It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for Evolutionist's

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Dog breeds are a great example. Humans bred wolves into breeds as diverse as the Great Dane and the Chihuahua. Give it a couple more centuries and those breeds will be entirely different species (Great Danes and Chihuahuas are already at the point where they can't breed with one another).




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by ken10
 


Of course there's a difference, the difference is Macro evolution has never been observed. Never has any scientist's observed one species, in the transitional stage of becoming another species and still being alive.

And by the way evolution just means "change" it's not a magic word that suddenly disproves a creation account.


That is a silly rule to put on an argument -- and when it comes from someone who's worldview is based on faith it transcends silly and sails off into bizarre. Have you ever seen "electricity" have you ever seen the Chrysler building as a collection of parts. Have you ever seen your great great grandfather - do you doubt that you have one.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Can you give a single example of a genetic mutation that results in an INCREASE in information to the genetic evolutionary process?

Didn't think so, check mate this thread can be closed.

Evil-lution has just been disproved.
edit on 14-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


Please be clearer with what this might mean. Words have meaning and their order is important. Yourf question was meaningless.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Dawkins explains his pause and answers the question here:

www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

I think I've addressed your main argument in my reply on page 4 of this thread, here:

post by OnceReturned
 


Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution. One is concerned with the origin of life and the other with its change over time.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Can you give a single example of a genetic mutation that results in an INCREASE in information to the genetic evolutionary process?

Didn't think so, check mate this thread can be closed.

Evil-lution has just been disproved.
edit on 14-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


Please be clearer with what this might mean. Words have meaning and their order is important. Yourf question was meaningless.


i think my answer was about as good as its gunna get i didnt really have a clue what he was on about



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


I've spent enough time arguing with Creationists to know the argument he was trying to make. He was trying to say that mutation cannot cause an increase of genetic material in an organism's genome. For some reason Creationists always forget about Insertion and Amplification. Of course now that I've pointed these out he has stopped responding.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


And they will always be apart of the "Dog Kind".

Case closed.
edit on 14-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Nosred
 


And they will always be apart of the "Dog Kind".


No, they are currently evolving into entirely separate species. That's why dogs are a different species than wolves, because we bred wolves into dogs, we literally both watched and caused it to happen....

Are you trying to imply that wolves and dogs are the same species?
edit on 14-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Since you're the one bringing up the ambiguous word "kind" I figure I'll ask a question regarding it. Since you seem to be trying to use it in a somewhat biological way, why does the Bible consider birds and bats the same kind? They're DNA and even their physiology are completely different. Would you classify birds and bats as being the same kind?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


To be honest he has never observed you or any other poster here actually writing a reply. All he has like fossils are words that no one see being written.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by spyder550
 


I've spent enough time arguing with Creationists to know the argument he was trying to make. He was trying to say that mutation cannot cause an increase of genetic material in an organism's genome. For some reason Creationists always forget about Insertion and Amplification. Of course now that I've pointed these out he has stopped responding.


Yeah I know; but he can not frame a scientific debate and use a language of fantasy. He brought up scientific method -- and that involves using words that all agree about the meaning. In his world the words are debatable ad nauseam.

I feel truly sorry for this guy.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Question - where is the SCIENTIFIC evidence for one genus EVER becoming another genus? (Kind)

I don't mean your "stories" and "charts" in evilution textbooks, I mean Scientific Method science.

Thanks.
edit on 14-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


Perhaps part of the evolution process requires a combination of the upper most genus' to spontaneously evolve? Without that vital match up, evolution amongst lower genus is impossible, hence, the lack of quantitative evidence.


edit on 14-9-2011 by phantomjack because: changed qualitative to quantitative



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Can you give a single example of a genetic mutation that results in an INCREASE in information to the genetic evolutionary process?

Didn't think so, check mate this thread can be closed.

Evil-lution has just been disproved.
edit on 14-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


hahahahahaha i get it now
your answer is very obvious!
Eukaryotic cells, prokaryotic cells and lots of other stuff like stem cells (proof life is a process of nature) and the various ranges of life such as fungi.
When is this ignorance going to end, its obvious that science is reality and religion is nonsense. its testament to the powers of evolution that an entire intelligent species can be sucked into a society’s ideas just like the apes and many other animals.
i really don’t feel the need to argue with you, the evidence is staring you in the face and i hope one day you see it or that science is able to advance enough to get the obvious evidence that still probably wont convince people if we continue to give such power to these dangerous and reckless organisations called religion. Faith is the worlds best marketing ploy.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Sorry to break it to you but evolution is pseudo science and not real science.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


They are different species of the same Kind = same genus.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


No, it is more provable than the theory of gravity is. Germ theory and evolutionary theory are pretty much the best and most complete scientific theories out there, they are the standard against which other theories should be measured.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


So, you're just going to ignore the information that I and others provided that proved you wrong? Why should I be surprised when you have admitted to doing such in the past? Let me just remind you that the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance." If you're not going to do that then what is the point of you being here?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


Sorry to break it to you but evolution is pseudo science and not real science.

haha i notice you didn’t need to quote me for that response.
atheists will notice how when responded to with evidence and a logical response to his question he responds with a quote that bears not weight or evidence, trying to insult because he has no answer a very typical Christian response
What’s that?
Checkmate?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Nosred
 


They are different species of the same Kind = same genus.


...Exactly?


In biology, a genus (plural: genera) is a low-level taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms, which is an example of definition by genus and differentia. Genera and higher taxonomic levels such as families are used in biodiversity studies, particularly in fossil studies since species cannot always be confidently identified and genera and families typiclaly have longer stratigraphic ranges then species.[1]

The term comes from Latin genus "descent, family, type, gender"





They evolved from the same species, to a different species of the same genus. That's kind of how evolution works, you basically just admitted it's real.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   


^ How speciation works.




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join