Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[rusra02]

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?

Sure. What is your definition for the word Species? And my reply was not nonsense. "Kinds" is the word used by the Creator of life, and nothing He says is nonsense.

 

[rusra02]

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

It may very well be. But it isn't a new "kind".

 

[McBell]

Sure. What is your definition for the word Species? And my reply was not nonsense. "Kinds" is the word used by the Creator of life, and nothing He says is nonsense.

I understand that you cannot answer the question.

Interesting that you would continue the deception by further avoiding answering it.

 

[johnhanks]

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

I and others have already provided several sources: after this, do your own googling!

Try this source for the synthetic insulin gene(s).

The required DNA sequence can be determined because the amino acid compositions of both chains have been charted. Sixty three nucleotides are required for synthesising the A chain and ninety for the B chain, plus a codon at the end of each chain,signalling the termination of protein synthesis. An anti-codon, incorporating the amino acid, methionine, is then placed at the beginning of each chain which allows the removal of the insulin protein from the bacterial cell's amino acids. The synthetic A and B chain 'genes' (see fig. 15) are then separately inserted into the gene for a bacterial enzyme, B-galactosidase, which is carried in the vector's plasmid.

You will note that the A chain and B chain genes are wholly synthetic, and do not / need not correspond to the natural human genes for those polypeptides.

 

[johnhanks]

Sure. What is your definition for the word Species?

Biologists have numerous working definitions for the word species, all readily available should you wish to look them up. We have yet to see your response to queries concerning ring species. Are their members of the same 'kind', or different 'kinds'?

And my reply was not nonsense. "Kinds" is the word used by the Creator of life, and nothing He says is nonsense.

When you use a text written by Bronze Age shepherds as a source on matters of 21st century science, what you get will be nonsense. 'Kind' in this context has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[painted wolf]

It may very well be. But it isn't a new "kind".

If you can't give us a definition of the word "kind" then how do you know?

Where in the bible does it give the definition of what a "bacteria kind" is? Where in the bible does it list how many "kinds" of bacteria there are?

wa:do

 

[shawn001]

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?

wow you have no clue what your talking about whatsoever.

You can read right, so go over these points, point by point!

How is it were still evolving? Proven by genetics, the fossil record, the geology of the earth etc..

a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin


The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museam hall at the smithsonian.
Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.
Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.
3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.
Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.
Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.
Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.
As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.
We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.
This ancient heritage is yours.
Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide

a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time


One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.

They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience

 

[shawn001]

These animals that predate T-rex, in fact one is an ancestor and didn't die in a global flood.

Dino Death Pit!


Dino Death Pit -- National Geographic Kids


These are fossils of the first flowers.

Flowers Modern & Ancient

• By Susan K. Lewis
• Posted 04.17.07
• NOVA

Archaefructus liaoningensis would never have made the cover of Better Homes & Gardens. But this 125 million-year-old plant, discovered in fossil beds in northeastern China, did grace the cover of Science. It’s heralded as the earliest known angiosperm, or flowering plant. Here, explore what makes Archaefructus a flowering plant and how it compares to blooming beauties of today.

NOVA | First Flower | PBS

 

[rusra02]

All those references you quote as "proof" of evolution are simply the assertions of the ToE faithful, and reflect their world view of the evidence. Quotes from other scientists disagree with the popular view of what the fossil record proves. And the dates freely posited are simply guesses, and are based on unreliable methods for dating. The ToE fraud is propogated by propaganda, and there is no lack of this. Nevertheless, the truth that "God created the heavens and the earth" is supported by the evidence, not the tortured interpretation of that evidence by evolutionists to fit their preconceived assumptions.

 

[rusra02]

These animals that predate T-rex, in fact one is an ancestor and didn't die in a global flood.

Dino Death Pit!


Dino Death Pit -- National Geographic Kids


These are fossils of the first flowers.

Flowers Modern & Ancient

• By Susan K. Lewis
• Posted 04.17.07
• NOVA

Archaefructus liaoningensis would never have made the cover of Better Homes & Gardens. But this 125 million-year-old plant, discovered in fossil beds in northeastern China, did grace the cover of Science. It’s heralded as the earliest known angiosperm, or flowering plant. Here, explore what makes Archaefructus a flowering plant and how it compares to blooming beauties of today.

NOVA | First Flower | PBS

When and how the dinosaurs perished is not discussed in the Bible.
Your date of 125 million years is based on what? And yes, God created flowers.
"Darwins theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. [I wonder where they got that idea?] Unfortunately, this is not strictly true...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." Chicago field museum of natural history, vol 50, no.1,pp.22,23.

 

[rusra02]

Biologists have numerous working definitions for the word species, all readily available should you wish to look them up. We have yet to see your response to queries concerning ring species. Are their members of the same 'kind', or different 'kinds'?
When you use a text written by Bronze Age shepherds as a source on matters of 21st century science, what you get will be nonsense. 'Kind' in this context has no meaning whatsoever.

The inability to interbreed may define what is a "kind". It is clear that God created plants and animals according to their kinds. (Genesis 1:12,21,22)

Your view of what the Bible says reflects the attitude of many today. Yet the Bible, completed almost 2,000 years ago, and written by dozens of different men over hundreds of years, has stood the test of time. Ridicule from so-called "wise" men doesn't change that. "For it is written: "I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside." ...For since, in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." (1 Corinthians 1:19-21) "Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger then men. "(vs 25)

​

 

[rusra02]

I understand that you cannot answer the question.

Interesting that you would continue the deception by further avoiding answering it.

Not at all. I simply want to be sure when we talk about species, that I understand your meaning of the word. "evolution", "species" are words that mean different things to different people.

 

[rusra02]

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.

So since the fossil record show life forms show little change over time, you deduce that evolution occurred.... interesting....

 

[johnhanks]

The inability to interbreed may define what is a "kind". It is clear that God created plants and animals according to their kinds. (Genesis 1:12,21,22)

Still no wisdom to share on ring species, then? Are Ensatina eschscholtzi eschscholtzii and Ensatina eschscholtzi klauberi the same kind or different kinds? They can't interbreed with each other, but there is a continuous horse-shoe-shaped chain of populations connecting them, each of which can interbreed with its neighbours. This observation fits evolutionary theory perfectly. What is the baraminological explanation?

 

[outhouse]

So since the fossil record show life forms show little change over time,

is this a blatant LIE ???


You are all POE dude and have ZERO cedibility

 

[johnhanks]

So since the fossil record show life forms show little change over time, you deduce that evolution occurred.... interesting....

Oh, rusra, such dissembling: Jesus would be so ashamed of you. You missed out that little word 'often', as in

Originally Posted by johnhanks
... fosslilsed life forms often show little change over time...

Often does not mean always, rusra. Echinoid fossils, for example, accumulate changes at an impressive rate.

You might also note that 'little change' means 'change' (evolution), not 'no change'. And you must surely have noted by now that the author of the article you keep quoting states of this 'little' change that it

... pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred...

 

[Krok]

is this a blatant LIE ???
You are all POE dude and have ZERO cedibility

Creationists have to lie. That's all they have. That's the only thing they can do.

 

[rusra02]

Still no wisdom to share on ring species, then? Are Ensatina eschscholtzi eschscholtzii and Ensatina eschscholtzi klauberi the same kind or different kinds?
I don't know.

They can't interbreed with each other, but there is a continuous horse-shoe-shaped chain of populations connecting them, each of which can interbreed with its neighbours.
So?

This observation fits evolutionary theory perfectly. What is the baraminological explanation?

It fits creation just as well. I don't subscribe to barminology.

 

[Krok]

It fits creation just as well. I don't subscribe to barminology.

Oh, could you describe exactly how it "fits" kinds?

 

[rusra02]

Oh, rusra, such dissembling: Jesus would be so ashamed of you. You missed out that little word 'often', as in
Often does not mean always, rusra. Echinoid fossils, for example, accumulate changes at an impressive rate.

You might also note that 'little change' means 'change' (evolution), not 'no change'. And you must surely have noted by now that the author of the article you keep quoting states of this 'little' change that it

Changes within a species, such as sea urchins, don't prove evolution. It simply proves that God created plants and animals with potential for great variety within a group. Dogs, for example. Sea Urchins, for another example. Variation does not prove evolution. "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." -Francis Hitching.

That gets back to the need for a standard definition for "evolution". If you consider "evolution" to mean change, that is not how I understand the word. I think you know how I am using the term, and it is not to describe changes within a species.
But just for the record, my definition of evolution is:
"Evolution" teaches that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. It is this theory millions reject, not the fact that species can exhibit tremendous variation.