Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.

I'm afraid not. Do you accept the definition I posted above?

Burden of proof is on you. I have seen the mutations on fruit flies there were changes and new structures but they were deformed or didn't work but none of what I saw was new information. And all thoses flies were not benefitted by the mutations and they died prematurely.

I saw an extra pair of wings that didn't work. I saw missing wings,I saw antennas deformed or in the wrong place, the ones that showed no change prematurely died.

Nope not one mutation in the fruit fly was a benefit.

 

[Dragon]

Burden of proof is on you.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to clarify proof of exactly WHAT we are talking about.

Do you accept the definition of "new feature" I presented above, or not? If not, do you have a CLEAR AND CONCISE definition of your own to suggest?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.

I'm afraid not. Do you accept the definition I posted above?

All organisms have mutations if mutations do what you say they do and believe they do why do we not see change in the fossils from the modern day organisms of the fossils that are supposedly very old ?



Living-Fossils.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Burden of proof is on you.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just trying to clarify proof of exactly WHAT we are talking about.

Do you accept the definition of "new feature" I presented above, or not? If not, do you have a CLEAR AND CONCISE definition of your own to suggest?

I don't except many definitions of your theory just provide the evidence asked for.

You can present your evidence that you're holding back and we can discuss it. I am on record saying I believe in micro-adaptations but that has been the only evidence presented by your side and your side extrapolates from that as evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[Dragon]

I don't except many definitions of your theory just provide the evidence asked for.

You're really dodging and weaving here, which is no surprise but is, frankly, disgusting.

I will provide the evidence asked for as soon as we have clarified exactly WHAT it is supposed to be evidence of. With precision. Without convenient exits available.

Again: a "new feature" is either a structure or a new function of an existing structure that did not appear in prior generations.

Is this an acceptable definition? Say yes, and I will show you mutations that have resulted in new features.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't except many definitions of your theory just provide the evidence asked for.

You're really dodging and weaving here, which is no surprise but is, frankly, disgusting.

I will provide the evidence asked for as soon as we have clarified exactly WHAT it is supposed to be evidence of. With precision. Without convenient exits available.

Again: a "new feature" is either a structure or a new function of an existing structure that did not appear in prior generations.

Is this an acceptable definition? Say yes, and I will show you mutations that have resulted in new features.

I am presenting my evidence but I must say what you want me to say before you present your evidence. Son evidence don't lie.

What are you afraid of I am not dodging let your evidence speak for itself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Koshergirl was asking for the same thing and you would not present your evidence. Maybe because you know it won't stand up to scrutiny. But anyways I will wait for you to present evidence that supports your theory.

Were you not gonna respond to what I presented to Loki or are you gonna ignore it like he or she is ?

 

[Dragon]

I am presenting my evidence but I must say what you want me to say before you present your evidence. Son evidence don't lie.

What are you afraid of I am not dodging let your evidence speak for itself.

EVIDENCE OF WHAT, EXACTLY?

That is not an unreasonable request. If you refuse to grant it, you are not asking for evidence, you are dodging and weaving.

ONE MORE TIME: A "new feature" is either a new structure or a new function of an existing structure. Is this an acceptable definition of "new feature"?

If it is, say so and I will show you mutations that have resulted in "new features." If not, present your own PRECISE definition of "new feature" and I will either dispute it or present evidence to accommodate it.

Ball's in your court.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am presenting my evidence but I must say what you want me to say before you present your evidence. Son evidence don't lie.

What are you afraid of I am not dodging let your evidence speak for itself.

EVIDENCE OF WHAT, EXACTLY?

That is not an unreasonable request. If you refuse to grant it, you are not asking for evidence, you are dodging and weaving.

ONE MORE TIME: A "new feature" is either a new structure or a new function of an existing structure. Is this an acceptable definition of "new feature"?

If it is, say so and I will show you mutations that have resulted in "new features." If not, present your own PRECISE definition of "new feature" and I will either dispute it or present evidence to accommodate it.

Ball's in your court.

You said it's easily proven I guess not but only if we agree on a definition, knowing I don't agree with many definitions because I believe the definitions are biased and arrived at by faulty reasoning of the evidence.

I presented a site with pictures comparing fossils and living organisms.

I presented and asked why fossils that are very old according to evolutuionist show no change from living oranisms today since all organisms experience mutations,if mutations do as you believe ?

 

[Dragon]

pro
You said it's easily proven I guess not but only if we agree on a definition, knowing I don't agree with many definitions because I believe the definitions are biased and arrived at by faulty reasoning of the evidence.

This is such horseshit. You ask for proof. I insist you clarify proof of WHAT. That's a perfectly reasonable request. if you refuse to grant it, you prove that you are a dishonest person.

I'll be blunt. I suspect you of presenting a vague concept and asking for proof of that vague concept precisely so that, after being presented with the proof, you can deny that it is proof. Since the thing you want proven has not, by you, been precisely defined, this creates such a back-door escape.

To forestall this, I want a precise definition of what you want proven, so that there can be no doubt, fudging, or dodging about what is or is not proof. If you don't like the definition I offered, present your own. I cannot present proof of anything if I don't know what it is I am supposed to be proving, and at this point do not -- which is exactly what you are trying to achieve, and exactly what I am unwilling to allow.

Say EXACTLY AND PRECISELY what you want proven, and I will show you the proof. But I cannot prove or disprove a cloud of formless goo.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God cannot doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.

Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

I think I'll just ask you to back that up and name names. Who thinks science is the work of the devil?

YWC thinks those who teach evolution are motivated by the devil, ask him yourself.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.

Mutations produce new and positive features.

 

[daws101]

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.

I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.

hardly....as your beliefs

are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

I think I'll just ask you to back that up and name names. Who thinks science is the work of the devil?

YWC thinks those who teach evolution are motivated by the devil, ask him yourself.

Didn't say it exactly like that, I will say ones who have an agenda and deliberately spin evidence to support their religion they are being lead by satan.

Some people are taught the theory and they take it as it is presented but when they realize what it really is they reject it. So not all who believe are of satan. Dawkins that is a different story or many atheists that do the same as dawkins are being used by satan.

Joh 14:30 I shall no longer speak many things with you, for the ruler of this world comes, and he has nothing in Me.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness."

2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.

Mutations produce new and positive features.

Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.

The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.

 

[daws101]

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?
lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES



Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.

The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name


Father
Mother
Offspring

Donkey (jack)
Horse (mare)
Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)

Horse
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Hinny

Zebra
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)

Zebra
Horse
Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule

Zebra
Pony
Zony

Zebra
Shetland Pony
Zetland

Donkey (jack)
Zebra
Zebret

Horse
Zebra
Hebra

PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)

In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."

In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.

Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: “I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, N’schigo, M’bouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc”. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".

Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the “Kulu-Kamba” and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla

the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
not because we were created as separate life forms.

No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.

wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
genus:ge·nus noun \ˈjē-nəs, ˈje-\
plural gen·era\ˈje-nə-rə\ also ge·nus·es

Definition of GENUS
1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
thanks for playing!

 

[Youwerecreated]

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.

I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.

hardly....as your beliefs

are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .

Give up the evidence or else face it your belief is based in faith.

 

[daws101]

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

 

[daws101]

Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.

I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.

hardly....as your beliefs

are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .

Give up the evidence or else face it your belief is based in faith.

what type of evidence would you like?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.

Mutations produce new and positive features.

Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.

The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.

They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread. Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.

If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.