Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

Wow just had the chance to read through my posts. I am sorry for aLL yhe typos. I hate doing this with mY smart phone outdoors. sO I AM GONNA LIMIT RESPONSES TILL I GET BACK HOME EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.

 

[AllieBaba]

He called you a *sir* because you are a pompous and ignorant ass, and usually that would make you male.

But elitist lesbians can also be pompous asses.

 

[Youwerecreated]

sir ,I sure did and I still do. I have a very fine education from the university of Arizona. I believe they are a reputable school in the fields of science. I am presenting you with evidence that has been studied and observed in the finest institutions. You are presenting things that ate learned from a book that later gets edited when they find out they're wrong. Creationist don't edit their views as much because hypotheses come from a more solid assumptions and explanations of the evidence. Seriously I am not here to offend anyone,I am here to point some of things over my life span thY might just change minds and hearts. I am sorry how we started out and being rude to some of these other posters. I know almost every argument you guys will present because I have been in both sides. I have debated this issue for thirty years,I have seen the arguments do many times and they hardly change. If we touch on all the questions I presented today you see It's pretty obvious which side is presented by the evidence.

How do you come up with the idea that I am a man? You call me "sir"?

How did you reach that conclusion?

I look forward to your "PROOF" that creation science is valid, has evidence, and shows modern day evolutionary science to be faulty, and lies.

That will be interesting to see. I'd like to be convinced of your view of reality. I look forward to convincing evidence.


Oh, and I WAS created, by the union of a sperm from my father, (one of several billions he produced in his lifetime) and an egg from my mother!!! (one of a fewl hundred she produced in her lifetime!) That union of egg and sperm CREATED me! ( Actually it produced TWO children in my mother's womb, but one dies in gestation, and was expelled naturally) The same is true of about 3000 generations before me, after we became homo sapiens!


I taught at a major East Coast university for over ten years with two Master's degrees, one in population genetics and one in computational sciences, a natural "marriage" for the study of biological sciences these days. Prior to that college teaching, I taught science, (biology, general sciences, and chemistry) at two high schools in New England. I am now retired.

Scientists revise and extend their remarks when factual evidence forces them to. Biblical creationists do NOT revise their "theories" despite all the DNA evidence of the last 20 years pointing more and more evidence to the phenomenon of speciation.

Here is an hour long video for those of you who want to learn how Darwin was WRONG, and RIGHT!

What Darwin Never Knew

NOVA | What Darwin Never Knew

Real quick, sorry for the mistake. Did i say i am not the shaprest tool in the shed since the stroke. Anyhow, i will limit the responses til i return home.

Darwin,observed Micro-evolution,and made some very erroneous assumptions from there.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know what peer reviewed means.

You're ignoring me, aren't you? Lol. I don't blame you. You have no way to counter the truth, and fact.

 

[JScott]

Is "proven with the human eye" a scientific term?

Idiot.

Do you not know how to quote? Oh and get back under your rock.

J, come on. I have already responded with facts that refute your theory if nor show me why that us not the case. Let's try being civil. I am even trying with people I has serious contempt for.

Aw come now YWC, you havent refuted anything. Why would you criticize me when all Alliebaba does is insult people?

 

[JScott]

Neither do we,except the macro evolution with the engine being mutations. How many times does it have to be said. And you need to ask the genetics in question if he believes in macro evolution I don't for sure. I assure a day will come when evolutionist invest in a new theory to replace neo darwinism.

So all 5000 species of mammals have been here since the beginning of the Earth? All 10,000 species of birds?

What is YOUR definition of macro-evolution? Of Speciation? Do you use the "scientific" definition of those terms or something you read in religious books?

Your response did NOT answer the challenge of providing ONE SINGLE PEER REVIEWED article in a respected international science journal.

The challenge is still out there. So far, the non-macro-evolutionaries here are scoring zero in their offer of PROOF that Macro-evolution doesn't exist.

I am on my smart phone and as you can global I'm not very good with it but I will look in to it and respond when I get home. But micro evolution I prefer the term nice adaptations. Because I believe that the diversity of life was the result from cross breeding and adaptations. I believe there is no argument organisms produce different traits within their kinds,not outside their kinds . We can see how how gorilla cross bred with monkeys in the wild forming new kinds within a kind. That is the limits to speculation kinds creating new kinds within their kind. Outside of that it is only speculation.

Thats probably how humans developed.

 

[JScott]

This is deflection. I have said earlier they use their terms to support the theory of evolution. It has never been observed and it just causes confusion to create terms with no basis to it and that is their support for the theory. I am gonna go through some things that have not been addressed by the evolutuionist,either because they don't have an answer or they know i presented a good argument.

1. Can someone properly define what above the species level means ? is there a species above the species level ? does this make any sense ?

2. The mutation rate; i have clearly shown that harmful and neutral mutations greatly out number beneficial mutations. I presented an article that showed by using evolutionist numbers the impossibilty of producing enough beneficial mutations that would result in macro-evolution. I clearly shown that through a microscopic means the major differences between humans and chimps. You need further evidence just look at the outward appearance of both.

3.Again,i pointed out plenty of evidence that many cultures from around the world depicted dinosaurs in their art. They accurately rendered drawings of dinosaurs never viewd by man according to the theory of evolutionist. These artifacts are much older then the first fossil find. This is evidence that shatters the theory. It blows the timelime and it shows that fossils are not as old as you say. and really has anybody seen how little bones they use to recreate some of the beast never seen by man.

Anyways, signig off have a great weekened everybody. I do hope someone can attempt a coherent viable method and aswer to these problems.

1. Zooming out on the tree of life and viewing all of a given organisms descendants instead of looking at just one individual.

2. You do not understand how a beneficial mutation functions so therefore this line is null.

3.

Wow, a lot more spaceships and spacemen than dinosaurs..... When you say cave art, you are referring to art. An artist can create whatever his imagination will allow. In every monster movie ever created the "monster makers" created monsters that never existed. #3 is a fail.

I don't deny spaceships,but you may have a different view on who they're.

You gloss over a lot of stuff dont you?

 

[JScott]

So far my mutation rate argument is better then yours. My fossil record argument is better. My artifacts argument is better. My argument of dna being distinct from others is better, come on guys.

I don't understand what you mean by "better". Define your terms?

What are your scientific sources and links? Did you watch that video I linked for you? No? I'm betting you don't watch videos by scientists, do you?

sir ,I sure did and I still do. I have a very fine education from the university of Arizona. I believe they are a reputable school in the fields of science. I am presenting you with evidence that has been studied and observed in the finest institutions. You are presenting things that ate learned from a book that later gets edited when they find out they're wrong. Creationist don't edit their views as much because hypotheses come from a more solid assumptions and explanations of the evidence. Seriously I am not here to offend anyone,I am here to point some of things over my life span thY might just change minds and hearts. I am sorry how we started out and being rude to some of these other posters. I know almost every argument you guys will present because I have been in both sides. I have debated this issue for thirty years,I have seen the arguments do many times and they hardly change. If we touch on all the questions I presented today you see It's pretty obvious which side is presented by the evidence.

You present some things that are scientific fact but youve allowed yourself to be lead by some preacher. Youre deluded.

 

[JScott]

The only speciation observed is micro evolution. Were you gonna argue the mutation rate with solid evidence ?

When a species becomes through evolution unable to breed with another species, THAT is macro evolution!

Sorry you missed that!

Mutation rate? I use the US Government laboratory statistics. Where is YOUR evidence for what mutation rate?

Really if you did you would see that neutral and harmful mutations are a serious problem for your theory. Beneficial mutations are so rare the only one they can point to,and even then when you look at the bacteria when they are introduced to the population they don't do well. That is no different then what happened to the drosophila when they were put back in the population with healthy fruit flies . That is natural selection at work.

This right here shows what you do not understand. I and others have told you this a few times so far. This is where you fail in genetics.

 

[JScott]

sir ,I sure did and I still do. I have a very fine education from the university of Arizona. I believe they are a reputable school in the fields of science. I am presenting you with evidence that has been studied and observed in the finest institutions. You are presenting things that ate learned from a book that later gets edited when they find out they're wrong. Creationist don't edit their views as much because hypotheses come from a more solid assumptions and explanations of the evidence. Seriously I am not here to offend anyone,I am here to point some of things over my life span thY might just change minds and hearts. I am sorry how we started out and being rude to some of these other posters. I know almost every argument you guys will present because I have been in both sides. I have debated this issue for thirty years,I have seen the arguments do many times and they hardly change. If we touch on all the questions I presented today you see It's pretty obvious which side is presented by the evidence.

How do you come up with the idea that I am a man? You call me "sir"?

How did you reach that conclusion?

I look forward to your "PROOF" that creation science is valid, has evidence, and shows modern day evolutionary science to be faulty, and lies.

That will be interesting to see. I'd like to be convinced of your view of reality. I look forward to convincing evidence.


Oh, and I WAS created, by the union of a sperm from my father, (one of several billions he produced in his lifetime) and an egg from my mother!!! (one of a fewl hundred she produced in her lifetime!) That union of egg and sperm CREATED me! ( Actually it produced TWO children in my mother's womb, but one dies in gestation, and was expelled naturally) The same is true of about 3000 generations before me, after we became homo sapiens!


I taught at a major East Coast university for over ten years with two Master's degrees, one in population genetics and one in computational sciences, a natural "marriage" for the study of biological sciences these days. Prior to that college teaching, I taught science, (biology, general sciences, and chemistry) at two high schools in New England. I am now retired.

Scientists revise and extend their remarks when factual evidence forces them to. Biblical creationists do NOT revise their "theories" despite all the DNA evidence of the last 20 years pointing more and more evidence to the phenomenon of speciation.

Here is an hour long video for those of you who want to learn how Darwin was WRONG, and RIGHT!

What Darwin Never Knew

NOVA | What Darwin Never Knew

Wow! I just watched this last night! Karma

 

[JScott]

He called you a *sir* because you are a pompous and ignorant ass, and usually that would make you male.

But elitist lesbians can also be pompous asses.

Wow, YWC will be appalled when he sees that. Oh by the way, rock.......under......

Youre very religious I can tell.

 

[Woyzeck]

I don't have to prove the Theory of Evolution false.

You need to prove it true, though.

And that hasn't been done. Ever.

So I don't need to do anything.

There are mountains of it. I don't think you've ever gone through it, because you tend to ignore any post that proves you wrong. I already posted a wonderful experiment that proved the theory of evolution. I suppose you want more?

For starters, the most common evidence you can see today are breeders. Dog breeders, rose breeders, etc. In fact, throw in the whole domestication of animals and plants for human consumption. We essentially took charge of various plants and animals like chickens and dogs and cabbage and corn and bred it into what they are now. That's an example of artificial selection, but natural selection happens as well in nature, they're just aren't automatically primed for the benefit of humans. In fact, they're primarily for the benefit of the organisms themselves.

For example, there are experiments with guppies and natural predators. The most well-known one was done by a guy named John Endler. Guppies that lived in areas with a lot of predators tended their colors to blend in with their surroundings, creating camouflage and protections from said predators. While guppies with no predators to come after them developed bright colors meant to attract female guppies. This is basic concepts of evolution we can see. This change of guppy color occurs because the ones who survive the predators (the ones with camouflage colors) are the ones to pass on their genes, who in later generations become the majority of the population of guppies. This occurs in nature, and can and has been replicated via experiments.

Would you like more? Evolutionary biology is truly a fascinating and exciting field. This is barely the tip of the iceberg.

I've provided lists of scientists, including molecular biologists, geneticists, biologists, who question the veracity of Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution, and those lists include the top genetecists and minds in the world. Including members of the team that worked on the HGP.

I don't care if you want more lists. Quit pretending the ones I've provided don't exist, and quit pretending the Theory of Evolution has been PROVEN, and we'll talk. Until then, you're just a lying idealogue, no different than the rest of the anti-science evolution zealots.

List of scientists doubting it doesn't translate to evolution being disproved. I asked to see some experiments you could point us too, or a discovery that undermined evolution. You didn't really give me anything at all. So, I'm afraid to have to classify your list as part of a dick-waving contest that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I'm afraid your the one that's pretending, that evolution hasn't been proven.

 

[AllieBaba]

When a species becomes through evolution unable to breed with another species, THAT is macro evolution!

Sorry you missed that!

Mutation rate? I use the US Government laboratory statistics. Where is YOUR evidence for what mutation rate?

Really if you did you would see that neutral and harmful mutations are a serious problem for your theory. Beneficial mutations are so rare the only one they can point to,and even then when you look at the bacteria when they are introduced to the population they don't do well. That is no different then what happened to the drosophila when they were put back in the population with healthy fruit flies . That is natural selection at work.

This right here shows what you do not understand. I and others have told you this a few times so far. This is where you fail in genetics.

wow. That's an intelligent and well thought out argument.

 

[JScott]

Really if you did you would see that neutral and harmful mutations are a serious problem for your theory. Beneficial mutations are so rare the only one they can point to,and even then when you look at the bacteria when they are introduced to the population they don't do well. That is no different then what happened to the drosophila when they were put back in the population with healthy fruit flies . That is natural selection at work.

This right here shows what you do not understand. I and others have told you this a few times so far. This is where you fail in genetics.

wow. That's an intelligent and well thought out argument.

Its obvious you cant grasp it either.

 

[JScott]

I don't have to prove the Theory of Evolution false.

You need to prove it true, though.

And that hasn't been done. Ever.

So I don't need to do anything.

There are mountains of it. I don't think you've ever gone through it, because you tend to ignore any post that proves you wrong. I already posted a wonderful experiment that proved the theory of evolution. I suppose you want more?

For starters, the most common evidence you can see today are breeders. Dog breeders, rose breeders, etc. In fact, throw in the whole domestication of animals and plants for human consumption. We essentially took charge of various plants and animals like chickens and dogs and cabbage and corn and bred it into what they are now. That's an example of artificial selection, but natural selection happens as well in nature, they're just aren't automatically primed for the benefit of humans. In fact, they're primarily for the benefit of the organisms themselves.

For example, there are experiments with guppies and natural predators. The most well-known one was done by a guy named John Endler. Guppies that lived in areas with a lot of predators tended their colors to blend in with their surroundings, creating camouflage and protections from said predators. While guppies with no predators to come after them developed bright colors meant to attract female guppies. This is basic concepts of evolution we can see. This change of guppy color occurs because the ones who survive the predators (the ones with camouflage colors) are the ones to pass on their genes, who in later generations become the majority of the population of guppies. This occurs in nature, and can and has been replicated via experiments.

Would you like more? Evolutionary biology is truly a fascinating and exciting field. This is barely the tip of the iceberg.

I've provided lists of scientists, including molecular biologists, geneticists, biologists, who question the veracity of Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution, and those lists include the top genetecists and minds in the world. Including members of the team that worked on the HGP.

I don't care if you want more lists. Quit pretending the ones I've provided don't exist, and quit pretending the Theory of Evolution has been PROVEN, and we'll talk. Until then, you're just a lying idealogue, no different than the rest of the anti-science evolution zealots.

List of scientists doubting it doesn't translate to evolution being disproved. I asked to see some experiments you could point us too, or a discovery that undermined evolution. You didn't really give me anything at all. So, I'm afraid to have to classify your list as part of a dick-waving contest that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I'm afraid your the one that's pretending, that evolution hasn't been proven.

Hm, a dick waving Alliebaba. Thats funny considering what she said about LaterTrader.

 

[JScott]

Corn is another good example of evolution.

Zea (genus)
Teosintes are critical components of maize evolution, but opinions vary about which taxa were involved. According to the most widely-held evolutionary model, the crop was derived directly from Z. m. parviglumis by selection of key mutations [3]; up to 12% of its genetic material came from Z. m. mexicana through introgression. Another model proposes that a tiny-eared wild maize was domesticated, and after being spread from east-central Mexico, this cultigen hybridized with Z. luxurians or Z. diploperennis resulting in a great explosion of maize genetic diversity, ear and kernel forms, and capacity to adapt to new habitats, as well as increased yields. A third model suggests that the early maize resulted from a cross between Z. diploperennis and a species of Tripsacum; support for this is minimal. A fourth model posits that teosinte resulted from hybridization between an early wild form of Z. m. mays and Tripsacum.[4]
Zea (genus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

The only speciation observed is micro evolution. Were you gonna argue the mutation rate with solid evidence ?

When a species becomes through evolution unable to breed with another species, THAT is macro evolution!

Sorry you missed that!

Mutation rate? I use the US Government laboratory statistics. Where is YOUR evidence for what mutation rate?

That might be your definition but not mine. Think about this for a moment. If two different groups of organisms that are of the same family but can no longer breed with each other. Why would you define them as different species if they are of the same family ? Why not just remove all the confusion and use the term breeds. I know this is not what you want to hear but cats are cats,dogs are dogs,bacteria is bacteria,. Oh and I didn't miss that part I just don't subscribe to the nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Real quick, sorry for the mistake. Did i say i am not the shaprest tool in the shed since the stroke. Anyhow, i will limit the responses til i return home.

Darwin,observed Micro-evolution,and made some very erroneous assumptions from there.

I really don't care if you think of me as a man or a woman, BOTH are capable of devoting their lives to honest and unprejudiced research!!! Many thousands of men and women devote 40-50 years of their careers after college to doing teaching and research. I have been blessed to meet several hundred of them in my career, and to have had several dozen of my students and fellow teachers to have published research in the area a genetics, evolution biology, and basic research methods. All published in "peer reviewed" journals.

Do you know what "peer reviewed" means? I bet you don't.

In order to get an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, one has to submit the article, complete with statistics, other publication links, all "proof" ... then have it reviewed by 5-30 people in a similar field, teaching or working in research around the world, not just in New Jersey, but in (for example) Holland, Australia, Germany England, France, wherever!!

The peer reviews must be submitted PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.. citing strengths and weaknesses in the article in question... and those reviews MUST be available to any researcher worldwide!!!

That is what we call "scientific" research these days, literally MILLIONS of people with degrees and training, from all over the world, reviewing each other's work for "lies" or "faults" or "mistakes"... all done to make sure research is the best available, the most criticized, and improved upon before publication.

THAT SAID, I'm still waiting: SHOW ME a PEER REVIEWED article in any major international scientific journal DISPROVES any part of evolution! There simply IS NO SUCH ARTICLE!!!

Being well educated does not prove your case. Peer reviews ,the meaning is pretty obvious. Even if this is all true how does that answer my questions to you ? I presented you with legitimate questions on mutations and you keep avoiding them why ? Look if you know something I don't, then educate me.Why are you coming off rude again ? Can you be civil with someone who has a different view then you ? Don't tell me your credentials just answer the questions. Look some people might be impressed sorry that just does not do it for me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Real quick, sorry for the mistake. Did i say i am not the shaprest tool in the shed since the stroke. Anyhow, i will limit the responses til i return home.

Darwin,observed Micro-evolution,and made some very erroneous assumptions from there.

I really don't care if you think of me as a man or a woman, BOTH are capable of devoting their lives to honest and unprejudiced research!!! Many thousands of men and women devote 40-50 years of their careers after college to doing teaching and research. I have been blessed to meet several hundred of them in my career, and to have had several dozen of my students and fellow teachers to have published research in the area a genetics, evolution biology, and basic research methods. All published in "peer reviewed" journals.

Do you know what "peer reviewed" means? I bet you don't.

In order to get an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, one has to submit the article, complete with statistics, other publication links, all "proof" ... then have it reviewed by 5-30 people in a similar field, teaching or working in research around the world, not just in New Jersey, but in (for example) Holland, Australia, Germany England, France, wherever!!

The peer reviews must be submitted PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.. citing strengths and weaknesses in the article in question... and those reviews MUST be available to any researcher worldwide!!!

That is what we call "scientific" research these days, literally MILLIONS of people with degrees and training, from all over the world, reviewing each other's work for "lies" or "faults" or "mistakes"... all done to make sure research is the best available, the most criticized, and improved upon before publication.

THAT SAID, I'm still waiting: SHOW ME a PEER REVIEWED article in any major international scientific journal DISPROVES any part of evolution! There simply IS NO SUCH ARTICLE!!!

I'm gonna show you a peer review of evolutionist admitting they are wrong,you can't be serious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. Zooming out on the tree of life and viewing all of a given organisms descendants instead of looking at just one individual.

2. You do not understand how a beneficial mutation functions so therefore this line is null.

3.

Wow, a lot more spaceships and spacemen than dinosaurs..... When you say cave art, you are referring to art. An artist can create whatever his imagination will allow. In every monster movie ever created the "monster makers" created monsters that never existed. #3 is a fail.

I don't deny spaceships,but you may have a different view on who they're.

You gloss over a lot of stuff dont you?

How am I glossing over what you presented ? The difference in what i presented was that fossils were found and artifacts are older then the first fossils found. We have not found aliens from other planets nor have we found spaceships. Some of those creatures do you think they really existed ? and what evidence do we have of them if they existed ?