Evolution. Pfffft

[WinterBorn]

If you want proof of evolution, you have only to look at the antibiotic resistant viruses.

Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.

Cute. But not really the issue. Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.

Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape. It's still a virus.

Indeed it is still a virus. But it is changed. It evolved because of external pressure.

It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Call me when a virus becomes a hamster.

Cute. But not really the issue. Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.

Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape. It's still a virus.

Indeed it is still a virus. But it is changed. It evolved because of external pressure.

It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

 

[WinterBorn]

Cute. But not really the issue. Antibiotic resistant viruses are, in fact, proof.

Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape. It's still a virus.

Indeed it is still a virus. But it is changed. It evolved because of external pressure.

It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

 

[Weatherman2020]

Getting a suntan does not have anything to do with the evolution of the species any more than a virus changing shape. It's still a virus.

Indeed it is still a virus. But it is changed. It evolved because of external pressure.

It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

 

[WinterBorn]

Indeed it is still a virus. But it is changed. It evolved because of external pressure.

It is very different from its original form, hence the antibiotics do not harm it.

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Getting a suntan is a change too, does not mean people are evolving into a new species.
A virus is a virus and has always been a virus and always will be a virus.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

 

[Vastator]

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.


Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago. Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
]

Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?

I used dates a group of scientists use.
Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?

Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..

 

[WinterBorn]

Your analogy is ridiculous.

If I get a tan, will my children be born darker? No.

When an antibiotic resistant virus reproduces, are the offspring resistant to antibiotics? Yes.

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

 

[Weatherman2020]

My analogy is ridiculous? Says the guy thinking a virus is becoming another species.

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.


Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago. Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
]

Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?

I used dates a group of scientists use.
Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?

Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..

No environmental changes in 66 million years?
My, aren't we full of knowledge today.

 

[WinterBorn]

Please point out where I said a virus is becoming another species? You can't? I guess that makes your statement a lie, then doesn't it?

The virus does, in fact, change. It changes enough to be immune to what would kill it's ancestor. That change is called "evolution".

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

 

[Vastator]

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.


Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago. Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
]

Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?

I used dates a group of scientists use.
Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?

Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..

No environmental changes in 66 million years?
My, aren't we full of knowledge today.

Work on your reading comprehension. Periods, and commas mean something. I said no changes that would force the elimination of its current form. If you insist on quoting me; quote me in full. You'll appear somewhat less foolish.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Oh, so you are now backing off and admitting there is no evidence of evolution of species into other species.
Minor changes in a species proves nothing towards transitional evolution of the species, which this thread is about.
That is why two species that have existed for millions of years with no changes where pointed out.

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist. He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life. They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going. It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

 

[Weatherman2020]

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.


Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago. Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
]

Why do you think that the Sea of Galilee has been landlocked for 6 million years?
Why do you think that the Coelacanth is 66 million years old?

I used dates a group of scientists use.
Now back to the point. Why no changes in 6 million years, let alone 66 million years?

Because no envirnmental changes occurred that would have forced its elimination in it current form. Though to be thorough in that conclusion one really would require a sample of DNA from that period to compare. Even if in physical shape, and dimensions it appears identical; I'd be willing to bet that genetic markers would indicate some changes at some level, or to some extent..

No environmental changes in 66 million years?
My, aren't we full of knowledge today.

Work on your reading comprehension. Periods, and commas mean something. I said no changes that would force the elimination of its current form. If you insist on quoting me; quote me in full. You'll appear somewhat less foolish.

So no fish has changed in 66 million years. I agree that no fish has changed, my apologies.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not backing off anything. I am simply calling you out on your bullshit claim.

The fact that there are species that have not changed does not prove anything, except that they are a species that evolved to fill a niche and still fill that niche.

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist. He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life. They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going. It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

And where is the evidence that "God did it"?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Like I said, you have no evidence and are just parroting what they told you to parrot.
A virus will never become a hamster, a fish will never become an elephant, a glob of goo will never end up writing Beethoven.

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist. He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life. They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going. It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

And where is the evidence that "God did it"?

There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is more evidence of evolution than of any alternative.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, the viruses did evolve.

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist. He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life. They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going. It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

And where is the evidence that "God did it"?

There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.

You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.

 

[pinqy]

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.

there are almost a hundred different species of tilapia, and there is more than one species in the Sea of Galilee. So I'm not sure how you think that's a point against evolution.

Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago. Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.

The two genera of Coelacanth currently living are different from those found in fossils. Not the same as those in fossils. Evolution clearly occurred.

There is nothing in Evolution that mandates change; many many species have remained relatively unchanged over the millennia because there were little or no changes that could benefit the species.

 

[Vastator]

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist. He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life. They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going. It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

And where is the evidence that "God did it"?

There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.

You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.

However there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the design is decidedly not intelligent.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Feel free to post your evidence at any time.

The evidence is readily available. There are species that share traits and DNA, lending credence to the idea that they may have a common ancestor.

There is far more evidence of evolution than of any "A Miracle Occurred" versions of how we came to have so many species.

Nobel Prize winner Dr Francis Collins went into his work to discover the human genome as an atheist. He completed his work saying God did it.

That is because when Darwin came up with his theory no one had an idea of the details taking place in life. They understood cells at the time but had no idea of the mechanisms at work to create a cell or keep it going. It is impossible for evolution to have created such complex systems at even the smallest details.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

And where is the evidence that "God did it"?

There are two choices. Evolution or intelligent design.
Try making a few random changes in the code of your Windows 10 operating system and let us know how evolution works.

You still offer absolutely no evidence in favor of intelligent design.

Any understanding of micro biology is all the evidence most people need to change their mind and know intelligent design is the only answer. It is impossible for an explosion to evolve naturally into a finally tuned machine of life or write Beethoven.