The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh yes, the theme is about the dirty secrets against Darwinian type evolution, kind of, so to speak.

So far, I haven't seen any dirty secrets. Just claims and allegations without support. Well, other things too, but that also doesn't surprise me.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I have been. I wish you would have supported your claims. I don't believe that I have done anything to influence you from your own personality. I do hope you are more thoughtful and considerate in the future to anyone you engage with about any subject.

You have been very demeaning to me also whether you will acknowledge it or not. And I did support my claims contrary to what you say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Telling me it is my responsibility to prove an egg didn't evolve, is like telling others it's their responsibility to show that God doesn't exist.

So, you claim it didn't but are declaring that you don't have to demonstrate that it didn't. Do you really not see the disparity in that?

The theory has to be supported by those that believe in it.

The theory is supported by evidence and it is on that basis that it is accepted. It is not believed in like some religious position.

You agree that it takes something living to lay the egg.

Never denied it. But that recognition is not evidence that eggs didn't evolve and couldn't. I'm not aware of eggs coming from any other source but living things. Are eggs produced by non-living things?

You agree that the egg will produce something very similar to what lays the egg.

I have stated that I expect what comes out of the egg to be the same species as what laid it.

It's your job to show that it did evolve, not mine to prove it didn't.

It is your job to show how this refutes evolution. Good grief!

How did you get the life to be there to evolve to begin with?

We don't know the natural mechanisms and for those that believe in God, there is no details on how it was created.

That's the root of the problem.

Not at all. Given that I have already answered several times what is required for evolution to take place, it is far from any root or problem.

If you are claiming it was through evolution then how you got that initial egg is a valid question.

If you are claiming that eggs refute evolution, then by all means, please start letting us know so that we can know too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have been very demeaning to me also whether you will acknowledge it or not.

No I haven't. I can find your posts demeaning me. Show me those that demean you.

But aren't we a little old to be playing this game?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No I haven't. I can find your posts demeaning me. Show me those that demean you.

But aren't we a little old to be playing this game?

Some of it was on another thread, and I don't want to have to dig through all those posts only to have you deny it anyway.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So, you claim it didn't but are declaring that you don't have to demonstrate that it didn't. Do you really not see the disparity in that?

The theory is supported by evidence and it is on that basis that it is accepted. It is not believed in like some religious position.

Never denied it. But that recognition is not evidence that eggs didn't evolve and couldn't. I'm not aware of eggs coming from any other source but living things. Are eggs produced by non-living things?

I have stated that I expect what comes out of the egg to be the same species as what laid it.

It is your job to show how this refutes evolution. Good grief!

We don't know the natural mechanisms and for those that believe in God, there is no details on how it was created.

Not at all. Given that I have already answered several times what is required for evolution to take place, it is far from any root or problem.

If you are claiming that eggs refute evolution, then by all means, please start letting us know so that we can know too.

So you are claiming they did and it's not your job to prove it. Good grief is right!

NO eggs don't refute evolution. Once again twisting what I say. It's the lack of a creature that comes from an egg to lay the egg first that refutes evolution.

You can't explain how we got that creature to begin with when it comes from an egg.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some of it was on another thread, and I don't want to have to dig through all those posts only to have you deny it anyway.

I don't recall engaging you on another thread. Which is it that you are claiming?

I don't mind. I'll dig. I have the tools to do it effectively.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please repeat your debunk. Where did the simplest cell come from? How did evolution get started to begin with?

Sorry, you do not even get to ask those questions until you can demonstrate that there is some hope that you would understand the answer. You need to learn the basics of science. I am willing to help you learn if you are brave enough to learn.

If DNA is assembled by proteins. How is that possible? - when you can't have proteins without DNA

You have that backwards. Proteins are assemble by DNA. And DNA appears to have come from RNA and RNA can self replicate. And it can form on its own as well.

Where are all the intermediate/ smooth transitional forms in the fossil record for all the different species?

This is a question that demonstrates that you know far too little to debate this topic yet.

Deposition is not consistent. All over the Earth there are areas of deposition and areas of erosion. Most land animals never are preserved. The fossil record is more like a family album than a movie of how life developed.


But here is the thing, one way that we can test the theory of evolution is with the fossil record. A fossil showing up way too early in the fossil record could refute it. But we never see it. We never see modern mammals with non-avian dinosaurs. We never see fish fossils in the Ediacaran.

When you ask questions as you just did you only refute yourself.

Here is an analogy that you might understand. If a person that was trying to debunk Jesus demanded to know the names of his children how would you react? That is the sort of question that you just asked.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are claiming they did and it's not your job to prove it. Good grief is right!

The bottom line in all of this is that you made claims and I asked questions. You have not supported the claims, explained them or answered my questions.

NO eggs don't refute evolution.

Then what is your point about eggs?

Once again twisting what I say.

Not even for the first time. This is getting old.

It's the lack of a creature that comes from an egg to lay the egg first that refutes evolution.

Then establish that lack. Eggs had to come from somewhere that you have some idea or evidence for that you feel refutes the theory of evolution. What is it?

You can't explain how we got that creature to begin with when it comes from an egg.

I have stated that I do not know a natural mechanism for the origin of life. That is not the same thing as you are saying here.

Fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, even mammals all have species that lay eggs. In some groups, like birds, they only lay eggs. Does every animal reproduce with eggs? Explain how you think eggs as a structure is irreducible and must exist in order for life to evolve. An evolution that you sort of claim to accept.

Explain this in the context of the fossil record, genetics and ecology while you're at it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's your responsibility because Evolution claims the egg was first. How is that ever possible? It's not.

You have insulted me many times. I just try not to let it bother me. I think it best we just abandon our debate. You believe I'm not answering and I believe you aren't answering.

This could not possibly be simpler. If evolution is true -- and it is -- then a parent creature can be progenitor, through small genetic variation, to something very like, but not exactly like, itself. Now, in viviparous creatures, the new (very slightly different) animal arrives alive in the world from its mother's body. In birds, and many other species, the mother produces an egg containing an embryo with slightly altered genome that grows into the new animal.

In this case, let's call this new animal an chicken, hatches from an egg laid by it's (let's call it an) ur-chicken parent. So the egg follows the ur-chicken, and the chicken follows the egg. The egg comes before the chicken.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This could not possibly be simpler. If evolution is true -- and it is -- then a parent creature can be progenitor, through small genetic variation, to something very like, but not exactly like, itself. Now, in viviparous creatures, the new (very slightly different) animal arrives alive in the world from its mother's body. In birds, and many other species, the mother produces an egg containing an embryo with slightly altered genome that grows into the new animal.

In this case, let's call this new animal an chicken, hatches from an egg laid by it's (let's call it an) ur-chicken parent. So the egg follows the ur-chicken, and the chicken follows the egg. The egg comes before the chicken.

But that would be like calling a chick that hatches from a chicken egg now something else. It's still a chicken. That ur-chicken was a chicken. That is why it laid a chicken egg.

Also how did you get that ur-chicken?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never said that once. But I do understand that he created things. Are you unable to understand that part?

Who is to say that God could not have "created things" at the time of the Big Bang? Why demote him by making him a Stepin Fetchit God? That seems rather demeaning to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's another falsehood. MY answer was that it would provide some real evidence.

I do not think that you know what "real evidence" is.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This could not possibly be simpler. If evolution is true -- and it is -- then a parent creature can be progenitor, through small genetic variation, to something very like, but not exactly like, itself. Now, in viviparous creatures, the new (very slightly different) animal arrives alive in the world from its mother's body. In birds, and many other species, the mother produces an egg containing an embryo with slightly altered genome that grows into the new animal.

In this case, let's call this new animal an chicken, hatches from an egg laid by it's (let's call it an) ur-chicken parent. So the egg follows the ur-chicken, and the chicken follows the egg. The egg comes before the chicken.

How do you get that FIRST parent to the parent to the parent, etc. ? You don't have to call it a chicken if you don't want to. But I am asking where does evolution say the first parent came from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I'd like to see the evidence that evolutionists here proclaim in answer to the above questions...

They are very poorly asked questions and probably cannot be answered as asked.

Some of them appear to have false assumptions built into the questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of it was on another thread, and I don't want to have to dig through all those posts only to have you deny it anyway.

Creationists often make the error of thinking that a correction is an attack and is therefore demeaning. There may be some projection involved in that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But that would be like calling a chick that hatches from a chicken egg now something else. It's still a chicken. That ur-chicken was a chicken. That is why it laid a chicken egg.

Also how did you get that ur-chicken?

It is clear that you can't visualize multiple generations at once. You have, I'm sure, been told about 11 trillion ties that evolution isn't something that happens in a single generation -- it takes many, each with very, very slight (possibly unnoticeable) variations that provide very slight advantage leading to slightly more success in passing on the new gene(s). Now try seeing that over multiple generations.

It's like the frames of a film -- at 60 frames per second one frame is nearly exactly like its predecessor you can't tell the difference with the naked idea. But look at a frame 400 frames away from another, and the difference becomes obvious.

I'm trying to get you to use your actual imagination through analogy here -- because you seem completely stuck on the failed idea that evolution is about one animal being the direct parent of some completely different animal -- and that's not what it is at all.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is clear that you can't visualize multiple generations at once. You have, I'm sure, been told about 11 trillion ties that evolution isn't something that happens in a single generation -- it takes many, each with very, very slight (possibly unnoticeable) variations that provide very slight advantage leading to slightly more success in passing on the new gene(s). Now try seeing that over multiple generations.

It's like the frames of a film -- at 60 frames per second one frame is nearly exactly like its predecessor you can't tell the difference with the naked idea. But look at a frame 400 frames away from another, and the difference becomes obvious.

I'm trying to get you to use your actual imagination through analogy here -- because you seem completely stuck on the failed idea that evolution is about one animal being the direct parent of some completely different animal -- and that's not what it is at all.

No - I do understand what you are saying. But you have to have something initially to evolve - right? So my question is how do you get that beginning creature based on evolution?

There is initially nothing there, to be able to evolve.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is clear that you can't visualize multiple generations at once. You have, I'm sure, been told about 11 trillion ties that evolution isn't something that happens in a single generation -- it takes many, each with very, very slight (possibly unnoticeable) variations that provide very slight advantage leading to slightly more success in passing on the new gene(s). Now try seeing that over multiple generations.

It's like the frames of a film -- at 60 frames per second one frame is nearly exactly like its predecessor you can't tell the difference with the naked idea. But look at a frame 400 frames away from another, and the difference becomes obvious.

I'm trying to get you to use your actual imagination through analogy here -- because you seem completely stuck on the failed idea that evolution is about one animal being the direct parent of some completely different animal -- and that's not what it is at all.

On the surface evolution might appear to be a valid explanation if you already had something existing to evolve. For instance if you had a bird of some kind, maybe you could possibly say that it gradually became the modern day chicken. But you are skipping the part about getting a bird to begin with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No - I do understand what you are saying. But you have to have something initially to evolve - right? So my question is how do you get that beginning creature based on evolution?

You don't. That is a separate problem. Do you understand that? Let me help you out. It does not matter where that first life came from. If you want to you can say that God magically poofed it into existence.