Science against evolution

reply to post by colin42

That is not what is going on here. If tooth could make just one argument, backed with evidence he would have been taken seriously. Let me list a few things he repeats and has been repeating for over a year.

Everything I have presented including Target Food is backed up by evidence. What, do you think Von Daniken, Sitchen, Pye, and the bible are all wrong? Where is YOUR proof they are wrong?

No one has ever seen a rat turn into a cat. He has had the explanation that this is not what evolution describes yet continues to repeat it.

And still I maintain that no one has presented me with anything that proves a species evolving into another species, and you still maintain your are correct, with NO PROOF. Where is your proof, all you have is speculation, and its horrible at best.

A man can live in a whale. Again has had more than enough examples and explanations to show he is in error but he claims 'there use to be magic'

I wasn't aware that you participated in Mythbusters and proved this claim to be incorrect. Sounds more to me like your making another assumption. The claim may sound impossible, but with the help of supernatural forces, it could be possible.

Target food shows evolution wrong. He maintains that if a species evolves it would loose its food source. Again showing a complete and wilful disconnect with the explanation evolution gives and frankly the world he lives in. He made a thread claiming he could prove his claim and did not offer one piece of evidence.

I have heard every excuse in the book, first that evolution causes the food to evolve with us, then I heard that we actually adapt or evolve into accepting the food that we have. Neither of which is there a shred of evidence for, so your obviously WRONG again, but thanks for playing.

Makes claims about alien creators and explains the diversity we see as the aliens used spare parts

I never used the claim spare parts, thats your take on it. What I said was they could have used RECYCLED parts, there is a difference you know, get it right man.

He claims because we farm we are unnatural and cannot be from here yet cannot explain the ant that also farms.

You lack depth, and understanding, but of course I'm not shocked. Basically because we not immediatly equiped to farm, in other words we have to make tools, to make tools, to make tools to allow farming possible for us, where as the ant is allready equiped, he is made to farm.

His favourite animal is the ant eater yet his very own criteria means the ant and therefore the anteater cannot be from here if he were correct.

It would appear that none of us are from here, just like the bible claims.

Asks for a relationship man has with other animals and when given shows he does not understand what a relationship is. In fact his grasp of the English language and his ability to read what is written is so shockingly bad his rare links always prove the point he is trying to make wrong.

Being Mauled by a bear or a wolf is not a relationship. If I'm wrong, why don't you go have a close relationship with a bear, and see how far that goes.

He even thinks the chaos theory causes chaos. He claims to be a science major but shows no signs of even a basic grasp of science and a borderline genius the proof of which is also well hidden

I never claimed the chaos theoy causes chaos, but I may have been silent to let you assume, because thats what evolutionists like to do.

Ask him about his balanced tank. He claimed to be a fish and plant in perfect harmony. Yet when he was corrected and shown it was a Hawian Red shrimp and algea and that the shrimp slowly injests itself from hunger cutting an expected 20 year life span to 18 months still claims it is balanced because the manufacturers said so.

The tank is sold with the understanding that these things will be in balance, I have no argument that it's not an ideal balance.

He only accepts what he wants to believe and has an insane hatred of a word. Evolution

You mean how you have your own version of the word natural? Which I proved over and over conflicts with all versions we could find?

Edit
How could I forget. He claims black people and white people are from different planets and that the Bushman is a different species.

Do you have any proof that they are not? The tower of babble would say YOUR WRONG!

reply to post by flyingfish

Catching speciation in the act is nearly impossible because of the timescales that are evolutionarily relevant but that does mean that it has not been witnessed (see links).
This allows ID/creation proponents, like tooth, to say it has never been observed.
They are looking for an example where a population of creatures produces a completely new creature over a short period.
This strawman argument will convince the uninformed, but should not deter reasonable individuals.
This is the information age, posting factually inaccurate information is no longer a viable alternative to selling snake oil from the pulpit.

So NOW your willing to understand that the only proof of evoluton is between your ears?

Example One:

Example one:


Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Link one

So here the false assumption is made that because two strains developed hybrid sterility of male offspring, speciation has occured. In short, the species is making gradual changes on its way to becoming another species. This is NOT proof. All it means is they produced steril offspring. But an assumption was made that this is the early stages of evolution. If anything it sounds more to me like inbreeding caused the defect. There is no proof that the species is changing into another species.

Example two:


Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Another example of assuming. Doubling of the chromosome count wont produce offspring with original stock. Again an assumption is made based on the fact that they won't produce with the original stock. So they claim speciation, but all thats happened is they won't produce, thats not proof.

There are too many cases where a man and woman are not able to produce children, and the doctor has ruled out eveything in the realm of science, that he has ever told them its because they are speciating .

Example three:


Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

The ONLY thing that a species not being able to breed proves, is, is wait for it...................................................... is that it's not able to breed.

Your making the false assumption that because a species is not able to breed, that it surly must have changed species, and thats false. My next door neighbor is not able to produce children, and from the doctors can tell there is nothing wrong with her or her husband, could she have evolved ???????



The problem is that these assumptions were allready accepted by the norm, and there you have it, thats the problem in a nushell.

reply to post by colin42


I hear you, I guess tooth is an ache in more ways than one but I still say that people will always find ways to disagree because it is in our make-up, in our genes somewhere because what other reason could there be for the world to be so divided on every subject under the sun?

reply to post by iterationzero


Ditto my reply to Colin42.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Everything I have presented including Target Food is backed up by evidence. What, do you think Von Daniken, Sitchen, Pye, and the bible are all wrong? Where is YOUR proof they are wrong?

So you intend starting the New Year just as dishonestly as you ended the old one.

And still I maintain that no one has presented me with anything that proves a species evolving into another species, and you still maintain your are correct, with NO PROOF. Where is your proof, all you have is speculation, and its horrible at best.

You still intend to remain ignorant of the subject you childishly believe you can prove wrong.

A species does not evolve into anything. It evolves.

I wasn't aware that you participated in Mythbusters and proved this claim to be incorrect.

I proved you wrong many times. Even gave you a chance to prove me wrong by showing me a seal that was found alive inside a whale which would have more chance of happening and you can’t.

The claim may sound impossible, but with the help of supernatural forces, it could be possible.

Yep the old magic claim. Pathetic.

I have heard every excuse in the book, first that evolution causes the food to evolve with us, then I heard that we actually adapt or evolve into accepting the food that we have.

Nope. Firstly you read what you wanted to be and so interpreted as excuses but like I stated, you have problems with reading.

No one told you food evolves with us. You may have been told everything evolves. The fact is you do not have the intellect to understand a simple concept, but then you have magic.

I never used the claim spare parts, thats your take on it. What I said was they could have used RECYCLED parts, there is a difference you know, get it right man.

No difference, it’s just as ridiculous and something I would be disappointed hearing from a five year old.

You lack depth, and understanding, but of course I'm not shocked. Basically because we not immediatly equiped to farm, in other words we have to make tools, to make tools, to make tools to allow farming possible for us, where as the ant is allready equiped, he is made to farm.

Keep going. You are proving my post above to be correct in every detail. As you have been told many times we do not need tools to be able to farm. We make tools because we can

It would appear that none of us are from here, just like the bible claims.

Is that so. So nothing on this planet has this mythical 'Target Food'. You no doubt will tell another lie to cover your mistake but you cant escape the bible says nothing is from here. So nothing is natural, native to this planet. No target food then.

Being Mauled by a bear or a wolf is not a relationship. If I'm wrong, why don't you go have a close relationship with a bear, and see how far that goes.

Hunting bear with a pack of wolves is. The bee pollinating our crops is. Being mauled by a bear or wolf means you did not respect the relationship we have with them. Way beyond your IQ level so don’t worry about it.

I never claimed the chaos theoy causes chaos, but I may have been silent to let you assume, because thats what evolutionists like to do.

I see you are still never slow to lie to cover your mistakes.

The tank is sold with the understanding that these things will be in balance, I have no argument that it's not an ideal balance.

You spent pages denying it even though I gave you pages of proof. So again a lie to cover your error

You mean how you have your own version of the word natural? Which I proved over and over conflicts with all versions we could find?

You only accepted one version, the one you refused to link to because you cherry picked from it. But as usual you tell only what suits your empty claims. You claim natural is anything that does not include man and every definition shows you are wrong which is why you cherry pick

As with many words you cannot understand that when you added ‘super’ and ‘un’ in front of natural it changes the meaning and that is where the main conflict was and you demonstrate you still don’t understand the language you abuse.

Do you have any proof that they are not? The tower of babble would say YOUR WRONG!

Genetics prove without doubt the tower of babble is wrong and that you are the pinnacle of ignorance.

Anyhow more important things. You do realise this is January don’t you? Traditionally you should be showing how clothes and shoes prove we are not from here and evolution is wrong.

Also this is the time of year you tell us how our outlandish and useless hands show we are not from here.

A new year but sadly the same old tooth

reply to post by itsthetooth

His favourite animal is the ant eater yet his very own criteria means the ant and therefore the anteater cannot be from here if he were correct.

Your reply

It would appear that none of us are from here, just like the bible claims.

Lance Armstrong is not the only liar to come clean this year.

Given that you believe despite evidence to the contrary that the bible is a clear historical document let's see how long it is before you cherry pick the parts you believe supports your fantasy.

Lets list the evidence you give in support of your latest claim.

So all along you have known the bible claims that no animal is native to this planet yet claim only man is not natural. Only mans actions are not natural. Quite deceptive of you, certainly not the action of an honest person looking for answers as you claim.

So if nothing is native to this planet do you include bacteria, plants, insects in fact all organic life?

Of course your revelation means you have blown target food out of the water which leaves your argument against evolution with little more than your claims of ‘outlandish hands’, ‘shoes’, ‘clothes’ and ‘milk’.

This also goes against what interventionists tell us, a group you try to associate yourself with when denying you have made up your one man religion.

So explain to me what happened. These aliens found a floating, lifeless rock orbiting a sun, then what?

reply to post by itsthetooth

I choose to accept the evidence and clearly what it states. That is that speciation has been witnessed but that in itself doesn't prove a species changing into another species. I'm hoping your seeing the flaw in this evolution and the assumptions that are being made.

Speciation has been observed, but that's not evidence of speciation? The only flaw I see is your claim that observation of speciation isn't evidence of speciation.

It's actuallly YOU thats not understanding. In order for the actions to take place that evolution is responsible, it would require cognitive thought. Just like how evolution is supposedly responsible for rendering over a billion species but you claim that its NOT a creator. Come on man, open your eyes and your lack of common sense.

You still don't seem to understand that evolution is not a cause, it is an effect. Until you do, there's no point in trying to have a discussion with you.

So you ARE admitting that DNA can be changed in the process of evolution.

I never said otherwise. You still don't seem to understand the difference between the factual statement that "genetic changes are part of the process of evolution" and your fabricated statement that "evolution causes genetic changes".

Now your claiming that it doesn't.

See above. I'll repeat it for a third time in this post with the hope that it sinks in, even though I know it won't: evolution is a change in allele frequency within a population over time -- evolution does not cause genetic changes, it is caused by genetic changes. Specifically, heritable genetic changes.

Are you sure your understanding the claims? You seem to be confused. Everything I understand shows that DNA changes through evolution, can this really be true? If it is, then our understanding and use of any and all DNA is useless, especially since we have no way of knowing or tracing what changes were brought on by what.

Yes, I am quite sure that I understand the claims made by modern evolutionary synthesis. You, on the other hand, keep constructing a strawman to argue against.

Not everything on the internet is GOOD information, evolution included. I could spend years devising theory after theory to build up intervention and just slam people into notes everything they reject any part of it. Not having a single ounce of proof, just like evolution.

You are correct -- "Not everything on the internet is GOOD information" -- which is what makes it an even more colossally bad joke. You're willing to offhandedly dismiss evidence that is objective, well described, and reproducible in favor of baseless claims. The "good information" is right there for you, and anyone else to see, you just choose to hand-wave it away and believe your fundamentalist religion and its prophets.

reply to post by john_bmth

Erm... that's not what evolution is about at all. Seriously, you're quoting people who can't even distinguish between the abiogenesis hypothesis and the theory of evolution? Riiiiiight.

to be fair, the reason they were separated is because abiogenesis hasn't even come close to providing a working model.

it was more "well, we have no idea how life could have occurred spontaneously, but we'll just skip that and get on with the rest" not the logic one uses when looking for what is actually true.

evolution simply cannot happen. not a single species has been demonstrated to have changed into a new species ever. (excluding cross breeds, which never result in a sustainable species)

currently in the human genome, the rate of deleterious mutations is U=3, or more simply put, a child born with half it's parent's combined mutations plus three new information removing mutations.

there's a complex statistics formula that can be used with the data above, and the jist of it is that for the population of humans to remain the same, every pair of humans would have to produce 40 children to produce 2 children with the equilibrium number of deleterious mutations (same number of information removing mutations in the parents). the 38 other children then couldn't be allowed to reproduce, and the two with no new mutations (and it would be almost impossible to determine which ones didn't have any new deleterious mutations) would have to mate with 2 others who didn't develop any new deleterious mutations and produce 40 more children.

that's just to keep the population at an equal level, and that practice would have needed to be in place around 200,000 years ago continuing to the present day.

the above research was carried out by evolutionists. they were stunned by the results and attempted to fudge numbers. in the end, they admitted the rate of deleterious mutations was too high, but that they still believed in evolution

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

to be fair, the reason they were separated is because abiogenesis hasn't even come close to providing a working model.

Nope. To be fair the theory of evolution describes how life has evolved evident in the diversity we see today and in the fossil record

it was more "well, we have no idea how life could have occurred spontaneously, but we'll just skip that and get on with the rest" not the logic one uses when looking for what is actually true.

Nope. It was based on observations in the field. Experiments and evidence.

evolution simply cannot happen. not a single species has been demonstrated to have changed into a new species ever. (excluding cross breeds, which never result in a sustainable species)

The information you refer to after this rather uninformed statement above means you need to provide the link that you go on to refer too.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

Originally posted by vasaga
Funny, how when someone asks to show how God does not exist, it's such a stupid request, but if the same is done for mutations, suddenly it's a viable way to disprove evolution.. Double standards ftw.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Difference is mutations exist and can be observed.....are you comparing your god to a mutation?

You're missing the point. It's obvious you are not a logical thinker, otherwise you would've gotten it. The whole point is that it's impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove God does not exist. That's why people say that it's up to the theists to prove that God exists, and not up to the disbelievers to prove that he does not. You can not prove fairies do not exist. You can not prove the spaghetti monster does not exist. You can not prove that I do not have an invisible black cat in my lap. All you can do is try to prove that they do exist, and if you fail, you can say there is no indication that they exist. But that is not proof of them not existing.
So when you give as a requirement to prove that mutations do not occur, that is an unrealistic requirement, because you are requesting someone to prove a negative, which is impossible. Not to mention blatantly disgustingly deceptive, because you're trying to propose something to be falsifiable by things that have already been observed. By doing that, you purposefully exclude the falsifiability, thus making it not-falsifiable by default, while pretending it to be falsifiable. And you're holding the theists to a standard that you yourself refuse to hold when it comes to their God, thus why I said you had double standards.

If you want to show how something is falsifiable, you need to give something concrete that contradicts the current view. For example, one could prove thermodynamics to be false, by showing heat flowing from a cold to a hot temperature. That's something that's NEVER been observed before. Also, note that it's a POSITIVE claim, not a negative, like your list of 'not this, not that'.
To return to your whole mutations thing... In the case of evolution, there are multiple instances where mutations do not occur, even more than where mutations do occur, so your proposal is meaningless. There are also more mutations that are harmful, than there are mutations that are beneficial, again making your proposal for why evolution is falsifiable mean nothing. By that standard, it has already been falsified, but of course, you will argue that it hasn't been. So you pick, either your list does not represent how evolution is falsifiable, or it has already been falsified. There are no other options. Well, you could still give some actual falsifiable claims of evolution... Good luck with that.

Also, natural selection is not falsifiable, which is the main argument used for mutations having the possibility of being beneficial. Feel free to show how that is falsifiable too.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
The process of evolution is merely change over time, eventually that change has indeed led to a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, kind, domain and species.

@bold: Stop being so deceptive. By that definition, everything is evolution. Time is the changing of space by definition. You've basically equated evolution to existence. That would mean that a car rusting is evolution, a fruit rotting is evolution, and even breathing is evolution. Stop with the retarded equivocation of the word evolution, and stick with a single definition, that actually describes it. A definition of something is supposed to exclude it from everything else. If I define a computer as a box, it's not a definition, because it does not describe what separates a computer from all other things that look like a box. You're doing the same thing with evolution, to pretend it explains and encompasses more than it actually does.

There is no evidence whatsoever for anything above Species and Genus. It's just an assumption that because different species could appear through evolution, different kingdoms could also. It's the equivalent to throwing a baseball in the air, and assuming that the baseball could be thrown to the sun by the same method. "Ah yes but time, millions of years blah blah". Spare me.

I'm not gonna be replying to the rest of your post. Your ability to miss the point is too great, and your whole post was about proving negatives, which is impossible, and pretending some facts are opinions. If you'd actually make an effort to understand arguments we could have a conversation, but, that's obviously not happening, so, have fun with your bias. If I could suggest anything to you, learn the difference between "if X, then Y" and "if and only if X, then Y".

Originally posted by vasaga
You're missing the point. It's obvious you are not a logical thinker, otherwise you would've gotten it. The whole point is that it's impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove God does not exist. That's why people say that it's up to the theists to prove that God exists, and not up to the disbelievers to prove that he does not. You can not prove fairies do not exist. You can not prove the spaghetti monster does not exist. You can not prove that I do not have an invisible black cat in my lap. All you can do is try to prove that they do exist, and if you fail, you can say there is no indication that they exist. But that is not proof of them not existing.
So when you give as a requirement to prove that mutations do not occur, that is an unrealistic requirement, because you are requesting someone to prove a negative, which is impossible. Not to mention blatantly disgustingly deceptive, because you're trying to propose something to be falsifiable by things that have already been observed. By doing that, you purposefully exclude the falsifiability, thus making it not-falsifiable by default, while pretending it to be falsifiable. And you're holding the theists to a standard that you yourself refuse to hold when it comes to their God, thus why I said you had double standards.

To bring out such vitriol I must've hit a nerve somewhere, or maybe you've pushed yourself into a tight spot that you know you can't get out of....

Genes exist, sometimes they mutate, sometimes they don't. If it could be shown that they don't ever mutate, then evolution would be falsified.

If you want to show how something is falsifiable, you need to give something concrete that contradicts the current view. For example, one could prove thermodynamics to be false, by showing heat flowing from a cold to a hot temperature. That's something that's NEVER been observed before. Also, note that it's a POSITIVE claim, not a negative, like your list of 'not this, not that'.

But it's been observed that heat simply does not flow from a cold to a hot temperature. You're trying to propose something to be falsifiable by things that have already been observed. By doing that, you purposefully exclude the falsifiability, thus making it not-falsifiable by default, while pretending it to be falsifiable

Wouldn't it be 'blatantly disgustingly deceptive' to make such a proposal? Do you read what you post?

Also, natural selection is not falsifiable, which is the main argument used for mutations having the possibility of being beneficial. Feel free to show how that is falsifiable too.

Easy, find me a 2 billion year old human fossil....as none have been found to date...

Originally posted by Prezbo369
The process of evolution is merely change over time, eventually that change has indeed led to a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, kind, domain and species.

Stop being so deceptive. By that definition, everything is evolution.

Bingo give that man a banana! Everything changes over time.....the word evolution isn't solely used to describe the process leading to biological diversity. Take a look for youself...

Time is the changing of space by definition. You've basically equated evolution to existence. That would mean that a car rusting is evolution, a fruit rotting is evolution, and even breathing is evolution. Stop with the retarded equivocation of the word evolution, and stick with a single definition, that actually describes it. A definition of something is supposed to exclude it from everything else. If I define a computer as a box, it's not a definition, because it does not describe what separates a computer from all other things that look like a box. You're doing the same thing with evolution, to pretend it explains and encompasses more than it actually does.

Lol well the rest of the English speaking world would disagree, well maybe not the breathing part....

There is no evidence whatsoever for anything above Species and Genus. It's just an assumption that because different species could appear through evolution, different kingdoms could also. It's the equivalent to throwing a baseball in the air, and assuming that the baseball could be thrown to the sun by the same method. "Ah yes but time, millions of years blah blah". Spare me.

You're just very confused aren't you...you've contradicted yourself at least twice in your last post on critical points, produced faulty analogies and continue with the vitriol towards me for simply pointing out where you're incorrect.

I'm reminded of a great quote:

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” ― Thomas Paine, The Crisis

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Genes exist, sometimes they mutate, sometimes they don't. If it could be shown that they don't ever mutate, then evolution would be falsified.

Nice way to show you understood nothing of what I just explained.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
But it's been observed that heat simply does not flow from a cold to a hot temperature.

No it hasn't. It has not been observed that heat flows from cold to hot. That is not the same as "observing that heat does not flow from cold to hot".
It's the difference between:
Not seeing you type on your keyboard, and seeing that you didn't type on the keyboard.
Or not seeing that your girlfriend was on the beach, and seeing that she was not on the beach.

They are two different things.And that's where you trip up, because you assume they are the same, and you make a bunch of fallacies from it.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Wouldn't it be 'blatantly disgustingly deceptive' to make such a proposal? Do you read what you post?

Read above.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Easy, find me a 2 billion year old human fossil....as none have been found to date...

Yeah.. That works nice in theory, but all they'll do is say "humans evolved earlier than we thought". Just like here.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Bingo give that man a banana! Everything changes over time.....the word evolution isn't solely used to describe the process leading to biological diversity.

By equating evolution to everything you've made it unfalsifiable, because to falsify it, you need to disprove everything. Nice going there. Thanks for showing us that evolution is unfalsifiable, and thus proving that it's unscientific.

I find it funny how all your arguments regarding it not being falsifiable are regarding biological stuff, but now suddenly it encompasses everything. Equivocation fallacy ftw.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Lol well the rest of the English speaking world would disagree

Appeal to the masses ftw

Originally posted by Prezbo369You're just very confused aren't you...you've contradicted yourself at least twice in your last post on critical points, produced faulty analogies and continue with the vitriol towards me for simply pointing out where you're incorrect.

You can just make that statement, but you haven't shown where I have done that exactly. For people who claim to be scientific, you sure really have a hard time living it.

reply to post by iterationzero

Speciation has been observed, but that's not evidence of speciation?

It does sound weird, but I'm calling total BS on the event. First off we have no proof that a species could change into another species, even if it wanted to. Second I think there is a tad bit of semantics here. Anyone can say a species has changes just because there are some minor changes in its DNA, however; does that really mean it's changing into another species?

You could argue this point to any extreme, that the mere fact there are changes at all, means its a different species, but really? Is it really a different species? There is simply no proof and all we have to go on to make matters worse, is our own conception of what a different species qualifies to be. I could take things to the extreme and say I'm a day older than when I woke up this morning, therefore I'm a different species. So the determining factor has rested upon the ability to breed or not. The problem is that all other possibilities of inbreeding have not been ruled out. Just because something is not able to breed is not proof of speciation. They could have cysts, they could have cancer, there could be inbreeding results just from putting them together. Inbreeding reactions could even be triggered from the organization efforts in the test.

So yes you are correct when you question me about saying that speciation is not proof of speciation, because it honestly hasn't been determined yet.

You still don't seem to understand that evolution is not a cause, it is an effect. Until you do, there's no point in trying to have a discussion with you.

The results would seriously sway away from your direction. Anything that has created over a billion species, surly has intent. Again the problem is your assuming there is no cause, but still you have no proof, while the results would indicate your wrong. Look at it this way,,,,, lets say your sister slapped the hell out of you, but quickly backed off after indicating that it was just an accident. Would you believe her, or think more that its just an excuse? So now lets say she does it a billion times, is it an accident? I think not, and you would seriously have to be the most naieve person to think that.

I never said otherwise. You still don't seem to understand the difference between the factual statement that "genetic changes are part of the process of evolution" and your fabricated statement that "evolution causes genetic changes".

The fact that evolution trys to dismiss the cause by indicating that it just happens in the process, does not prove there isn't intent. Your still assuming, and you have no basis to assume what you are except for the purpose of dismissing the obvious fact that intelligence is involved in this process. Here you have what you refer to as a process for the sole purpose of dismissing any possible intelligence. Of course with all of the things that evolution performs, its so intelligent that we can't even nail it down and call it predictable. Same thing with not calling it a creator, it was just an effort to dismiss intelligence. It's common sense that anything that creates over a billion species has some sort of intelligence. Evolution has the ability to change DNA through process, but you stand firm that it holds no intelligence. Meanwhile human struggle with learning how to perform, or recreate the same task. Evolution is responsible for rendering over a billion species yet you maintain that its NOT a creator. Meanwhile humans struggle in their attempts at creating life that even comes close to understanding how this could all be possible.

The answer.... is that evolution is obviously smarter then humans, and evolution can perform acts that we only once ever understood possible from a godly creator. You can maintain all you want that its just a process but with our inability to trace how it works, predict how its going to work, and recreate its creation abilitys, you are obviously WRONG.

reply to post by iterationzero

See above. I'll repeat it for a third time in this post with the hope that it sinks in, even though I know it won't: evolution is a change in allele frequency within a population over time -- evolution does not cause genetic changes, it is caused by genetic changes. Specifically, heritable genetic changes.

Right, its just that we are unable to trace and predict those changes, or even make those changes ourselves. It also sounds like we are also unable to identify those changes as well. At least untill I brought up the DNA changes found in ADHD. It would appear that prior to science finding this out, ADHD changes would have been accepted as evolution. Remember that can be from a pregnant woman smoking a ciggerette.

Yes, I am quite sure that I understand the claims made by modern evolutionary synthesis. You, on the other hand, keep constructing a strawman to argue against.

But as I have allready pointed out, some of those changes like that in ADHD have been identified to NOT be evolution, but surly used to be. So you have been wrong, and certainly continue to be wrong. Unless you consider a pregnant woman smoking a ciggerette, to be evolution.

You are correct -- "Not everything on the internet is GOOD information" -- which is what makes it an even more colossally bad joke. You're willing to offhandedly dismiss evidence that is objective, well described, and reproducible in favor of baseless claims. The "good information" is right there for you, and anyone else to see, you just choose to hand-wave it away and believe your fundamentalist religion and its prophets.

I'm sorry but there is nothing objective about ASSUMING that species are changing as I described in speciation. There is nothing objective about ASSUMING that a species can even change into another species with no PROOF. At least in religion we have a hard copy of what has happened, where as with evolution, your not able to prove a species can change into another species even though you have fossils, DNA, and tests.

Meanwhile DNA in humans proves intervention, as best described by Pye. Fossils prove intervention as there are no missing links that prove a closer relationship between man and ape. We do have alternate fossils of each but none that bring us closer together.

Originally posted by vasaga
No it hasn't. It has not been observed that heat flows from cold to hot. That is not the same as "observing that heat does not flow from cold to hot".
It's the difference between:
Not seeing you type on your keyboard, and seeing that you didn't type on the keyboard.
Or not seeing that your girlfriend was on the beach, and seeing that she was not on the beach.

They are two different things.And that's where you trip up, because you assume they are the same, and you make a bunch of fallacies from it.

I can't decide whether you're just too angry to make sense, you're attempting to change the subject or you're incredibly pedantic......I'll go with the latter...

Yeah.. That works nice in theory, but all they'll do is say "humans evolved earlier than we thought"

Right, because the difference between 2 billion years and 2-4 hundred thousand years is negligible......

By equating evolution to everything you've made it unfalsifiable, because to falsify it, you need to disprove everything. Nice going there. Thanks for showing us that evolution is unfalsifiable, and thus proving that it's unscientific.

Did you see that? oh no it just flew clean over your head...

I find it funny how all your arguments regarding it not being falsifiable are regarding biological stuff, but now suddenly it encompasses everything.

I'll say it once more...the english word 'Evolution' doesn't solely refer to the process that creates bio-diversity, it also refers to the change over time, of anything.....

It's great that people like you are attempting to learn new scientific words and concepts, but it's always best to walk before you disregard an entire field of science purely because it contradicts your chosen holy book/space ghost/world view.

Is it this singular theory you have issues with, and its just a coincidence that it contradicts your world view, or do you have an issue with any other scientific theories?

reply to post by itsthetooth

And what exactly are you basing this information on? I was always taught that animals are animals and humans are humans. Which is also why humans don't have animal instinct.

Humans are animals. Please stop making everyone laugh.

Evolution is not a causitive agent. Evolution is the result of a process.

These are simple to understand issues.

There is nothing that ties us to animals.

Typical creation gibbersish.
How about neurons, locomotion, mitochondria, nuclear membranes, collagen, reproduction, ...

We do share the same planet, we do both drink water and breath air but aside from that, nothing.

You can always count on a creationist to look foolish.

Creationists don't need to lie

Actually they do since they are completely wrong.

I have seen that proves evolution to be correct.

Not surprised to see you write that. One of the solutions is get learn about the subject.

reply to post by colin42

So you intend starting the New Year just as dishonestly as you ended the old one.

Speak for yourself.

You still intend to remain ignorant of the subject you childishly believe you can prove wrong.

A species does not evolve into anything. It evolves.

So then by your own admission, evolution does NOT prove diversity?

I proved you wrong many times. Even gave you a chance to prove me wrong by showing me a seal that was found alive inside a whale which would have more chance of happening and you can’t.

Thats because your a poor scientist, you believe in testing matters and not testing them on an equivical manner. Where did you get the supernatural element from? Oh wait, you didn't, because you think it means nothing.

Yep the old magic claim. Pathetic.

It's pathetic that you think that man knows all and is all. It's as though you don't even have room to learn, yep, sounds like you.

Nope. Firstly you read what you wanted to be and so interpreted as excuses but like I stated, you have problems with reading.

No one told you food evolves with us. You may have been told everything evolves. The fact is you do not have the intellect to understand a simple concept, but then you have magic.

Thats what I was told and I'm sticking to it.

No difference, it’s just as ridiculous and something I would be disappointed hearing from a five year old.

Then our scientists engineers must be five year olds because we still do this today. As in the example I gave about us first creating the wheel for a car, then someone took that wheel and applied it to the use of a bicycle, and then an air plane. So as you can see, recycled parts is not far fetched even by our standards.

Keep going. You are proving my post above to be correct in every detail. As you have been told many times we do not need tools to be able to farm. We make tools because we can

Keep talking yourself into a corner. The fact is Ants farm naturally, and we don't. There is nothing natural about altering the genetics of food to our liking, nothing natural about plumbed water to feed the crops because mother nature does not cut it. Nothing natural about mechanical planting, or mechanical fertilizing. The fact is that not even the food it yeilds is natural. Now we are working on GMO's I'll bet you think that is the most natural thing in the world.

Is that so. So nothing on this planet has this mythical 'Target Food'. You no doubt will tell another lie to cover your mistake but you cant escape the bible says nothing is from here. So nothing is natural, native to this planet. No target food then.

That depends on whether or not their food was brought her along with them. Obviously the ant and anteater are an example and kelp and the abalone.

Hunting bear with a pack of wolves is. The bee pollinating our crops is. Being mauled by a bear or wolf means you did not respect the relationship we have with them. Way beyond your IQ level so don’t worry about it.

You have to be the biggest %$#@! on here. I allready proved to you that we DO NOT share a relationship with wolves. This is also why I was able to produce a PLETHORA of links and videos showing you we don't not share anything with wolves. The lack of relationship is so obvious that there are LAWS that prevent the owning of wolves, because they are DANGEROUS. Now I know you think getting mauled by a bear or wolf is a relationship, but thats not an amicable one.

I see you are still never slow to lie to cover your mistakes.

My mistakes have been few and far between, but you on the other hand need to cuddle up next to a bear.

You spent pages denying it even though I gave you pages of proof. So again a lie to cover your error

Your arguing semantics, the fact is the tank is sold as a balanced system. Sorry man, I'm not the one that put them together, but I see your still in denial of the fact that they are what they are, sold as a balance system.

You only accepted one version, the one you refused to link to because you cherry picked from it. But as usual you tell only what suits your empty claims. You claim natural is anything that does not include man and every definition shows you are wrong which is why you cherry pick

As with many words you cannot understand that when you added ‘super’ and ‘un’ in front of natural it changes the meaning and that is where the main conflict was and you demonstrate you still don’t understand the language you abuse.

All I did was copy and past the definitions and links, and your not happy with the facts so you attack me as though I wrote them. Get a clue man

reply to post by colin42

You only accepted one version, the one you refused to link to because you cherry picked from it. But as usual you tell only what suits your empty claims. You claim natural is anything that does not include man and every definition shows you are wrong which is why you cherry pick

As with many words you cannot understand that when you added ‘super’ and ‘un’ in front of natural it changes the meaning and that is where the main conflict was and you demonstrate you still don’t understand the language you abuse.

You need to man up to the fact that you are wrong, and that you were proven wrong, but don't want to accept the facts.

Genetics prove without doubt the tower of babble is wrong and that you are the pinnacle of ignorance.

Anyhow more important things. You do realise this is January don’t you? Traditionally you should be showing how clothes and shoes prove we are not from here and evolution is wrong.

Also this is the time of year you tell us how our outlandish and useless hands show we are not from here.

A new year but sadly the same old tooth

If our hands were made for farming, we would use them for farming. Instead we build tools that help us farm.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no proof that these claimed changes happen because of evolution, it's only assumed, and I'm not interested in assumptions.

Evolution does not cause changes. Evolution are the changes. You are the one with the mistaken ideas. Try taking basic biology at your high school to learn something about the subject.

Speaking of which, stating that humans are actually a GMO best described by PYE.

Pye has been repeatedly shown to be a liar. Latching onto a liar is not a way to learn.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yet you fail to explain why some species eat ONE food and one food only while others eat a few, to a dozen, to dozens of foods.

Every time you made that nonsense claim I asked for you to show a species that met your joke of a claim. Each time I showed that you were wrong. Your laughable excuse was that you solely relied on the wikipedia and refused to look at other sources.

You were wrong 100% of the time.