Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your faith is strong, grasshopper.
I don't see what doesn't exist in this instance. You laugh at us for having faith that God exists, despite having no tangible evidence. At least we admit we base that on our faith. There's no evidence that evolution is responsible for speciation...but you pretend that there is.
That's just dishonest. Your faith is just as strong as mine, only yours is misplaced...and you deny it.
I'm pretty sure that Allie person has me on ignore, since she ignores all my posts and links.
She also refuses to answer my questions. Maybe someone can ask her for one peer reviewed scientific article to back up her claim that there is "NO EVIDENCE" for evolution being responsible for speciation. I just spent the previous post explaining evolutionary biological terms for various forms of speciation, and she ignores it.
Ignorance is bliss.
Is "proven with the human eye" a scientific term?
Idiot.
"Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution
1.) Never said it was proven with the human eye, I said speciation is observable.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Bullet point 5 will provide you with a dozen or so instances of observable speciation.
2.) No I'm not saying different species looking alike is proof, that's one of the voices in your head for which I can't be held accountable to.
3.) The above link provides proof of that as well.
I based my statement about them looking alike on YOUR statement that "there is proof that you can see with your eyes".
Not a voice in my head at all.
How strange that the leaders in science don't say there's PROOF..but I'm sure you know better.
Yeah I'd like to see a secular university, public or private, who didn't include macroevolution in its teaching of evolution.
Do you not understand English?
When did I ever deny that evolution takes place w/in a species?
And is this a scientific argument for the validity of the Theory of Evolution?
Because you two have drifted into 6th grade lala land.
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Don't worry I'll accept your apology for insulting me based off YOUR ignorance of what macroevolution means. Macroevolution, an enormous part of evolution, is exactly what you and YWC have spent so much effort desperately trying to deny all these thousands of posts.
I think that's a good challenge, find a secular university, public or private, that doesn't include macroevolution in their evolution curriculum.
I've provided lists of scientists, including molecular biologists, geneticists, biologists, who question the veracity of Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution, and those lists include the top genetecists and minds in the world. Including members of the team that worked on the HGP.
I don't care if you want more lists. Quit pretending the ones I've provided don't exist, and quit pretending the Theory of Evolution has been PROVEN, and we'll talk. Until then, you're just a lying idealogue, no different than the rest of the anti-science evolution zealots.
Can you provide us with ONE SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED published article in a respected international scientific journal that "question(s) the veracity of Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution"? Several of the links so far provided by the "creationist" folks here are NOT scientific papers, but rather religious publications or opinion pieces written by non-scientists.
The man who is the subject matter of this thread, Dr Collins does NOT question evolution !!!!
Solving crimes through DNA is an argument against macro evolutionist. Let me tell you why,because that show an individuals dna is his own,evolutionist we evolved because we all have similar dna. That argument was presented to me yesterday because the similarity in the eukaryote's .I think it's rather weird, actually, that anyone would spend their time and energy posting hundreds if not thousands of posts that foolishly and illogically ATTEMPT to defy basic laws and basic facts of science; preferring, instead to randomly pick and choose what scientific facts that person believes:
gravity is fine,
chemistry is fine,
biochemistry is fine,
even DNA is fine, but
Don't use DNA to "PROVE" the lineage of human beings from non-human ape forms.
That's just going TOO TOO FAR!!!!
Well, I think we know the bottom line on this kind of motivation...it has to do with their own personal identity as a human being, feeling very threatened by the very concept that apes and humans are somehow rather closely related. When the facts get THAT CLOSE to their own sense of identity, the threat that, a few million years ago, 97% of the DNA in their body was in the body of an ape???? UNACCEPTABLE !!! Christians cannot fathom a million years, let alone the now proved DNA ancestry of homo sapiens. That just blows their gasket ! They HAVE to fight against THAT kind of solid established science messing up their Biblical message board.
You see the same thing in the same-sex marriage debate. Some say it would effect their heterosexual marriage, but NEVER tell us exactly how. Here they cheer when CSI makes a bust using DNA to catch a bad guy, but refuse to accept its implications regarding the anscestry of Man.
Actually as I said earlier,you needed your terms to show speciation. The terms is what you need to define so called new species.After thousands of posts, you're finally admitting to being an evolution denier.
I've been honest all along and stated straight up I don't believe evolution leads to speciation.
As of today, nobody on the face of the earth (and certainly not you retards) has proven it does.
Actually, there are hundreds of "proofs" of speication in the evolutionary sciences. Simply because some people like yourself will choose to ignore them or worse, not comprehend enough of the science does NOT mean that the proofs are not out there for all to see, observe, measure, study, and research further.
The evidence for speciation was limited to fossil remains and laboratory experiments up until the discovery of DNA, and the sequencing of the human genome. That discovery and sequencing, along with sequencing of everything from corn plants to apes opened up the flood gate of proof, beyond any reasonable person's ability to deny the evidence any longer. Simply turning one's back to the facts doesn't make them go away.
Do you not understand English?
When did I ever deny that evolution takes place w/in a species?
And is this a scientific argument for the validity of the Theory of Evolution?
Because you two have drifted into 6th grade lala land.
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Don't worry I'll accept your apology for insulting me based off YOUR ignorance of what macroevolution means. Macroevolution, an enormous part of evolution, is exactly what you and YWC have spent so much effort desperately trying to deny all these thousands of posts.
I think that's a good challenge, find a secular university, public or private, that doesn't include macroevolution in their evolution curriculum.
This is deflection. I have said earlier they use their terms to support the theory of evolution. It has never been observed and it just causes confusion to create terms with no basis to it and that is their support for the theory. I am gonna go through some things that have not been addressed by the evolutuionist,either because they don't have an answer or they know i presented a good argument.
1. Can someone properly define what above the species level means ? is there a species above the species level ? does this make any sense ?
2. The mutation rate; i have clearly shown that harmful and neutral mutations greatly out number beneficial mutations. I presented an article that showed by using evolutionist numbers the impossibilty of producing enough beneficial mutations that would result in macro-evolution. I clearly shown that through a microscopic means the major differences between humans and chimps. You need further evidence just look at the outward appearance of both.
3.Again,i pointed out plenty of evidence that many cultures from around the world depicted dinosaurs in their art. They accurately rendered drawings of dinosaurs never viewd by man according to the theory of evolutionist. These artifacts are much older then the first fossil find. This is evidence that shatters the theory. It blows the timelime and it shows that fossils are not as old as you say. and really has anybody seen how little bones they use to recreate some of the beast never seen by man.
Anyways, signig off have a great weekened everybody. I do hope someone can attempt a coherent viable method and aswer to these problems.
Is "proven with the human eye" a scientific term?
Idiot.
Do you not know how to quote? Oh and get back under your rock.
Can you provide us with ONE SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED published article in a respected international scientific journal that "question(s) the veracity of Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution"? Several of the links so far provided by the "creationist" folks here are NOT scientific papers, but rather religious publications or opinion pieces written by non-scientists.
The man who is the subject matter of this thread, Dr Collins does NOT question evolution !!!!
Neither do we,except the macro evolution with the engine being mutations. How many times does it have to be said. And you need to ask the genetics in question if he believes in macro evolution I don't for sure. I assure a day will come when evolutionist invest in a new theory to replace neo darwinism.
So all 5000 species of mammals have been here since the beginning of the Earth? All 10,000 species of birds?
What is YOUR definition of macro-evolution? Of Speciation? Do you use the "scientific" definition of those terms or something you read in religious books?
Your response did NOT answer the challenge of providing ONE SINGLE PEER REVIEWED article in a respected international science journal.
The challenge is still out there. So far, the non-macro-evolutionaries here are scoring zero in their offer of PROOF that Macro-evolution doesn't exist.
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Don't worry I'll accept your apology for insulting me based off YOUR ignorance of what macroevolution means. Macroevolution, an enormous part of evolution, is exactly what you and YWC have spent so much effort desperately trying to deny all these thousands of posts.
I think that's a good challenge, find a secular university, public or private, that doesn't include macroevolution in their evolution curriculum.
This is deflection. I have said earlier they use their terms to support the theory of evolution. It has never been observed and it just causes confusion to create terms with no basis to it and that is their support for the theory. I am gonna go through some things that have not been addressed by the evolutuionist,either because they don't have an answer or they know i presented a good argument.
1. Can someone properly define what above the species level means ? is there a species above the species level ? does this make any sense ?
2. The mutation rate; i have clearly shown that harmful and neutral mutations greatly out number beneficial mutations. I presented an article that showed by using evolutionist numbers the impossibilty of producing enough beneficial mutations that would result in macro-evolution. I clearly shown that through a microscopic means the major differences between humans and chimps. You need further evidence just look at the outward appearance of both.
3.Again,i pointed out plenty of evidence that many cultures from around the world depicted dinosaurs in their art. They accurately rendered drawings of dinosaurs never viewd by man according to the theory of evolutionist. These artifacts are much older then the first fossil find. This is evidence that shatters the theory. It blows the timelime and it shows that fossils are not as old as you say. and really has anybody seen how little bones they use to recreate some of the beast never seen by man.
Anyways, signig off have a great weekened everybody. I do hope someone can attempt a coherent viable method and aswer to these problems.
1. Zooming out on the tree of life and viewing all of a given organisms descendants instead of looking at just one individual.
2. You do not understand how a beneficial mutation functions so therefore this line is null.
3.
Wow, a lot more spaceships and spacemen than dinosaurs..... When you say cave art, you are referring to art. An artist can create whatever his imagination will allow. In every monster movie ever created the "monster makers" created monsters that never existed. #3 is a fail.
Actually as I said earlier,you needed your terms to show speciation. The terms is what you need to define so called new species.
Actually, that term speciation rather easy to define. It has been defined on this very thread several days ago.
Simply stated, the process of speciation is the evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. Each species is genetically distinct, and cannot interbreed with the other species.
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.
Don't worry I'll accept your apology for insulting me based off YOUR ignorance of what macroevolution means. Macroevolution, an enormous part of evolution, is exactly what you and YWC have spent so much effort desperately trying to deny all these thousands of posts.
I think that's a good challenge, find a secular university, public or private, that doesn't include macroevolution in their evolution curriculum.
This is deflection. I have said earlier they use their terms to support the theory of evolution. It has never been observed and it just causes confusion to create terms with no basis to it and that is their support for the theory. I am gonna go through some things that have not been addressed by the evolutuionist,either because they don't have an answer or they know i presented a good argument.
1. Can someone properly define what above the species level means ? is there a species above the species level ? does this make any sense ?
2. The mutation rate; i have clearly shown that harmful and neutral mutations greatly out number beneficial mutations. I presented an article that showed by using evolutionist numbers the impossibilty of producing enough beneficial mutations that would result in macro-evolution. I clearly shown that through a microscopic means the major differences between humans and chimps. You need further evidence just look at the outward appearance of both.
3.Again,i pointed out plenty of evidence that many cultures from around the world depicted dinosaurs in their art. They accurately rendered drawings of dinosaurs never viewd by man according to the theory of evolutionist. These artifacts are much older then the first fossil find. This is evidence that shatters the theory. It blows the timelime and it shows that fossils are not as old as you say. and really has anybody seen how little bones they use to recreate some of the beast never seen by man.
Anyways, signig off have a great weekened everybody. I do hope someone can attempt a coherent viable method and aswer to these problems.
1. Zooming out on the tree of life and viewing all of a given organisms descendants instead of looking at just one individual.
2. You do not understand how a beneficial mutation functions so therefore this line is null.
3.
Wow, a lot more spaceships and spacemen than dinosaurs..... When you say cave art, you are referring to art. An artist can create whatever his imagination will allow. In every monster movie ever created the "monster makers" created monsters that never existed. #3 is a fail.
............I am gonna go through some things that have not been addressed by the evolutuionist,either because they don't have an answer or they know i presented a good argument.
1. Can someone properly define what above the species level means ? is there a species above the species level ? does this make any sense ?
2. The mutation rate; i have clearly shown that harmful and neutral mutations greatly out number beneficial mutations. I presented an article that showed by using evolutionist numbers the impossibilty of producing enough beneficial mutations that would result in macro-evolution. I clearly shown that through a microscopic means the major differences between humans and chimps. You need further evidence just look at the outward appearance of both.
3.Again,i pointed out plenty of evidence that many cultures from around the world depicted dinosaurs in their art. They accurately rendered drawings of dinosaurs never viewd by man according to the theory of evolutionist. These artifacts are much older then the first fossil find. This is evidence that shatters the theory. It blows the timelime and it shows that fossils are not as old as you say. and really has anybody seen how little bones they use to recreate some of the beast never seen by man.
Anyways, signig off have a great weekened everybody. I do hope someone can attempt a coherent viable method and aswer to these problems.
You would do well to watch the video I put up earlier, here is the link again. In ten minutes it answers your concerns about speciation, what it means and what it does NOT mean, and it answers your concerns about "mutations" being "harmful" and the fallacy of thinking that "harmful" mutations outnumber other mutations.
Think of the human population for a moment, and the fact that approximately 2-3% of human beings are born with a physical or mental disability, down syndrome, for example. "Harmful" mutations do occur in all plant and animal populations, but their frequency is relatively low, a few percent. Over 90% of any species of living plant or animal reproduces healthy, non-disabled offspring, given favorable conditions for that living organism.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=player_embedded]‪Evolution‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
Again, I suggest a little more study of evolutionary biology to learn what speciation actually is and have the concept clear in your own mind:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones who CANNOT interbreed.
So far my mutation rate argument is better then yours. My fossil record argument is better. My artifacts argument is better. My argument of dna being distinct from others is better, come on guys.
I don't understand what you mean by "better". Define your terms?
What are your scientific sources and links? Did you watch that video I linked for you? No? I'm betting you don't watch videos by scientists, do you?
The only speciation observed is micro evolution. Were you gonna argue the mutation rate with solid evidence ?
When a species becomes through evolution unable to breed with another species, THAT is macro evolution!
Sorry you missed that!
Mutation rate? I use the US Government laboratory statistics. Where is YOUR evidence for what mutation rate?
