Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[konradv]

Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium. Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine. New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated. That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory. Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.

 

[konradv]

Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

That is your theory, that which can't be proven.so in other words it's just an opinion.

You can't prove when or where trilobites and dolphins showed up.

Have you not learned that dating systems are based on ones presuppositions before they even start the dating methods?If you fill all the blanks in concerning theories with speculation ,what is the theory based on ? We have many natural phenomenon's that we can't fully explain but there will always be one to give an explanation according to his or her view but that does not mean the opinion was accurate. That is the same thing going on with every theory that is taught as fact like,Neo Darwinism.

You're TOTALLY WRONG on this point. The dating methods depend on KNOWN rates of radiactive decay, NOT presuppositions. This isn't opinion, but scientific fact. If that's your feeling on the subject, how do you even trust going to a doctor? Modern medicine depends mightily on the "presuppositions" you so blithely downplay. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium. Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine. New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated. That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory. Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.

That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.

What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking to determines what they will say.

Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

That is your theory, that which can't be proven.so in other words it's just an opinion.

You can't prove when or where trilobites and dolphins showed up.

Have you not learned that dating systems are based on ones presuppositions before they even start the dating methods?If you fill all the blanks in concerning theories with speculation ,what is the theory based on ? We have many natural phenomenon's that we can't fully explain but there will always be one to give an explanation according to his or her view but that does not mean the opinion was accurate. That is the same thing going on with every theory that is taught as fact like,Neo Darwinism.

You're TOTALLY WRONG on this point. The dating methods depend on KNOWN rates of radiactive decay, NOT presuppositions. This isn't opinion, but scientific fact. If that's your feeling on the subject, how do you even trust going to a doctor? Modern medicine depends mightily on the "presuppositions" you so blithely downplay. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

Well to be honest, most Dr's i have had conversations with concerning design and evolution see the human body as a product of design. Many of them do not buy modern day evolution known as Neo Darwinism.

That is correct about Dr's making decisions based on presuppositions,but they don't strike me as reckless as the modern day evolutionist with their presuppositions. They base their presuppositions on actual evidence where there is zero evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is based on vivid imaginations. No different then the ones who believe it is logical to think there is life on other planets solely based on how vast the universe is. Once again a view that is not based on evidence.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Nope,i am convinced the things seen by biologist are explained by presuppositions from brainwashed people. Even though they have NEVER observed one destinct kind of organism evovle into a destinct new kind of organism.

Except we have observed such things. You just refuse to acknowledge such factual evidence exists. Even though it does.

While mutations can produce new information in small scale changes but not the information that would allow macroevolution to take place. Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. It is very rare for beneficial mutations and extremely rare for them to produce change that is needed for macroevolution to take place. There is so many conditions that would have to be met for a change from mutations to be preserved that it is highly unlikely that the new information could survive natural selection.

Unlikely in any given organism, but expected in one of billions of organisms. We've gone over this before. When we started this thread you couldn't even acknowledge that new information could be produced in "microevolution," and now you say that's possible but somehow you can't get multiple events of "microevolution" to get the larger version? Again I ask why you think we can get 5 helpful mutations but not 10. Why 20 but not 50? Where's your genetic cutoff, and why if you think that rare beneficial mutations do occur do you not believe they will eventually happen?

We've gone over this before. The chance of you winning the lotto is nearly zero, but SOMEONE always wins the lotto. I look forward to you ignoring this reasoning once again.

Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology.

So last night you watched a show on someone who believes in quackery. Perhaps you should look up what astrology means, and realize that you blindly believe anything any quack tells you if it agrees with your preconceived notions, regardless of evidence.

The problem with atomic dating is you don't know the conditions of gases in the air several thousand years ago, let alone, millions and billions of years ago, to get an accurate reading. Once again questionable evidence you're relying on.

Well no. We've gone over this too. Physical properties don't change in the universe. Gravity has never EVER just stopped working. Basic chemistry doesn't work only sometimes. Radiometric decay is not uncertain, and BECAUSE physics has never been observed to just change without outside forces, we have no reason to make such a silly assumption that gases somehow decayed differently yesterday or last year or last century compared to today any more than any other physical property.

Well to be honest, most Dr's i have had conversations with concerning design and evolution see the human body as a product of design. Many of them do not buy modern day evolution known as Neo Darwinism.

Then you're not talking to medical doctors, or only seeking out and talking to people who agree with you. The large majority of doctors in this country, 78%, know evolution to be correct, and that number is growing.

Again, this seems to highlight your ability to ignore actual fact and only believe in the minority of crap that you want to, pretending everything else doesn't exist. You're essentially delusional, and it's that kind of uneducated illogical ignorance that has ensured every modern court case has rejected pushing those blind beliefs into the classroom.

Why don't you leave education to people who are actually educated?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope,i am convinced the things seen by biologist are explained by presuppositions from brainwashed people. Even though they have NEVER observed one destinct kind of organism evovle into a destinct new kind of organism.

Except we have observed such things. You just refuse to acknowledge such factual evidence exists. Even though it does.

While mutations can produce new information in small scale changes but not the information that would allow macroevolution to take place. Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. It is very rare for beneficial mutations and extremely rare for them to produce change that is needed for macroevolution to take place. There is so many conditions that would have to be met for a change from mutations to be preserved that it is highly unlikely that the new information could survive natural selection.

Unlikely in any given organism, but expected in one of billions of organisms. We've gone over this before. When we started this thread you couldn't even acknowledge that new information could be produced in "microevolution," and now you say that's possible but somehow you can't get multiple events of "microevolution" to get the larger version? Again I ask why you think we can get 5 helpful mutations but not 10. Why 20 but not 50? Where's your genetic cutoff, and why if you think that rare beneficial mutations do occur do you not believe they will eventually happen?

We've gone over this before. The chance of you winning the lotto is nearly zero, but SOMEONE always wins the lotto. I look forward to you ignoring this reasoning once again.


So last night you watched a show on someone who believes in quackery. Perhaps you should look up what astrology means, and realize that you blindly believe anything any quack tells you if it agrees with your preconceived notions, regardless of evidence.

The problem with atomic dating is you don't know the conditions of gases in the air several thousand years ago, let alone, millions and billions of years ago, to get an accurate reading. Once again questionable evidence you're relying on.

Well no. We've gone over this too. Physical properties don't change in the universe. Gravity has never EVER just stopped working. Basic chemistry doesn't work only sometimes. Radiometric decay is not uncertain, and BECAUSE physics has never been observed to just change without outside forces, we have no reason to make such a silly assumption that gases somehow decayed differently yesterday or last year or last century compared to today any more than any other physical property.

Well to be honest, most Dr's i have had conversations with concerning design and evolution see the human body as a product of design. Many of them do not buy modern day evolution known as Neo Darwinism.

Then you're not talking to medical doctors, or only seeking out and talking to people who agree with you. The large majority of doctors in this country, 78%, know evolution to be correct, and that number is growing.

Again, this seems to highlight your ability to ignore actual fact and only believe in the minority of crap that you want to, pretending everything else doesn't exist. You're essentially delusional, and it's that kind of uneducated illogical ignorance that has ensured every modern court case has rejected pushing those blind beliefs into the classroom.

Why don't you leave education to people who are actually educated?

Observing bacteria adapting is not near the level of macroevolution ,where one kind of organism evolves into a destinct new kind of organism.

At first you're correct,but as i read more on the issue i agreed that new information could be produced but not to the point of macroevolution. Why do you keep bringing this up since i conceded that point ? Now since you brought it up again can you provide evidence where mutations produced enough information for macroevolution to take place refuting Dr. Spetner ?

You 're assuming that the enviornment was exactly the same as it is today. Let's see more active volcanoes,and plate tectonics. I am sure they had an effect on the gases in the enviornment.Early Man did not possess the ability to test such things so how do you know ?

The problem is children are being indoctrnated from an early age that is why the numbers are higher in believing as you do. But as more fossils are found and more research is done i see eventually ,i see evolutionist no longer being able to dodge the tough questions. i believe your theory will be put into the proper perspective someday even in the courts. There are many Dr's that believe in the ability to adapt and not buy macroevolution. Microevolution is what i think your numbers are based on ,not Neo Darwinism.

Microevolution can clearly be seen and no one doubts it, However the same cannot be said for Macroevolution. I wish you would quit trying to suggest that there are no differences between micro and macroevolution. Of course you believe that microevolution would have to take place for macroevolution to take place but that is all that has been observed microevolution.

There are limits to change through reproduction that can be seen. Once the limit is reached, organism's become weaker and more susceptible to disease and or they can't produce offspring or the offspring is sterile.

I am a very skeptical person, Although i am not skeptical about a creator. It is very easy to reason out the evidence and believe that life did not happen through a natural process by chance. Well since you're are concerned with my education on the subject what do you think of the education of the people i am quoting ? are they not educated enough to make the quotes they do ? I have not seen you attempt to refute any of the quotes i have quoted.

Do you think all people that don't agree with you are ignorant on the subject ?

 

[konradv]

Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium. Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine. New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated. That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory. Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.

That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.

What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking to determines what they will say.

Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?

I see no contradiction in finding few transitional fossils. By the very nature of how evolution works, until a new variety of organism reaches high enough numbers to be recognized as a new species, they will be few and far between and probably considered as a subset of the anscestor species. If Darwin said he would be wrong about the theory if one point was wrong, only shows that he was wrong in saying so. Undoubtedly a scientist of his caliber would be interested in developments in the field and whole-heartedly agree that Punctuated Equilibrium was the correct theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium. Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine. New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated. That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory. Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.

That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.

What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking to determines what they will say.

Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?

I see no contradiction in finding few transitional fossils. By the very nature of how evolution works, until a new variety of organism reaches high enough numbers to be recognized as a new species, they will be few and far between and probably considered as a subset of the anscestor species. If Darwin said he would be wrong about the theory if one point was wrong, only shows that he was wrong in saying so. Undoubtedly a scientist of his caliber would be interested in developments in the field and whole-heartedly agree that Punctuated Equilibrium was the correct theory.

Punctuated equilibrium -evolutionary change in the fossil record came in fits and starts rather than in a steady process of slow change as in Neo darwinism through mutations and natural selection.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Observing bacteria adapting is not near the level of macroevolution ,where one kind of organism evolves into a destinct new kind of organism.

Such has been observed in animals. Again, these are just facts you tend to ignore.

At first you're correct,but as i read more on the issue i agreed that new information could be produced but not to the point of macroevolution. Why do you keep bringing this up since i conceded that point ? Now since you brought it up again can you provide evidence where mutations produced enough information for macroevolution to take place refuting Dr. Spetner ?

I must have overlooked where you conceded the point about being completely wrong on a basic biology topic while claiming your own computer "research" on the topic was adequate knowledge to draw conclusions. OK so now you admit I've already proven you wrong about one or the larger issues here, and that new information can in fact be produced. Now you seem to be arguing that it can only be produced in small quantities. Why?

We're not getting into the evidence of animal macroevolution, yet another tangential sidetrack, until you can answer that question. If you now know that new information can be created, why is it you think only small amounts can be, and not lots of small amounts over time creating larger amounts? What is the genetic cutoff between micro and macro? And how can you explain the existence of your arbitrary made up barrier, knowing full well that the mechanism behind the two are exactly the same, and we've already established that the mechanism of the former is intact?

You 're assuming that the enviornment was exactly the same as it is today. Let's see more active volcanoes,and plate tectonics. I am sure they had an effect on the gases in the enviornment.Early Man did not possess the ability to test such things so how do you know ?

No, I am not making that assumption. You are once again copying and pasting pure crap from someone else who similarly has no education and similarly doesn't understand the topic. This is you arguing no new information can be produced all over again in a different topic.

Regardless of how similar or different the environment was in the past, the properties of physics do not change. If there were more active volcanoes or plate tectonics or giant robot dinosaurs roamed the planet, how does that change PHYSICS? Did gravity stop working? Was it any different back then? Magnets didn't have force? Did e not equal mc^2? Did adding baking soda to vinegar not cause a science fair volcano when Moses was alive? Have we EVER in the history of mankind documented basic physics just not working? NO!

So why is it you think that this part of physics mysteriously and magically changed millions of years ago just because there were more volcanoes around? The idea is just silly.

The problem is children are being indoctrnated from an early age that is why the numbers are higher in believing as you do. But as more fossils are found and more research is done i see eventually ,i see evolutionist no longer being able to dodge the tough questions. i believe your theory will be put into the proper perspective someday even in the courts. There are many Dr's that believe in the ability to adapt and not buy macroevolution. Microevolution is what i think your numbers are based on ,not Neo Darwinism.

This is all contradicted speculation. You're trying to claim that the SMARTEST minds and free independent thinkers who are trained to scrutinize all evidence to draw independent conclusions are being so easily swayed by what?! Bad evidence? Note how you can't point to where any of the evidence I have produced is wrong. The only thing you can do is claim some other, usually less qualified small minority of people, think something else.

So you really think that the people you trust your health and life to have been able to double the lifespan of Americans by analyzing research using the scientific method, but those EXACT SAME methods and EXACT SAME group of people have this one particular thing wrong because some uneducated hick with a bible says so? You're delirious.

I wish you would quit trying to suggest that there are no differences between micro and macroevolution.

And I wish you could point out what a single one of those alleged differences is at the genetic level. I have asked countless times, and you have yet to answer. At best, you produce some hand waiving and a vague reference to some other man-made phrase. You remain incapable of pointing out the inherent differences in the biology. What genetically is different between the two? You can't tell me because no such thing actually exists.

There are limits to change through reproduction that can be seen. Once the limit is reached, organism's become weaker and more susceptible to disease and or they can't produce offspring or the offspring is sterile.

What limit is that? Again, a vague hand-waived response that doesn't actually say anything. You believe a few mutations can in fact produce beneficial changes. A few more can produce a few more beneficial changes. And yet you still think that there comes a point where things get "too good" and that makes the organism "weaker" even though you can't tell me what that limit is, and you can't tell me why that would happen.

So just like your idea about "no new information can be produced," you put forth an idea with vague phrases, unsupported stubbornness, and absolutely no factual backing.

I am a very skeptical person, Although i am not skeptical about a creator.

Then you're not a very skeptical person. It doesn't work that way. You can't be "sometimes very skeptical." People don't get "a little pregnant." There's no such thing as "slightly deceased." You either question things critically, or you don't. What you describe is picking and choosing your information, whereas everything you already like you accept blindly, and everything you don't want to agree with you believe you are "skeptical" about. That's not skepticism, it's justifying preconceived decision making.

Well since you're are concerned with my education on the subject what do you think of the education of the people i am quoting ? are they not educated enough to make the quotes they do ? I have not seen you attempt to refute any of the quotes i have quoted.

Do you think all people that don't agree with you are ignorant on the subject ?

Oh no. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on a variety of subjects. Evidence speaks loudest. My side has it. Yours doesn't. Yours doesn't even know what to do with the evidence that has been produced. If you look at the people making points on either side, scientists do research and reference it. Religious fanatics draw opinions, doing on research, and believe it to be equal. We've gone over that before though.

Regarding the people you are quoting: I have in fact refuted quite a bit, when the things you quoted were of a manageable length. When they became text book chapters, I stopped reading. Let's face it: you don't even understand half the crap you copy and paste, and yet you want me to go over it all? Make a point using your own words.

In the meantime, realize that the things you are quoted continue to remain either outdated, misleading, or outright inaccurate. In the case of your latest phD, I believe it's 30 years old. It was written before the human genome was even a concept. FURTHERMORE, you continue to believe that finding a single outlier is equivalent to the mountains of other well qualified people who are using evidence on this topic in a modern method. Yes, if you look hard enough you're going to be able to find a hick MD from the middle of nowhere who agrees with you, but as I thoroughly shot down, he is not the majority. Picture this situation if you were to survey 100 doctors about a health problem you were experiencing. Do you go with the 99 doctors who are well educated and read on a topic and suggest option A because they know it produces good results, or do you go with the guy who retired a decade ago, knows only outdated information, and recommends option B because that was the standard 30 years ago? The two camps are not equal but opposite.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Observing bacteria adapting is not near the level of macroevolution ,where one kind of organism evolves into a destinct new kind of organism.

Such has been observed in animals. Again, these are just facts you tend to ignore.

At first you're correct,but as i read more on the issue i agreed that new information could be produced but not to the point of macroevolution. Why do you keep bringing this up since i conceded that point ? Now since you brought it up again can you provide evidence where mutations produced enough information for macroevolution to take place refuting Dr. Spetner ?

I must have overlooked where you conceded the point about being completely wrong on a basic biology topic while claiming your own computer "research" on the topic was adequate knowledge to draw conclusions. OK so now you admit I've already proven you wrong about one or the larger issues here, and that new information can in fact be produced. Now you seem to be arguing that it can only be produced in small quantities. Why?

We're not getting into the evidence of animal macroevolution, yet another tangential sidetrack, until you can answer that question. If you now know that new information can be created, why is it you think only small amounts can be, and not lots of small amounts over time creating larger amounts? What is the genetic cutoff between micro and macro? And how can you explain the existence of your arbitrary made up barrier, knowing full well that the mechanism behind the two are exactly the same, and we've already established that the mechanism of the former is intact?


No, I am not making that assumption. You are once again copying and pasting pure crap from someone else who similarly has no education and similarly doesn't understand the topic. This is you arguing no new information can be produced all over again in a different topic.

Regardless of how similar or different the environment was in the past, the properties of physics do not change. If there were more active volcanoes or plate tectonics or giant robot dinosaurs roamed the planet, how does that change PHYSICS? Did gravity stop working? Was it any different back then? Magnets didn't have force? Did e not equal mc^2? Did adding baking soda to vinegar not cause a science fair volcano when Moses was alive? Have we EVER in the history of mankind documented basic physics just not working? NO!

So why is it you think that this part of physics mysteriously and magically changed millions of years ago just because there were more volcanoes around? The idea is just silly.


This is all contradicted speculation. You're trying to claim that the SMARTEST minds and free independent thinkers who are trained to scrutinize all evidence to draw independent conclusions are being so easily swayed by what?! Bad evidence? Note how you can't point to where any of the evidence I have produced is wrong. The only thing you can do is claim some other, usually less qualified small minority of people, think something else.

So you really think that the people you trust your health and life to have been able to double the lifespan of Americans by analyzing research using the scientific method, but those EXACT SAME methods and EXACT SAME group of people have this one particular thing wrong because some uneducated hick with a bible says so? You're delirious.


And I wish you could point out what a single one of those alleged differences is at the genetic level. I have asked countless times, and you have yet to answer. At best, you produce some hand waiving and a vague reference to some other man-made phrase. You remain incapable of pointing out the inherent differences in the biology. What genetically is different between the two? You can't tell me because no such thing actually exists.


What limit is that? Again, a vague hand-waived response that doesn't actually say anything. You believe a few mutations can in fact produce beneficial changes. A few more can produce a few more beneficial changes. And yet you still think that there comes a point where things get "too good" and that makes the organism "weaker" even though you can't tell me what that limit is, and you can't tell me why that would happen.

So just like your idea about "no new information can be produced," you put forth an idea with vague phrases, unsupported stubbornness, and absolutely no factual backing.

I am a very skeptical person, Although i am not skeptical about a creator.

Then you're not a very skeptical person. It doesn't work that way. You can't be "sometimes very skeptical." People don't get "a little pregnant." There's no such thing as "slightly deceased." You either question things critically, or you don't. What you describe is picking and choosing your information, whereas everything you already like you accept blindly, and everything you don't want to agree with you believe you are "skeptical" about. That's not skepticism, it's justifying preconceived decision making.

Well since you're are concerned with my education on the subject what do you think of the education of the people i am quoting ? are they not educated enough to make the quotes they do ? I have not seen you attempt to refute any of the quotes i have quoted.

Do you think all people that don't agree with you are ignorant on the subject ?

Oh no. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on a variety of subjects. Evidence speaks loudest. My side has it. Yours doesn't. Yours doesn't even know what to do with the evidence that has been produced. If you look at the people making points on either side, scientists do research and reference it. Religious fanatics draw opinions, doing on research, and believe it to be equal. We've gone over that before though.

Regarding the people you are quoting: I have in fact refuted quite a bit, when the things you quoted were of a manageable length. When they became text book chapters, I stopped reading. Let's face it: you don't even understand half the crap you copy and paste, and yet you want me to go over it all? Make a point using your own words.

In the meantime, realize that the things you are quoted continue to remain either outdated, misleading, or outright inaccurate. In the case of your latest phD, I believe it's 30 years old. It was written before the human genome was even a concept. FURTHERMORE, you continue to believe that finding a single outlier is equivalent to the mountains of other well qualified people who are using evidence on this topic in a modern method. Yes, if you look hard enough you're going to be able to find a hick MD from the middle of nowhere who agrees with you, but as I thoroughly shot down, he is not the majority. Picture this situation if you were to survey 100 doctors about a health problem you were experiencing. Do you go with the 99 doctors who are well educated and read on a topic and suggest option A because they know it produces good results, or do you go with the guy who retired a decade ago, knows only outdated information, and recommends option B because that was the standard 30 years ago? The two camps are not equal but opposite.

Well i should have been clearer on that point of new information. I believe it is more likely to be bad information or information that was already present which would explain speciation within a group.

First you would need to show the new information lead to macroevolution which would refute Dr. Spetner and many others that are on record saying no macroevolution has been observed.

No they observe evidence from a view that all things was the result of a natural process. They do and are constantly trying to support the theory the way it has been done since Darwin. The proof is,they were already making million year claims before modern day dating methods. They knew they needed more time ,so along comes these flawed dating methods how clever.

You have refuted very little and i do believe i know enough to show the nonsense you spew. People that are far superior in knowledge in your field are refuting you,you just can't seem to understand when you have been shown to be wrong. Not once have you taken the Dr's on. You know why ? because all you have is rhetoric versus whats been presented.

No i have presented rebuttals that are considered recent information.I'm not gonna let you make false claims anymore. Heck you can't seem to be honest enough to admit the differece between Micro and Macroevolution that is about as dishonest as you can get.

Yeah our family Dr's are mostly in their 30's and 40's i would say they are not up to date on modern science Do you think older Dr's don't bother reading up on new findings ? You're amusing.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well i should have been clearer on that point of new information. I believe it is more likely to be bad information or information that was already present which would explain speciation within a group.

Still vague. What is "group" biologically? Because it's only hand-waiving semantics.

First you would need to show the new information lead to macroevolution which would refute Dr. Spetner and many others that are on record saying no macroevolution has been observed.

You continue to make the mistake of believing that people going "on record" are somehow factual accounts. I can go "on record" as saying the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't matter. Facts matter. Evidence matters. Show the evidence, not the references that others have said it doesn't exist 30 years ago.

No they observe evidence from a view that all things was the result of a natural process. They do and are constantly trying to support the theory the way it has been done since Darwin. The proof is,they were already making million year claims before modern day dating methods. They knew they needed more time ,so along comes these flawed dating methods how clever.

You have refuted very little and i do believe i know enough to show the nonsense you spew. People that are far superior in knowledge in your field are refuting you,you just can't seem to understand when you have been shown to be wrong. Not once have you taken the Dr's on. You know why ? because all you have is rhetoric versus whats been presented.

As I mentioned in my previous post, both myself and GTH have "taken the dr's on." And by "dr's" you mean one person who has since "gone on record" to agree with the modern theory of evolution. Nevertheless you continue to make the point that I have not refuted your made up claims. You have yet to support them. It's not my job to support your claims and then counter them. For example, you claim that basic physical properties of how atoms work was different years ago because there were more volcanoes and tectonic plates, yet you seem incapable of saying why such a ridiculous idea is true.

No i have presented rebuttals that are considered recent information.I'm not gonna let you make false claims anymore. Heck you can't seem to be honest enough to admit the differece between Micro and Macroevolution that is about as dishonest as you can get.

Have you now? When did Dr. Spetner, the one person in a sea of people who disagree with him, make the claims you are copying and pasting. Please, list the date, and let me know if you think it is recent information. Regarding the difference between the two, you have yet to actually say what the difference is on a biological basis. So why is it you think I will admit there's a difference when you can't even tell me what it is, let alone support such a thing with evidence?

Yeah our family Dr's are mostly in their 30's and 40's i would say they are not up to date on modern science Do you think older Dr's don't bother reading up on new findings ? You're amusing.

Did you miss the part where I already proved that the vast majority of doctors know evolution to be correct? No, other people in your hick town are not representative any more than Dr. Spetner is.

Perhaps you should read up on Dr. Spetner a bit more, including what he states in his book: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well i should have been clearer on that point of new information. I believe it is more likely to be bad information or information that was already present which would explain speciation within a group.

Still vague. What is "group" biologically? Because it's only hand-waiving semantics.

First you would need to show the new information lead to macroevolution which would refute Dr. Spetner and many others that are on record saying no macroevolution has been observed.

You continue to make the mistake of believing that people going "on record" are somehow factual accounts. I can go "on record" as saying the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't matter. Facts matter. Evidence matters. Show the evidence, not the references that others have said it doesn't exist 30 years ago.


As I mentioned in my previous post, both myself and GTH have "taken the dr's on." And by "dr's" you mean one person who has since "gone on record" to agree with the modern theory of evolution. Nevertheless you continue to make the point that I have not refuted your made up claims. You have yet to support them. It's not my job to support your claims and then counter them. For example, you claim that basic physical properties of how atoms work was different years ago because there were more volcanoes and tectonic plates, yet you seem incapable of saying why such a ridiculous idea is true.

No i have presented rebuttals that are considered recent information.I'm not gonna let you make false claims anymore. Heck you can't seem to be honest enough to admit the differece between Micro and Macroevolution that is about as dishonest as you can get.

Have you now? When did Dr. Spetner, the one person in a sea of people who disagree with him, make the claims you are copying and pasting. Please, list the date, and let me know if you think it is recent information. Regarding the difference between the two, you have yet to actually say what the difference is on a biological basis. So why is it you think I will admit there's a difference when you can't even tell me what it is, let alone support such a thing with evidence?

Yeah our family Dr's are mostly in their 30's and 40's i would say they are not up to date on modern science Do you think older Dr's don't bother reading up on new findings ? You're amusing.

Did you miss the part where I already proved that the vast majority of doctors know evolution to be correct? No, other people in your hick town are not representative any more than Dr. Spetner is.

Perhaps you should read up on Dr. Spetner a bit more, including what he states in his book: Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

Group or kind equals cat family,horse family,canine family.

Your side are the ones using semantics by trying to claim there is different species within the same group, Breed is a less confusing term to describe the different breeds within a group.Why do they call lions and tigers different species but can cross breed and produce offspring ? it's called smoke and mirrors to further add support to your very biased theory.

Many of those quotes posted were quotes from 2002 to present. It just shows that modern scientist's agree with the Dr. that brought it up thirty years ago. How long ago did Darwin present his theory ? once again you show your biased attitude toward information that presents a problem for your theory.

Many of the men quoted believe in your theory but still are looking for answers. And actually focus on what i am saying i am not aganst evolution,i am against macroevolution. And i bet most of your numbers are based on people that believe as i do.

What is your evidence for macroevolution ? are you ever gonna respond to this question.

Dr. spetner does not believe that macroevolution can happen the way Neo Darwinist say it happened.

Prescott AZ is not a hick town,it's probably above your pay grade.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Group or kind equals cat family,horse family,canine family.

Once again you seem to miss the point. These are biologically meaningless words. the cat "family?" Family is a scientific word with a specific meaning you are misusing, but "group or kind" is meaningless. Do you mean to tell me a house-cat is in the same "kind" as a feral lion? Poodle and hyena? What BIOLOGICALLY makes something in the same group or kind? Don't give me more words you made up and define them with other meaningless words that pop into your head. I'm talking about biological differences. I can tell you the exact genetic differences between a man and monkey, yet you still can't grasp what defines a "kind" past a 2nd grade concept of animal-naming, let alone outside mammals. Are all the different types of fish in the world of the same "kind?" Let's see how immature this notion is.

Your side are the ones using semantics by trying to claim there is different species within the same group, Breed is a less confusing term to describe the different breeds within a group.Why do they call lions and tigers different species but can cross breed and produce offspring ? it's called smoke and mirrors to further add support to your very biased theory.

Actually just the opposite. Both GTH and myself have already addressed that and acknowledged that the words genus and species have no specific cutoffs, but have gone on to state that GENETICALLY we can broadly differentiate organisms.

If you ask what's the difference between a fish and a bird biologically, I can specifically answer it by anatomy, physiology, or genetic differences between the two.

If you ask what's the difference between two similar but different bacteria, I can give you the exact changes in genes.

So when I ask you what comprises group or kind, I expect you to offer BIOLOGICAL differences. When I ask you what differentiates micro from macroevolution, I again expect BIOLOGICAL differences. Not man made words. Not the smoke and mirrors you just falsely accused me of producing that you continue to use yourself.

Many of those quotes posted were quotes from 2002 to present. It just shows that modern scientist's agree with the Dr. that brought it up thirty years ago. How long ago did Darwin present his theory ? once again you show your biased attitude toward information that presents a problem for your theory.

If you check the dates on your own sources, you'd see if was late 90s up to 2000, not 2002 to present. If you believe you are still correct, please provide a link of Dr Spetner since a decade ago reiterating the same material. No, creationist websites with no scientific education or training copying and pasting things like you are not "going on record." It means they're being mindless.

As for Darwin, neither GTH nor I have once referenced his ideas. It is only creationists who cite the use of Darwin's ideas as outdated. They are. That's why they are not being used. Once again I point to the overwhelming genetic evidence that has provided unparalleled insight into evolution. And yet YOU continue to point to Darwin, ignoring such evidence.

Again you provide misleading or underhanded twisted points. Gain some integrity.

Many of the men quoted believe in your theory but still are looking for answers. And actually focus on what i am saying i am not aganst evolution,i am against macroevolution. And i bet most of your numbers are based on people that believe as i do.

What is your evidence for macroevolution ? are you ever gonna respond to this question.

Nope. I cited the source of my statistics. Feel free to check the wording. Nice guessing to hand waive away evidence some more.

Nonetheless, you still can't tell me the biological difference between micro and macroevolution. You can't even blindly copy and paste someone else's idea. It doesn't exist. So, why do you think I will provide evidence for a concept you can't even define in biological terms? Can't even differentiate from microevolution? I have no problem showing you large scale evolution, but you need to actually set the definitions lest you once again create a moving goalpost fallacy. This is not reluctance or resistance for providing evidence. It's order of events.

[/quote]Prescott AZ is not a hick town,it's probably above your pay grade.[/QUOTE]
Based on your representing lack of education: probably not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Group or kind equals cat family,horse family,canine family.

Once again you seem to miss the point. These are biologically meaningless words. the cat "family?" Family is a scientific word with a specific meaning you are misusing, but "group or kind" is meaningless. Do you mean to tell me a house-cat is in the same "kind" as a feral lion? Poodle and hyena? What BIOLOGICALLY makes something in the same group or kind? Don't give me more words you made up and define them with other meaningless words that pop into your head. I'm talking about biological differences. I can tell you the exact genetic differences between a man and monkey, yet you still can't grasp what defines a "kind" past a 2nd grade concept of animal-naming, let alone outside mammals. Are all the different types of fish in the world of the same "kind?" Let's see how immature this notion is.

Your side are the ones using semantics by trying to claim there is different species within the same group, Breed is a less confusing term to describe the different breeds within a group.Why do they call lions and tigers different species but can cross breed and produce offspring ? it's called smoke and mirrors to further add support to your very biased theory.

Actually just the opposite. Both GTH and myself have already addressed that and acknowledged that the words genus and species have no specific cutoffs, but have gone on to state that GENETICALLY we can broadly differentiate organisms.

If you ask what's the difference between a fish and a bird biologically, I can specifically answer it by anatomy, physiology, or genetic differences between the two.

If you ask what's the difference between two similar but different bacteria, I can give you the exact changes in genes.

So when I ask you what comprises group or kind, I expect you to offer BIOLOGICAL differences. When I ask you what differentiates micro from macroevolution, I again expect BIOLOGICAL differences. Not man made words. Not the smoke and mirrors you just falsely accused me of producing that you continue to use yourself.

Many of those quotes posted were quotes from 2002 to present. It just shows that modern scientist's agree with the Dr. that brought it up thirty years ago. How long ago did Darwin present his theory ? once again you show your biased attitude toward information that presents a problem for your theory.

If you check the dates on your own sources, you'd see if was late 90s up to 2000, not 2002 to present. If you believe you are still correct, please provide a link of Dr Spetner since a decade ago reiterating the same material. No, creationist websites with no scientific education or training copying and pasting things like you are not "going on record." It means they're being mindless.

As for Darwin, neither GTH nor I have once referenced his ideas. It is only creationists who cite the use of Darwin's ideas as outdated. They are. That's why they are not being used. Once again I point to the overwhelming genetic evidence that has provided unparalleled insight into evolution. And yet YOU continue to point to Darwin, ignoring such evidence.

Again you provide misleading or underhanded twisted points. Gain some integrity.

Many of the men quoted believe in your theory but still are looking for answers. And actually focus on what i am saying i am not aganst evolution,i am against macroevolution. And i bet most of your numbers are based on people that believe as i do.

What is your evidence for macroevolution ? are you ever gonna respond to this question.

Nope. I cited the source of my statistics. Feel free to check the wording. Nice guessing to hand waive away evidence some more.

Nonetheless, you still can't tell me the biological difference between micro and macroevolution. You can't even blindly copy and paste someone else's idea. It doesn't exist. So, why do you think I will provide evidence for a concept you can't even define in biological terms? Can't even differentiate from microevolution? I have no problem showing you large scale evolution, but you need to actually set the definitions lest you once again create a moving goalpost fallacy. This is not reluctance or resistance for providing evidence. It's order of events.

Prescott AZ is not a hick town,it's probably above your pay grade.[/QUOTE]
Based on your representing lack of education: probably not.[/QUOTE]

Hey calling a lion a lion,isn't biologically correct ? And we are not speaking biologically we are speaking of Macroevolution.

I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.

Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.

Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.

 

[konradv]

That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.

What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking to determines what they will say.

Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?

I see no contradiction in finding few transitional fossils. By the very nature of how evolution works, until a new variety of organism reaches high enough numbers to be recognized as a new species, they will be few and far between and probably considered as a subset of the anscestor species. If Darwin said he would be wrong about the theory if one point was wrong, only shows that he was wrong in saying so. Undoubtedly a scientist of his caliber would be interested in developments in the field and whole-heartedly agree that Punctuated Equilibrium was the correct theory.

Punctuated equilibrium -evolutionary change in the fossil record came in fits and starts rather than in a steady process of slow change as in Neo darwinism through mutations and natural selection.

There's no contradiction between the two. If you want to go the micro-, macro-evolution route, mutations are the micro part and natural selection is the macro part, lagging behind and presenting very few examples until such time as numbers increase due to the better viability of their mutations or the ability to harness a new ecological niche. That's why the time line is suddenly "punctuated" by the appearrance of a new species. It's been there for awhile, just unnoticed.

 

[konradv]

I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.

Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.

Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.

The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA. He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"? Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge. Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hey calling a lion a lion,isn't biologically correct ? And we are not speaking biologically we are speaking of Macroevolution.

No. That's not what I said at all. Still need to misrepresent everything to make false points? What was said that calling a lion and housecat the same "kind" has absolutely no biological basis. You can't actually tell me what comprises a "kind" from a biological standpoint. The word "kind" doesn't actually MEAN anything specifically. It's yet another vague term used to obscure actual topics.

So let's talk about biological topics with biological meaning and definitions. I'd suggest we start with the terms "kind" or "macroevolution," but you've been avoiding those terms from the start of this thread.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Sure, as much as a modern smart phone was "built on" a 1970s IBM computer, or today's Jaguar is "built on" the model T. Historical starting points do not define modern day understanding or technology. Ascribing today's understanding of evolution to someone from two centuries ago is yet more underhanded misleading on your part because you can't actually address the real issues.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

If you'd only like a "common people" understanding of biology, then by all means use simple names that any two year old uses to tell you the differences between pretty colorful pictures. But if you want to enter a discussion on evolution and biology, be sure you use biological terminology and wording.

I don't think you've ever picked which side of the fence you want to be on. You address a complex biological topic with 2nd grade understanding, and claim everyone who is educated on the topic is incorrect because you found one person who agrees with you. Sorry, that's not the way intelligence works.

If you want to discuss biology like a big boy, including the theory of evolution, be sure to use biological differentiation.

But you can't. Because you don't understand the topic. You don't know what you're talking about whatsoever. Yet you keep talking.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.

Let me know when you can define evolution in specific terms. Then I'll produce the evidence that falls within that definition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey calling a lion a lion,isn't biologically correct ? And we are not speaking biologically we are speaking of Macroevolution.

No. That's not what I said at all. Still need to misrepresent everything to make false points? What was said that calling a lion and housecat the same "kind" has absolutely no biological basis. You can't actually tell me what comprises a "kind" from a biological standpoint. The word "kind" doesn't actually MEAN anything specifically. It's yet another vague term used to obscure actual topics.

So let's talk about biological topics with biological meaning and definitions. I'd suggest we start with the terms "kind" or "macroevolution," but you've been avoiding those terms from the start of this thread.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Sure, as much as a modern smart phone was "built on" a 1970s IBM computer, or today's Jaguar is "built on" the model T. Historical starting points do not define modern day understanding or technology. Ascribing today's understanding of evolution to someone from two centuries ago is yet more underhanded misleading on your part because you can't actually address the real issues.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

If you'd only like a "common people" understanding of biology, then by all means use simple names that any two year old uses to tell you the differences between pretty colorful pictures. But if you want to enter a discussion on evolution and biology, be sure you use biological terminology and wording.

I don't think you've ever picked which side of the fence you want to be on. You address a complex biological topic with 2nd grade understanding, and claim everyone who is educated on the topic is incorrect because you found one person who agrees with you. Sorry, that's not the way intelligence works.

If you want to discuss biology like a big boy, including the theory of evolution, be sure to use biological differentiation.

But you can't. Because you don't understand the topic. You don't know what you're talking about whatsoever. Yet you keep talking.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.

Let me know when you can define evolution in specific terms. Then I'll produce the evidence that falls within that definition.

The word "kind" is used by biologist when it is necessary to explain their point. The word "family" as well. If you know the "family" or "kind" that an organism originates from and the name of the breed why must you go any further ? so the confusion comes from someone who believes he needs to be able to further explain the differences from two different breeds from the same kind almost in a way to support your unfounded theory that is built on imaginative words.

Words that a 2 year old could understand, seems to be on solid ground, where words used by biologist to describe their theory is built on something that has never been observed. Yeah the 2 year old vocanulary seems to be more reliable.

If you would like to discuss terms like macroevolution or kind, please do. I am avoiding nothing. As a matter of fact i have asked YOU the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and you have yet to asnwer the question. So i guess by now it is ok for me to assume you do not know the differences between the two.

Vague ? what comes to mind when i say horse ? what comes to mind when i say minature horse ? what comes to mind when i say donkey or zebra ? Vague you say.

Let's do it again. What comes to mind when i say cat ? What comes to mind when i say big cat ? what comes to mind when i say house cat ? what comes to mind when i say tiger ? what comes to mind when i say lion ? what comes to mind when i say siamese cat ?

The only time confusion comes in is when you try explain the biological differences between two different looking organisms from the same "kind" or "family" and your vocabulary does it in a way to try and show support for your theory that is built out of imagination.

Evolution is the change over time from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. In other words,Microevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.

Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.

Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.

The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA. He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"? Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge. Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".

I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.

 

[konradv]

I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.

Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.

Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.

The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA. He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"? Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge. Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".

I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.

Fine, what are those limits? The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits. All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today. Why would change be limited? Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.