Total Posts:327|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Theory of Evolution.

Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:32:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A lot of the religious folk on here seem to have trouble with language. This is expected as they've based their lives around interpretive language in the form of the unholy bible and other such texts of immorality (such as the torah and the qur'an).

So, I wanted to take a bit of time to explain why the theory of evolution is called a theory despite the fact that it's not theoretical.

In science there are three different things at work. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act in the fashion they do.

A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation, or relations, that express a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be applied outside of those conditions. At least not rigorously.

For example, gravity is a fact we experience every day. Newtons law of universal gravitation states that gravitational forces between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.

In Science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

That is illustrated by Newton's law of gravity, which merely states how gravity acts, and Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes what gravity is and why it acts as it does. Einstein's theory of relativity, in fact, was verified by predicting a discrepancy in Newton's law of gravity in calculating changes in Mercury's orbit around the sun because of relativistic effects. The discrepancy in Newton's law, though small, was predicted by Einstein's theory as a result of Mercury's elongated orbit and closeness to the sun and the warp in space-time caused by the sun's great mass, something that Newton's law does not account for. This shows that Newton's law breaks down in relativistic settings.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory and has been verified numerous times. The best example in Italian Wall Lizards (see link provided). Evolution has never been disproved so far despite creationists constant claims that evolution is false. Evolution has also made several successful predictions.

So, the reason why the theory of evolution is not a law is because scientific theories and laws are different things. Nor will evolution ever become a law.

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

http://webpages.icav.up.pt...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 4:32:17 PM, Quatermass wrote:
A lot of the religious folk on here seem to have trouble with language. This is expected as they've based their lives around interpretive language in the form of the unholy bible and other such texts of immorality (such as the torah and the qur'an).

So, I wanted to take a bit of time to explain why the theory of evolution is called a theory despite the fact that it's not theoretical.

In science there are three different things at work. There are facts, there are scientific laws that describe the way facts act, and there are theories that explain why facts act in the fashion they do.

A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation, or relations, that express a narrow fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions and cannot be applied outside of those conditions. At least not rigorously.

For example, gravity is a fact we experience every day. Newtons law of universal gravitation states that gravitational forces between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.

In Science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that describes how certain facts relate to each other, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains natural phenomena and is capable of predicting additional phenomena that derive from those facts.

That is illustrated by Newton's law of gravity, which merely states how gravity acts, and Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes what gravity is and why it acts as it does. Einstein's theory of relativity, in fact, was verified by predicting a discrepancy in Newton's law of gravity in calculating changes in Mercury's orbit around the sun because of relativistic effects. The discrepancy in Newton's law, though small, was predicted by Einstein's theory as a result of Mercury's elongated orbit and closeness to the sun and the warp in space-time caused by the sun's great mass, something that Newton's law does not account for. This shows that Newton's law breaks down in relativistic settings.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory and has been verified numerous times. The best example in Italian Wall Lizards (see link provided). Evolution has never been disproved so far despite creationists constant claims that evolution is false. Evolution has also made several successful predictions.

So, the reason why the theory of evolution is not a law is because scientific theories and laws are different things. Nor will evolution ever become a law.

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

http://webpages.icav.up.pt...

What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:38:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 9:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:38:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

The question: "What is the one official definition of [insert scientific theory here]?" is fairly meaningless, and such a definition would only be relevant to semantic, non-scientific discussion of any scientific theory. For example, we can (roughly) define the theory of general relativity as "gravitation is caused by the curvature of space and time (rather than a force)" and while this may give a semantic, conceptual explanation of relativity, you simply can't have a meaningful and scientifically relevant discussion about general relativity without the actual science.

The equivocation, consequently, isn't on the part of the evolutionary scientists. While "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through mutation and natural selection." may give a concise semantic explanation of evolutionary theory, it's the fault of the creationists for using this definition and creating the distinction of microevolution and macroevolution based on this definition instead of using the actual science which doesn't support such a distinction.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 6:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:38:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

For someone who regularly uses the term kind to mean species, phylum, class, taxa, family and genus interchangeably so as to prevent accepting evidence of legitimate speciation; for someone who regularly uses evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang theory, planetary evolution, geology and all papers, topics and theories that are related interchangeably when it suits his purpose; and for someone who regularly asks for evidence and when presented with it explains that it isnt the right sort of evidence; I dont feel you are the person to best discern who is equivocating.

The equivocation from those who appreciate evolution mainly stems from creationists changing arguments and jumping from the theories described above, lumping two disparate theories and labelling them as evolution and making errors in their understanding of evolution as a whole that need correcting.

I would suggest you remove the large deciduous forest from your eye before removing the splinter from ours.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 6:26:46 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

For someone who regularly uses the term kind to mean species, phylum, class, taxa, family and genus interchangeably so as to prevent accepting evidence of legitimate speciation;

Species is a made up classification term to begin with, so saying that speciation has occurred is basically a tautology. All it means is that an organism has varied from the original enough to surpass some subjective threshold. I don't recall ever arguing that change has not taken place.

for someone who regularly uses evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang theory, planetary evolution, geology and all papers, topics and theories that are related interchangeably when it suits his purpose;

I use those terms interchangeably?? I realize that I have said that atheistic evolution requires all those things as part of the explanation of our origins, but I wasn't aware that I was using the terms interchangeably.

and for someone who regularly asks for evidence and when presented with it explains that it isnt the right sort of evidence; I dont feel you are the person to best discern who is equivocating.

I hear this argument from evolutionists quite regularly, that creationists are moving the goalposts, but that is false. Creationists have always wanted to see evidence that one kind of organism can change itself into another kind of organism. Evolutionists show evidence of horizontal variation of organisms, and call it a done deal, and that is where their equivocation takes place. They say that they have shown that change happens and extrapolate that horizontal variation into changes at the higher classification levels, without showing that those higher changes can happen. Micro proves macro, is essentially their argument.

I have never seen a Creationist ask for evidence of a microbe evolving into a microbe, or a bird evolving into a bird, as part of their argument against evolutionism, yet that is what is presented, then the evolutionist claims that we are moving the goalpost. The evolutionist is the one that set that particular goalpost, not the creationist because the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 9:19:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 9:11:14 PM, Enji wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:38:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

The question: "What is the one official definition of [insert scientific theory here]?" is fairly meaningless, and such a definition would only be relevant to semantic, non-scientific discussion of any scientific theory.

I think not. For instance, E=mcc, F=ma, water is H2O etc. There are formal, usually mathematical definitions of hard science. I like to ask "What are the equations for evolution?", which, to the honest person, quickly demonstrates a difference between the hard sciences and the vague wave of the hand that is Darwinian evolution. "Mutation, man, unusual stuff happens, and the stuff that continues to happen becomes usual". And if you think that's an unfair presentation of the hypothesis, feel free to express it in something resembling an equation or formula or the like.

For example, we can (roughly) define the theory of general relativity as "gravitation is caused by the curvature of space and time (rather than a force)" and while this may give a semantic, conceptual explanation of relativity, you simply can't have a meaningful and scientifically relevant discussion about general relativity without the actual science.

Without the equations, in other words. Without the equations there would be no way to measure it, which is especially important since these are subtle variations from classic Newtonian physics.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 9:24:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
... the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

yup. It's simple enough: Show us. Same as you do for real science - show us. Show us how you pass a current through water and get two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, always in that precise ratio. Ok, I believe you - water is hydrogen and oxygen. Cool.

Posts like the OP are just more evidence that the evidence isn't there. When you have to play semantics games, it's means you don't have evidence.
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 10:08:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 9:11:14 PM, Enji wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:38:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

The question: "What is the one official definition of [insert scientific theory here]?" is fairly meaningless, and such a definition would only be relevant to semantic, non-scientific discussion of any scientific theory. For example, we can (roughly) define the theory of general relativity as "gravitation is caused by the curvature of space and time (rather than a force)" and while this may give a semantic, conceptual explanation of relativity, you simply can't have a meaningful and scientifically relevant discussion about general relativity without the actual science.

The equivocation, consequently, isn't on the part of the evolutionary scientists. While "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through mutation and natural selection." may give a concise semantic explanation of evolutionary theory, it's the fault of the creationists for using this definition and creating the distinction of microevolution and macroevolution based on this definition instead of using the actual science which doesn't support such a distinction.

Those terms were coined by an evolutionist, not a creationist. Yes we do use them because we do not have an a priori belief that organisms can change into different kinds of organisms, and that change hasn't been shown to be possible.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 10:12:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 9:24:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
... the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

yup. It's simple enough: Show us. Same as you do for real science - show us. Show us how you pass a current through water and get two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, always in that precise ratio. Ok, I believe you - water is hydrogen and oxygen. Cool.

Posts like the OP are just more evidence that the evidence isn't there. When you have to play semantics games, it's means you don't have evidence.

Bingo.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 9:24:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
... the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

yup. It's simple enough: Show us. Same as you do for real science - show us. Show us how you pass a current through water and get two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, always in that precise ratio. Ok, I believe you - water is hydrogen and oxygen. Cool.

Posts like the OP are just more evidence that the evidence isn't there. When you have to play semantics games, it's means you don't have evidence.

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 4:18:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 6:26:46 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

For someone who regularly uses the term kind to mean species, phylum, class, taxa, family and genus interchangeably so as to prevent accepting evidence of legitimate speciation;

Species is a made up classification term to begin with, so saying that speciation has occurred is basically a tautology. All it means is that an organism has varied from the original enough to surpass some subjective threshold. I don't recall ever arguing that change has not taken place.

The scientific classification is well defined. Yours isn't, and regularly changes depending on what you are arguing. Dogs and cats are different kinds, yet an ostrich and a hummingbird are not (by your own previous definitions).

for someone who regularly uses evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang theory, planetary evolution, geology and all papers, topics and theories that are related interchangeably when it suits his purpose;

I use those terms interchangeably?? I realize that I have said that atheistic evolution requires all those things as part of the explanation of our origins, but I wasn't aware that I was using the terms interchangeably.

Those who subscribe to science use evolution to mean evolution, stellar evolution to mean stellar evolution, abiogenesis to mean abiogenesis.

In fact, the only people who actually seem to beleive there is an overreaching atheistic "evolution" are Creationists; which is rather ironic, really.

Nevertheless, you mix up, and confuse these disparate theories, as if they are one and the same; and then then complain when we point this out that we are, somehow, equivocating as "well, they are treated as the same thing": Trust me, they aren't; someone could come up with a completely different model of quantumn physics and not affect Evolution.

and for someone who regularly asks for evidence and when presented with it explains that it isnt the right sort of evidence; I dont feel you are the person to best discern who is equivocating.

I hear this argument from evolutionists quite regularly, that creationists are moving the goalposts, but that is false. Creationists have always wanted to see evidence that one kind of organism can change itself into another kind of organism. Evolutionists show evidence of horizontal variation of organisms, and call it a done deal, and that is where their equivocation takes place. They say that they have shown that change happens and extrapolate that horizontal variation into changes at the higher classification levels, without showing that those higher changes can happen. Micro proves macro, is essentially their argument.

The problem is you appear to know what macro means, and appear to know what micro means, but seem to want to see macro changes in a micro timescale.

Proof of micro gives us all the ingrediants, we know the mechanisms by which mutations can occur, that they cannot stop accumulating; that they affect physiology, and considering we have bred a St Bernard and a chiuaha, it's pretty obvious that we can see BIG changes within a very short breeding time if we push things.

We have not seen bigger changes over a long time because of the "time" bit. The massive point you miss, is that the evidence is there to demonstrate it has happened, from DNA to the fossile record; the fact that we have not seen such big changes in a small amount of time is no more disproof than suggesting that continental drift does not occur as we have never seen a continent move many miles.

In fact, if we did see one "kind" changing into another before our very eyes, it would most assuredly blow evolution out of the water. You are expecting magic from evolution as if you think that's what we think it is; it's not. You start with a group of creatures, breed them for <insert large number here> generations under a selective pressure, and what you get out the other end will be different. Lather rinse repeat; for big changes, insert a bigger number. Bigger number = more time.

I have never seen a Creationist ask for evidence of a microbe evolving into a microbe, or a bird evolving into a bird, as part of their argument against evolutionism, yet that is what is presented, then the evolutionist claims that we are moving the goalpost. The evolutionist is the one that set that particular goalpost, not the creationist because the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

No, where you set the goal posts is "Show me evidence for evolution". We show you evidence for evolution (in the cases where when you say evolution you mean evolution); then the goalpost changes to "Show me evidence for kinds changing type", we show evidence for Speciation. You then say "well, I want to see a fish turning into a bird."

This is indeed moving the goalposts; or to use a more appropriate metaphor: We are playing football and as you cannot move the goalposts any further, you remove them and put in Bases instead.

We cannot show you a bird changing into a cat; as it doesn't happen. Evolution says it doesn't happen and in fact can't happen: If a cat turned into a bird, as mentioned, it would disproove evolution.

We show evidence of the small timescale differences that is predicted by evolution, (species divergence), and the evidence of the fossile record which shows longer term species progression. And DNA analysis, and lord knows how much more.

Again, what you are demanding is just as ridiculous as saying that there is no evidence for plate tectonics as we have never seen two continents smash together. The fact that this is your primary demand in terms of evidence (and I would point out that this is a demand far in excess of what you would need to beleieve anything else in the real world) says more about you, and your understanding of evolution and science than it ever can about Evolution itself.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:18:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 9:24:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Wait...you think we need equations to prove something? Where'd you get that idea from? I can prove we don't by pointing to - presto - evolution. Denying this begs the question.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:22:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:54:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 6:26:46 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

For someone who regularly uses the term kind to mean species, phylum, class, taxa, family and genus interchangeably so as to prevent accepting evidence of legitimate speciation;

Species is a made up classification term to begin with, so saying that speciation has occurred is basically a tautology. All it means is that an organism has varied from the original enough to surpass some subjective threshold. I don't recall ever arguing that change has not taken place.

How many times do I have to explain this before you stop forgetting what has already been explained to you personally as well as many others? Speciation is not subjective. Speciation is the point where the genetic makeup of two populations originating from the same species has diverged to the point where members of one population can't produce fertile offspring with members of the other species.

With what we know about DNA, it isn't far fetched at all to assume that speciation occurs after a certain amount of divergence. DNA is essentially the blueprints of the organism - it's how it unpacks itself from one cell to billions of cells, and operates those cells properly. The reproduction process of most organisms which reproduce sexually could be analogized to taking two blueprints of the same object, copying them both, ripping them both in half in the same direction, taking one half of one blueprint and the other half of the other blueprint, and taping them together. The object may turn out differently for better or worse because of errors (mutations). If this error builds up too much in different directions among separate "mating groups" of blueprints, it'll eventually be impossible to get a coherent blueprint by using two blueprints sampled from different groups.

If you refuse to even attempt to grasp such basic concepts, what is the point of even arguing?

for someone who regularly uses evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang theory, planetary evolution, geology and all papers, topics and theories that are related interchangeably when it suits his purpose;

I use those terms interchangeably?? I realize that I have said that atheistic evolution requires all those things as part of the explanation of our origins, but I wasn't aware that I was using the terms interchangeably.

and for someone who regularly asks for evidence and when presented with it explains that it isnt the right sort of evidence; I dont feel you are the person to best discern who is equivocating.

I hear this argument from evolutionists quite regularly, that creationists are moving the goalposts, but that is false. Creationists have always wanted to see evidence that one kind of organism can change itself into another kind of organism. Evolutionists show evidence of horizontal variation of organisms, and call it a done deal, and that is where their equivocation takes place. They say that they have shown that change happens and extrapolate that horizontal variation into changes at the higher classification levels, without showing that those higher changes can happen. Micro proves macro, is essentially their argument.

We've shown raptors changing into birds via the fossil record, which would be reptiles diverging into an entire new phylum. My Internet connection is unreliable at the moment, so I can't show you the related fossils quite yet, but I will upon request. Stop acting like certain evidence has not been presented when it has.

I have never seen a Creationist ask for evidence of a microbe evolving into a microbe, or a bird evolving into a bird, as part of their argument against evolutionism, yet that is what is presented, then the evolutionist claims that we are moving the goalpost. The evolutionist is the one that set that particular goalpost, not the creationist because the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

And when we present such evidence, we are often redirected to a different topic such as abiogenesis or the origin of multicellular organisms. Then, by the start of the next conversation, we are presented with the same claim that no evidence for transitional fossils has been found when we've already shown the evidence before.

Speaking of evidence, where is the evidence for creationism? You'll have to rule out other explanations, and I'm going to specifically request explaining how vestigial organs fit in.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:58:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 9:24:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
... the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

yup. It's simple enough: Show us. Same as you do for real science - show us. Show us how you pass a current through water and get two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, always in that precise ratio. Ok, I believe you - water is hydrogen and oxygen. Cool.

Posts like the OP are just more evidence that the evidence isn't there. When you have to play semantics games, it's means you don't have evidence.

Why don't you show us a new species (or "kind" if you prefer) being created, then? I'd be essentially asking you for the exact same type of evidence you are asking for, so I see no reason for you to object.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 11:06:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 9:19:40 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/30/2013 9:11:14 PM, Enji wrote:

The question: "What is the one official definition of [insert scientific theory here]?" is fairly meaningless, and such a definition would only be relevant to semantic, non-scientific discussion of any scientific theory.

I think not. For instance, E=mcc, F=ma, water is H2O etc. There are formal, usually mathematical definitions of hard science. I like to ask "What are the equations for evolution?", which, to the honest person, quickly demonstrates a difference between the hard sciences and the vague wave of the hand that is Darwinian evolution. "Mutation, man, unusual stuff happens, and the stuff that continues to happen becomes usual". And if you think that's an unfair presentation of the hypothesis, feel free to express it in something resembling an equation or formula or the like.

So the one official definition of special relativity is E=mc^2, F=ma is the definition of classical mechanics, and who gives a duck about any of the other elements - H2O is the definition of Molecular Orbital theory? No - no theory can be summarised in a single equation any better than it can be summarised in a sentence (scientific laws, on the other hand, can; F = ma is Newton's second law, not the entirety of classical mechanics).

An example of equations used in evolution: Markov chains and related mathematics are used to model evolution at a molecular scale (and hence are used extensively in molecular phylogenetics). [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

But I'm unsure as to why the use of equations is necessary to be science - shouldn't adherence to the scientific method, empirically observable data, and independently confirmed results be sufficient?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 11:14:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 10:08:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 9:11:14 PM, Enji wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:38:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:01:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/30/2013 7:49:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
What is the one official definition of evolution that all evolutionists use when arguing for evolution??

What is the Theory of Evolution??

I will leave that to your own research. The purpose of this post was simply to clear up a misunderstanding of language and terms.

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

The question: "What is the one official definition of [insert scientific theory here]?" is fairly meaningless, and such a definition would only be relevant to semantic, non-scientific discussion of any scientific theory. For example, we can (roughly) define the theory of general relativity as "gravitation is caused by the curvature of space and time (rather than a force)" and while this may give a semantic, conceptual explanation of relativity, you simply can't have a meaningful and scientifically relevant discussion about general relativity without the actual science.

The equivocation, consequently, isn't on the part of the evolutionary scientists. While "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through mutation and natural selection." may give a concise semantic explanation of evolutionary theory, it's the fault of the creationists for using this definition and creating the distinction of microevolution and macroevolution based on this definition instead of using the actual science which doesn't support such a distinction.

Those terms were coined by an evolutionist, not a creationist. Yes we do use them because we do not have an a priori belief that organisms can change into different kinds of organisms, and that change hasn't been shown to be possible.

Feel free to challenge me to a debate along the lines of "The data supports a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.

Well I'm sorry but no one has ever questioned the fact that lizards can bring forth lizards. The fact that lizards can adapt to a different food source does not, in any way, help to show that a lizard breeding with another lizard, can produce anything other than a lizard.

You're not even addressing the actual difference of opinion that we have on the issue, yet you wonder why we ignore it. We know that organisms have some ability to adapt to their environment, and those that can't adapt don't survive. We also know that there is some flexibility within the genome, for variation to happen. All you're doing is re-proving what was already accepted long ago. You're not bringing anything new or relevant to the discussion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 2:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.

Well I'm sorry but no one has ever questioned the fact that lizards can bring forth lizards. The fact that lizards can adapt to a different food source does not, in any way, help to show that a lizard breeding with another lizard, can produce anything other than a lizard.

You're not even addressing the actual difference of opinion that we have on the issue, yet you wonder why we ignore it. We know that organisms have some ability to adapt to their environment, and those that can't adapt don't survive. We also know that there is some flexibility within the genome, for variation to happen. All you're doing is re-proving what was already accepted long ago. You're not bringing anything new or relevant to the discussion.

Helacyton Galieteri.

We've been here before: You say it's not evolved; I point out it's a cell that has mutated out of a human and is now a laboratory organism pest. You say it's not a good example; I point out that it is EXACTLY what you are asking for, an example of a human bringing forth a different "kind", you change the goalposts and say "well that's not exactly what I meant"; as technically the cells are still the same kind; to which I point out that the genome is different from humans; to which point you stop posting and come back a week later and post in another thread that there is no evidence of kind bringing forth kind.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 3:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.


Evolution is a change in the configuration of an organism to meet new conditions. This is precisely what happened with the lizards. Evolution isn't a bird turning into a fish, or a fish turning into a monkey, evolution is an organism adapting itself to meet conditions. You do realize evolution works on a gradient, right? Sometimes the changes are minute, sometimes the changes are maximal. If a fish exists in conditions that are suitable for it, it has reason to turn into a bird. Nature doesn't work that way. But it may change by slight degrees to adapt to changing conditions, but if there is no reason for it to be anything other than a fish, it will remain a fish.

But it's absolutely pointless discussing it with you are conditioned to your belief system, nothing I say will change that and, indeed, you don't want to be changed. So there is no room for communicating with a view to producing any meaningful result.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 3:11:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 2:46:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.

Well I'm sorry but no one has ever questioned the fact that lizards can bring forth lizards. The fact that lizards can adapt to a different food source does not, in any way, help to show that a lizard breeding with another lizard, can produce anything other than a lizard.

You're not even addressing the actual difference of opinion that we have on the issue, yet you wonder why we ignore it. We know that organisms have some ability to adapt to their environment, and those that can't adapt don't survive. We also know that there is some flexibility within the genome, for variation to happen. All you're doing is re-proving what was already accepted long ago. You're not bringing anything new or relevant to the discussion.

Helacyton Galieteri.

We've been here before: You say it's not evolved; I point out it's a cell that has mutated out of a human and is now a laboratory organism pest. You say it's not a good example; I point out that it is EXACTLY what you are asking for, an example of a human bringing forth a different "kind", you change the goalposts and say "well that's not exactly what I meant"; as technically the cells are still the same kind; to which I point out that the genome is different from humans; to which point you stop posting and come back a week later and post in another thread that there is no evidence of kind bringing forth kind.

It's pointless wasting your effort on debating it. They don't want to discuss it rationally, they just want to try to prove you wrong. Which they can't, and have been unable to since the 19th century when creationism effectively ended as a seriously held view.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 8:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 4:18:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Species is a made up classification term to begin with, so saying that speciation has occurred is basically a tautology. All it means is that an organism has varied from the original enough to surpass some subjective threshold. I don't recall ever arguing that change has not taken place.

The scientific classification is well defined.

A "whatchamacallit" is well defined too, but that doesn't help us much in determining what one actually is. I don't question that the "species" is the fundamental unit of classification, nor do I disagree with an attempt to classify organisms for scientific purposes. However, if the species were something that actually manifests itself in the natural world, in the same way that it is used for classification, the species problem shouldn't exist.

Yours isn't, and regularly changes depending on what you are arguing. Dogs and cats are different kinds, yet an ostrich and a hummingbird are not (by your own previous definitions).

I've admitted previously that we do have some difficulties with our terminology, as well, stemming from the lack of knowledge as to what the original created kinds were. If we had an exhaustive list, it would be much easier to figure out, but we don't. Regardless though, the fossil record shows abrupt appearance of all major phyla and body plans, as well as stasis, which supports kinds bringing forth after their kind, and is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

I use those terms interchangeably?? I realize that I have said that atheistic evolution requires all those things as part of the explanation of our origins, but I wasn't aware that I was using the terms interchangeably.

Those who subscribe to science use evolution to mean evolution, stellar evolution to mean stellar evolution, abiogenesis to mean abiogenesis.

In fact, the only people who actually seem to beleive there is an overreaching atheistic "evolution" are Creationists; which is rather ironic, really.

Do you deny that teaching that our origins (universe, biological, etc.) can be traced, and attributed to strictly natural processes, is inherently atheistic??

Nevertheless, you mix up, and confuse these disparate theories, as if they are one and the same; and then then complain when we point this out that we are, somehow, equivocating as "well, they are treated as the same thing": Trust me, they aren't; someone could come up with a completely different model of quantumn physics and not affect Evolution.

No, when I refer to equivocation is when you know exactly what part of evolutionary theory that creationists oppose, yet you provide evidence for adaptation and variation, which no one contests, and claim that you have proven evolution. You equivocate between micro and macro. That is what I mean by equivocation.

I hear this argument from evolutionists quite regularly, that creationists are moving the goalposts, but that is false. Creationists have always wanted to see evidence that one kind of organism can change itself into another kind of organism. Evolutionists show evidence of horizontal variation of organisms, and call it a done deal, and that is where their equivocation takes place. They say that they have shown that change happens and extrapolate that horizontal variation into changes at the higher classification levels, without showing that those higher changes can happen. Micro proves macro, is essentially their argument.

The problem is you appear to know what macro means, and appear to know what micro means, but seem to want to see macro changes in a micro timescale.

What am I suppose to do, just have faith that evolutiondidit?? We can't observe it, the fossil record doesn't support it, genetics doesn't support it, the proposed mechanism doesn't make sense and can't be shown to work, so what am I suppose to use to support a belief in your theory. I already have a faith-based belief that is consistent with the evidence that is known to exist, so why would I switch to one that is inconsistent with that evidence??

Proof of micro gives us all the ingrediants,

How do you know that?? What fact, or facts, tells you that with micro you have all the necessary ingredients to allow organisms to change into different kinds of organisms??

we know the mechanisms by which mutations can occur,

Ok, but we also know that the overwhelming majority of mutations are either neutral or deleterious. We also know that, if they exist, beneficial mutations are extremely rare. So I'm not sure on what basis you make the jump from mutations exist, to mutations cause organisms to change into different kinds of organisms.

that they cannot stop accumulating; that they affect physiology,

It's estimated that each individual human offspring brings approximately 100 new mutations, into the gene pool, that its parents didn't have. That adds up to billions, if not trillions, of mutations present within the human gene pool, yet there is no fundamental morphological difference between any two humans, except in the case of obvious deformities which will not help with survival of humans.

Since the overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations fall on the deleterious side, what you seem to be describing is not onward-upward evolution, as you guys propose it to be, but genetic entropy.

and considering we have bred a St Bernard and a chiuaha, it's pretty obvious that we can see BIG changes within a very short breeding time if we push things.

That's variation within kinds, but we know that the variation has limits, that are defined by the genome.

One would think that big changes would be easier to bring about in less complex organisms, such as the fruitfly or a microbe, but even after causing mutations to thousands of generations of fruitflies, you still get nothing but deformed or dead fruitflies. Your mechanism works through heredity, so it's generational, not time-dependent. So why is it that only micro changes can be re-produced, even after thousands of generations??

We have not seen bigger changes over a long time because of the "time" bit. The massive point you miss, is that the evidence is there to demonstrate it has happened, from DNA to the fossile record; the fact that we have not seen such big changes in a small amount of time is no more disproof than suggesting that continental drift does not occur as we have never seen a continent move many miles.

I disagree that there is evidence that it has happened. As I've said before, the fossil record doesn't support it. Darwin knew it in his day, and honest scientists today have told you that the same problem still exists.

In fact, if we did see one "kind" changing into another before our very eyes, it would most assuredly blow evolution out of the water. You are expecting magic from evolution as if you think that's what we think it is; it's not.

You start with a group of creatures, breed them for <insert large number here> generations under a selective pressure, and what you get out the other end will be different. Lather rinse repeat; for big changes, insert a bigger number. Bigger number = more time.

I may or may not disagree with you here. It all depends on your definition of "different" and "big".
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 2:46:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.

Well I'm sorry but no one has ever questioned the fact that lizards can bring forth lizards. The fact that lizards can adapt to a different food source does not, in any way, help to show that a lizard breeding with another lizard, can produce anything other than a lizard.

You're not even addressing the actual difference of opinion that we have on the issue, yet you wonder why we ignore it. We know that organisms have some ability to adapt to their environment, and those that can't adapt don't survive. We also know that there is some flexibility within the genome, for variation to happen. All you're doing is re-proving what was already accepted long ago. You're not bringing anything new or relevant to the discussion.

Helacyton Galieteri.

We've been here before: You say it's not evolved; I point out it's a cell that has mutated out of a human and is now a laboratory organism pest. You say it's not a good example; I point out that it is EXACTLY what you are asking for, an example of a human bringing forth a different "kind", you change the goalposts and say "well that's not exactly what I meant"; as technically the cells are still the same kind; to which I point out that the genome is different from humans; to which point you stop posting and come back a week later and post in another thread that there is no evidence of kind bringing forth kind.

It didn't "mutate out of a human" and take over a lab, you make it sound so dramatic. They were cancer cells taken from a biopsy of a tumor, and they can be kept alive in lab settings. Big deal...Does that sound like anything that can happen in the natural setting??

Does HeLa conform to your proposed evolutionary mechanism, which depends on reproduction?? No. Does the Bible say that man will never be able to remove cancerous cells from another human?? No. Bringing forth after their kind refers to breeding. Even if this were an example of evolution, it has nothing to do with one kind bringing forth another kind. It was a cancerous cell inside the human body, and it's still a cancerous cell outside the body.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 9:57:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 3:09:12 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.


Evolution is a change in the configuration of an organism to meet new conditions. This is precisely what happened with the lizards. Evolution isn't a bird turning into a fish, or a fish turning into a monkey, evolution is an organism adapting itself to meet conditions. You do realize evolution works on a gradient, right? Sometimes the changes are minute, sometimes the changes are maximal. If a fish exists in conditions that are suitable for it, it has reason to turn into a bird. Nature doesn't work that way. But it may change by slight degrees to adapt to changing conditions, but if there is no reason for it to be anything other than a fish, it will remain a fish.

But it's absolutely pointless discussing it with you are conditioned to your belief system, nothing I say will change that and, indeed, you don't want to be changed. So there is no room for communicating with a view to producing any meaningful result.

I see no reason for change. When presented with credible evidence, my belief will change. That evidence has yet to be presented.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 1:39:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 9:42:51 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:46:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.

Well I'm sorry but no one has ever questioned the fact that lizards can bring forth lizards. The fact that lizards can adapt to a different food source does not, in any way, help to show that a lizard breeding with another lizard, can produce anything other than a lizard.

You're not even addressing the actual difference of opinion that we have on the issue, yet you wonder why we ignore it. We know that organisms have some ability to adapt to their environment, and those that can't adapt don't survive. We also know that there is some flexibility within the genome, for variation to happen. All you're doing is re-proving what was already accepted long ago. You're not bringing anything new or relevant to the discussion.

Helacyton Galieteri.

We've been here before: You say it's not evolved; I point out it's a cell that has mutated out of a human and is now a laboratory organism pest. You say it's not a good example; I point out that it is EXACTLY what you are asking for, an example of a human bringing forth a different "kind", you change the goalposts and say "well that's not exactly what I meant"; as technically the cells are still the same kind; to which I point out that the genome is different from humans; to which point you stop posting and come back a week later and post in another thread that there is no evidence of kind bringing forth kind.

It didn't "mutate out of a human" and take over a lab, you make it sound so dramatic. They were cancer cells taken from a biopsy of a tumor, and they can be kept alive in lab settings. Big deal...Does that sound like anything that can happen in the natural setting??

Does HeLa conform to your proposed evolutionary mechanism, which depends on reproduction?? No. Does the Bible say that man will never be able to remove cancerous cells from another human?? No. Bringing forth after their kind refers to breeding. Even if this were an example of evolution, it has nothing to do with one kind bringing forth another kind. It was a cancerous cell inside the human body, and it's still a cancerous cell outside the body.

They aren't "kept alive" they act like weeds.

This is exactly what you asked for. To start with you had a women, now you have an immortal siingle cell organism line that is used by, and is a pest for laboratories. DNA, chromosomes etc is substantially different.

It is intellectually dishonest to ask us to show one kind of creature having descendants of another type, then using one being a descendant of another as proof that they are the same kind and demonstrates that you are simply choosing your requirements to make it logically impossible To provide anything you consider proof.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 9:25:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 1:39:41 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:42:51 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:46:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/1/2013 2:35:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 1:34:48 PM, Quatermass wrote:

You're an idiot, like all religious people. I posted a very detailed scientific journal detailing the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards over a decade or so as evidence. But as usual with you religious nutjobs, you tend to skip over the evidence and continue to complain there is none.

This is an example of the equivocation that I talked about. What you have provided as alleged evidence, is proof that lizards can evolve into...*drumroll*...........lizards.

Well I'm sorry but no one has ever questioned the fact that lizards can bring forth lizards. The fact that lizards can adapt to a different food source does not, in any way, help to show that a lizard breeding with another lizard, can produce anything other than a lizard.

You're not even addressing the actual difference of opinion that we have on the issue, yet you wonder why we ignore it. We know that organisms have some ability to adapt to their environment, and those that can't adapt don't survive. We also know that there is some flexibility within the genome, for variation to happen. All you're doing is re-proving what was already accepted long ago. You're not bringing anything new or relevant to the discussion.

Helacyton Galieteri.

We've been here before: You say it's not evolved; I point out it's a cell that has mutated out of a human and is now a laboratory organism pest. You say it's not a good example; I point out that it is EXACTLY what you are asking for, an example of a human bringing forth a different "kind", you change the goalposts and say "well that's not exactly what I meant"; as technically the cells are still the same kind; to which I point out that the genome is different from humans; to which point you stop posting and come back a week later and post in another thread that there is no evidence of kind bringing forth kind.

It didn't "mutate out of a human" and take over a lab, you make it sound so dramatic. They were cancer cells taken from a biopsy of a tumor, and they can be kept alive in lab settings. Big deal...Does that sound like anything that can happen in the natural setting??

Does HeLa conform to your proposed evolutionary mechanism, which depends on reproduction?? No. Does the Bible say that man will never be able to remove cancerous cells from another human?? No. Bringing forth after their kind refers to breeding. Even if this were an example of evolution, it has nothing to do with one kind bringing forth another kind. It was a cancerous cell inside the human body, and it's still a cancerous cell outside the body.

They aren't "kept alive" they act like weeds.

This is exactly what you asked for. To start with you had a women, now you have an immortal siingle cell organism line that is used by, and is a pest for laboratories. DNA, chromosomes etc is substantially different.

It is intellectually dishonest to ask us to show one kind of creature having descendants of another type, then using one being a descendant of another as proof that they are the same kind and demonstrates that you are simply choosing your requirements to make it logically impossible To provide anything you consider proof.

Surely you must understand that a cancerous cell taken from a tumor inside a woman is, in no way, a "descendant" of that woman and her husband. If we're not talking about descendants, then we aren't talking about evolution at all, are we??

It is intellectually dishonest to say that the human is anything more than the host for a parasite, in this situation. She had cervical cancer, caused by being infected with the HPV virus which resulted in a cancerous tumor being formed. A biopsy was taken, and cells from that biopsy are kept alive in labs. Can you please tell me how that could happen out in the natural setting?? If it can't happen in the natural setting, it can't honestly be proposed as an evolutionary mechanism, can it?? Can you tell me how it is consistent with the mechanism that you guys propose as being responsible for evolution?? The mechanism that you guys say is responsible for macro depends on heritable traits coming about through mutations, and making their way into the gene pool, correct?? Neither HPV, or cervical cancer is hereditary, meaning that it can't be passed to offspring genetically, thus can't get into the gene pool. Obviously, that is not consistent with the evolutionary mechanism that you guys claim.

Essentially, it is you that is resorting to intellectual dishonesty with this example of HeLa cells. We went round and round about this once before, but you still seem to hold onto HeLa as if it were a pet.

It's one thing to propose that HeLa is a new species. That's an argument for evolutionists to have amongst themselves. To use it in the way that you are trying to use it, in this discussion though, is quite another matter. Parasitic microbial life form goes into a host, and a mutated cancerous cell is then taken out of the host. There is no change in kind involved. The human did not genetically "bring forth" a different kind of organism, she was simply the medium for the parasite which contributed to some of the host cells being mutated to a point where they don't respond like normal cells, thus forming a tumor. Yes they are genetically different than normal cervical cells, which is why they don't respond like normal cervical cells, which is why we call them "cancerous". They end up killing the host!!! So how can this possibly be evidence for macro-evolution, or evidence against kinds bringing forth after their kind??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:30:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/1/2013 9:54:34 AM, drhead wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 6:26:46 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

For someone who regularly uses the term kind to mean species, phylum, class, taxa, family and genus interchangeably so as to prevent accepting evidence of legitimate speciation;

Species is a made up classification term to begin with, so saying that speciation has occurred is basically a tautology. All it means is that an organism has varied from the original enough to surpass some subjective threshold. I don't recall ever arguing that change has not taken place.

How many times do I have to explain this before you stop forgetting what has already been explained to you personally as well as many others? Speciation is not subjective. Speciation is the point where the genetic makeup of two populations originating from the same species has diverged to the point where members of one population can't produce fertile offspring with members of the other species.

Your first failure is assuming that I need it to be explained to me. While I don't claim to be an expert, I do consider myself to be far more knowledgeable on the subject than someone who never did any independent research. Assuming that we disagree with macro because we don't understand evolution, may apply to some creationists, but not likely to those who are engaged in debating the subject.

Secondly, what you describe above is not at all relevant to all life forms. How can you use reproductive isolation as a universal objective criteria for speciation, when not all life forms reproduce sexually?? Obviously, you can't, therein lies the species problem. It's a real problem that all experts are aware of.

Granted, the species problem alone does not disprove the theory, but it does show that there is subjectivity in the classification of organisms. I would further argue that it calls into question whether there is even a natural fundamental unit, that can be said to be universal, at that lower level of classification. Maybe we need to go to a higher classification level before we can find a truly natural, universal, fundamental biological unit. Something along the lines of a "kind", perhaps.

With what we know about DNA, it isn't far fetched at all to assume that speciation occurs after a certain amount of divergence. DNA is essentially the blueprints of the organism - it's how it unpacks itself from one cell to billions of cells, and operates those cells properly. The reproduction process of most organisms which reproduce sexually could be analogized to taking two blueprints of the same object, copying them both, ripping them both in half in the same direction, taking one half of one blueprint and the other half of the other blueprint, and taping them together. The object may turn out differently for better or worse because of errors (mutations). If this error builds up too much in different directions among separate "mating groups" of blueprints, it'll eventually be impossible to get a coherent blueprint by using two blueprints sampled from different groups.

If you refuse to even attempt to grasp such basic concepts, what is the point of even arguing?

Once again, it has nothing to do with grasping the concept. In fact, grasping the concept is what causes the disagreement. In what you explained in the above paragraph, what shows me any evidence that 2 like organisms can breed and produce an organism that isn't genetically the same organism as the parents were?? Granted, the offspring will have mutations, but if the offspring survives then it will have been a successful mixture of the parental DNA. It will be the same kind of organism as the parents were, with possibly some slight variation that doesn't adversely affect its survivability or fertility. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

for someone who regularly uses evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang theory, planetary evolution, geology and all papers, topics and theories that are related interchangeably when it suits his purpose;

I use those terms interchangeably?? I realize that I have said that atheistic evolution requires all those things as part of the explanation of our origins, but I wasn't aware that I was using the terms interchangeably.

and for someone who regularly asks for evidence and when presented with it explains that it isnt the right sort of evidence; I dont feel you are the person to best discern who is equivocating.

I hear this argument from evolutionists quite regularly, that creationists are moving the goalposts, but that is false. Creationists have always wanted to see evidence that one kind of organism can change itself into another kind of organism. Evolutionists show evidence of horizontal variation of organisms, and call it a done deal, and that is where their equivocation takes place. They say that they have shown that change happens and extrapolate that horizontal variation into changes at the higher classification levels, without showing that those higher changes can happen. Micro proves macro, is essentially their argument.

We've shown raptors changing into birds via the fossil record, which would be reptiles diverging into an entire new phylum. My Internet connection is unreliable at the moment, so I can't show you the related fossils quite yet, but I will upon request. Stop acting like certain evidence has not been presented when it has.

I have never seen a Creationist ask for evidence of a microbe evolving into a microbe, or a bird evolving into a bird, as part of their argument against evolutionism, yet that is what is presented, then the evolutionist claims that we are moving the goalpost. The evolutionist is the one that set that particular goalpost, not the creationist because the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

And when we present such evidence, we are often redirected to a different topic such as abiogenesis or the origin of multicellular organisms. Then, by the start of the next conversation, we are presented with the same claim that no evidence for transitional fossils has been found when we've already shown the evidence before.

Speaking of evidence, where is the evidence for creationism? You'll have to rule out other explanations, and I'm going to specifically request explaining how vestigial organs fit in.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 12:21:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:30:03 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/1/2013 9:54:34 AM, drhead wrote:
At 10/31/2013 8:08:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/31/2013 6:26:46 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Point is that there is no misunderstanding of language and terms. It's a matter of equivocation on the part of evolutionists.

For someone who regularly uses the term kind to mean species, phylum, class, taxa, family and genus interchangeably so as to prevent accepting evidence of legitimate speciation;

Species is a made up classification term to begin with, so saying that speciation has occurred is basically a tautology. All it means is that an organism has varied from the original enough to surpass some subjective threshold. I don't recall ever arguing that change has not taken place.

How many times do I have to explain this before you stop forgetting what has already been explained to you personally as well as many others? Speciation is not subjective. Speciation is the point where the genetic makeup of two populations originating from the same species has diverged to the point where members of one population can't produce fertile offspring with members of the other species.

Your first failure is assuming that I need it to be explained to me. While I don't claim to be an expert, I do consider myself to be far more knowledgeable on the subject than someone who never did any independent research. Assuming that we disagree with macro because we don't understand evolution, may apply to some creationists, but not likely to those who are engaged in debating the subject.

Secondly, what you describe above is not at all relevant to all life forms. How can you use reproductive isolation as a universal objective criteria for speciation, when not all life forms reproduce sexually?? Obviously, you can't, therein lies the species problem. It's a real problem that all experts are aware of.

Granted, the species problem alone does not disprove the theory, but it does show that there is subjectivity in the classification of organisms. I would further argue that it calls into question whether there is even a natural fundamental unit, that can be said to be universal, at that lower level of classification. Maybe we need to go to a higher classification level before we can find a truly natural, universal, fundamental biological unit. Something along the lines of a "kind", perhaps.

With what we know about DNA, it isn't far fetched at all to assume that speciation occurs after a certain amount of divergence. DNA is essentially the blueprints of the organism - it's how it unpacks itself from one cell to billions of cells, and operates those cells properly. The reproduction process of most organisms which reproduce sexually could be analogized to taking two blueprints of the same object, copying them both, ripping them both in half in the same direction, taking one half of one blueprint and the other half of the other blueprint, and taping them together. The object may turn out differently for better or worse because of errors (mutations). If this error builds up too much in different directions among separate "mating groups" of blueprints, it'll eventually be impossible to get a coherent blueprint by using two blueprints sampled from different groups.

If you refuse to even attempt to grasp such basic concepts, what is the point of even arguing?

Once again, it has nothing to do with grasping the concept. In fact, grasping the concept is what causes the disagreement. In what you explained in the above paragraph, what shows me any evidence that 2 like organisms can breed and produce an organism that isn't genetically the same organism as the parents were?? Granted, the offspring will have mutations, but if the offspring survives then it will have been a successful mixture of the parental DNA. It will be the same kind of organism as the parents were, with possibly some slight variation that doesn't adversely affect its survivability or fertility. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

for someone who regularly uses evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang theory, planetary evolution, geology and all papers, topics and theories that are related interchangeably when it suits his purpose;

I use those terms interchangeably?? I realize that I have said that atheistic evolution requires all those things as part of the explanation of our origins, but I wasn't aware that I was using the terms interchangeably.

and for someone who regularly asks for evidence and when presented with it explains that it isnt the right sort of evidence; I dont feel you are the person to best discern who is equivocating.

I hear this argument from evolutionists quite regularly, that creationists are moving the goalposts, but that is false. Creationists have always wanted to see evidence that one kind of organism can change itself into another kind of organism. Evolutionists show evidence of horizontal variation of organisms, and call it a done deal, and that is where their equivocation takes place. They say that they have shown that change happens and extrapolate that horizontal variation into changes at the higher classification levels, without showing that those higher changes can happen. Micro proves macro, is essentially their argument.

We've shown raptors changing into birds via the fossil record, which would be reptiles diverging into an entire new phylum. My Internet connection is unreliable at the moment, so I can't show you the related fossils quite yet, but I will upon request. Stop acting like certain evidence has not been presented when it has.

I have never seen a Creationist ask for evidence of a microbe evolving into a microbe, or a bird evolving into a bird, as part of their argument against evolutionism, yet that is what is presented, then the evolutionist claims that we are moving the goalpost. The evolutionist is the one that set that particular goalpost, not the creationist because the goalpost that we set is still right where it's always been. We ask for evidence that an organism, a fish for example, can change into something that isn't a fish. That always has been, and remains, where we set the goalpost.

And when we present such evidence, we are often redirected to a different topic such as abiogenesis or the origin of multicellular organisms. Then, by the start of the next conversation, we are presented with the same claim that no evidence for transitional fossils has been found when we've already shown the evidence before.

Speaking of evidence, where is the evidence for creationism? You'll have to rule out other explanations, and I'm going to specifically request explaining how vestigial organs fit in.

Have you even read 'On the Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin?