Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Maybe it's time for one of you to give your explanation to how macroevolution happened and present documented evidence to support it.

 

[LOki]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Maybe it's time for one of you to give your explanation to how macroevolution happened and present documented evidence to support it.

It's been done for you repeatedly, you obtuse water park doot-surprise.

So why don't you (finally) level the fuck up?

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe it's time for one of you to give your explanation to how macroevolution happened and present documented evidence to support it.

I have a question YWC. You have said before that you believe the Earth to be only thousands of years old, if I recall correctly you gave 13,000 as the maximum number. Do you think this belief has an effect on your contention that evolution cannot be the explanation for the diversity of life? After all, if the Earth is that young, then evolution would not explain things as it is understood now.

I guess another way to put it would be do you think that, if the Earth and life on it are around for another couple of hundred million years, that the many changes that will occur due to micro-evolution could eventually lead to macro-evolution?

If you do not, do you have a reason or mechanism for why that cannot occur?

 

[daws101]

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

 

[koshergrl]

Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God cannot doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.

Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

I think I'll just ask you to back that up and name names. Who thinks science is the work of the devil?

 

[koshergrl]

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Well it is certainly true that you won't find believers who accept your belief based on the premise that your theory is just "better", as Dragon uses to "verify" his statements.

I haven't seen YWC deny one bit of true science. When it comes to jumping to conclusions, thanks, I don't accept your word for it either, or agree with your conclusions. We're able to draw our own, and they're every bit as valid as yours.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding.

You have still presented nothing to uphold this rather extraordinary claim. You don't even seem to understand that it IS extraordinary.

Sure I do,but I am not certain on this theory but it is a better theory then you present. I also believe every species could have been created as they are and very little cross breeding took place.

So God created lions and tigers as they are,And every other species as they are. And he gave every organism the ability to adapt to their enviornment and the ones that could not adapt as the enviornment changed went extinct.

One problem for my theory is all organisms seem to stay with their own kind.

Only a few species cross breed or just simply breed anims of their kind.

Dogs,horses,cattle are not so picky are they ?

But when we move to the wild they are picky..

 

[Youwerecreated]

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?
lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES



Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.

The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name


Father
Mother
Offspring

Donkey (jack)
Horse (mare)
Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)

Horse
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Hinny

Zebra
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)

Zebra
Horse
Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule

Zebra
Pony
Zony

Zebra
Shetland Pony
Zetland

Donkey (jack)
Zebra
Zebret

Horse
Zebra
Hebra

PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)

In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."

In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.

Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: “I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, N’schigo, M’bouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc”. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".

Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the “Kulu-Kamba” and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla

the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
not because we were created as separate life forms.

No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.

Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.

House is wrong.

But I'll let you tell him that.

The blind following the blind.

 

[LOki]

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, ...

Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.

...but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?

and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.

Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.

House is wrong.

But I'll let you tell him that.

The blind following the blind.

But not superstitious retards following retarded superstitions.

 

[Dragon]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

That's easily answered, but I need to pin you down on something first. Please define "new features."

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, ...

Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.

...but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?

and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one this is what your theory requires. Without this evidence you're going by faith.

Remember us speaking of gradualism which is what all evolutnist predicted and is believed. The cambrian explosion disproves gradualism because so many complex organisms just suddenly appeared in the fossil record. That is a major problem for evolutionist.

The cambrian explosion showed that gradual change did not happen . the fossil record shows basic phyla emerged and stayed basically the same showing some variations within the same phylum.

There is no evidence of phyla gradually changing into something new.

Darwin worked under the belief that cells were not complex well we know that was hogwash. Cells are very complex,and cells have to appear fully formed or they would be useless.

certain organelles that are necessary for cellular life cannot be formed in gradual steps. The whole organelle must appear fully formed or the cell will not work. some organelles are not just harmful but deadly to the cell if formed in gradual steps.

Why is this a problem that cellular life does not conform to evolution ? Is it not how animals supposedly evolved ? because cells are the building blocks to life.

If cellular life is not in harmony with evolution the theory is dead on arrival.

Evolutionist depend on genetic mutations to account for changes in species. Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.

I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.

"Mutations are supposed to provide the raw material for evolution,they can only do this if they benefit the organism, and mutations in developmental genes are always harmful. In fact, the only DNA mutations that are known to be benficial are those that affect immediate interactions between a mutant protein and other molecules. Such mutations can confer antibiotic and insecticide resistance, but they can never lead to the sorts of changes that could account for evolution. DNA mutations cannot even change the species of an animal, much less change a fish into an amphibian or a dinosaur into a bird".

 

[Youwerecreated]

House is wrong.

But I'll let you tell him that.

The blind following the blind.

But not superstitious retards following retarded superstitions.

Thank you for admitting to being blind I have never admitted to being a retard.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

That's easily answered, but I need to pin you down on something first. Please define "new features."

New feature through new information, body parts, but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.

 

[Dragon]

New feature through new information body parts but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.

You haven't clarified yourself at all here.

Let me offer a definition and you OK it before we proceed. A "new feature" is a structure or a function of an existing structure that did not exist before. An example of a new structure would be if a dog developed a prehensile tail. An example of a new function would be if offspring were born with at least partial immunity to a disease.

OK this definition and I'll present you with some examples.

 

[Youwerecreated]

New feature through new information body parts but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.

You haven't clarified yourself at all here.

Let me offer a definition and you OK it before we proceed. A "new feature" is a structure or a function of an existing structure that did not exist before. An example of a new structure would be if a dog developed a prehensile tail. An example of a new function would be if offspring were born with at least partial immunity to a disease.

OK this definition and I'll present you with some examples.

Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.

 

[Dragon]

Look at my post to Loki I made it clear.

I'm afraid not. Do you accept the definition I posted above?

 

[Youwerecreated]

New feature through new information body parts but it has to be new information that benefits the organism lets stay within the Neo Darwinist paradigm.

You haven't clarified yourself at all here.

Let me offer a definition and you OK it before we proceed. A "new feature" is a structure or a function of an existing structure that did not exist before. An example of a new structure would be if a dog developed a prehensile tail. An example of a new function would be if offspring were born with at least partial immunity to a disease.

OK this definition and I'll present you with some examples.

How would a mutation that helped with antibiotic resistence show it can change a feature and eventually change it into a new creature ?

Don't you get it,everything has the ability to adapt to their enviornment and if it can't it is eliminated through natural selection.

You have to show how creatures change in to a new creature not that a mutation can help with adapting. And you know these kind of beneficial mutations are really rare.