Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[AllieBaba]

Well since that was apparently irrelevant ill ask another question. Please refrain from yelling about how this doesnt prove speciation blah blah for one post. Just answer this question yes or no.

If two populations of the same type of animal become totally isolated from each other in different environments, would they diversify (or evolve, in the way you use it) differently? And possibly to the point where scientists might conclude that the different populations had diversified enough to be considered different sub-species?

No, I'm not going to play this stupid game. You keep making an untrue assertion. Instead of admitting that it's untrue, you muddy the water with these bizarre scenarios and "what if" and "consider that".

That's great for a discussion but is completely irrelevant to whether or not it has been PROVEN that speciation is the result of evolution. Quit saying that it has, you're lying when you say it.

If you want to ponder, go right ahead. I don't care. I don't have any answers and don't presume to. I just know that what YOU are saying is not true.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'll be back tomorrow, by then will I have proof that biologists think T-Rex was as likely to be a herbivore as a carnivore?

Time will tell .

 

[cbirch2]

Well since that was apparently irrelevant ill ask another question. Please refrain from yelling about how this doesnt prove speciation blah blah for one post. Just answer this question yes or no.

If two populations of the same type of animal become totally isolated from each other in different environments, would they diversify (or evolve, in the way you use it) differently? And possibly to the point where scientists might conclude that the different populations had diversified enough to be considered different sub-species?

No, I'm not going to play this stupid game. You keep making an untrue assertion. Instead of admitting that it's untrue, you muddy the water with these bizarre scenarios and "what if" and "consider that".

That's great for a discussion but is completely irrelevant to whether or not it has been PROVEN that speciation is the result of evolution. Quit saying that it has, you're lying when you say it.

If you want to ponder, go right ahead. I don't care. I don't have any answers and don't presume to. I just know that what YOU are saying is not true.

What are you talking about? Your ruling out every legitimate question because your fucking insane. Fine, ill ask the simplest question of all.

What in your mind could i provide as proof of speciation?

 

[cbirch2]

another red herring.

This is what you do. Instead of this weird shit, why don't you just provide the EVIDENCE that speciation is a result of evolution?

Or admit it doesn't exist, and leave off the ridiculous assertion that it has been PROVEN BEYOND ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER, NOBODY IN THE FIELDS OF SCIENCE, BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS, OR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WITH ANY EDUCATION EVER HAS OR EVER WILL QUESTION IT!!

Lol nothing that could happen in the future can be evidence to you and nothing that did happen in the past is evidence. Therefore you asking me to provide evidence of evolution within the present time frame. That just shows you dont understand what evolution is.

 

[cbirch2]

I dont understand why you wont let me walk you through the process of speciation step by step. Because you know i would prove you wrong.

 

[cbirch2]

Allie, does speciation have to be within animals?

Speciation within plants happens at a much faster pace and has certainly been seen even within a few years.

If you define speciation as one species separating into two species unable to interbreed, then speciation among plants has been observed many times.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What math? i dont think you get what i said. I might have had a typo as well. There is no difference in information between the human and chimpanzee genome. Theres minor differences, but in terms of total information they are almost exactly the same. Your 5% figure is pulled from your ass, they both have 2.9 billion base pairs in their DNA. Just because two of those segments of base pairs joined together doesnt mean there is actually less information, it means the same amount of information is contained within a smaller number of chromosomes.

At least allie knows what hes talking about now. Your still confused.

WHICH IS IT? There is NO difference, or there is SOME difference???

You see, when you can't make a coherent statement even at this level, you've got a problem.

Dude you really cant get it. YWC said humans had 5% more information than chimps did. I said thats wrong. Of course we have some more/different information, but in terms of raw base pairs the amount of information they contain is nearly identical to ours.

Dont you get this?

Sorry, but that is not what I said. I said the difference between human and chimp dna is 5% I didn't say one has more then the other. If one had more sms I would say the one with more chromosomes would have more information. So if you take the 3 billion base pairs of dna and 5% of the 3 billion would be 150 million base pairs in difference that would take a lot of mutations.considering there are only 60 mutations a generation the numbers go against your theory.

 

[Gadawg73]

It is obvious this poster wouldn't pass a college exam in genetics, biology, or even biochemistry. A refusal to accept and understand the scientific method of establishment of fact has completely alluded this person.

Humans are descended from chimpanzees, this is a well-established fact of science, no longer open to speculation, confirmed by DNA human and chimpanzee genome sequencing within the last 20 years. The signature alleles confirm ONLY EVOLUTION can explain the similarities and common origin of the two species. Anyone who wishes to work in this particular area of science cannot work here without such a basic undergraduate understanding of these facts. Refusal to accept them as facts would mean that any candidate for such a field of work fails to understand the basic fundamentals of the scientific methods and disciplines. Simple as that.

Religious affiliation makes no difference, either people are trained to understand and use the scientific methods or they are untrained.

Even Francis Sellers Collins would agree with this, or he wouldn't be working in the field.

Why some people refuse to accept all of the scientific method, and choose, instead, to reject parts which threaten their religious beliefs confounds me with nothing more than pity for their short-sightedness.

We ain't so kind down here.
We call folks like her dumbasses.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have a pretty simple question for Allie or YWC. Do you think theres any way to determine the age of any fossil, at all?

Like is there any way to determine if a dinosaur fossil is older than a human fossil?

They are using a new dating method I here but I don't trust any of the dating methods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Some do believe this because the mutation rate I posted earlier.

 

[AllieBaba]

I dont understand why you wont let me walk you through the process of speciation step by step. Because you know i would prove you wrong.

No, because you refuse to be honest at the most basic level. You deny your own contradictions, that's dishonest, and you lie about what is proven..also dishonest. Until you figure it out and can carry on an appropriate and intelligent discussion, we'll never get past this point right here.

I got an A in critical thinking, too.

Yes, it was university of Phoenix, lol..but it's still accredited.

Here...just so you can educate yourself as well:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/158255-logical-fallacies.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

Allie, does speciation have to be within animals?

Speciation within plants happens at a much faster pace and has certainly been seen even within a few years.

If you define speciation as one species separating into two species unable to interbreed, then speciation among plants has been observed many times.

TRUE! We can also design and carry-out speciation in laboratories with bacteria, and several other non-plant forms, as well as with plant crops like corn etc.

The natural speciation process happens in hundreds of varieties of life forms during the average human lifetime. We also can observe extinction of species each year, and descendants of extinct species continuing on.

do you people even know what you're describing ? I'll let you to pretend to answer the question and then I'll answer it correctly.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have a pretty simple question for Allie or YWC. Do you think theres any way to determine the age of any fossil, at all?

Like is there any way to determine if a dinosaur fossil is older than a human fossil?

They are using a new dating method I here but I don't trust any of the dating methods.

Would you not "trust" radiation therapy if you had Cancer? It's the same principle of applied science. Radioactivity in all it's forms follows certain constant rules, as does the speed of light and the nature of radio waves, ("thermo-luminescence"). I suppose disbelievers in radiocarbon, thermo-luminescence, and alternative physical dating techniques never will submit to Cancer treatment, nor use a cell phone, radio, television, either, because the same scientific principles apply.

Please say you don't teach American children.

Please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have a pretty simple question for Allie or YWC. Do you think theres any way to determine the age of any fossil, at all?

Like is there any way to determine if a dinosaur fossil is older than a human fossil?

They are using a new dating method I here but I don't trust any of the dating methods.

Would you not "trust" radiation therapy if you had Cancer? It's the same principle of applied science. Radioactivity in all it's forms follows certain constant rules, as does the speed of light and the nature of radio waves, ("thermo-luminescence"). I suppose disbelievers in radiocarbon, thermo-luminescence, and alternative physical dating techniques never will submit to Cancer treatment, nor use a cell phone, radio, television, either, because the same scientific principles apply.

Come on now let's be realistic,you are not one of these youngsters.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I dont understand why you wont let me walk you through the process of speciation step by step. Because you know i would prove you wrong.

No, because you refuse to be honest at the most basic level. You deny your own contradictions, that's dishonest, and you lie about what is proven..also dishonest. Until you figure it out and can carry on an appropriate and intelligent discussion, we'll never get past this point right here.

I got an A in critical thinking, too.

Yes, it was university of Phoenix, lol..but it's still accredited.

Here...just so you can educate yourself as well:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/158255-logical-fallacies.html

Speciation is one of the major phenomena in the process of evolution. Final answer.
Choose to believe or disbelieve. There is no reason whatsoever to pick and choose what items in science one part or another to accept, while rejecting the rest of the entire spectrum of modern science. Science is science, adhering to clear and strict principles and laws, requiring empirical or deductive conclusions based upon facts.

Leaving out or denial of major parts of the scientific base of knowledge denotes a LACK of ability to engage in mature analytical thought. Final answer

Science is science. Religion is religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Come on now let's be realistic,you are not one of these youngsters.

My age is irrelevant. Science is still science, and follows the same principles and laws whether it is dating techniques, or treating a Cancer. It's not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose what you want to "believe" in.

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My age is irrelevant. Science is still science, and follows the same principles and laws whether it is dating techniques, or treating a Cancer. It's not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose what you want to "believe" in.

Speculating is Like betting on a horse to win a race. Speculation is what supports your theory and that is not real science. It's absurd to compare observable proven science with so called science based on maybe,could be,possibly.

Then you misunderstand or have been mis-educated, or misread what exactly science is.
Science is NOT "speculating"! If you fail to understand what constitutes science (as opposed to what you IMAGINE science to be), you missed the train when it pulled out of the station, the boat when it left the pier, and the plane when it took off, all three of which operate upon scientific principles, not speculation. I honestly do NOT know how someone could get the mistaken idea that ANY part of science is "speculation". Again, final answer, Speculation is NOT science, speculation is GUESSING.

You have also failed to grasp the meaning of "theory" in scientific scholarship, and confused it with the words "hypothesis" or "speculation", neither of which mean anything like what the word "theory" means in science.

Confusion of all those terms, using one in place of another, to me, looks like someone has never studied science at all.

Oh boy , I understand a theory can never be proven or so they say but when you spout a speculation as fact its not science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and I understand to our presuppositions are not facts but they can become fact. If they can't then why would we trust the very things you brought up earlier ?

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh. My. God.

Again.

Apples. Oranges. Irrelevancies. Fiction.

that's what we get from our latest idiot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh boy , I understand a theory can never be proven or so they say but when you spout a speculation as fact its not science.

No you misuse the English language, and make broad generalizations that have no basis in fact.

I COULD easily conclude from your statement that you never attended and passed a basic science course in an American (or Canadian or English or Australian) high school.

Newton's "THEORY" of gravitation? Care to say that THAT "Theory" cannot be proved?
Atomic theory? thermodynamic theory?

And as to your broad and imprecise accusation, just WHEN AND WHERE did I "spout a speculation"as fact? That has NEVER happened in my entire scientific career. But hey, your language and accusation invites this next observation, a fact.

You, sir or madam, are absolutely illiterate in science and it shows in your lack of precision in language and misuse of scientific terminology, and your fuzzy illogical thought processes.

Well i guess you told me.