Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution Debunked in Two and a Half Minutes!

shakuntala
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:06:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
just go read
Many science types like Dawkins etc believe natural selection disproves God
but
this work by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean show sthat Natural selection is invalid as a theory about the generation of new species -thus it cant disprove God
https://www.scribd.com...

4 reasons
1)the Cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the Cambrian explosion as it is claimed the generation of new genes is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....

There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.

Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.

Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.

Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.

This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 5:46:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution? Nope?

Then it doesn't exist.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 6:02:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 5:46:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution? Nope?

Then it doesn't exist.

Well we actually have; and we have seen a lot of it...

We've never seen electrons, atoms, quarks, neutrons, fission or fusion; or God for that matter.

The only difference is, in terms of evidence is all of those things AND common descent leave evidence of their occurance that can be measured, detected and validated.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:45:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 5:46:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution? Nope?

Then it doesn't exist.

Do you not see how childish you are being?

Try this perspective

Have ever seen god? Nope?

Then it does not exist.

If you find that stupid and irritating then why would you expect scientists to agree with your version?

Could we try to discuss this like adults please.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 6:08:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I love how 70% of that was an attack in abiogenesis, and not evolution. Seriously why do people bother making videos about evolution if they don't even understand what it proposes.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:04:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 5:45:14 AM, chui wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:46:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution? Nope?

Then it doesn't exist.

Do you not see how childish you are being?

Try this perspective

Have ever seen god? Nope?

Then it does not exist.

Ah but I have seen God.

Just the other day I looked at the eastern wall of my house (constructed so I can only see a Methodist Church and not get contradicted by anything) and saw a photo of Jesus.

Check mate.

If you find that stupid and irritating then why would you expect scientists to agree with your version?

Could we try to discuss this like adults please.

Evolution is a juvenile fantasy. http://missinguniversemuseum.com...
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:28:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

What you are calling evidence for support of evilution is nothing but hypothesis....guesses which require belief in things happening which have nevver been observed and can never be shown by experimental testing.

For a hypothesis, which is nothing but a guess based on an observation, to be considered a valid theory it must be shown accurate by repeated observable testing. This is taught in Biology 100, the scientific method. Evolution is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis, with belief substituded for observable testing and then declared as proof.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:29:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It doesn't take two seconds to debunk evolution. All you have to say about it is.....hogwash....and it's debunked.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:31:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:29:13 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
It doesn't take two seconds to debunk evolution. All you have to say about it is.....hogwash....and it's debunked.

This is the first time I've seen you posting outside the Religion forum.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 12:06:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:28:12 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

What you are calling evidence for support of evilution is nothing but hypothesis....guesses which require belief in things happening which have nevver been observed and can never be shown by experimental testing.

For a hypothesis, which is nothing but a guess based on an observation, to be considered a valid theory it must be shown accurate by repeated observable testing. This is taught in Biology 100, the scientific method. Evolution is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis, with belief substituded for observable testing and then declared as proof.

A quick Google search for "evidence of common descent" will ahow thia statement is false.

What evidence would you deem sufficient to show evolution?
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 4:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 12:06:12 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:28:12 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

What you are calling evidence for support of evilution is nothing but hypothesis....guesses which require belief in things happening which have nevver been observed and can never be shown by experimental testing.

For a hypothesis, which is nothing but a guess based on an observation, to be considered a valid theory it must be shown accurate by repeated observable testing. This is taught in Biology 100, the scientific method. Evolution is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis, with belief substituded for observable testing and then declared as proof.

A quick Google search for "evidence of common descent" will ahow thia statement is false.

What evidence would you deem sufficient to show evolution?

There is none. If you can cause non-living matter to become alive and able to reproduce, that would be a start. Then show that living organism actually turning into a different kind of animal. It has never happened, it never will happen, the belief that these things happened is nothing but wishful thinking of people who want to justify their own existence apart from God. Only the fire of Hell can justify your existence apart from God who loves you.
All evilution is nothign more than hypothesis on top of hypothesis with wishes and beliefs filling in the gaps of fossilized specimens which hypothitcally changed into different kinds of animals in spite the fact that it has never been observe. Artist renditions of a dinosaur morphing into a bird is not evidence, it is over-active imagination.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 5:54:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 4:41:29 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
There is none. If you can cause non-living matter to become alive and able to reproduce, that would be a start. Then show that living organism actually turning into a different kind of animal. It has never happened, it never will happen, the belief that these things happened is nothing but wishful thinking of people who want to justify their own existence apart from God. Only the fire of Hell can justify your existence apart from God who loves you.

Well, evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis, so we don't need to prove that here.
A species is defined as:
"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
Working with microorganisms in lab conditions regularly and consistently creates varieties which are unable to breed with the 'base' organism that they originated from at the outset of working with the culture, only with each other. Tada. New species created, perfectly documented and recorded and everything.
Although I assume just from the way you worded this that you have very serious misunderstandings about what 'species', 'evolution' and 'scientific theory' even mean. No, we never see chimpanzees giving birth to humans, or dogs giving birth to cats, but you need to understand that this is what evolutionary theory tells us is going to be the case anyway. If a chimp did give birth to a human,naturally, for no apparent reason and out of nowhere, it would invalidate evolutionary theory. Species gradually change over very long periods of time compared to the life of members of that species; all species are transitional. A species randomly changing into an entirely different, already existent species for no reason in the span of one generation would not fit with what evolutionary theory tells us actually occurs. We do observe change sufficient to classify descendents as an entirely new species with various microorganisms quite frequently, though, as I've already stated. So try again.

All evilution is nothign more than hypothesis on top of hypothesis with wishes and beliefs filling in the gaps of fossilized specimens which hypothitcally changed into different kinds of animals in spite the fact that it has never been observe. Artist renditions of a dinosaur morphing into a bird is not evidence, it is over-active imagination.

All species are transitional. Every species constantly and consistently is undergoing change over extreme spans of time into new species' that are not capable of successfully reproducing with their distant genetic ancestors. The fact that fossils change over time at all, as well as the fact that we don't just see more species as we go back but rather entirely different sets with clear physiological relations to later species, is a pretty good indicator that species change over time. As is the fact that we can directly observe evolutionary processes with short-lived microorganisms in laboratory conditions consistently and regularly. A 'scientific theory' is a different thing to a hypothesis, or 'just a theory', and if you'd ever actually bothered to do your research you'd be able to go find the *mountains* of evidence backing up evolutionary theory, and note the total lack of legitimate competing theories or explanations accounting for all of that evidence.
So try again.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 9:37:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 5:54:01 AM, Jingram994 wrote stuff the devil has programmed him to believe in as the devil hopes to pull him down to Hell.

Well, evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis, so we don't need to prove that here.\

LMGIG wrote: Of course you cop out and back away from the belief in abiogenisis, you know it is not possible for life to emerge out of non-life, and without abiogenisis, there is no evilution.

A species is defined as:
"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
Working with microorganisms in lab conditions regularly and consistently creates varieties which are unable to breed with the 'base' organism that they originated from at the outset of working with the culture, only with each other. Tada. New species created, perfectly documented and recorded and everything.

This is nothing but adaptation of species. It is observable and testable, unlike the belief that monkeys turned into me or that dinosaurs turned into birds. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution is belief in things that cannot be observed or tested because they never happened and never will happen. Your dog will always be a dog and never will become a cat. Earth calling: you are not evolviing, you are dying, and only the Living God can give Life. You need to be saved from your sin which pays in death and Hell we all deserve.
Although I assume just from the way you worded this that you have very serious misunderstandings about what 'species', 'evolution' and 'scientific theory' even mean.

We both understand species and scientific theory. The thing we both do not understand is what you are calling evulutionary theory. There is no evilutionary theory because the hypothesis of one kind of animal changing into a different kind of animal cannot be observed or tested by science. You are trying to make your belief in evilution into a theory when it can never be more than a hypothesis, genius. The scientific method is 1) form a hypothesis based on an observation (Evolution never gets past this point. Believers in evilution simply pile observation on top of observation and declare their belief in changes they cannot test or observe) 2) test the hypothesis in tangible and observable ways 3) Report your findings to the scientific community 4) if repeated tests show the hypothesis to be valid, the hypothesis can be considered to be a theory after other scientist prove by testing.

Speication is nothing more than adaptation. It is not evilution. Evilution never has been and never will be observed.

No, we never see chimpanzees giving birth to humans, or dogs giving birth to cats, but you need to understand that this is what evolutionary theory tells us is going to be the case anyway

Correction: evilutionary belief tells you dogs are going to give birth to cats by chance. Please let me know when it happens. I think when a person clings to this kind of belief, it is proof that they should be locked up for a while and force fed some medication. Dogs do not give birth to cats. Insane minds give birth to insane beliefs.

Why can you not admit that evilution is nothing more than belief in a hypothesis that never can be tested in an observable way? I know why: it's because you are a proud sinner and you cling in desparation to the belief that God does not have the right to rule agaisnt you, and death is only a gift of nature and not the cost of your sin.....and of course you are desparate to believe there is no Hell to confine rebellions against God as the fire consumes the rebels, and their words no longer pollute God's realm when there cries against God no longer rise and only the smoke of their torments rises forever.

. If a chimp did give birth to a human,naturally, for no apparent reason and out of nowhere, it would invalidate evolutionary theory. Species gradually change over very long periods of time compared to the life of members of that species; all species are transitional

Really? When has this been observed? When will it be shown under testable laboratory conditions? This is pseudo science, a belief in things happening that have never been observed and can never be tested.

. A species randomly changing into an entirely different, already existent species for no reason in the span of one generation would not fit with what evolutionary theory tells us actually occurs.

The evilutionary belief tells you that you might give birth to a monkey or a cat. What you say actually occors is nothing more than a pigment of your imagination. You won't give birth to a pig any more than your uncle was a monkey.....ok....great great great great grandaddy of all of your uncles was a monkey, whatever. You have to believe in some outright silly imaginaions to believe you are descended from a mudpuppy which crawled out of primordial soup.

We do observe change sufficient to classify descendents as an entirely new species with various microorganisms quite frequently, though, as I've already stated. So try again.

Again, speciation is not evilution. You have been brainwashed into thinking you are something you are not. You are only a man (or woman) and will never be more that that. God is the giver of life. There is no other source of life apart from The Living God. You are the dying you. You are in the first death. If you finalize your time saying it is nothing that God died for you to pay for your sins, then you enter eternity with His blood on your feet and hands when He gave it to cover your sins so you could be forgiven by Him in His resurrection if you would repent and call on God in Jesus' name to save you from the Hell you deserve.............then you will enter the second death which is the Lake of Fire because of your choice to take your own death your own way apart from the mercy of God.

All species are transitional. Every species constantly and consistently is undergoing change over extreme spans of time . into new species' that are not capable of successfully reproducing with their distant genetic ancestors. The fact that fossils change over time at all,

Really? So you have looked at a fossil and watched it change? did you get it on camera? Is that the thing I thought was a cartoon when they showed a cow turning into a whale as it foraged on seaweed and emitted huge amounts of toxic farts that kept the sharks away when it had babies with flippers in place of tails? Evilution is a joke, and the joke is on you taking you down to Hell.

as well as the fact that we don't just see more species as we go back but rather entirely different sets with clear physiological relations to later species, is a pretty good indicator that species change over time.

Again, a hypothesis which you believe in and declare to be fact wiithout proof.

As is the fact that we can directly observe evolutionary processes with short-lived microorganisms in laboratory conditions consistently and regularly. A 'scientific theory' is a different thing to a hypothesis, or 'just a theory', and if you'd ever actually bothered to do your research you'd be able to go find the *mountains* of evidence backing up evolutionary theory, and note the total lack of legitimate competing theories or explanations accounting for all of that evidence.
So try again.

A sientific theory is a hypothesis that has been proven by observable and repeateble tests. Evilution is not a scientific theory, it is a hopeless belief system agaisnt God.

The scientific method cannot elevate evilution beyond being a hypothsis to being a theory. Evilution is not scientific at all, it is nothing but hypothesis. You have been progammed to be silly thinking u r smart.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 9:48:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 4:41:29 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/28/2014 12:06:12 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:28:12 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

What you are calling evidence for support of evilution is nothing but hypothesis....guesses which require belief in things happening which have nevver been observed and can never be shown by experimental testing.

For a hypothesis, which is nothing but a guess based on an observation, to be considered a valid theory it must be shown accurate by repeated observable testing. This is taught in Biology 100, the scientific method. Evolution is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis, with belief substituded for observable testing and then declared as proof.

A quick Google search for "evidence of common descent" will ahow thia statement is false.

What evidence would you deem sufficient to show evolution?

There is none.....

I'm going to stop you there, because claiming there is no evidence for common descent, despite being prompted to perform a quick google search on the subject, you still seem insistent that there is no evidence.

This either shows you are significantly detached from reality, or you are simply not interested in anything other than your own opinion.

This explains why you do not believe in evolution; it's not about whether the evidence shows it is true, or not; you have already rejected it regardless of what evidence there is or isn't.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:54:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 5:46:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

... and they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals. Humans are apes.


Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.



This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

Have you ever seen evolution? Nope?

Then it doesn't exist.

kfc
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 11:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:06:02 PM, shakuntala wrote:
just go read
Many science types like Dawkins etc believe natural selection disproves God
but
this work by Australia's leading erotic poet Colin Leslie dean show that Natural selection is invalid as a theory about the generation of new species -thus it cant disprove God
https://www.scribd.com...

4 reasons
1)the Cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the Cambrian explosion as it is claimed the generation of new genes is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant

I agree with you that Dawkins's belief that natural selection disproves the existence of God, (if he really thinks it does) ain't necessarily true. But really, don't you think if you want to present an educated and credible argument about evolution that you should not base your answers on the beliefs of a leading erotic poet? How much has poetry really got to do with proving anything about natural selection---outside of the possibility that those who love sex, are more likely to procreate?

I have no degree in biology, genetics or palaeontology, but even I can see that the arguments you list are full only specious attempt at deductive reasoning. For example--the fact that natural selection only deals with existing traits, only affirms what natural selection is all about--passing on presently existing traits that are most likely to survive since they represent traits that are more adaptable--including withstanding possibly threatening future climatic changes and passing on naturally occurring mutations. How can traits that don't exist in the present be passed on if they didn't exist prior to their future expressions in various species?

And about undesirable traits like cancer---a genetic vulnerability to Cancer is not magically erased by natural inherited traits, but only changes if, after many many generations, those who are born with this gene cease to exist. I would think the major way that it is not a preferable and adaptive trait, is in the fact that if anyone dies from it, any children that person might otherwise have passed on as future generations, will no longer be conceived, since such traits are not transmittable from dead people. Just because natural selection exists, does not mean individuals with certain defective genes or genetic predispositions, will never be born as part of successive generations.

Natural selection involves biological, genetic, environmental changes and naturally occurring mutations, because they all determine if any given traits are passed on to future generations!

the ideas you mention only involve pseudo--science and are essentially only wishful thinking on the parts of those who want to deny evolution. They make about as much logical sense as the statement: (There are three reasons why people are not good at math--one and two).

If we want to learn something about evolution and natural selections, we need to hear from those who have really studied Darwin and are knowledgeable about the valid aspects of his theory.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 12:53:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:28:12 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:37:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:18:26 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
https://www.youtube.com....


There is no known process by which new information can be added to a genome....

Except from naturally occurring mutations and modern methods of programming certain genes in order to target cells that create illnesses.

... Asside from duplication effects, polyploidy, chromosome duplication and several other aspects of DNA where new segments of DNA are added into the genome which can then subject to further mutation and addition of new features from the new redundant area of DNA.


Scientists only come up with drawings to show the pattern of evolution....

... and masses of fossile and taxonomic evidence that show clear transitions from one form to another.

Do you have something against the use of deductive reasoning?


Humans are humans and apes are apes....

.. ... And they're pretty much the same thing. Ducks are birds. Dogs are mammals.
Humans are apes.

Humans share large amounts of DNA with other hominids. And, of course ducks are ducks and birds are birds, but dogs, humans, and many other species are also mammals. If you simply reference the dictionary, you'll find out that humans are not apes---something no scientist who studies evolution has ever claimed. In fact, humans and apes both descended from common ancestors, but represent different species because they branched off onto different evolutionary paths. Rather than saying we are a monkey's uncle, it would be more adequate to say we are a monkeys cousins.

Life has never been observed to come from non life ....

Many physicist support the idea that even inanimate matter can organizes into certain forms---some of which could become living things. But be that as it may, the fact that life began, does not prove or disprove the existence of God, only that individual species did not appear instantaneously in their present forms, and that the biblical story of creation did not happen 10,000 years ago, or in only seven days---talk about something with no supporting evidence that has never been witnessed by human beings!

... which means it can never ever ever ever ever happen ever and it's totally impossible, right? No. This is an observation, extrapolating it to mean that because we can't see it, it's impossible forever has no evidence or justification, whereas the converse that it can happen in the past, and why it doesn't happen now does have supportative evidence.

Not sure what you mean by this last paragraph, but even if a God does exist, that does not automatically validate or prove the story of creation described in Genesis. Also modern science has found many ways to verify the existence of various phenomenons that no one has physically seen. Different atomic structures that define the natures of different elements are one example.


This video does a good job of ignoring all the evidence in support for evolution.

What you are calling evidence for support of evilution is nothing but hypothesis....guesses which require belief in things happening which have nevver been observed and can never be shown by experimental testing.

More aptly described as educated guesses, but don't deny the enormous corroboration of physical evidence that can provide (very probable) explanations.

For a hypothesis, which is nothing but a guess based on an observation, to be considered a valid theory it must be shown accurate by repeated observable testing. This is taught in Biology 100, the scientific method. Evolution is nothing but hypothesis on top of hypothesis, with belief substituted for observable testing and then declared as proof.

Except that various studies of organisms which produce many species in very short times have confirmed that they change in appearance as well as change other biological characteristics as the result of being introduced into specific experimental environments. i.e. we know that many bacteria and viruses, become immune to medical antidotes after large numbers of generations pass on the properties of those whose traits that are resistant to those antidotes. And when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:09:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 6:08:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I love how 70% of that was an attack in abiogenesis, and not evolution. Seriously why do people bother making videos about evolution if they don't even understand what it proposes.

The video had 2 major contentions:

1) Life can't come from inanimate material

2) No new genetic info can be added (or I assume generated)

So how would you respond to these? #1 IIRC they have shown that organic molecules can form which are the building blocks of life. I think number 2 is due to mutation but how does that explain the increase in the amount of DNA (chromosomes) of a species?
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:30:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 1:09:33 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/28/2014 6:08:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I love how 70% of that was an attack in abiogenesis, and not evolution. Seriously why do people bother making videos about evolution if they don't even understand what it proposes.

The video had 2 major contentions:

1) Life can't come from inanimate material

2) No new genetic info can be added (or I assume generated)

So how would you respond to these? #1 IIRC they have shown that organic molecules can form which are the building blocks of life. I think number 2 is due to mutation but how does that explain the increase in the amount of DNA (chromosomes) of a species?

I have never heard the term abiogenesis, but agree that organic molecules can form and become the building blocks of life. , So the formation of amino-acids are possible as the basis of life.

As far as number 2,

I have never really studied how chromosomes in general, form, but with the existence of incredibly long periods of time, perhaps they evolved hand in hand with genetic mutations, or as chromosomal mutations that facilitated complex genetic mutations?

If you have any information about this, please let me know.

If this post was addressed to me, I have already claimed not to have an extensive education in evolutionary theory. I'd just like to have my spiritual beliefs conform with known facts about the physical universe, rather than trying to make physical facts conform to my personal spiritual beliefs.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:00:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Except that various studies of organisms which produce many species in very short times have confirmed that they change in appearance as well as change other biological characteristics as the result of being introduced into specific experimental environments. i.e. we know that many bacteria and viruses, become immune to medical antidotes after large numbers of generations pass on the properties of those whose traits that are resistant to those antidotes. And when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it.

Let me know when one of those bacteria or viruses changes into any other kind of animal. All you are talking about really happens is adaptation. Speciation occurs and is nothing more than adaptaion. That can be tested and shown, observable.

Your statement "when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it." either misuses the word "evolves" in place of the word "adapts" or is using the word to refer to one kind of animal like your pet bacteria changing into a different animal. A bacteria never even changes into an algae or an amoeba, let alone into a multicelled animal.

I think you purposely mask a double meaning in your use of the word "evolve" because you are trying to say observable adaptiation is the same as belief in evolution. All you have outside of observable, testable, adaptaion of species which results in differing species of the same animal is faith in things you in reality have no good reason to believe.

The only reason people believe that bunk is because they are desperate to convince themselves that God will not find them guilty and worthy of death in Hell.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:04:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 1:30:32 AM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:09:33 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/28/2014 6:08:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I love how 70% of that was an attack in abiogenesis, and not evolution. Seriously why do people bother making videos about evolution if they don't even understand what it proposes.

The video had 2 major contentions:

1) Life can't come from inanimate material

2) No new genetic info can be added (or I assume generated)

So how would you respond to these? #1 IIRC they have shown that organic molecules can form which are the building blocks of life. I think number 2 is due to mutation but how does that explain the increase in the amount of DNA (chromosomes) of a species?

I have never heard the term abiogenesis, but agree that organic molecules can form and become the building blocks of life. , So the formation of amino-acids are possible as the basis of life.

As far as number 2,

I have never really studied how chromosomes in general, form, but with the existence of incredibly long periods of time, perhaps they evolved hand in hand with genetic mutations, or as chromosomal mutations that facilitated complex genetic mutations?

If you have any information about this, please let me know.

If this post was addressed to me, I have already claimed not to have an extensive education in evolutionary theory. I'd just like to have my spiritual beliefs conform with known facts about the physical universe, rather than trying to make physical facts conform to my personal spiritual beliefs.

You boys are on the same team. The problem you are avoiding is the fact that you deserve to die now because you have sinned agaisnt God. You have no right to exist outside of the fire of Hell as a sinner against your Creator. He became a man and took your death so you don't have to pay in Hell the debt you owe Him for your sins against Him. Why is it so hard to see?
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:32:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 9:04:41 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:30:32 AM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:09:33 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/28/2014 6:08:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I love how 70% of that was an attack in abiogenesis, and not evolution. Seriously why do people bother making videos about evolution if they don't even understand what it proposes.

The video had 2 major contentions:

1) Life can't come from inanimate material

2) No new genetic info can be added (or I assume generated)

So how would you respond to these? #1 IIRC they have shown that organic molecules can form which are the building blocks of life. I think number 2 is due to mutation but how does that explain the increase in the amount of DNA (chromosomes) of a species?

I have never heard the term abiogenesis, but agree that organic molecules can form and become the building blocks of life. , So the formation of amino-acids are possible as the basis of life.

As far as number 2,

I have never really studied how chromosomes in general, form, but with the existence of incredibly long periods of time, perhaps they evolved hand in hand with genetic mutations, or as chromosomal mutations that facilitated complex genetic mutations?

If you have any information about this, please let me know.

If this post was addressed to me, I have already claimed not to have an extensive education in evolutionary theory. I'd just like to have my spiritual beliefs conform with known facts about the physical universe, rather than trying to make physical facts conform to my personal spiritual beliefs.

You boys are on the same team. The problem you are avoiding is the fact that you deserve to die now because you have sinned agaisnt God. You have no right to exist outside of the fire of Hell as a sinner against your Creator. He became a man and took your death so you don't have to pay in Hell the debt you owe Him for your sins against Him. Why is it so hard to see?

what a wonderful and terribly judgmental comment full of ill will, coming from someone who should know that only Jesus can judge anyone for their sins. And, by the way, disagreeing with you about the science of evolution is not a sin!
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 9:00:54 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Except that various studies of organisms which produce many species in very short times have confirmed that they change in appearance as well as change other biological characteristics as the result of being introduced into specific experimental environments. i.e. we know that many bacteria and viruses, become immune to medical antidotes after large numbers of generations pass on the properties of those whose traits that are resistant to those antidotes. And when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it.

Let me know when one of those bacteria or viruses changes into any other kind of animal. All you are talking about really happens is adaptation. Speciation occurs and is nothing more than adaptaion. That can be tested and shown, observable.

I believe most bacteria do belong to the animal kingdom already, but if you are talking about higher more complex forms of animal life, no one ever claimed that bacteria could undergo a rapid metamorphosis to become a dog or an elephant in short period of time (which are both members of distinctly different species) If either of us has the ability to live for another billion years, then I will gladly let you know if and when, the bacteria of today evolves to a more complex life form. I also find it strange that somehow you feel you are disproving evolution by mentioning adaptation, which is a large part of Darwin's theory. And what exactly is meant by the word, "speciation?" If your talking about the evolution of a particular species into another form, that is accomplished largely by adaptation which involves the expression of the most well adapted traits to future generations which then allows species to survive and continually evolve. This IS happening every day, and can be seen occurring among simple life forms like bacteria, over the course of thousands of successive generations.

Your statement "when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it." either misuses the word "evolves" in place of the word "adapts" or is using the word to refer to one kind of animal like your pet bacteria changing into a different animal. A bacteria never even changes into an algae or an amoeba, let alone into a multicelled animal.

except that adaptation involves more that just natural selection and can be affected by mutations and environmental changes. Its possible that if the particular antidote that can destroy a bacterium is then removed from its environment, that bacterium can then continue evolving in ways that either render them vulnerable to changing environmental conditions or, be altered by mutation which is like evolution's wildcard. Some mutations in genes are more adaptable and some less, and an individual species may either thrive or suffer because of them. Either way, a disease causing bacteria will often become harmless because of its own evolution, without even being exposed to medical antidotes. Otherwise afflictions like the Plague would have continued to wipe out much larger numbers of people. The form they may eventually evolve into may not include the original trait that enabled them to adapt to particular antidotes, so they may once again become susceptible to those original antidotes. I believe this last example is possible due to evolutionary changes.

I think you purposely mask a double meaning in your use of the word "evolve" because you are trying to say observable adaptiation is the same as belief in evolution. All you have outside of observable, testable, adaptaion of species which results in differing species of the same animal is faith in things you in reality have no good reason to believe.

You've got me puzzled by that one. Here is the definition of the word "evolve" as defined in my Merriam Webster dictionary: 'To develop or change by, or as if by, EVOLUTION." That means that if organisms fail to adjust to changing environmental conditions their DNA is not passed on to the next generations. As far as evolution goes, species do not evolve into differing species of (the same animal), as you say. When a distinctly different species evolves, rather, by definition, it does not becomes a different version of a particular animal--since different animals are expressions of different categories which are also called species, and therefore, are not the (same animal). Although humans and apes both evolved from similar kinds of animals they represent entirely different species. A chimpanzee is not a different form of human beings, neither are humans a different form of chimpanzees--they have evolved into completely different and biologically distinct species.

The only reason people believe that bunk is because they are desperate to convince themselves that God will not find them guilty and worthy of death in Hell.

I have never even considered that acknowledging evolution is an attempt to cheat God out of his wrath. What I do see it as, is just another body of knowledge that has been objectively verified as part of physical reality. Denying evolution as a trick played on us by the devil in order to deceive us, is by far a more clear form of wishful thinking and rationalization, that ignores real evidence. Free will allows for choosing or accepting the facts revealed by science. We both have a minds to use. I am simply rejecting religious fundamentalism in favor of physical, scientific facts. And a more open-minded type of faith.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:42:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:32:16 AM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 9:04:41 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:30:32 AM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 1:09:33 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/28/2014 6:08:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
I love how 70% of that was an attack in abiogenesis, and not evolution. Seriously why do people bother making videos about evolution if they don't even understand what it proposes.

The video had 2 major contentions:

1) Life can't come from inanimate material

2) No new genetic info can be added (or I assume generated)

So how would you respond to these? #1 IIRC they have shown that organic molecules can form which are the building blocks of life. I think number 2 is due to mutation but how does that explain the increase in the amount of DNA (chromosomes) of a species?

I have never heard the term abiogenesis, but agree that organic molecules can form and become the building blocks of life. , So the formation of amino-acids are possible as the basis of life.

As far as number 2,

I have never really studied how chromosomes in general, form, but with the existence of incredibly long periods of time, perhaps they evolved hand in hand with genetic mutations, or as chromosomal mutations that facilitated complex genetic mutations?

If you have any information about this, please let me know.

If this post was addressed to me, I have already claimed not to have an extensive education in evolutionary theory. I'd just like to have my spiritual beliefs conform with known facts about the physical universe, rather than trying to make physical facts conform to my personal spiritual beliefs.

You boys are on the same team. The problem you are avoiding is the fact that you deserve to die now because you have sinned agaisnt God. You have no right to exist outside of the fire of Hell as a sinner against your Creator. He became a man and took your death so you don't have to pay in Hell the debt you owe Him for your sins against Him. Why is it so hard to see?

what a wonderful and terribly judgmental comment full of ill will, coming from someone who should know that only Jesus can judge anyone for their sins. And, by the way, disagreeing with you about the science of evolution is not a sin!

being truthful is ill will? so believing in evilution is good because it is not truthful?
There is no science in evilution. The closest anybody ever came to elevating evolution above a hypothesis, a guess based on an obeservation, was when what's-his-name claimed to have caused some kind of something basic to life to assemble itself in a jar. Whatever it was, it quickly crumbled and fell apart. That was an attemt to show aboigenisis is possible. Without abiogenisis, there is no evolution. Evolutionists today prefer to dodge the issue by saying evilution is not about abiogenisis. They know the laws of physics do not allow for abiogenisis.....but they still somehow ignore the laws of physics so they can believe in changes of one animal into another animal which occured through unimaginably long periods of time, then they stand by their belief as fact even though they never saw any of it happen and never will be able to test the hypotheisis of evolution under observable conditions.

I think it is a sin to believe in evolution since Jesus, who you say is the only person allowed to have any common sense to judge your beliefs, referred to the book of Genisis as the Word of God, and to the writings of Moses as unquestionable.
If you believe in evilution, you are either lost, dead in your sins, or sadly confused and weak in Bible doctrine. I seriously have to doubt that you are saved from Hell if you defend evilution in spite of what Jesus said about the writings of Moses and Genisis.

If you know God through Jesus Christ, you have to doubt ungodly believers in science, especially when they are obvioiusly calling their belief facts with no witness.

So let me ask you, since you seem to think Jeusus is the Judge.....if you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? If you say yes, please tell me how you are sure. If you say anything but yes, the first thing I will say is you are lost...but that would be a hypothesis. I would have to ask another question or two to be sure, and then the evidence would be your own word.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 1:48:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 1:31:52 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 9:00:54 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Except that various studies of organisms which produce many species in very short times have confirmed that they change in appearance as well as change other biological characteristics as the result of being introduced into specific experimental environments. i.e. we know that many bacteria and viruses, become immune to medical antidotes after large numbers of generations pass on the properties of those whose traits that are resistant to those antidotes. And when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it.

Let me know when one of those bacteria or viruses changes into any other kind of animal. All you are talking about really happens is adaptation. Speciation occurs and is nothing more than adaptaion. That can be tested and shown, observable.

I believe most bacteria do belong to the animal kingdom already, but if you are talking about higher more complex forms of animal life, no one ever claimed that bacteria could undergo a rapid metamorphosis to become a dog or an elephant in short period of time (which are both members of distinctly different species) If either of us has the ability to live for another billion years, then I will gladly let you know if and when, the bacteria of today evolves to a more complex life form. I also find it strange that somehow you feel you are disproving evolution by mentioning adaptation, which is a large part of Darwin's theory. And what exactly is meant by the word, "speciation?" If your talking about the evolution of a particular species into another form, that is accomplished largely by adaptation which involves the expression of the most well adapted traits to future generations which then allows species to survive and continually evolve. This IS happening every day, and can be seen occurring among simple life forms like bacteria, over the course of thousands of successive generations.

Your statement "when an organism evolves further it may become susceptible to other environmental factors or, become vulnerable again to the original antidotes administered to eradicate it." either misuses the word "evolves" in place of the word "adapts" or is using the word to refer to one kind of animal like your pet bacteria changing into a different animal. A bacteria never even changes into an algae or an amoeba, let alone into a multicelled animal.

except that adaptation involves more that just natural selection and can be affected by mutations and environmental changes. Its possible that if the particular antidote that can destroy a bacterium is then removed from its environment, that bacterium can then continue evolving in ways that either render them vulnerable to changing environmental conditions or, be altered by mutation which is like evolution's wildcard. Some mutations in genes are more adaptable and some less, and an individual species may either thrive or suffer because of them. Either way, a disease causing bacteria will often become harmless because of its own evolution, without even being exposed to medical antidotes. Otherwise afflictions like the Plague would have continued to wipe out much larger numbers of people. The form they may eventually evolve into may not include the original trait that enabled them to adapt to particular antidotes, so they may once again become susceptible to those original antidotes. I believe this last example is possible due to evolutionary changes.

I think you purposely mask a double meaning in your use of the word "evolve" because you are trying to say observable adaptiation is the same as belief in evolution. All you have outside of observable, testable, adaptaion of species which results in differing species of the same animal is faith in things you in reality have no good reason to believe.

You've got me puzzled by that one. Here is the definition of the word "evolve" as defined in my Merriam Webster dictionary: 'To develop or change by, or as if by, EVOLUTION." That means that if organisms fail to adjust to changing environmental conditions their DNA is not passed on to the next generations. As far as evolution goes, species do not evolve into differing species of (the same animal), as you say. When a distinctly different species evolves, rather, by definition, it does not becomes a different version of a particular animal--since different animals are expressions of different categories which are also called species, and therefore, are not the (same animal). Although humans and apes both evolved from similar kinds of animals they represent entirely different species. A chimpanzee is not a different form of human beings, neither are humans a different form of chimpanzees--they have evolved into completely different and biologically distinct species.

The only reason people believe that bunk is because they are desperate to convince themselves that God will not find them guilty and worthy of death in Hell.

I have never even considered that acknowledging evolution is an attempt to cheat God out of his wrath. What I do see it as, is just another body of knowledge that has been objectively verified as part of physical reality. Denying evolution as a trick played on us by the devil in order to deceive us, is by far a more clear form of wishful thinking and rationalization, that ignores real evidence. Free will allows for choosing or accepting the facts revealed by science. We both have a minds to use. I am simply rejecting religious fundamentalism in favor of physical, scientific facts. And a more open-minded type of faith.

a mind open to lies is not wise
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 2:04:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 1:31:52 PM, pj43176 wrote:

except that adaptation involves more that just natural selection and can be affected by mutations and environmental changes. Its possible that if the particular antidote that can destroy a bacterium is then removed from its environment, that bacterium can then continue evolving in ways that either render them vulnerable to changing environmental conditions or, be altered by mutation which is like evolution's wildcard. Some mutations in genes are more adaptable and some less, and an individual species may either thrive or suffer because of them. Either way, a disease causing bacteria will often become harmless because of its own evolution, without even being exposed to medical antidotes. Otherwise afflictions like the Plague would have continued to wipe out much larger numbers of people. The form they may eventually evolve into may not include the original trait that enabled them to adapt to particular antidotes, so they may once again become susceptible to those original antidotes. I believe this last example is possible due to evolutionary changes.

Again, this is mostly nothing but conjecture. The only thing you are talking about here that is observable is adaptation. At least in your last statement you admit that you believe adaptation is evolution, so while one animal has never been seen to change into a different kind of animal, you believe that bacteria becoming immune to some toxins (adaption, the bacteria remain bacteria) is evolutionary change which proves things you beleive happened but never observed over spans of millions or billions or kazillions of years, however many years you need to make your belief more believable.

Adaptation is adaptation. It is not evolutionary and it is not evolution. Evilution is nothing but a guess based on a hypothesis declared to be a fact simply because you believe it happened.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 2:37:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 9:00:54 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Let me know when one of those bacteria or viruses changes into any other kind of animal.

What is a different kind of animal?

If you can't tell us what is enough change to show evolution, how is anyone supposed to be able to show it.

Remember, if you set your change bar too low, we can see such change happening. If you set it too high then you risk making an argument that treats things such as dogs and bears as the same kind of animal.

Moreover, it is where many creationists show their lack of understanding. We are still the same "kind" of animal as our ancestors. Every animal is in the same way that no matter how many children you have, and how many children they have, and how many children they have: at no point will your ancestors stop being your ancestors.

We ar still apes, and deutorostomia, and vertebrates, and tetrapods. No amount of evolution will stop us being any of those things, so in some ways, the "different kind" argument is more than disingenuous. If we can turn on thing into another kind of thing it would probably disprove evolution.

All you are talking about really happens is adaptation. Speciation occurs and is nothing more than adaptaion. That can be tested and shown, observable.

You argue as if they are different thing. Adaption is a molecular change in the DNA that causes a different, enhanced, or modified feature that is beneficial and can therefore be selected for. As such adaptation in the way you describe it pretty much means "positive mutation". You can't talk about a lot else if you're trying to describe evolution.

The only reason people believe that bunk is because they are desperate to convince themselves that God will not find them guilty and worthy of death in Hell.

Because it is supported by objective evidence.

I find it hilarious that we can demonstrate everything we are saying through research and evidence.

You can show or demonstrate not one thing about your religion, the existance of God and he'll, yet continue to keep stating it as if it is proven truth.

What is hilarious, is that if God him or herself came down and started trying to tell you that you were wrong about everything you believe, you would probably convince yourself that it was Satan trying to trick you. That should tell you something.