Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[camanintx]

All the animals, fish, and plants were created thousands of years ago. There are no new "kinds" of animals being formed. So no one alive today has observed a new type of animal or plant created, just variations of existing "kinds."

So no one has ever observed creation but countless scientists have observed evolution, and yet you still claim that all of the evidence supports creationism over evolution?

 

[Matthew78]

Once again, turn on to p.26 of the same article...
... and we see the familiar spectacle of a creationist pretending that a source confirming evolution is in fact refuting it.

Rusra is caught misrepresenting sources again! Where have I seen this before?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

"Kinds" isn't an accurate or defined word; it's a catch-all for evolution-deniers to try using when all else fails. Which is every time they post, essentially

 

[rusra02]

Creating Life From Chemicals | Moving a step closer to creating life - Los Angeles Times

wa:do

The scientist claims that "because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Venter."

However, the above linked article states:

"The research team started out with 101 small fragments of the genome, which were made by three commercial firms that specialize in synthesizing genes and other short DNA sequences."

So the question remains. Did the 3 commercial firms actually create the DNA this team started with, or use existing DNA? Did the scientist really use 4 bottles of chemicals to "create" a DNA strand from scratch?

In any case, synthesizing DNA appers to be a remarkable achievement by a brilliant group of scientists who now claim they "Created" synthetic DNA. Doesn't sound like evolution to me. Sounds like creation.

 

[rusra02]

Sounds like you going to great lengths to avoid answering the question.

I answered it. You either didn't read my answer thoughtfully, or you just don't like my answer.

 

[rusra02]

So no one has ever observed creation but countless scientists have observed evolution, and yet you still claim that all of the evidence supports creationism over evolution?

Again, "evolution" is a slippery, squirmy, smarthy word that means different things to different people, or can be misused by people who may be intent on deceiving others. Countless scientists have doubtless seen changes in fruitflys and swallows, but no one has ever observed one plant or animal kind modifying to produce an entirely new kind. A fruitfly is and ever will be a fruitfly, wing size and shape changes notwithstanding. A swallow is and ever will be a swallow, beak size and shape and body size notwithstanding. So-called 'microevolution' is a misnomer. Changes within animals and plants simply display God's brilliance in His allowing for great variation within a kind. There can be many species within what the Bible calls a "kind". Sterility is the boundary that separates "kinds" that Genesis 1 describes.

 

[johnhanks]

In any case, synthesizing DNA appers to be a remarkable achievement by a brilliant group of scientists who now claim they "Created" synthetic DNA. Doesn't sound like evolution to me. Sounds like creation.

Sounds even more like a refutation of your claim in post 156 that DNA is too complex to be synthesised.

 

[painted wolf]

The scientist claims that "because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Venter."

However, the above linked article states:

"The research team started out with 101 small fragments of the genome, which were made by three commercial firms that specialize in synthesizing genes and other short DNA sequences."

So the question remains. Did the 3 commercial firms actually create the DNA this team started with, or use existing DNA? Did the scientist really use 4 bottles of chemicals to "create" a DNA strand from scratch?

In any case, synthesizing DNA appers to be a remarkable achievement by a brilliant group of scientists who now claim they "Created" synthetic DNA. Doesn't sound like evolution to me. Sounds like creation.

Synthetic things are synthesized... so yes, the firms produced the initial fragments out of off the shelf chemicals. This is extremely common, you can ask these firms to make any combination of bases.

And yes, they created it. Either they are as powerful as god or they copied a process that is possible in nature.
Which do you think is more likely? Is Craig Venter a God?

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

Sounds even more like a refutation of your claim in post 156 that DNA is too complex to be synthesised.

As mentioned in other posts, it is questionable as to whether the DNA was hatched from scratch, or the chemical 'rungs" were grafted onto existing DNA bases. Further, What the scientists apparently did was copy an existing DNA chain and then place that chain into a host, similar to a programmer copying the computer source code of another programmer. In other words, they didn't make new DNA, they copied existing DNA using the chemicals of which DNA is constructed. While this is an impressive achievement, it is not what I consider to be "creating" DNA, which would require creating entirely new DNA strands that would be viable within a living cell. The scientists apparently successfully wrote down or copied what the Creator had already written.

 

[rusra02]

Once again, turn on to p.26 of the same article...
... and we see the familiar spectacle of a creationist pretending that a source confirming evolution is in fact refuting it.

Not at all. Simply stated what the author, an evolutionist, said. The evidence supports the sudden appearance of life, without transitional forms, and remains unchanged. The fact the writer is an evolutionist doesn't change the evidence.
So you are wrong in what you are saying.

 

[PolyHedral]

Again, "evolution" is a slippery, squirmy, smarthy word that means different things to different people, or can be misused by people who may be intent on deceiving others. Countless scientists have doubtless seen changes in fruitflys and swallows, but no one has ever observed one plant or animal kind modifying to produce an entirely new kind. A fruitfly is and ever will be a fruitfly, wing size and shape changes notwithstanding. A swallow is and ever will be a swallow, beak size and shape and body size notwithstanding. So-called 'microevolution' is a misnomer. Changes within animals and plants simply display God's brilliance in His allowing for great variation within a kind. There can be many species within what the Bible calls a "kind". Sterility is the boundary that separates "kinds" that Genesis 1 describes.

Oh, you mean nylon-eating bacteria aren't an entirely new species that could not possibly exist before 1930?

 

[outhouse]

his refusal of facts is astounding LOL

 

[camanintx]

Again, "evolution" is a slippery, squirmy, smarthy word that means different things to different people, or can be misused by people who may be intent on deceiving others.

The only slippery, squirmy, smarthy word being used here is "kind".

Countless scientists have doubtless seen changes in fruitflys and swallows, but no one has ever observed one plant or animal kind modifying to produce an entirely new kind. A fruitfly is and ever will be a fruitfly, wing size and shape changes notwithstanding. A swallow is and ever will be a swallow, beak size and shape and body size notwithstanding. So-called 'microevolution' is a misnomer.

And yet if you change the shape of a swallow's tail, it suddenly becomes a Martin. You really shouldn't put to much faith into the labels assigned to animals hundreds of years ago.

Changes within animals and plants simply display God's brilliance in His allowing for great variation within a kind. There can be many species within what the Bible calls a "kind". Sterility is the boundary that separates "kinds" that Genesis 1 describes.

So if species A and B can interbreed, then they are the same "kind", and if species B and C can interbreed they are the same "kind" as well. And what if species A and C cannot interbreed? Are they then different "kinds"?

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shawn001]

When rusra02 is shown the actual facts and proof he doesn't care about them at all. But still insists on saying evolution is wrong.

The facts, billions of them and more support transional fossils and we have shown you that "there are no transitional fossils" is a lie by creationists.

we have shown you a list of them you ignored.

In your opinion rusra02 is it okay to lie in the name of religion?

 

[McBell]

Has anyone ever observed a new species appearing out of nowhere, fully formed, with no possible predecessors?

All the animals, fish, and plants were created thousands of years ago. There are no new "kinds" of animals being formed. So no one alive today has observed a new type of animal or plant created, just variations of existing "kinds." Evolutionary paleontologist David Raup said: "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is,species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1/79 p.23.
So, animals and plants appear very suddenly, and show no change during their existence.
Hmm.. what does that sound like to you?

Sounds like you going to great lengths to avoid answering the question.

I answered it. You either didn't read my answer thoughtfully, or you just don't like my answer.

You did not answer it.
Hell, you did not even address it.

He asked about species.
You replied with some nonsense about kinds.

Care to try again?

 

[Matthew78]

You did not answer it.
Hell, you did not even address it.

He asked about species.
You replied with some nonsense about kinds.

Care to try again?

Did rusra ignore or block me?

 

[johnhanks]

As mentioned in other posts, it is questionable as to whether the DNA was hatched from scratch, or the chemical 'rungs" were grafted onto existing DNA bases.

You really, really don't get it, do you? Gene technology companies routinely synthesise DNA from four bottles of raw chemicals, without an existing template. The insulin-coding gene originally engineered into E. coli was a synthetic one, reverse-engineered from the insulin amino acid sequence without an existing DNA strand in sight.

You can go on 'questioning' this as long as you wish: the real world has left you behind.

 

[johnhanks]

Not at all. Simply stated what the author, an evolutionist, said.

Which was that fosslilsed life forms often show little change over time, with implications for the mechanisms by which we deduce evolution occurred - not, as you inferred, for its not having occurred at all.

But we shouldn't be surprised at your distortions: devoid of any evidence to support their claims, creationists have to clutch at any straws they can.

 

[rusra02]

When rusra02 is shown the actual facts and proof he doesn't care about them at all. But still insists on saying evolution is wrong.

The facts, billions of them and more support transional fossils and we have shown you that "there are no transitional fossils" is a lie by creationists.

we have shown you a list of them you ignored.

In your opinion rusra02 is it okay to lie in the name of religion?

I'm sure you believe that billions of transitional fossils have been found. Niles Eldridge states:"littler or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species."
The supposed transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists are just that: assertions, and assertions without proper support. Zoologist Henry Gee, himself a ToE advocate, states: "The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." (underline added). "Cannot say anything definite." In other words, ToE supporters just interpret the fossil record according to their world view.
But to hear the ToE faithful tell it, "we've proved evolution." Is it OK to lie in the name of science?

 

[rusra02]

You really, really don't get it, do you? Gene technology companies routinely synthesise DNA from four bottles of raw chemicals, without an existing template. The insulin-coding gene originally engineered into E. coli was a synthetic one, reverse-engineered from the insulin amino acid sequence without an existing DNA strand in sight.

You can go on 'questioning' this as long as you wish: the real world has left you behind.

I hear what you say. Can you supply sources for what you claim?