Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did evolution happen?

SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:17:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a continuation from a discussion that took place here:

http://www.debate.org...

Jasper, please lay out your contentions. Make sure to use scientifically accurate sources.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:17:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
This is a continuation from a discussion that took place here:

http://www.debate.org...


Jasper, please lay out your contentions. Make sure to use scientifically accurate sources.

Explain what you mean by scientifically accurate sources.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:23:36 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:17:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:
This is a continuation from a discussion that took place here:

http://www.debate.org...


Jasper, please lay out your contentions. Make sure to use scientifically accurate sources.

Explain what you mean by scientifically accurate sources.

Sources that have been peer reviewed, contain accurate information, and have no controversies of its credibility.

The Institute for creation research is a prime example of a scientifically inaccurate source. It faces a lot of criticism both by the scientific community, and by old world creationists.

Now, if there are no further questions, please state your contentions.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:28:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:20:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Yes, it is currently happening.

What is happening?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:28:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:28:14 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:20:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Yes, it is currently happening.

What is happening?

Evolution.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:30:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:28:38 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:28:14 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:20:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Yes, it is currently happening.

What is happening?

Evolution.

I concur. There are prime examples of speciation and there is plenty of evidence of different types of animal evolving into one another. Dinosaurs to birds is a prime example.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:30:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:28:38 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:28:14 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:20:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Yes, it is currently happening.

What is happening?

Evolution.

I concur. There are prime examples of speciation and there is plenty of evidence of different types of animal evolving into one another. Dinosaurs to birds is a prime example.

There are even more modern examples happening all the time.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:37:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:33:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:30:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:28:38 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:28:14 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:20:42 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Yes, it is currently happening.

What is happening?

Evolution.

I concur. There are prime examples of speciation and there is plenty of evidence of different types of animal evolving into one another. Dinosaurs to birds is a prime example.

There are even more modern examples happening all the time.

Are these the examples?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://phylointelligence.com...

Because I do not know of any more.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 6:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

No, this is about evolution.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 6:27:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

We may get into that, but I think for now we will primarily focus on evolution.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:57:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 6:27:47 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

We may get into that, but I think for now we will primarily focus on evolution.

So, what are your contentions?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:45:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:57:06 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:27:47 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

We may get into that, but I think for now we will primarily focus on evolution.

So, what are your contentions?

I'm working on it, don't rush my bus...
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 10:45:40 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:57:06 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:27:47 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

We may get into that, but I think for now we will primarily focus on evolution.

So, what are your contentions?

I'm working on it, don't rush my bus...

I'll be waiting.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:48:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 10:46:50 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 10:45:40 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:57:06 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:27:47 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

We may get into that, but I think for now we will primarily focus on evolution.

So, what are your contentions?

I'm working on it, don't rush my bus...

I'll be waiting.

I'm a bit busy. But if I forget you are more than welcome to remind me over PM. xD
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 10:49:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 10:48:24 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 10:46:50 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 10:45:40 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:57:06 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:27:47 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 6:20:12 PM, TheodoretheMan wrote:
Talk about how the universe began, the very very start of it.

We may get into that, but I think for now we will primarily focus on evolution.

So, what are your contentions?

I'm working on it, don't rush my bus...

I'll be waiting.

I'm a bit busy. But if I forget you are more than welcome to remind me over PM. xD

Okay.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 12:13:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:17:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:

Intro : "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

Evolutionists don't tell the public that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, etc), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But they say that its' changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in: that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Why it is imaginary:

Evolution cannot be observed and never has been.
Evolution cannot be tested because it can't be observed.
There are too many assumptions that make up the theory, and they aren't proven.
It is an impossible process according to obvious studies.

Further explanations:
Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment.

The way evolution works is, on rare occasions, a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce. This, natural selection, is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But the intricate components of a living creature has many connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible.

Think of it this way: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house with necessary tools. We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). The scientists that you believe in think this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years."

There was this experiment done, 35 years, by evolutionists and it shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.

I know the way your belief works by this statement: it's all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. The problem for evolution is that there is never shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If the continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error.

The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That is fatal to the theory of evolution.

What fossil evidence is there for the evolutionist vision for the origin of life? Nothing, except for shapes that might have been cells or something else. There was a surprise with the fossils in Cambrian Explosion bedrock, too.

A team of evolutions first assumed evolution happened. They estimated how fast it should have happened, and decided that the creatures in the Cambrian Explosion had been evolving for over 250 million years before any showed up in the rocks as fossils! ""We estimate that the last common ancestor of all living animals arose nearly 800 million years ago and that the stem lineages leading to most extant phyla had evolved 541 million years ago." Not only that, "from the early Paleozoic onward there is little addition of new phyla and classes". Not only that, "from the early Paleozoic onward there is little addition of new phyla and classes". Their story was published in the prestigious journal Science, and was hailed as having solved a mystery challenging evolution theory all the way back to Darwin.

That is why evolution is unreliable. More contentions
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 4:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 12:13:08 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:17:38 PM, SamStevens wrote:

Intro : "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

Evolutionists don't tell the public that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, etc), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But they say that its' changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in: that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Why it is imaginary:

Evolution cannot be observed and never has been.
Evolution cannot be tested because it can't be observed.
There are too many assumptions that make up the theory, and they aren't proven.
It is an impossible process according to obvious studies.

Further explanations:
Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment.

The way evolution works is, on rare occasions, a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce. This, natural selection, is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But the intricate components of a living creature has many connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible.

Think of it this way: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house with necessary tools. We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). The scientists that you believe in think this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years."

There was this experiment done, 35 years, by evolutionists and it shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.

I know the way your belief works by this statement: it's all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. The problem for evolution is that there is never shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If the continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error.

The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That is fatal to the theory of evolution.

What fossil evidence is there for the evolutionist vision for the origin of life? Nothing, except for shapes that might have been cells or something else. There was a surprise with the fossils in Cambrian Explosion bedrock, too.


I'm going to post directly to the thread due to character restrictions.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:09:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll be posting rebuttals and some of my points:

I think that this source should clear up and re-freshen any false definitions:

http://www.talkorigins.org...


Macro evolution exists.


It is change at the species level and higher. Here are some examples of speciation:

http://phylointelligence.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

This shows macro evolution is possible. It shows evolutionary changes at the species level is possible.

"Intro : "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species."

I agree with you on this part.

"Evolutionists"

I am nit picking. It is not evolutionist. It makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I bet/hope you do not call people who accept the scientific theory of gravity a gravitationist.

"Evolution cannot be observed and never has been.
Evolution cannot be tested because it can't be observed.
There are too many assumptions that make up the theory, and they aren't proven.
It is an impossible process according to obvious studies."

Evolution at the species level has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://phylointelligence.com...

I feel like the rest of your argument is based on the contention that evolution does not happen and it can not be observed. So I provide evidence of macro evolution and knock the ball back in your court.

Where is the logic in calling a person who accepts evolution an evolutionist? Unless you call a person who accepts the theory of gravity a gravitationist, a person who accepts the germ theory of disease a germist, and etc, you have a double standard.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:16:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is evidence of speciation, which is macroevolution. Evidence:

http://phylointelligence.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Defining terms&vocabulary:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Changes above the species level:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

a)http://www.talkorigins.org...

b)http://www.talkorigins.org...

c)http://www.talkorigins.org...

d)http://www.talkorigins.org...

e)http://www.talkorigins.org...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:52:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do you call a person who study science a scientist? Same thing with people who study evolution. I was about to give dentist as an example but I don't know why it's called dent. :P ANYWAY. I will get back to you later.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 7:49:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:52:27 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
Why do you call a person who study science a scientist? Same thing with people who study evolution. I was about to give dentist as an example but I don't know why it's called dent. :P ANYWAY. I will get back to you later.

So do you call some one who accepts the theory of gravity a gravitationist?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 2:52:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 5:09:37 PM, SamStevens wrote:

Macro evolution exists.


It is change at the species level and higher. Here are some examples of speciation:

http://phylointelligence.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I think this could clear things up a bit too:

http://x-evolutionist.com...

Darwin"s hypothesis (a.k.a. macroevolution), that species evolve into other species by small additions over a long time, has proven false. Lloyd Pye has shown that after 150 years of Darwinians" searching, no missing links have been found to show a transition from one species to another. The strained, false hypothesis that we evolved from Australopithecines (Lucy, et. al.) or other Terran hominoids has been conclusively disproven. Nor has ANY species here ever evolved into another. Each species does indeed adapt in size and special anatomies to changing environments, but never into another species.

This shows macro evolution is possible. It shows evolutionary changes at the species level is possible.

Evolutionists propose that Prokaryotes and archaeyotes lacked enclosed cell nucleii; their genetic material just floated in their single cells. They did not, and could not"despite desperate attempts by evolutionists to do so"evolve from the prokayotes and/or archaeyotes. Even the simplest forms of life here didn"t follow the Darwinian hypothesis of slow development. Eukaryotes did not evolve from simpler forms. Nor did any subsequent species evolve from any earlier ones. All of these bacteria are so complex, none of their innards could possibly be gradually assembled into a living species. The bacteria did exhibit microevolution, however. Some (methanogens adapted to oxygen-use, some (halophiles) adapted to life without salt, some (thermophiles) adapted to extreme heat; but these species, despite their micro-adaptations, never evolved into structures that could be called new species.

I agree with you on this part.

"Evolutionists"

Does it offend you or something? I'm sorry if it does. I'm not going to call people who study the theory of evolution plain scientists. If you are so close-minded to think Creationists don't work with science too, I don't know why we're debating this. There's a reason creationists are separate from evolutionists.

Here are three things evolution fails at:

Evolution fails to explain species. Every time some scientist changes the color of rat"s fur, there are huge articles about how this proves the theory of evolution. Here, at last, is a repeatable experiment showing the mechanism evolution "used," to create new species. Only all the evidence is actually on the other side. Men have been breeding dogs, cats, and peas for thousands of years, and no new species has ever resulted from this out and out genetic manipulation. Evolution can"t produce one new species, so clearly no repeatable experiment has been devised to show how evolutionary processes can actually produce new species. Evolution, then, falls into the realm of just so story here.

Evolution fails to explain life. In fact, modern medicine is entirely based on a simple fact proven by Pasteur many years ago "life does not come from non-life. This is why we Pasteurize milk, it"s why we wash our hands before eating, and it"s why surgeons sanitize their instruments before they operate. If life could come from non-life, the entire medial world would be thrown on its ear in short order. The only answer evolution can answer is that life originated under very different conditions than exist today. These conditions can"t be explained, much less replicated. Here, then evolutionary theory falls outside science and into the realm of just so story.

I am nit picking. It is not evolutionist. It makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I bet/hope you do not call people who accept the scientific theory of gravity a gravitationist.

Gravity is fact/law. Evolution is not. BIG DIFFERENCE. http://thehappyscientist.com...

"Evolution cannot be observed and never has been.
Evolution cannot be tested because it can't be observed.
There are too many assumptions that make up the theory, and they aren't proven.
It is an impossible process according to obvious studies."

Evolution at the species level has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://phylointelligence.com...

I feel like the rest of your argument is based on the contention that evolution does not happen and it can not be observed. So I provide evidence of macro evolution and knock the ball back in your court.

First: I don't see how it's illogical to call someone who studies evolution an evolutionist.

Second: macroevolution has not been proven.

Third: observable evolution hasn't been proven therefore we can't trust it's real.
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 2:57:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Take a look at this site. http://www.news-sentinel.com...
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 6:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 2:52:26 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
At 10/24/2014 5:09:37 PM, SamStevens wrote:

Macro evolution exists.


It is change at the species level and higher. Here are some examples of speciation:

http://phylointelligence.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I think this could clear things up a bit too:

http://x-evolutionist.com...

Darwin"s hypothesis (a.k.a. macroevolution), that species evolve into other species by small additions over a long time, has proven false. Lloyd Pye has shown that after 150 years of Darwinians" searching, no missing links have been found to show a transition from one species to another. The strained, false hypothesis that we evolved from Australopithecines (Lucy, et. al.) or other Terran hominoids has been conclusively disproven. Nor has ANY species here ever evolved into another. Each species does indeed adapt in size and special anatomies to changing environments, but never into another species.

This shows macro evolution is possible. It shows evolutionary changes at the species level is possible.

Evolutionists propose that Prokaryotes and archaeyotes lacked enclosed cell nucleii; their genetic material just floated in their single cells. They did not, and could not"despite desperate attempts by evolutionists to do so"evolve from the prokayotes and/or archaeyotes. Even the simplest forms of life here didn"t follow the Darwinian hypothesis of slow development. Eukaryotes did not evolve from simpler forms. Nor did any subsequent species evolve from any earlier ones. All of these bacteria are so complex, none of their innards could possibly be gradually assembled into a living species. The bacteria did exhibit microevolution, however. Some (methanogens adapted to oxygen-use, some (halophiles) adapted to life without salt, some (thermophiles) adapted to extreme heat; but these species, despite their micro-adaptations, never evolved into structures that could be called new species.

I agree with you on this part.

"Evolutionists"

Does it offend you or something? I'm sorry if it does. I'm not going to call people who study the theory of evolution plain scientists. If you are so close-minded to think Creationists don't work with science too, I don't know why we're debating this. There's a reason creationists are separate from evolutionists.

It does not offend me, I just nit pick.

http://thehappyscientist.com...


Here are three things evolution fails at:

Evolution fails to explain species. Every time some scientist changes the color of rat"s fur, there are huge articles about how this proves the theory of evolution. Here, at last, is a repeatable experiment showing the mechanism evolution "used," to create new species. Only all the evidence is actually on the other side. Men have been breeding dogs, cats, and peas for thousands of years, and no new species has ever resulted from this out and out genetic manipulation. Evolution can"t produce one new species, so clearly no repeatable experiment has been devised to show how evolutionary processes can actually produce new species. Evolution, then, falls into the realm of just so story here.

Evolution fails to explain life. In fact, modern medicine is entirely based on a simple fact proven by Pasteur many years ago "life does not come from non-life. This is why we Pasteurize milk, it"s why we wash our hands before eating, and it"s why surgeons sanitize their instruments before they operate. If life could come from non-life, the entire medial world would be thrown on its ear in short order. The only answer evolution can answer is that life originated under very different conditions than exist today. These conditions can"t be explained, much less replicated. Here, then evolutionary theory falls outside science and into the realm of just so story.

Nor does it seek to explain its origins.

I am nit picking. It is not evolutionist. It makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I bet/hope you do not call people who accept the scientific theory of gravity a gravitationist.

Gravity is fact/law. Evolution is not. BIG DIFFERENCE. http://thehappyscientist.com...

"Evolution cannot be observed and never has been.
Evolution cannot be tested because it can't be observed.
There are too many assumptions that make up the theory, and they aren't proven.
It is an impossible process according to obvious studies."

Evolution at the species level has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://phylointelligence.com...

I feel like the rest of your argument is based on the contention that evolution does not happen and it can not be observed. So I provide evidence of macro evolution and knock the ball back in your court.

First: I don't see how it's illogical to call someone who studies evolution an evolutionist.

Call some one a gravitationist then.

Second: macroevolution has not been proven.

Third: observable evolution hasn't been proven therefore we can't trust it's real.

Clarification: What is the definition of a species according to you? I don't want to argue in circles.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 7:07:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 2:57:48 PM, JasperFrancisShickadance wrote:
Take a look at this site. http://www.news-sentinel.com...

For a couple of the points presented in the article, I think it is best for you to define evolution so we are arguing on the same definitions.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 7:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the sake of having a good discussion, I want to come to an agreement of the definition of a species.

My definition:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Jasper, what is yours?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 9:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 7:17:08 PM, SamStevens wrote:
For the sake of having a good discussion, I want to come to an agreement of the definition of a species.

My definition:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Jasper, what is yours?

Sorry for the use of AiG as I know you probably don't like it as a source. But I think it explains my terms correctly. https://answersingenesis.org...
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.
JasperFrancisShickadance
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 10:15:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You say: "Call some one a gravitationist then." I know you know that Evolution is not a fact, unlike gravity.

"This shows macro evolution is possible. It shows evolutionary changes at the species level is possible." Macroevolution has not been observed. It has not been tested. It is proven that it did not happen, though it may have been almost possible. Skeletal remains provide only about 1% of what is known about an organism; the other 99% comes from its biological soft tissue. Fossils don't give much information; e.g. certain dog and Wolf Skulls are almost identical but they are biologically very different; paleontologists can interpret a human-like skull to be most anything they want it to be - man or ape; much more than similarity of design is needed to prove common ancestry.

Correct me if this is not what you believe: that If artificial selection can produce significant changes in a short time, then natural selection can make even greater changes over long periods of time.

The fact is, even intelligent human breeders cannot create entirely new types. There is a genetic limit to change, thus macroevolution cannot happen.

What do you have to say about my contentions about the x-evolutionist website?
My cat knows how I feel (inside joke). Oh and I'm a klutz who loves to make people laugh! I want to be remembered for my hospitality and humor.