Evolution Wins - Raphanobrassica

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
So, I have been involved in quite a few threads lately that have been authored by creationists. While I value the art of debate and try to stay objective in my stance and look at both sides I am very much at a loss as to why creationists seem to not do the same. I can understand the value of faith for creation but creation is solely grounded in religion, and religion is solely grounded in the writings of an ancient culture that can not be studied except through its writings. These writings have been passed down over thousands of years and retranslated and re-written numerous times into various languages and interpretations. There is no amending to any of these writings, there are only those that would interpret the writing in a differing manner than others. The study of these writings in only that...a study of the story written thousands of years ago. There are no new stories nor any changes to the original.

Science changes and studies changes. Science gives answers in logical terms that we as humans can understand and not just take at someone else's word. Science is observable and testable. Science teaches us to question and think, critically. Science answers questions that are inherent to human nature.

Many of these questions have come up in numerous recent threads.

I would like to ask creationists to debunk macro evolution based on the following example:

Karpechenko's Raphanobrassica:




Brassicoraphanus is the name for all the intergeneric hybrids between the genera Brassica (cabbages, etc.) and Raphanus (radish). The name comes from the combination of the genus names. Both diploid hybrids and allopolyploid hybrids are known and share this name.
Early experimental crosses between species of these two genera had been sterile or nearly sterile, but large-scale experiments by Soviet agronomist Georgi Dmitrievich Karpechenko using Raphanus sativus and Brassica oleracea were remarkable because some of the plants produced hundreds of seeds. The second generation were allopolyploids, the result of gametes with doubled chromosome numbers.[1][2][3] As Karpechenko realized, this process had created a new species, and it could justifiably be called a new genus, and proposed the name Raphanobrassica for them, but the earlier name Brassicoraphanus has priority. Plants of this parentage are now known as radicole.[4]


Source

Now I have already heard those that have said the completely new "kind" produced is infertile. That is not true. They are able to produce seeds and germinate both parent plants which would make them very much able to reproduce, and reproduce yet another "kind".

As far as I know, creationists consider plants life and this is a shining example of macro evolution for life.

I have also already heard, from creationists, that this proves Intelligent Design, to which I have stated that if this indeed proves intelligent design then creationists must believe that man is GOD.

So...definitive proof of macro evolution exists.

The above example is from two completely different genus, or "kind" as creationists like to specify, and they created a completely different genus, or "kind".

I am sure this will bring plenty of debate and semantics but facts are facts and this is one example that I have yet to see brought up in a creation vs evolution debate.

It is actually a very definitive example as it will force anyone in the debate to either say it is intelligent design, therefore calling man a GOD or that it is evolution therefore debunking creation. I have yet to figure out an in between stance on this particular example.




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
So scientists created a new breed of cabbage? And this is definitive proof why? Doesn't this lend favor to creationism? Indeed, a man may believe himself to be a god, but until he creates something where there was once nothing.. he is just a man experimenting with God's creations.

If this was the final argument, evolution just lost.
edit on 29-8-2013 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


Incorrect...this is evolution at a macro level as creationists have asked for. Evolution does not occur in nature on a macro evolution level overnight, it occurs on a micro evolution level over extended periods of time. Creationists are constantly asking for macro evolution examples and here we have one. If it is conceded that it is Intelligent Design and created by man then Creationists are giving the power of God to man.




Another case of a new stable type produced by the union of unreduced gametes is the tetraploid hybrid Karpechenko (1927, 1928) obtained by crossing cabbage and radish (Brassica oleracea × Raphanus sativus). In this cross, the F₁ hybrid is quite sterile due to a nearly complete lack of chromosome pairing. However, it does produce some viable diploid gametes. Fusion of such gametes gave rise to Karpechenko's tetraploid, the "rabbage" known as radicole (Raphanobrassica), in the F₂ generation. These F₂ plants exhibited regular meiosis and were fertile. Moreover, they were reproductively stable, yielding later generations morphologically similar to the F2.16


Source

Is the man who created this God from the Bible? It is, after all, a completely new genus, or "kind", in the evolutionary and creationist sense of the word.

Your argument is the same as every creationist I have encountered....when faced with a fact that disproves your belief you try to counter with sarcasm and semantics. Yes, a new breed was born from completely different breeds....macro evolution.

Evolution did not lose as the argument from creationists is "where is the macro evolution". Either this is macro evolution or the man that cross germinated the species is God.
edit on 8/29/13 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Another argument I have is that creationists split hairs with macro/micro evolution yet don't bat an eye at those that argue the world was created in 7 days and stating that this is just poetic license and interpretations are allowed. Either it was 7 days or it wasn't. If it wasn't then how many days was it actually?

Just like macro/micro evolution.....it is splitting hairs. Evolution occurs, whether it be macro or micro. I have simply given an example of macro that has been asked for in all creationist threads I have been involved in.

Micro evolution examples are so numerous I could not begin to list them all.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Plants are not living things. The life of flesh is in the blood. That is the reason God did not accept Cain's offering of the produce he had grown. There was no blood in it, therefore it was not alive, making it unacceptable as a sacrifice signifying the future Messiah.

The Bible never calls plants alive. It never says they die. It always says they wither or fade. When God told Noah to build the ark, He told him to put living creatures on there, and to take "unto thee of all food that is eaten." God distinctly distinguishes one from the other: living creatures, and food that is eaten:

Genesis 6:19-21(AKJV)
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

Psalm 37:2(AKJV)
2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
and wither as the green herb.

Matthew 21:19-20(AKJV)
19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

All those scientists did was take existing genetic code and change it around to make a different type. They did not add any new information out of thin air. They took what was already there and caused varying traits to stand out more than others. They can try to reword it any way they like, but the fact still stands that they had to use what was already there to make something different.

I've read over your post quite a few times and am still not able to see anything outstanding. Making hybrids of different types of plants and vegetables is by no means anything new. There are millions of people out there who make hybrids of different vegetables for their gardens.

In the first half of your post you admit that science changes and studies change, which really means: "when someone comes along and proves the old theory wrong, a new one is made up. When that one is proved wrong, yet another one is made up."

Then in the second half of your post you use an example of something that has been done for thousands of years by gardeners and farmers everywhere as "proof" that evolution exists. No matter how anybody tries to word or reword it, those scientists simply made a new hybrid of vegetable.

To claim humans are gods because they took existing things and mixed them together to make something different does not really make any sense. Now, if they had spoken them into existence out of thin air, then we would talk!



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Can I throw a wrench in the evolution debate? Evolution is a result and not a cause. Involution (Baptism) is the process and evolution (Rising to new life) is the aim of the creative process of design. Evolution is noticed, but this does not demand that it is the cause. In fact, no evolutionary claim would say that life was caused by evolution, despite the overwhelming allusion by the pundits that it does. From one side of the mouth, they state that we arise from evolution. From the other side, the claim evolution is not a cause. As well, the theory of evolution is taken on faith, just as a Creator is taken on faith. That is, until we have a simple proof. Here is the proof.

Aleph Bet is the word Father in Hebrew. This is Alphabet producing DNA. The Son of God is Bet Nun, Hebrew for the word Son. Bet is house and Nun is seed. The house of the seed is the Son. Aleph Mem is mother. Mem is water. Our involution (Baptism) into the waters of life is the catalyst for the letters and words. When the Bible states that two become one flesh, it is referencing Chirality and Coalescence.

Taken by itself, this is not proof. Given context to the whole of scripture and current scientific discovery, this IS proof. What is science saying today? We are a hologram and we live in a digital universe based on what is observed from quantum mechanics. Evolution would like us to stay in the dark ages and pretend the universe is analog. This is not what science says. Here is a video from four Nobel laureates saying what I am saying in this thread.



Where is the poof they are right?

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created mankind in his own image [Hologram],
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

In the verse above, the mathematical constant e is embedded into the words and letters. LINK

In Genesis 1, Pi is embedded: LINK

Why is it proof? Because TODAY is the first time in history mankind could know this truth. The FACT that we can observe the evidence left by the Creator is proof we were created for one solid reason. In physics, the Strong Nuclear force is the Proton and Neutron. Compare how we can know the truth from the electron (Weak Force). What is the electron's pathway considering quantum tunneling? If you know, you see why this is Proof.

Aleph is Strength and Bet is House. The Strong House is our PROOF that Word has borrowed the future and brought it into the past. If you know anything of physics, you know what quantum tunneling is all about. How can God borrow from the future and pay back in the past? Again, if you know anything about physics and the strong nuclear force, you know why this is dead center positive proof that we are created.

God has left the evidence for us in the past so that He is paid back in the future. The proof is entangled on each end of the Aleph and Tav (Alpha and Omega) and demonstrates truth from beginning to end. Not only is this how we can see proof on each end, it is also the process of prophecy. God draws the future into the past. Entanglement is how this is accomplished for the electron. Why am I using the Proton Neutron and Electron in this example? God is invariable. Symmetry in physics in invariable. We are the electrons by comparison in the analogy. Father and Son are the Proton and Neutron.

Revelation 1

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

TRUTH in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav. On either side of the beginning and end, we have MEM (Water). You will scoff at my proof unless you know how the electron is managed by the Strong Nuclear Force. The key is with invariable symmetry and the FACT the electron borrows. The Strong House is invariable and God is that Aleph Bet of DNA. The Son is the Word. Evolution is a result and not a cause.

Augustine, from City of God

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

Evolution states the result and not the cause. The proof is knowing that what I am showing from an ancient document describes what the group below is stating as evidence. We are created and the universe is digital.



edit on 29-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Just because some white coats in a lab can combine 2 species to produce a new one doesn't mean it would ever happen naturally. Your radish cabbage is the result of bio-engineering, not evolution. This is hardly a win.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


I did some framing in my early years, I guess you could say that I helped trees evolve into a houses, but the problem with that statement is... a tree could never become the stick framing of a house on its own. Now, when I make a tree out of a rock, please feel free to call me a god, but until that day, I am just a servant.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Another argument I have is that creationists split hairs with macro/micro evolution yet don't bat an eye at those that argue the world was created in 7 days and stating that this is just poetic license and interpretations are allowed. Either it was 7 days or it wasn't. If it wasn't then how many days was it actually?

Just like macro/micro evolution.....it is splitting hairs. Evolution occurs, whether it be macro or micro. I have simply given an example of macro that has been asked for in all creationist threads I have been involved in.

Micro evolution examples are so numerous I could not begin to list them all.


Evolution is obvious. It is a result of programming and not the cause of that programming. No evolutionist has ever observed evolution at the macro level. It is an assumption on faith of the conjecture, but that assumption is better stated as a creative process of design from an active designer. I just linked two videos in my last post that overwhelmingly shows that our newest theories MUST include information science. Apart from the Bible, we have no comparison to answer why these things are so. With the Bible, we know. Aleph Bet writes the word. Read my last post. This is an enigma that science cannot overcome. The very laws of physics define the meaning of the verses I listed above. As well, we know this:

Hebrews 11

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Faith is an apt description of collapsing wave function from the standpoint of the observer. You need to know two aspects of reality to see that I am not merely making this up. The observer changes the states of matter by collapsing the indeterminate wave function of probable states. We know that our 2D shadow follows our 3D body. We also know that our 3D body is the shadow of 4D time. Above time, there is a probability state where outcomes are governed by law. The universe arises by virtue of this hidden (Enfolded) metacosm. Again, if you are unaware of what the metacosm is to an information scientist, you will not understand why I am saying this. Knowledge is in formed, just as information is at the heart of all life. It is WORD.

Is an acorn an oak thee or is the oak tree the acorn? Neither. They are both expressions of the word inside.

Here are the videos that show what I am saying.



What is collapsed and where is it from that makes it hidden? If we believe evolution as a cause, who collapses the wave to make the choice to select the best outcome? This is the dead end for evolution. The observer is necessary.



Remember, evolution as a cause is a theory. It has no foundation in what is directly observed. Creation as a cause has ALL the evidence of science backing it as the truth. I am showing you the obvious implications, but you need the foundation to understand why the physicists and information scientists I link are saying what they are saying. They know the truth, even if their funding sources will not allow them to state it outright.

What about error correcting code in the digital laws of physics? keep in mind, I am NOT denying evolution as a result of programming. It is evident. It is NOT a cause. This is also evident. You must use truth to deny ignorance.



edit on 29-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Either it was 7 days or it wasn't. If it wasn't then how many days was it actually?



It was six days. The seventh, He took a break and admired it all.

God also didn't create the stars, to be for signs/seasons/days/years until the fourth day.
Which leads one to ask how the first three days were 24 hour periods of time, when there was no sun?
What makes a day?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jeramie
 




Plants are not living things.


Right off the bat you are wrong. Plants are most definitely alive. They grow, reproduce, and die just like any other living thing. If it lives, it must die, that is the natural order of the universe. Plants dying is proof positive that they are alive.




The life of flesh is in the blood.


I guess that means jellyfish, sponges, flatworms, etc. aren't alive then. You might want to publish this new discovery, there would be a lot of surprised scientists around the world. I'm sure they'd have to rewrite the books with this one.

Honestly, after reading your first two sentences, the rest of your post isn't really worth reading. No offense.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Just because some white coats in a lab can combine 2 species to produce a new one doesn't mean it would ever happen naturally. Your radish cabbage is the result of bio-engineering, not evolution. This is hardly a win.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)


This is yet another proof that evolution is a result and not a cause. The very fact that we can manipulate digital code is yet more of an evident axiom for creation as a cause than it is for evolution as a cause. I agree with you that we are engineered.

Go back and read my last two posts. I give a ready answer with multiple witnesses and a valid source of truth that mirrors our current knowledge. What do the teachers of biology below have as a ready answer? Truth must be simple by the law of parsimony. The simple truth is Aleph Bet is the word Father in Hebrew and means strong house (Strong Nuclear Force). The Alphabet of DNA writes the Words of Amino Acids and Proteins. Son in Hebrew is Bet Nun ( House of Seed). Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). All combinations in nature need a catalyst and water is the involution (Baptism) of our soul (Consciousness) to Evolve (Rise to new life). Nothing about this goes against the science, but shows us why we see what we see. Amazing!

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Good post.

edit on 29-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Another argument I have is that creationists split hairs with macro/micro evolution yet don't bat an eye at those that argue the world was created in 7 days and stating that this is just poetic license and interpretations are allowed. Either it was 7 days or it wasn't. If it wasn't then how many days was it actually?

Just like macro/micro evolution.....it is splitting hairs. Evolution occurs, whether it be macro or micro. I have simply given an example of macro that has been asked for in all creationist threads I have been involved in.

Micro evolution examples are so numerous I could not begin to list them all.

On your first argument:
Cabbage and Radish are in the same "family". They are of the same "kind".

On your second argument:
Your understanding of ancient Hebrew is lacking. The world was not made in 6 days.
The word "day" in chapter one of Genesis is translated from the Hebrew word "Yon", which has several meanings depending on verb usage and accents used. In Genesis "yon" actually can be translated as an age. So the world was created in six Creative ages or stages.
Quad



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Religion is the result of a limited imagination. So you are NEVER going to get a comprehensive answer from someone with a limited imagination.

They want a simplistic answer to everything. So they can then claim to "know" God or its master plan.

Having said that.... A lot of scientist and academics are just as guilty of jumping to the easiest to grasp explanation. Claim to have "proof" but later find out they were dead wrong.


Neither party ever apologizes for wasting people time for their stupid ideas.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


You mean like the word "perfect" means ...

(1) Mature
(2) In the right place at the right time.


But somehow was translated to "without sin"


Bible is full of it.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeramie
Plants are not living things. The life of flesh is in the blood. That is the reason God did not accept Cain's offering of the produce he had grown. There was no blood in it, therefore it was not alive, making it unacceptable as a sacrifice signifying the future Messiah.



.......plants are alive, they have cells that split, they have DNA, they reproduce....this is taking creationism to a whole new level



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jeramie
 



Plants are not living things. The life of flesh is in the blood. That is the reason God did not accept Cain's offering of the produce he had grown. There was no blood in it, therefore it was not alive, making it unacceptable as a sacrifice signifying the future Messiah.


This is why the Bible is the collective wisdom of men thousands of years dead and not "God."

Plants contain cells, they are living organisms.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


Can I throw a wrench in the evolution debate? Evolution is a result and not a cause. Involution (Baptism) is the process and evolution (Rising to new life) is the aim of the creative process of design. Evolution is noticed, but this does not demand that it is the cause. In fact, no evolutionary claim would say that life was caused by evolution, despite the overwhelming allusion by the pundits that it does. From one side of the mouth, they state that we arise from evolution. From the other side, the claim evolution is not a cause. As well, the theory of evolution is taken on faith, just as a Creator is taken on faith. That is, until we have a simple proof. Here is the proof.


Evolution is a process. Its not part of a cause and effect relationship, but the process as a whole.
Changes in genetic structure/mutations and natural stresses would be the primary causes and genetic variation and changes in population dynamics would largely be the effects.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


There is nothing to debunk. Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing. Its a strawman argument.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 

Excellent video EWR! Though the thought that some people would save their dog instead of their neighbor was rather disturbing.
Quad





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join