Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just flat out believe all life is a result of creation. I don't think man has the ability to answer all questions pertaining to life from either view whether it you believe in a creator or a natural process.

As for Mr.Behe accepting macroevolution you will have to point it out to me.Everything i have read from the guy is anti macroevolution.

So, you really don't have scientifically valid theory that is defensible on this matter? That's fine, but you are not an anomaly. Most people on all sides of the debate acknowledge that they don't have all the answers. In fact, you basically describe what Dr. Miller believes. Too bad you couldn't be troubled to actually listen to what he had to say. Instead, you castigated him because he wasn't (in your view) sufficiently religious.

Intelligent Design accepts the mechanics of evolution to explain speciation (i.e. "macroevolution" as you put it). They just think the process was helped by a supernatural force.

"Creationism" is the belief that God created everything in 7 days as literally put forth in the bible.

I would fall under the theory of creation, I believe in the 7 day creation. Can't prove it,but i don't feel i need to because my views are based out of faith.

Through reason, i feel my mind is in agreement that life did not happen by chance.

The bible mentions that things were crteated according to kind not species.

I think its hard to define a species. Lions and tigers are considered diffent species but yet they can cross breed and produce offspring. So how can they be a different species and yet cross breed and produce offspring.

We see the same things in dogs, and horses. to me why not keep it simple ? just call them the same kind or the same species just different breeds.

And i guess i am ok with that part of macro-evolution if thats what it truly is. but for me speciation is better described as micro evolution according to their definitions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If i am right about God ,it won't matter who thinks what soon.

Pascale's Wager. Again, not a terribly inspiring scientific argument.

BTW, I don't recall Christ saying that salvation is dependent upon a literal reading of Genesis.

I do believe that many of evolutions best are moving to the side of God-did-it. The numbers are growing and the financial backing is as well.

You believe wrong.

The high water mark for this latest fad was the trial at Dover, where the Intelligent Design crew was completely thrashed and exposed as the dishonest frauds that they were. The judge ( a conservative Bush appointee) almost sanctioned some of the ID people for their actions on the stand.

Since that time, you see "Intelligent Design" referenced as an alternative theory to evolution less and less.

It doesn't help when your star witness (Behe) is beaten to a pulp on scientific matters by an attorney.

The chronology of the bible gives timelines to deny that you deny the word of God and if the bible can't be relied on what would ones views be based on ?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?

That's a good question. "My side" has educated and trained doctoral scientists analyze the physical world, producing reproducible experiments and data to directly draw a logical conclusion which is then highly scrutinized by other educated and trained doctoral scientists before it is published in a highly reputable scientific journal. Not only do they tell you HOW the research was exactly performed, but details right down to what companies supplied the materials needed to run it.

"Your side" uses people with masters degrees in completely unrelated fields that do zero research and procure zero evidence about the physical world but still post their unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information onto random websites. What company does "your side" get their research supplies from?

Given that setup, which one do you now think is more likely to be "truly supported by the evidence"?

Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.

As GTH pointed out: we cite. We have the understanding and insight to make points using our own words like the big boys and girls we are. When asked to "prove" our points, we can in fact cite actual research. People who must resort to blanket copying and pasting of topics and are incapable of paraphrasing do so because they lack such understanding. Which method do you use?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.

Evolution, micro or "macro", does not happen from adaptations within an organism. When bacteria that were previously susceptible to an antibiotic comes in contact with it, 0% survive. ZERO. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a susceptible bacteria to come in contact with an antiobiotic and then adapt to survive.

If you actually do understand how bacterial antibiotic resistance and thus "microevolution" does work, which I'm highly doubting at this time, please explain why you believe there is any difference in that method compared to "macroevolution?"

Oh that's right: you don't answer questioned aimed at disclosing your own beliefs, and this post much like many others will be "overlooked" repeatedly.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. Similarly, you have no clue how your computer reads and processes information yet you're still able to turn it on and use it. Lack of knowledge in one related but separate area does not mandate ignorance in another.

You do not need to attend college to be educated on the theory of evolution that is your first mistake. I have been reading and learning most of what i know about the subject through scholarly writings. I have been doing so for ten years .

This is an excuse. It's why people get thrown in jail for practicing medicine despite no actual medical education. No, reading propaganda on the internet does not make you a learned reader. You have repeatedly shown your incapacity to scrutinize the credentials of authors and the non-scientific non-evidence-based opinions they present. Unsupported "scholarly writings" are not a substitute for first hand data acquisition and analysis from the physical world. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be ignorant to the basic tenants and understandings of this topic, including not knowing what evolution is and ignoring all questions about it. What I just quoted is nothing more than an excuse to make yourself think you are on even footing or understanding with us. I'm sorry, but it's laughable.

This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.

And that's a perfectly fine "theory" to have, so long as you realize it is not a scientific theory, and that it is not supported by any physical evidence in this world. That is better known as an unsupported belief. Now, are you still questioning which side you believe holds the evidence?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.

You keep saying things like this, and yet when asked what is fundamentally different between the two on a molecular or genetic level, you seem incapable of providing any answer whatsoever. While I realize this is in line with your usual avoidance of such questions, it should go to show you that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about, and there actually isn't a difference. How else do you explain your unwavering avoidance of answering these simple questions? Oops, that's another question!

If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation.

All true scientists are the same way. If new evidence were to present itself, we can actually change our worldview based on new information. You can't. Ignorance demands you ignore all new information and evidence for self-preservation.

But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?

Well, it crunches information faster, and in fact it can process information in ways that humans cannot so depending on how you define "smarter", yes.

Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion.

No. No they're not. I don't quite think that's really sunk in with you yet. If they were, you'd be able to address many of the questions I've asked previously. But seeing as you can't find answers to copy in paste, it should be clear to you that they, much like you, are incapable of actually acknowledging the same data as evolutionists, let alone producing explanations for it.

If you need a reminder, I can go get a copy of the list of terms you were incapable of explaining.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?

I don't know about him, but I have contempt for people that have ZERO education or training in a topic, who have done ZERO actual experimentation or data analysis in that topic, who essentially possess no credentials, and yet still write as if their unsupported opinion holds as much weight as anyone else. This is the definition of ignorance. This is what crushes human progress and innovation.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.

What makes you think life has no outside forces acting on it? Matter can produce complex structures easily if "left to itself". How do you think snow is formed? Is each flake "designed" to be unique? What about when chemical reactions occur? The idea that NOTHING happens is just silly.

I would fall under the theory of creation, I believe in the 7 day creation. Can't prove it,but i don't feel i need to because my views are based out of faith.

Through reason, i feel my mind is in agreement that life did not happen by chance.

And again, that's fine. But it means you are presenting an opinion with ZERO evidence, and therefore has nothing to do with science. "I feel it deep down" is not a substitute for actual evidence. People believe "through reason" as you do that ghosts and aliens living among us and flying spaghetti monsters are real. So if these other things are ridiculous without evidence, why do you think your blind belief is any better? Oops, there's that question thing again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?

That's a good question. "My side" has educated and trained doctoral scientists analyze the physical world, producing reproducible experiments and data to directly draw a logical conclusion which is then highly scrutinized by other educated and trained doctoral scientists before it is published in a highly reputable scientific journal. Not only do they tell you HOW the research was exactly performed, but details right down to what companies supplied the materials needed to run it.

"Your side" uses people with masters degrees in completely unrelated fields that do zero research and procure zero evidence about the physical world but still post their unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information onto random websites. What company does "your side" get their research supplies from?

Given that setup, which one do you now think is more likely to be "truly supported by the evidence"?

Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.

As GTH pointed out: we cite. We have the understanding and insight to make points using our own words like the big boys and girls we are. When asked to "prove" our points, we can in fact cite actual research. People who must resort to blanket copying and pasting of topics and are incapable of paraphrasing do so because they lack such understanding. Which method do you use?

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.

Evolution, micro or "macro", does not happen from adaptations within an organism. When bacteria that were previously susceptible to an antibiotic comes in contact with it, 0% survive. ZERO. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a susceptible bacteria to come in contact with an antiobiotic and then adapt to survive.

If you actually do understand how bacterial antibiotic resistance and thus "microevolution" does work, which I'm highly doubting at this time, please explain why you believe there is any difference in that method compared to "macroevolution?"

Oh that's right: you don't answer questioned aimed at disclosing your own beliefs, and this post much like many others will be "overlooked" repeatedly.

They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?

I don't know about him, but I have contempt for people that have ZERO education or training in a topic, who have done ZERO actual experimentation or data analysis in that topic, who essentially possess no credentials, and yet still write as if their unsupported opinion holds as much weight as anyone else. This is the definition of ignorance. This is what crushes human progress and innovation.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.

What makes you think life has no outside forces acting on it? Matter can produce complex structures easily if "left to itself". How do you think snow is formed? Is each flake "designed" to be unique? What about when chemical reactions occur? The idea that NOTHING happens is just silly.

I would fall under the theory of creation, I believe in the 7 day creation. Can't prove it,but i don't feel i need to because my views are based out of faith.

Through reason, i feel my mind is in agreement that life did not happen by chance.

And again, that's fine. But it means you are presenting an opinion with ZERO evidence, and therefore has nothing to do with science. "I feel it deep down" is not a substitute for actual evidence. People believe "through reason" as you do that ghosts and aliens living among us and flying spaghetti monsters are real. So if these other things are ridiculous without evidence, why do you think your blind belief is any better? Oops, there's that question thing again.

I have taken classes in biology at the college level but to say one must attend college to learn the theory in the computer age is just wrong. My computer allows me to look at both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.

You keep saying things like this, and yet when asked what is fundamentally different between the two on a molecular or genetic level, you seem incapable of providing any answer whatsoever. While I realize this is in line with your usual avoidance of such questions, it should go to show you that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about, and there actually isn't a difference. How else do you explain your unwavering avoidance of answering these simple questions? Oops, that's another question!

If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation.

All true scientists are the same way. If new evidence were to present itself, we can actually change our worldview based on new information. You can't. Ignorance demands you ignore all new information and evidence for self-preservation.

But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?

Well, it crunches information faster, and in fact it can process information in ways that humans cannot so depending on how you define "smarter", yes.

Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion.

No. No they're not. I don't quite think that's really sunk in with you yet. If they were, you'd be able to address many of the questions I've asked previously. But seeing as you can't find answers to copy in paste, it should be clear to you that they, much like you, are incapable of actually acknowledging the same data as evolutionists, let alone producing explanations for it.

If you need a reminder, I can go get a copy of the list of terms you were incapable of explaining.

Come on now,you are suggesting something that is a creation of the human brain is superior then the person that created it,sorry but that is just silly. Because a conputer is faster does not suggest it's superior to the brain that designed it.

Earlier i asked you about new information found in the fruit fly experiments you said you worked on. When pushed you said a new gene was found can you provide the test done and can you be specific about the gene ? Because everything i have read on the issue there was no new information found just deformed and weakened fruit flies.

It's a common belief held by scientists that mutations show no change or if there is a change through mutations they are harmful to the organism.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Creationists ARE less educated in these topics. Religion and education are well known to be inversely proportional to one another, as is religion and socioeconomic status. Creationists have access to the data of experiments produced by actual scientists, but they themselves do no experiments, and never cite or work with raw data from actual scientific experiments. If you actually look at creationist literature, the underlying point that all authors return to is NOT identifying data that support creationism, but rather trying hopelessly to prove actual scientists incorrect.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

Well for one thing, you'd be able to highlight a point if you didn't just copy and paste paragraphs of other people's writings you probably didn't fully read or understand yourself. For example, I can either make the point that a human chromosome appears like two other chromosomes fused head to head and provide supporting scientific experimentation if needed, OR I can just start by pasting pages of text and hope you pick out the point I'm trying to make. The former is a superior form of communication that utilizes directed meaning, whereas the latter shows immaturity and lack of understanding.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.

Seeing as you failed to pick this up in my last point, I'm going to try all caps: ORGANISMS DO NOT EVOLVE DUE TO REACTION.

If you still don't get this point, then you still don't understand evolution whatsoever, micro or macro. No susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic and then reacts by stealing genetic information to survive. If a susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic, THEY DIE WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF ADAPTATION. No bacteria is enabled to build a resistance to antibiotics after they see it. The reason some bacteria survive an antibiotic they see for the first time is because they already had resistance before they encountered it ever.

FURTHERMORE, while one method of acquiring resistance involves "stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria", it is not the only or even the most common method. If you isolate a single bacterium and grow it up away from all other bacteria or sources of genetic material, over time antibiotic resistance can be acquired through mutation. YES, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION BEING PRODUCED, and it is easily replicable in any lab anywhere in the world.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have taken classes in biology at the college level but to say one must attend college to learn the theory in the computer age is just wrong. My computer allows me to look at both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.

Your computer allows to take an undirected and poorly represented view at both sides of the argument. Formal education offers the expertise of directed learning that gives a full picture to a concept. See your short sighted problem is that you look at two articles, ignoring the fact that the credentials are drastically unequal and that one has done primary research while the other has just read other people's work, and you compare them as equal. You have no clue how representative either side is, and ESPECIALLY overlook scientific issues that have hundreds if not THOUSANDS of experiments that support the same findings. For example, you are the type of person who would discredit all forms of radiometric dating because you found a creationist article that dismisses carbon dating, even though carbon dating isn't used to find the age of old things.

So no, your self-"education" using your own computer is not substantial. This is easily seen by the fact that you continually show both lacking knowledge and incorrect knowledge on this topic. When asked questions, you must ignore them to preserve your ignorance and poor "education" on evolution, as you continue to do even in this last set of posts.

Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?

Come on now,you are suggesting something that is a creation of the human brain is superior then the person that created it,sorry but that is just silly. Because a conputer is faster does not suggest it's superior to the brain that designed it.

Why does that seem so odd. We build cars that are faster than humans, machines that are stronger than humans. Computers can store more information and process that information faster than humans. Perhaps the thing you don't realize is that computers, much like scientific understanding, are not made by a single person. But again, this is a philosophical point with no real weight in this conversation that also depends on how you define "superior"

Earlier i asked you about new information found in the fruit fly experiments you said you worked on. When pushed you said a new gene was found can you provide the test done and can you be specific about the gene ? Because everything i have read on the issue there was no new information found just deformed and weakened fruit flies.

It's a common belief held by scientists that mutations show no change or if there is a change through mutations they are harmful to the organism.

Earlier you asked for proof regarding new information, and I provided it not only in fruit flies, but also in humans, right down to specific genes and chromosomal locations. Then you claimed I didn't provide it, so I cited my sources once again regarding a number of de novo mutations in fruit flies. Now you claim I still haven't provided it? You claim that everything you read states no new information was found, and yet I have proved you wrong several times in multiple species. Perhaps it's time to realize that what you read is unsupported propaganda crap.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Creationists ARE less educated in these topics. Religion and education are well known to be inversely proportional to one another, as is religion and socioeconomic status. Creationists have access to the data of experiments produced by actual scientists, but they themselves do no experiments, and never cite or work with raw data from actual scientific experiments. If you actually look at creationist literature, the underlying point that all authors return to is NOT identifying data that support creationism, but rather trying hopelessly to prove actual scientists incorrect.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

Well for one thing, you'd be able to highlight a point if you didn't just copy and paste paragraphs of other people's writings you probably didn't fully read or understand yourself. For example, I can either make the point that a human chromosome appears like two other chromosomes fused head to head and provide supporting scientific experimentation if needed, OR I can just start by pasting pages of text and hope you pick out the point I'm trying to make. The former is a superior form of communication that utilizes directed meaning, whereas the latter shows immaturity and lack of understanding.

Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ? They were involved in many of the tests and experiments done. Not to mention had to keep their true views on the subject silent while working with the devout evolutionists.

When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.

Seeing as you failed to pick this up in my last point, I'm going to try all caps: ORGANISMS DO NOT EVOLVE DUE TO REACTION.

If you still don't get this point, then you still don't understand evolution whatsoever, micro or macro. No susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic and then reacts by stealing genetic information to survive. If a susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic, THEY DIE WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF ADAPTATION. No bacteria is enabled to build a resistance to antibiotics after they see it. The reason some bacteria survive an antibiotic they see for the first time is because they already had resistance before they encountered it ever.

FURTHERMORE, while one method of acquiring resistance involves "stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria", it is not the only or even the most common method. If you isolate a single bacterium and grow it up away from all other bacteria or sources of genetic material, over time antibiotic resistance can be acquired through mutation. YES, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION BEING PRODUCED, and it is easily replicable in any lab anywhere in the world.

Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?

You're arguing and trying to prove a point with theories.

We know that better adapted organisms have a better chance of survival,this can be observed in nature.

We also know it is a fact that most mutations are neutral or are harmful to the organism with most being harmful.

Even if a mutation produced the chance for survival for bacteria how does that show macroevolution,the bacterium is still bacterium. Like i said earlier this evidence would be better described as microevolution according to its definition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have taken classes in biology at the college level but to say one must attend college to learn the theory in the computer age is just wrong. My computer allows me to look at both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.

Your computer allows to take an undirected and poorly represented view at both sides of the argument. Formal education offers the expertise of directed learning that gives a full picture to a concept. See your short sighted problem is that you look at two articles, ignoring the fact that the credentials are drastically unequal and that one has done primary research while the other has just read other people's work, and you compare them as equal. You have no clue how representative either side is, and ESPECIALLY overlook scientific issues that have hundreds if not THOUSANDS of experiments that support the same findings. For example, you are the type of person who would discredit all forms of radiometric dating because you found a creationist article that dismisses carbon dating, even though carbon dating isn't used to find the age of old things.

So no, your self-"education" using your own computer is not substantial. This is easily seen by the fact that you continually show both lacking knowledge and incorrect knowledge on this topic. When asked questions, you must ignore them to preserve your ignorance and poor "education" on evolution, as you continue to do even in this last set of posts.

Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?

Come on now,you are suggesting something that is a creation of the human brain is superior then the person that created it,sorry but that is just silly. Because a conputer is faster does not suggest it's superior to the brain that designed it.

Why does that seem so odd. We build cars that are faster than humans, machines that are stronger than humans. Computers can store more information and process that information faster than humans. Perhaps the thing you don't realize is that computers, much like scientific understanding, are not made by a single person. But again, this is a philosophical point with no real weight in this conversation that also depends on how you define "superior"

Earlier i asked you about new information found in the fruit fly experiments you said you worked on. When pushed you said a new gene was found can you provide the test done and can you be specific about the gene ? Because everything i have read on the issue there was no new information found just deformed and weakened fruit flies.

It's a common belief held by scientists that mutations show no change or if there is a change through mutations they are harmful to the organism.

Earlier you asked for proof regarding new information, and I provided it not only in fruit flies, but also in humans, right down to specific genes and chromosomal locations. Then you claimed I didn't provide it, so I cited my sources once again regarding a number of de novo mutations in fruit flies. Now you claim I still haven't provided it? You claim that everything you read states no new information was found, and yet I have proved you wrong several times in multiple species. Perhaps it's time to realize that what you read is unsupported propaganda crap.

Novo mutations i have to read up on.

But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?

•large scale change in organisms resulting in new species.

•Larger changes in evolution, such as when a new species is formed.

•macro evolution - Evolution above the species level, as opposed to micro-evolution, which is evolution below the species level.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ?

Did you notice GTH's response to them? Are you not aware that the list you copied and pasted contains the list of names of people WHO WEREN'T ALIVE when the concept of evolution was first proposed, let alone the genetic evidence behind it? That's like saying Jesus rejects the concept of the car. It's moronic, and shows yet another reason why you should scrutinize the words you read before blindly copying and pasting them, lest you been seen to exhibit the same misleading stupidity as the author.

But this is essentially the tactics of creationists, as I mentioned in this post: "Your side" uses unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information. In this case, you decided to combine all three. Is it that you don't know better or you're purposely doing it? This only shows lack of integrity on your part.

When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.

This is the second underhanded tactic you use: ignoring things. Whenever I completely obliterate one of your points, you tend to make this kind of claim and yet never actually come back to it. I won't be holding my breath. Again: lack of integrity. Or do you now acknowledge that "your side" has significantly less education and training?

Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?

Again, the fact that you have to ask these childish questions tells me your "computer education" is rather poor.

This is not theory, or concept, or guess. This is easily proven fact that I can demonstrate to you in any lab in the country over the course of a few days. Every biology major knows how to do this, which is yet another part that your "computer education" seemed to lack.

First, a single bacterium or colony of genetically identical bacteria is isolated. Next, it is transferred to a sterilized growth medium, and left in an incubator at 39 degrees to grow. This allows multiple colonies all coming from the same limited gene pool. Because all work is done under sterile conditions, no new organisms or genetic material is ever introduced. We can then take any of the young new colonies and place it in medium containing antibiotic, to later note that none survive. We let the bacteria continue to replicate, as we continue to transfer samples to antibiotic containing media. Without fail, growth is seen on the antibiotic media. From where did that bacteria learn how to live on anbitiotics? You tell me.

This is not theory. We can do this in any lab anywhere in the country at any time, and it extends to ANY gene in a bacteria, allowing for altered traits in mobility, food uptake, and replication, to name a few. It has been demonstrated countless times, for every young biology major and scientist that has ever worked with microbiology. It is fact.

How do you explain this easily reproducible evidence? I will also ask this again: Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?

Novo mutations i have to read up on.

But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?

If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two. You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two? Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ?

Did you notice GTH's response to them? Are you not aware that the list you copied and pasted contains the list of names of people WHO WEREN'T ALIVE when the concept of evolution was first proposed, let alone the genetic evidence behind it? That's like saying Jesus rejects the concept of the car. It's moronic, and shows yet another reason why you should scrutinize the words you read before blindly copying and pasting them, lest you been seen to exhibit the same misleading stupidity as the author.

But this is essentially the tactics of creationists, as I mentioned in this post: "Your side" uses unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information. In this case, you decided to combine all three. Is it that you don't know better or you're purposely doing it? This only shows lack of integrity on your part.

When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.

This is the second underhanded tactic you use: ignoring things. Whenever I completely obliterate one of your points, you tend to make this kind of claim and yet never actually come back to it. I won't be holding my breath. Again: lack of integrity. Or do you now acknowledge that "your side" has significantly less education and training?

Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?

Again, the fact that you have to ask these childish questions tells me your "computer education" is rather poor.

This is not theory, or concept, or guess. This is easily proven fact that I can demonstrate to you in any lab in the country over the course of a few days. Every biology major knows how to do this, which is yet another part that your "computer education" seemed to lack.

First, a single bacterium or colony of genetically identical bacteria is isolated. Next, it is transferred to a sterilized growth medium, and left in an incubator at 39 degrees to grow. This allows multiple colonies all coming from the same limited gene pool. Because all work is done under sterile conditions, no new organisms or genetic material is ever introduced. We can then take any of the young new colonies and place it in medium containing antibiotic, to later note that none survive. We let the bacteria continue to replicate, as we continue to transfer samples to antibiotic containing media. Without fail, growth is seen on the antibiotic media. From where did that bacteria learn how to live on anbitiotics? You tell me.

This is not theory. We can do this in any lab anywhere in the country at any time, and it extends to ANY gene in a bacteria, allowing for altered traits in mobility, food uptake, and replication, to name a few. It has been demonstrated countless times, for every young biology major and scientist that has ever worked with microbiology. It is fact.

How do you explain this easily reproducible evidence? I will also ask this again: Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?

Novo mutations i have to read up on.

But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?

If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two. You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two? Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?

Yes ,he only cut out the ones that were before darwin, here are the rest.

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
■600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

■150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

■Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

■John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

■George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

■D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

■Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ?

Did you notice GTH's response to them? Are you not aware that the list you copied and pasted contains the list of names of people WHO WEREN'T ALIVE when the concept of evolution was first proposed, let alone the genetic evidence behind it? That's like saying Jesus rejects the concept of the car. It's moronic, and shows yet another reason why you should scrutinize the words you read before blindly copying and pasting them, lest you been seen to exhibit the same misleading stupidity as the author.

But this is essentially the tactics of creationists, as I mentioned in this post: "Your side" uses unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information. In this case, you decided to combine all three. Is it that you don't know better or you're purposely doing it? This only shows lack of integrity on your part.

When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.

This is the second underhanded tactic you use: ignoring things. Whenever I completely obliterate one of your points, you tend to make this kind of claim and yet never actually come back to it. I won't be holding my breath. Again: lack of integrity. Or do you now acknowledge that "your side" has significantly less education and training?

Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?

Again, the fact that you have to ask these childish questions tells me your "computer education" is rather poor.

This is not theory, or concept, or guess. This is easily proven fact that I can demonstrate to you in any lab in the country over the course of a few days. Every biology major knows how to do this, which is yet another part that your "computer education" seemed to lack.

First, a single bacterium or colony of genetically identical bacteria is isolated. Next, it is transferred to a sterilized growth medium, and left in an incubator at 39 degrees to grow. This allows multiple colonies all coming from the same limited gene pool. Because all work is done under sterile conditions, no new organisms or genetic material is ever introduced. We can then take any of the young new colonies and place it in medium containing antibiotic, to later note that none survive. We let the bacteria continue to replicate, as we continue to transfer samples to antibiotic containing media. Without fail, growth is seen on the antibiotic media. From where did that bacteria learn how to live on anbitiotics? You tell me.

This is not theory. We can do this in any lab anywhere in the country at any time, and it extends to ANY gene in a bacteria, allowing for altered traits in mobility, food uptake, and replication, to name a few. It has been demonstrated countless times, for every young biology major and scientist that has ever worked with microbiology. It is fact.

How do you explain this easily reproducible evidence? I will also ask this again: Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?

Novo mutations i have to read up on.

But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?

If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two. You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two? Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?

You're are either misunderstanding me or you refuse to show how this is macroevolution.

Because bacteria adapt does not show macroevolution.

The bacteria is still bacteria.

This is where the confusion comes in from your side by trying to define the newly adapted bacteria as a new species of bacteria and say here is macroevolution. They are of the same kind just with a different ability.