EVOLUTION: what about this

[StAnastasia]

I recommend watching Expelled with Ben Stein!

The guy who hawks eye drops? Is he now a biologist? Where is his research laboratory? Can I earn a PhD from the same institution where he earned his? He was fascinating in Expelled.

 

[reggieM]

I recommend watching Expelled with Ben Stein!

I saw it when it was in theaters and enjoyed it very much. I also bought the DVD last week and will share it with friends in my parish.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed, ourselves and chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor.

rossum

We sure did - Hydrogen.

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

 

[redneck22]

Evolution is a fact - genomes change over time. This is different from the theory of evolution which deals with the mechanisms that cause the observed change over time.

There is much evidence and many links. Start with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

rossum

Well how about The Debunking of 29+ “Evidences” for Macro Evolution Well recommended for reading and study for those serious about “evolution”.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

This is similar to the mistake of the evolutionist I replied to in my last reply. It’s circular reasoning that works like this:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true
Evidence of evolution is Chromosome 2
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

Nope. Science starts with a problem and goes from there:

Problem:

Humans and apes have different numbers of chromosomes, but the evidence otherwise shows that they are closely related.

This wasn’t really hard, but you have managed to turn science into a circus show. Science starts with an observation. It (or rather, a person) then proposes a hypothesis based upon that observation. An experiment is then proposed which can establish the original hypothesis as valid. This means that the proposed hypothesis will be seen to operate or otherwise validated.

You (that is, all evolutionists) have started with a hypothesis that evolution is true. This is putting the cart before the horse. It starts with a rejection of the God of the Bible.

Hypothesis:
Humans must have a chromosome fusion, because they have one less pair.

There you go. Putting the hypothesis AFTER the observation. That is not science. You lose.

Evidence:
The human #2 chromosome looks precisely like two chimpanzee chromosomes, right down to the remains of telomeres and a former centromere.

Sorry, but you can’t have “evidence” if it doesn’t fit an observation that evolution is in process. You CAN’T ESTABLISH WHAT PROCESS RESULTED IN THIS OBSERVATION.
Barbarian:

There is no other way to explain such an anomaly, if not a chromosome fusion.

Of course there is, but you can’t reject the Bible’s record in favor of a false scientific procedure. If you believe God created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, then the Biblical record clearly establishes that God used similar body plans in all of His creation.

There IS another way to explain such an anomaly.

Conclusion:
The disparity in chromosome number is due to a chromosome fusion.

So you BELIEVE.
Barbarian:

Notice that it’s not a logical syllogism, but an inference based on evidence. Inductive reasoning. That’s how science works. And as you have seen, it works very well, indeed.

ROFLMBO!!! I agree, it is not logical, because it is a lie. A carefully crafted lie. It is NOT inductive reasoning, but facts manipulated to favor a BELIEF SYSTEM.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

To establish evolution as a viable theory requires that the evolutionist (the BELIEVER in evolution) have witnessed it to have occurred, and then to bring evidences to bear that support his original observation.

If so, sciences like astronomy, forensics, fire investigation, geology, etc. are all fakes.

Sometimes. Depends on what they are trying to say. I’ve seen forensics that can convict the wrong man because the forensics team used the same process that you wrongly used: start with an hypothesis first, then make an observation to fit the hypothesis.

But the main difference between forensics (which includes fire investigation) and evolution is that forensics is based upon billions and billions of repeated observations that meet the hypotheses that they are mated with. Forensics is truly an admiration.

Evolution, on the other hand, is nothing more than a game of charlatanry, masquerading as science.
Barbarian:

Anyone who tells you that we can only know what we have personally observed, is hilariously wrong.

I never said that. Two things:

First: You can NEVER TRULY know anything that you have not truly observed. You can only believe. I believe in Jesus as my Savior because the Biblical proofs match more clearly than any claims of any other religion.

I believe in special creation because the Biblical evidence fits the scientific observations more closely than any other religious claim, including evolutionists’.

Second: you have repeatedly offered “observations” as “evidence”. Evidence for a theory must be either based upon first-hand observation of the phenomenon in action, or it must be based upon priorly repeated observations of how this observation came to be. You have established neither in your claims.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Originally Posted by PEPCIS

This is similar to the mistake of the evolutionist I replied to in my last reply. It’s circular reasoning that works like this:

Hypothesis: Evolution is true
Evidence of evolution is Chromosome 2
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is true.

Yet, evolution has never been observed, therefore, Chromosome 2 is merely an observation that fits the BELIEF of those who propose the hypothesis that evolution is true.

Shall we try that again.

Not if you aren’t going to follow proper science. Proper science always starts with an observation of a phenomenon. It then proceeds to a hypothesis. You, as we have witnessed, start with a hypothesis and THEN proceed to an observation that fits that hypothesis. That is NOT science.

rossum:

Predictions made by evolution have been confirmed many times.

Of course. Why shouldn’t it? You can make many observations to appear as “evidence” for evolution. Charlatanry.

 

[PEPCIS]

"Magnus467:

Change from species to another due to genetic mutations-Very Unlikely.

The smallest genetic change I am aware of between different species is three mutations difference between Chrysopa carnea

and Chrysopa downesi. One mutation changes the colour and the other two change the annual breeding season, so they do not mate in the wild. Your opinion on this point is wrong.

This is true, but it’s wrong as well. Yes, these mutations resulted in two different “species”, but it all depends on how you define “species.” When evolutionists are in control of the nomenclature, they also can control the arguments.

These two “species” are most likely sexually compatible. Just like a lion and a tiger can mate in captivity and produce viable offspring, yet the two are classified according to the expectations of evolution theory.

 

[PEPCIS]

"rachah:

But this is exactly what I mean. The educational system in US taught me that the theory of evolution was an undenialble fact.

Evolution is a fact - genomes change over time.

Very true. Microevolution is a fact. Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds. Scientists run around defining new species, but that doesn’t make it evolution.

rossum:

There is much evidence and many links. Start with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

None of those “29 evidences” fit the profile of science. Nice try.

rossum:

Indeed, ourselves and chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[rossum]

Well how about The Debunking of 29+ “Evidences” for Macro Evolution Well recommended for reading and study for those serious about “evolution”.

If you open the “29+ Evidences” link in talk.origins, you will find a link to the debunking article (and also a response to the debunking article).

If you open the debunking article, you will not find any links at all to either the original article or the response to the debunking, though they are mentioned.

Dr Theobalds has adequately dealt with Ashby Camp’s criticisms.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Very true. Microevolution is a fact. Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds. Scientists run around defining new species, but that doesn’t make it evolution.

How can I tell whether two organisms belong to different kinds or to the same kind? What are the objective, scientific, criteria that I can use to tell one kind from another? The word “kind” in this context, (“baramin” is also used), is only used by creationists but has never ever been properly defined. Since the word does not have a useful scientific definition, scientists do not use it.

Evolution is defined as the change in genomes of populations over time. We can observe it all the time. Much of what we observe is indeed microevolution (defined as evolution within a species) but sometimes we can observe macroevolution.

None of those “29 evidences” fit the profile of science. Nice try.

It appears that your definition of science is a nebulous as your definition of kind. All of the 29+ evidences are scientific as is evidenced by Dr Theobalds extensive list of references on each page.

Thanks for the laughs.

You are welcome.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Very true. Microevolution is a fact. Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds. Scientists run around defining new species, but that doesn’t make it evolution.

How can I tell whether two organisms belong to different kinds or to the same kind?

I wasn’t discussing “kinds.” I was discussing “species.” Specifically, I was noting how there was no specific definition for species, so that an evolutionist can say whatever he wants to say about speciation, and still they dare to call it science.

rossum:

Evolution is defined as the change in genomes of populations over time. We can observe it all the time.

Yes, microevolution is observed “all the time.”

rossum:

Much of what we observe is indeed microevolution (defined as evolution within a species) but sometimes we can observe macroevolution.

Please relate to us a macroevolutive event. I’m eager to hear it.

None of those “29 evidences” fit the profile of science. Nice try.

rossum:

It appears that your definition of science is a nebulous as your definition of kind.

It is YOUR definition of science that is lacking. You claim that the order of science is

1. hypothesize
2. observe

When every single piece of scientific literature states otherwise.

rossum:

All of the 29+ evidences are scientific as is evidenced by Dr Theobalds extensive list of references on each page.

References mean nothing when you apply it to religion, and then call it “science.”

 

[Namesake]

I wasn’t discussing “kinds.” I was discussing “species.” Specifically, I was noting how there was no specific definition for species, so that an evolutionist can say whatever he wants to say about speciation, and still they dare to call it science.

Originally Posted by PEPCIS View Post
Very true. Microevolution is a fact. Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I wasn’t discussing “kinds.” I was discussing “species.” Specifically, I was noting how there was no specific definition for species, so that an evolutionist can say whatever he wants to say about speciation, and still they dare to call it science.

Originally Posted by PEPCIS "Very true. Microevolution is a fact. Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds.

"

Once again. I was not discussing “kinds.” I was discussing SPECIES, and the lack of definition among evolutionists. Just because I used the word “kind” does not mean that I was discussing it. The FOCUS of the statement was “species”, and the fact that evolutionary scientists use “species” and “speciation” speciously.

Capice?

 

[Namesake]

Once again. I was not discussing “kinds.” I was discussing SPECIES, and the lack of definition among evolutionists. Just because I used the word “kind” does not mean that I was discussing it. The FOCUS of the statement was “species”, and the fact that evolutionary scientists use “species” and “speciation” speciously.

 

[rossum]

I wasn’t discussing “kinds.”

When you write “Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds.” (Emphasis added) it certainly looks to me as if you are discussing kinds. If you were not discussing kinds then you might do better to avoid using the word “kind” in such discussions.

My question still stands - how do you define “kind”/“baramin”?

Specifically, I was noting how there was no specific definition for species, so that an evolutionist can say whatever he wants to say about speciation, and still they dare to call it science.

You are being misinformed by your sources. For most metazoa (multi-celled animals) a species is defined by the Biological species concept:"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."For asexually reproducing organisms the definition of a species is closer to a clonal line.

Please relate to us a macroevolutive event. I’m eager to hear it.

Certainly, see Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

Once again. I was not discussing “kinds.” I was discussing SPECIES, and the lack of definition among evolutionists. Just because I used the word “kind” does not mean that I was discussing it. The FOCUS of the statement was “species”, and the fact that evolutionary scientists use “species” and “speciation” speciously.

Capice?

That is not true at all. There are at least three different definitions of “species.” Evolutionists use whichever one fits the particular theory they are trying to promote at any given time. They are inconsistent. They don’t do science rigidly.

namesake:

Using the term “kind” is outside of any scientific understanding, but it sure is well understood in fundamentalist evangelical circles.

I knew that there would be an ad hominem sooner or later…

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I wasn’t discussing “kinds.”

When you write "Genomes can change over time, but they never result in different kinds

." (Emphasis added) it certainly looks to me as if you are discussing kinds. If you were not discussing kinds then you might do better to avoid using the word “kind” in such discussions.

For the last time, I was discussing “species.” The manner in which you guys use “species” is specious. This means that I need clarification of just what you mean by “species” when you use the term “species.” Do you mean “kind”? Do you mean “baramin”? Do you mean “grouping”? Do you mean “taxanomy”?

I didn’t realize that using the word “kind” to get that information from you would cause an apoplectic seizure.

rossum:

My question still stands - how do you define “kind”/“baramin”?

How about I’ll tell you when you answer my question. My question was most certainly first.

Specifically, I was noting how there was no specific definition for species, so that an evolutionist can say whatever he wants to say about speciation, and still they dare to call it science.

rossum:

You are being misinformed by your sources.

Contrary to your assumptions, I did not fall off the turnip truck today. I’m going by personal experience with debates on evolutionary boards. Even your own source (talkorigins) states in an FAQ regarding the definition for “species” the following:

[SIGN]Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community…What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts..[/SIGN]

Of course, it’s just as I said in my earlier post: “…an evolutionist can say whatever he wants to say about speciation, and still they dare to call it science.”

rossum:

For most metazoa (multi-celled animals) a species is defined by the Biological species concept:"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."For asexually reproducing organisms the definition of a species is closer to a clonal line.

Very good. I’ll be holding you to that. Now, I wonder, will all the rest of the evolutionists on this board be using this definition?

Please relate to us a macroevolutive event. I’m eager to hear it.

rossum:

Certainly, see Observed Instances of Speciation

and Some More Observed Speciation Events.

Nice try. To begin with, speciation in plants is not a new phenomenon, and is hardly contested by creationists. Even talkorigins states:

[SIGN]“Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants.”[/SIGN]

That’s because polyploidy is fatal in nearly all cases, and results in sterilization in all.

Fruit fly is a fruit fly is a fruit fly.

All the assortative testings are ARTIFICIALLY produced, and mean nothing for naturally reproducing flies.

There was so much speculation. I guess I’m not surprised that you would find this BELIEVABLE. ‘Welcome to Faith’!!!

 

[mpartyka]

Really? On what basis do you conclude?

On the basis that even if several different dating methods are all wrong, they aren’t all going to be wrong in the same way.

–Mike

 

[edwest2]

The dating methods are suspect. They do not explain fossilized trees passing through many strata (polystrate trees).

Peace,
Ed