According to science, how does a new species develop?

[james bond]

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. .

You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:

By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?

This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources? He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.

Small potatoes?

You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.

He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.

Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?

Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.

Here- I did your homework for you

Wegener, Alfred

You should have linked your sources when you posted. My question to you is how did Wegener get 300 millions years?

Your link has:
"By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions."

Give me your answer. Your answer should help explain the age difference.

I didn't ignore HIS science, but Lyell's and Darwin's long ages. Have you not been listening to catastrophism of things happening very fast for the earth's geology? Have you not been listening to fossils represents where animals died? That's the creation science and it has been systematically ignored by Darwin's and Lyell's long ages.
.

There's really no relationship between the two timelines, so creation scientists can't explain the difference. The only way I see is to use what evos use to get their timeline.

 

[james bond]

I found a creationist museum that found plumbing fixtures from 300 million years ago .

Press Release: Manmade Artifacts in “300 Million Year Old” Strata!

Here's a real large ammonite for sale.

14" x 18"

They even explain how to mold old fossils.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I found a creationist museum that found plumbing fixtures from 300 million years ago .

Press Release: Manmade Artifacts in “300 Million Year Old” Strata!

Here's a real large ammonite for sale.

14" x 18"

They even explain how to mold old fossils.

Haha, what a bunch of fake bullshit. You believe that nonsense? Hahahahaha....oh man....

 

[LittleNipper]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never heard of Cana. Where is that at? Also it wasnt dust. It was humus (human?). A kind of natural fertilizer.

Cana is in Israel. Have you ever seen an Egyptian mummy? It's dust.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.

 

[harmonica]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.

ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?

 

[Syriusly]

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. .

You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:

By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?

This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources? He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.

Small potatoes?

You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.

He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.

Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?

Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.

Here- I did your homework for you

Wegener, Alfred

You should have linked your sources when you posted. My question to you is how did Wegener get 300 millions years?

Your link has:
"By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions."

Give me your answer. Your answer should help explain the age difference..

LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.

 

[Syriusly]

I found a creationist museum that found plumbing fixtures from 300 million years ago .

Press Release: Manmade Artifacts in “300 Million Year Old” Strata!

Here's a real large ammonite for sale.

14" x 18"

They even explain how to mold old fossils.

LOL- you know the difference between a Bible museum and a Creationist museum?

The Bible museum is honest.

 

[Syriusly]

No- I asked you to explain how Christianist Flood theories account for how Kangaroos are in Australia- and only Australia(except for a tree kangaroo in New Guinea) and Rheas are in South America and only South America.

I will be glad to share the scientific reason- after you provide your Christianist 'theory

The creation scientist geologist Alfred Wegener who came up with a supercontinet explained already. .

You mean this real scientist? Alfred Wegener:

By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions.

So your 'Creation Scientist' tells you that earth is at least 300 million years old.

Do you believe your own 'Creation scientist'?

This is just small potatoes and why don't you post links to your sources? He had to use millions of years in order to fit it into Darwin's dumbass chronolgy of millions of years or else it would have been ignored.

Small potatoes?

You said he was a 'Creation scientist' yet he specifically says that the earth is over 200 million years old.

He specifically refutes what you have said about the formation of the earth.

Why do you cite him- and ignore his science?

Oh wait- you are an anti-evolution Christianist.

Here- I did your homework for you

Wegener, Alfred

You should have linked your sources when you posted. My question to you is how did Wegener get 300 millions years?

Your link has:
"By his third edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evidence that some 300 million years ago all the continents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands), and said it began to break up about 200 million years ago, when the continents started moving to their current positions."

Give me your answer. Your answer should help explain the age difference.

I didn't ignore HIS science, but Lyell's and Darwin's long ages. Have you not been listening to catastrophism of things happening very fast for the earth's geology? Have you not been listening to fossils represents where animals died? That's the creation science and it has been systematically ignored by Darwin's and Lyell's long ages.
.

There's really no relationship between the two timelines, so creation scientists can't explain the difference. The only way I see is to use what evos use to get their timeline.

There is no relationship between the Christianist time line- and reality.

Yes- scientists ignore fairy tales posing as science.

 

[james bond]

LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.

I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him. How else is he going to explain when creation got cast to the side of the road after Darwin's ToE ? The Origin of Species book made Darwin rich. Lyell's book before that was successful, too; His family was rich already. Darwin's book was such a monumental breakthrough and I think people believed and accepted it because of racism. Origin of Species may not have been outwardly racist, but it immediately prompted racist ideas. Darwin's second book The Descent of Man was racist building upon what happened after his hit book. In Darwin's time all of these scientists believed the pseudoscience racism and Darwin's ToE explained how blacks in Africa evolved from apes. Racism made Darwin legit and rich. Later, radiometric dating by Clair Patterson gave the time Darwin's theory craved in 1956.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.

I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..

Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?

Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?

Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.

So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.

The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.

Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.

Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.

LOL

 

[james bond]

LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.

I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..

Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?

Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?

Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.

So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.

The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.

Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.

Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.

LOL

I just discovered that you know nothing about how a layer is 300 million years old circa 1915 since you can't answer how Wegener came up with 300 million years. As I pointed out radiometric dating wasn't around then.

Second, you are an ignoramus to ignore how science influences politics. The racism led to social Darwinish, colonialism and the new imperialism. It led to Hitler's rise in power. This explains why Wegener was using 300 million years.

Instead, you want to change the argument to young earth vs evolution. We'll get there in due time, but I want to see you squirm in explaining how Wegener came up with 300 million years old strata in 1915. To make it easier for you, how did anyone come up with a 300 million year old layer and other layers in 1915? In other words, how did Darwin come up with millions of years layers ?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.

I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..

Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?

Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?

Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.

So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.

The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.

Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.

Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.

LOL

I just discovered that you know nothing about how a layer is 300 million years old circa 1915 since you can't answer how Wegener came up with 300 million years. As I pointed out radiometric dating wasn't around then.?

LOL what we keep discovering is that you both claim that Wegener is a 'Creationist Scientist' yet want to ignore his own words when he discusses that continental drift is at least 200 million years in the making.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- I didn't bring Wegener up- you did.

You claimed that Wegener was a 'Creationist Scientist'- and somehow believed he supported you Christianist cause.

So I looked into Wegener and found that Wegener was claiming that the earth was at least 300 million years old- not 6,000 years as you claim.

And that his time table for continental drift was 200 million years- not some 5,000 years as you Christianists claim.

I don't have to explain Wegener's reasoning- I am just using your own citation against you.

If you want to now say that your 'Creationist Scientist' is wrong- go for it.

But he doesn't support the fairy tale creation story of the Bible.

I know I brought Wegener up, but let's look at what happened in the 19th century with Lyell and Darwin before him..

Why should I care about what happened in the 19th century when it comes to today's science of evolution?

Are you now conceding that Wegener was a scientist whose ideas compliment the theory of evolution- or are you still going to keep claiming that Wegener was a 'Creationist scientist'?

Because if its the latter- we still have lots to talk about Wegener.

So Wegener's plate tectonic theories postulate a super continent that over 200 million years broke up into super continents- which led to isolation of species which evolved to fill in the available niches within the environment.

The Christianist 'theory' as best as I can tell- since it is as slippery as soap- is that after all life poofed into existence about 6,000 years ago there was a flood about 4,400 years ago that covered Mt. Everest and killed everything but what was on Noah's Ark- and then all of those species(every specie still left on Earth) left Mt. Ararat- and managed to reach every part of the Biblical supercontinent moments before the continents starting sprinting away from each other at a mile per year- or to believe the cataclism stories- maybe dozens or hundreds of miles a year- more like frisbees than continental drift.

Kangaroos ended up on Australia under the Christianist theory because the pair of Kangaroos hopped there from Mt. Ararat before they starting having little kangaroos.

Oddly enough- virtually all of the marsupials went with the kangaroos- the koala's and wombats, the tasmanian devil and wallaby- they all went in a big caravan there and left no descendents in India or Malaysia- and got to Australia moments before the continent was flung off of the supercontinent.

LOL

We'll get there in due time, but I want to see you squirm in explaining how Wegener came up with 300 million years old strata in 1915.

I wasn't the person citing Wegener as a 'Creation Scientist'.

I am just quoting him to show your claims about him are debunked.

 

[Syriusly]

Still waiting for the fascinating discussion about how virtually all marsupials ended up in Australia- but nowhere else- all after they hopped and crawled all the way from Mt. Ararat to Australia

 

[LittleNipper]

Adam was created by GOD from the dust of the ground and GOD breathed into his nostrils and made man a living soul a little less than the angels which GOD had previously created.

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.

ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?

It happened in one day --- day 6.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but is that all the detail you can give??
so from dust a fully formed human came to be....dust to human.....?

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.

ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?

It happened in one day --- day 6.

Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.

 

[LittleNipper]

Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana. Jesus' first recorded miracle. Why wouldn't GOD turn dust into a man who then died and returned to the dust from which he came!!!!!!!!!!!!

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.

ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?

It happened in one day --- day 6.

Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.

What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.

 

[Syriusly]

dust into a fully formed, working human
and you people claim a single cell being created is impossible??!!

I never said GOD didn't create a single celled organism. GOD certainly created ameba kind.

ok-- but from dust to a fully formed human --this is possible but evolution is not?
can you be/do you want to be more specific on the timeline from dust to human being?

It happened in one day --- day 6.

Clearly that is not just wrong, but embarrassingly stupid, in light of all the evidence.

What evidence are you speaking of ---- the creation of life in a test tube, or the development of a new species from one already existing (say fruit flies into some new species that is not a fruit fly). Don't worry, I will not try to embarass you, just show me something scientifically real and not conjecture.

I have posted this same article now 9 times in this thread.

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

Spend a few bucks and spit in a tube for 23&Me. The result will explain how much Neanderthal DNA you have.

[that is not an insult. I'm serious, many normal human beings you know will have some Neanderthal DNA, and you might have some too].