla bla bla...BUT you cannot show evolution in mankind can you? What are we evolving into? Can you tell me that?

Can you tell me how we are seeing evolution right before our eyes, WITHOUT the interference of man, i.e mutations in a lab.

And also...evolution in mostly natural surroundings because there is more smog in london than there was billions of years ago...but we dont actually know what things were like billions of years ago do we? Its all a theory.

heneni

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

Any reason why you keep going on about "micro-evolution"? There's no such thing - there's just evolution.

"Micro-evolution" is just a creationist term meaning "the parts of evolution that even we can't pretend aren't true any more."

PRECICELY!!

But!!!!!

There are different parts to evolution!
embryonic
vestigial
cosmic
micro & macro
it goes on and on but it is all evolution. So, yes.:yes:

It's like this:
you have a stumach, a liver and a colon.
They are all you.
But , if I surgically remove your stumach, you are still you, and you have your stumach so you ARE ALL YOU!!!
Get it!!??

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

There is nothing really interesting about evolution. I have to admit that what you are doing in the lab is interesting.

But..you are saying its evolution, because some guy called darwin said it was evolution. So that makes you a darwin disciple not a scientist.

Also...i can make fire but i cant make the sun. If you can mutate things, you cant necessarily make them evolve.

Scientifically you have to be able to reproduce the orginal conditions that darwin says was there when evolotion started to proof that it right.

Evolutionists are suppose to be able to predict what we will evolve into next. They cant. You can mutate bacteria...mutate flies...mutate mutate..bla bla bla...BUT you cannot show evolution in mankind can you? What are we evolving into? Can you tell me that?

Can you tell me how we are seeing evolution right before our eyes, WITHOUT the interference of man, i.e mutations in a lab.

And also...evolution in mostly natural surroundings because there is more smog in london than there was billions of years ago...but we dont actually know what things were like billions of years ago do we? Its all a theory.

heneni

You can't make this fallacy an argument because that means that beacause you say it's not evolution it isn't. See your circular reasoning??

 

[Ringer]

I made a strain of E-coli glow under black-light (UV). Its a very simple bacterial transformation.

I wish I could have done fun stuff like this in my biology classes.

 

[Autodidact]

HE HE....well my cook book at the moment is my brain, reminding me of the scientific method.

So your 'insults' regarding the bible is wasted on me. Im not against evolution because god created everything. Which of course he did.

Im against it because its scientifically flawed.

In what way?

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

In what way?

You people should know that radiometrics is not the only thing to prove the age of the earth!!!!:slap:

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

I think I am about ready to rest my case...

 

[Heneni]

In what way?

Ive already explained why its scientifically flawed. But how about scientifically FRAUD?

Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”

If evolution were true, there would have been literaly billions of intermediary stages in the fossil record, where we could have seen lungs develop from gills, etc. How many transitional form (missing links) has ever been found? Evolutionists thought they had a find with archaeopteryx, which seemed to show a transitional form between a lizard and a feathered bird, yet archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud that was actually developed from two separate fossilized remains. Java man, Piltdown man, Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking man were also missig links that were proven to be frauds.

 

[Autodidact]

Aaah you needent worry. I dont get on well with people who believe that fish grew legs so they can walk on land. I wonder if they thought...oh my goodness....WHAT is this THING growing out of me? What in the lords name is it for?

It must have slowed them down, and made them weak, therefore they were bound to be eaten rather than crawl out of the water and onto land.

Besides half a leg is no good unless it is useful. And so while its growing into a leg its completely useless yet evolution says that for millions of years these animals had leg flippers so that one day millions of years into the future...one of them could crawl onto land. Of course by that time the environment changed and what do you know...there is a flood, and then they wished they didnt have legs..

its a cruel world after all.:cold:

O.K., it's clear that you have no idea what ToE is, which explains why you are opposed to it. Although you have not actually expressed an interest or willingness in understanding it, I'm going to explain it to you.

First I will explain what ToE says, with no reference to the evidence. Then if you're still around I'll out line the bare skeleton of some of the mountains (literally) of evidence that caused science to accept it. Sound good?

First, some background:

First you need to understand that evolution is not a philosophy, religion or world view. It is a theory in a specific field of science--Biology. It does not tell us the origin of the universe or of life. It tells us only how we got such a diversity of species on earth, and why those species work so well and are so fancy. That's all, and it's quite a lot for one theory. It has nothing to say on the subject of whether there is a God. To simplify this idea, let's all assume, for the purpose of this thread, that there is a God, your God, and that He created the universe and everything in it. Science does not address this question; it only tells us how God did it. If ToE is correct, it will tell us how God created all the species on earth. With me so far?

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

Ive already explained why its scientifically flawed. But how about scientifically FRAUD?

Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”

If evolution were true, there would have been literaly billions of intermediary stages in the fossil record, where we could have seen lungs develop from gills, etc. How many transitional form (missing links) has ever been found? Evolutionists thought they had a find with archaeopteryx, which seemed to show a transitional form between a lizard and a feathered bird, yet archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud that was actually developed from two separate fossilized remains. Java man, Piltdown man, Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking man were also missig links that were proven to be frauds.

Since you have displayed how it is flawed in the past of your replies, please quote it and show us.Because, radiometrics isn't the only form of dating i'll have you know for the last time!!!!

 

[Jose Fly]

Heneni,

But..you are saying its evolution, because some guy called darwin said it was evolution. So that makes you a darwin disciple not a scientist.

????? It's evolution because it fits the definition of the term "evolution" as understood and agreed to by the scientific community. I'm sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily redefine terms to suit your agenda.

Scientifically you have to be able to reproduce the orginal conditions that darwin says was there when evolotion started to prove that its right.

No, to "prove" evolution all we have to do is see it happen right before our eyes.

Evolutionists are suppose to be able to predict what we will evolve into next.

According to whom? You?

BUT you cannot show evolution in mankind can you?

Yes, of course. Just like any other population that replicates with variation, the human population is evolving.

Can you tell me how we are seeing evolution right before our eyes, WITHOUT the interference of man, i.e mutations in a lab.

There was no "interference" on our part. All we did was put them in a petri dish and watch them evolve.

And also...evolution in mostly natural surroundings because there is more smog in london than there was billions of years ago...but we dont actually know what things were like billions of years ago do we? Its all a theory.

Seriously, are you pulling our legs? Or do you really believe what you're posting constitues valid arguments?

 

[painted wolf]

Its amazing the vast number of scientific disciplines that YEC's have to ignore.
Biology
Paleontology
Genetics
Astronomy
Physics
Geology
Molecular studies
Climatology
Anthropology
and so on.

God must be some sneaky fellow.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Ive already explained why its scientifically flawed. But how about scientifically FRAUD?

Klaus Dose, a prominent evolutionist said, “More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution.”

1. Stop quote mining; it's a form of lying.
2. This has nothing to do with the subject of evolution. Your first issue is to learn what ToE is.

If evolution were true, there would have been literaly billions of intermediary stages in the fossil record, where we could have seen lungs develop from gills, etc. How many transitional form (missing links) has ever been found?

Literally billions.

Evolutionists thought they had a find with archaeopteryx, which seemed to show a transitional form between a lizard and a feathered bird, yet archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud that was actually developed from two separate fossilized remains.

No, it isn't. You're mistaken.

Java man, Piltdown man, Pithecanthropus erectus, and Peking man were also missig links that were proven to be frauds.

None of these are evidence on which the ToE is based.

 

[painted wolf]

all nine archaeopteryx are fauds?
***?

No archy is a composite.. they are beautifully preserved on single slabs. Clearly someone has never looked at archy.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Alright, for Heneni's benefit, to explain what ToE says.
I. How new species evolve, according to ToE:

Imagine some kind of creature, let's say a species of fish, O.K.? Say these fish are about 3" long, live in a lake, are greenish with light brown speckles, eat microscopic bugs, and reproduce by the female laying around 100 eggs at a time. With me so far? Now as we know, most of those 100 eggs will not survive to adulthood to have baby fish. They get eaten, they get sick, etc. If she's lucky, maybe 2-3 survive and reproduce. Also we know that although they're very similar, none of the babies are identical to her or each other. One's a little thinner, one's fatter, one has darker speckles, one has more speckles, one is immune to one fish illness, another to another, and so forth. But all the offspring are in the same pool (ha ha), so they interbreed with the same other little fish, so it all more or less mixes around, balances out, and they stay one species for quite a while. We'll call them Littlefishius heneni.

Which ones survive and which don't is partly luck, but over time, the ones with better immunity, better food-catching skills and better predator-avoiding skills for that environment will survive, reproduce, and pass on their genes.

Now imagine there's a drought, also an earthquake. So the lake is now divided into two lakes. One is deeper, cooler, and has some bigger fish in it, the other shallower, warmer, and lacks the really big fish. You've got two groups of Littlefishius heneni that don't interbreed any more. They're separated. Imagine that they get 2 generations a year, so over 500 years you get 1000 generations.

The deep lake L. heneni, call them group A, change over time, as their environment selects the ones that are a little bigger, darker, faster, etc. Group B is a little smaller, lighter, slower, etc.

Now imagine that 5000 years goes by. You've had 10,000 generations. The Group B heneni have changed quite a bit. They're only 2" long, with little stripes, no speckles, a short tail fin, and the female lays 200-250 eggs. The Group A's after all this time are around 4", completely speckled, dark, eat larvae, and reproduce by the female laying a clutch of around 25 eggs and sticking around to protect them. At this point, the two groups can no longer breed together--they're too different. At that point, somewhat arbitrarily, Biologists say that they are no longer the same species. We have to call one of them a new species, so we'll call the B's Littlefishius religiousforumus. Voila--new species.

That's how ToE says we get new species.

 

[Autodidact]

We know this happens, Heneni, because we've observed it happening. Not so much in fish (although it has been seen in Lake Victoria) but with faster reproducing creatures such as fruit flies. So we know that new species can evolve from existing species. Are you O.K. with that?