Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PickyPicky said:
Another occurrence of an anti-evolutionist quoting evolution research and somehow reading the wrong thing into it. And in this case stealing from poor old Buffalo — this is the research he kept posting time after time as though he’d found the smoking gun.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it;s a good one. Here is to remind the folks…

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution​

More evidence for IDvolution.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

I

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
PickyPicky:
Another occurrence of an anti-evolutionist quoting evolution research and somehow reading the wrong thing into it. And in this case stealing from poor old Buffalo — this is the research he kept posting time after time as though he’d found the smoking gun.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it;s a good one. Here is to remind the folks…

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution​

More evidence for IDvolution.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

I

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Click to expand...
If the title of the piece had been ‘gene survey reveals facets of creation’ then I could understand why you would have posted it. But if you are trying to deny evolution, then posting a link to an article written by evolutionary scientists whose whole work is based on the fact that it has happened and that actually says ‘gene survey reveals facets of EVOLUTION’ and specifically says that evolution has occured and which is based on the fact that the natural evolution of species is tue (thus answering the op) seems to have ended the discussion in favour of the op.

It’s like denying that the moon landings happened by quoting an article that says that they didn’t carry out as many experiments on the moon as they could have.

Edit: Good grief…you did it again!
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
If the title of the piece had been ‘gene survey reveals facets of creation’ then I could understand why you would have posted it. But if you are trying to deny evolution, then posting a link to an article written by evolutionary scientists whose whole work is based on the fact that it has happened and that actually says ‘gene survey reveals facets of EVOLUTION’ and specifically says that evolution has occured and which is based on the fact that the natural evolution of species is tue (thus answering the op) seems to have ended the discussion in favour of the op.

It’s like denying that the moon landings happened by quoting an article that says that they didn’t carry out as many experiments on the moon as they could have.
Click to expand...
They always tip their hat to evolution. They have to do this to keep their job and funding. These gems are surfacing in the “evo” literature cover and over now and why evo is losing its value as an explanation.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
If the title of the piece had been ‘gene survey reveals facets of creation’ then I could understand why you would have posted it. But if you are trying to deny evolution, then posting a link to an article written by evolutionary scientists whose whole work is based on the fact that it has happened and that actually says ‘gene survey reveals facets of EVOLUTION’ and specifically says that evolution has occured and which is based on the fact that the natural evolution of species is tue (thus answering the op) seems to have ended the discussion in favour of the op.

It’s like denying that the moon landings happened by quoting an article that says that they didn’t carry out as many experiments on the moon as they could have.
Click to expand...
They always tip their hat to evolution. They have to do this to keep their job and funding. These gems are surfacing in the “evo” literature cover and over now and why evo is losing its value as an explanation.
Click to expand...
Say what?

You have just linked to an article that, if we are to accept it - and I assume you posted it so that we would, and if you accept it - and I assume you do otherwise why post it, confirms that the natural evolution of species is true.

The whole article is based on it being true. It wouldn’t have been possible to propose what they did without it being true. It doesn’t propose something that calls into doubt evolution. It proposes something that is based on the fact that evolution is true.

Do you really not understand what you just did?
 
Wozza said:
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Click to expand...
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
 
edwest said:
Sure. Just have unnamed people call this or that part of the Bible “a story” and what happens to the Bible? Nothing good.
Click to expand...
Modernist exegesis undermines the authority of Scripture, which in turn undermines faith.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Click to expand...
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Click to expand...
Do you think that doubling down on this will change what you have done? Everything you are posting confirms evolution. Shouting it louder and more often ain’t going to change that. If you agree with the article then you have no choice than to accept evolution. It’s based on the natural evolution of species being true.

I look forward to further confirmation. Perhaps cut and paste it again in all caps for those with poor eyesight.
 
“Wozza said:
And now you virtually admit to not knowing what a theory is!
Click to expand...
So no one can say, “Your theory is wrong”? Surely this happens in science all the time. If enough evidence arises that contradicts a theory, then that theory is wrong and is abandoned - in effect, it is disproven.

Are you saying the theories of spontaneous generations and a flat earth were not proven wrong?

Perhaps you are arguing semantics.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
They have to do this to keep their job and funding.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s that calculated. Most people really believe in evolution and many evolutionists are atheists. It is considered a truth, the dogma, the order of things by which all findings are to be interpreted. Even when describing spiritual realities like beauty, the concept is translated into its psychological aspect and said to represent the physical health and fitness of the organism, as revealed by its symmetry and bright colours. No idea at all of what is beautiful. Truth likewise is what survives, the fittest explanation of a phenomenon, the newer the better. No recognition of what constitutes knowledge and understanding. That sort of thinking is automatic as a basic framework that allows individuals to survive and flourish in what is a competative user relationship with others.
 
Last edited:
“Edgar said:
Wozza said:
And now you virtually admit to not knowing what a theory is!
Click to expand...
So no one can say, “Your theory is wrong”? Surely this happens in science all the time. If enough evidence arises that contradicts a theory, then that theory is wrong and is abandoned - in effect, it is disproven.

Are you arguing semantics?
Click to expand...
Nope. I’m highlighting the fact that after thousands of posts you don’t understand basic facts about the topic. And I’m not going to correct anything you post - I’m going to let you continue so everyone else will realise it.
 
Wozza said:
Nope. I’m highlighting the fact that after thousands of posts you don’t understand basic facts about the topic. And I’m not going to correct anything you post - I’m going to let you continue so everyone else will realise it.
Click to expand...
Regardless, can anyone prove that the common ancestor of all life on earth is a microbe? Yes or no?
 
Wozza said:
Do you think that doubling down on this will change what you have done? Everything you are posting confirms evolution. Shouting it louder and more often ain’t going to change that. If you agree with the article then you have no choice than to accept evolution. It’s based on the natural evolution of species being true.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm… It seems you do not understand what the this means in context to so many other new findings that are coming out everyday. The top evos recognize this, you still do not. It takes time, but the day will come when even you concede.

‘Most scientists are blind to their own assumptions. They don’t even consider that there might be another explanation. For them, common descent is an automatic. It’s a given.’​

Loading…

wng.org
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
Wozza:
Nope. I’m highlighting the fact that after thousands of posts you don’t understand basic facts about the topic. And I’m not going to correct anything you post - I’m going to let you continue so everyone else will realise it.
Click to expand...
Regardless, can anyone prove that the common ancestor of all life on earth is a microbe? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
More evidence yet again. You should quit while you’re behind, Ed.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Do you think that doubling down on this will change what you have done? Everything you are posting confirms evolution. Shouting it louder and more often ain’t going to change that. If you agree with the article then you have no choice than to accept evolution. It’s based on the natural evolution of species being true.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm… It seems you do not understand what the this means in context to so many other new findings that are coming out everyday. The top evos recognize this, you still do not. It takes time, but the day will come when even you concede.

‘Most scientists are blind to their own assumptions. They don’t even consider that there might be another explanation. For them, common descent is an automatic. It’s a given.’​

Science vs. Darwinism | WORLD
Click to expand...
Yikes. A quote from someone from the DI. Colour me chastened. But seriously, what do you think of this article: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top