Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Dr.Drock]

How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is an ass ? How do you know the best heart surgeon in the world is not a man of faith ? Have you noticed how biased you are ?

I didn't say a single word about the surgeon's faith, it was simply a hypothetical of a situation where 2 surgeons and their abilities/character are the variables.

Alright, I take back what I said,but answer one thing for me.

Then why would you assume the best surgeon would be an ass ? what were you inferring ?

It was a hypothetical scenario..............I have no idea of the best surgeon's morals.....

 

[FurthurBB]

You can't be more wrong.

Science is about truth in research, to the best of our ability. Yes, Micro-evolution is clearly documented,no,Macro-evolution has never been documented no matter what you have been taught.

So, you want me to ignore what I know about science being a scientist and ignore what I have seen with my own eyes and believe you? That would be dishonest and I am never dishonest. I have witnessed speciation, macroevolution by definition and science is never about truth, it can only approach truth like a tangent line approaches zero. though, I understand it is difficult to understand these things when you have a misconception already.

I have seen it to,I did mutation research for many years and that is why I am so against Neo Darwinism. Not true, we can get to truth that is just silly say we can't. There are some things we will never know so we should be careful of our explanations in those cases.

It is not silly to say it is the accurate. Science is about observation and evidence, not proof and truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is just not even true. I have no hatred or bigotry for christians and have found that they have it for me because I am a biologist. It is not about intellectual superiority, it is about ignoring reality. If the christian god is the 'right' god and really exists like the bible says, evolution still happened. They should just rectify it with their beliefs. IMO

I don't placate. Look the documented evolution is not macro- evolution,the only documented evolution is micro- evolution. Please don't try to do what others have done and post micro-evolution as your proof for macro. We have already covered that.

You are confusing the terms. Macroevolution just means above the species level and we have observed speciation. Also, macroevoltuion is just a lot of microevolution so evidence of microevolution with predictions that continuously prove correct is evidence of macroevolution.

I am well aware of the terms,but I don't buy what you term above the species level. One has been observed and documented where the other has not. Your side tries to define a member of the same family as a different species,sorry a member of the dog or cat family is still a cat or a dog. I was educated at the university of Arizona and my major was molecular biology so I am very familiar with what your side teaches. I went to the dark side because I saw that the theory was impossible. I could not look the other way when everything was telling me life is not the result of random chance,it was the product of design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, you want me to ignore what I know about science being a scientist and ignore what I have seen with my own eyes and believe you? That would be dishonest and I am never dishonest. I have witnessed speciation, macroevolution by definition and science is never about truth, it can only approach truth like a tangent line approaches zero. though, I understand it is difficult to understand these things when you have a misconception already.

I have seen it to,I did mutation research for many years and that is why I am so against Neo Darwinism. Not true, we can get to truth that is just silly say we can't. There are some things we will never know so we should be careful of our explanations in those cases.

It is not silly to say it is the accurate. Science is about observation and evidence, not proof and truth.

What do they lead to ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry for the typos,was on my smart phone that is not that smart.

 

[FurthurBB]

I have seen it to,I did mutation research for many years and that is why I am so against Neo Darwinism. Not true, we can get to truth that is just silly say we can't. There are some things we will never know so we should be careful of our explanations in those cases.

It is not silly to say it is the accurate. Science is about observation and evidence, not proof and truth.

What do they lead to ?

Knowledge and understanding.

 

[Divine Wind]

Look at Bush's fingers and thumb.. Tell me that's not Illuminati!

I hope you are kidding because I think conspiracy theorists are nuts.

 

[FurthurBB]

I don't placate. Look the documented evolution is not macro- evolution,the only documented evolution is micro- evolution. Please don't try to do what others have done and post micro-evolution as your proof for macro. We have already covered that.

You are confusing the terms. Macroevolution just means above the species level and we have observed speciation. Also, macroevoltuion is just a lot of microevolution so evidence of microevolution with predictions that continuously prove correct is evidence of macroevolution.

I am well aware of the terms,but I don't buy what you term above the species level. One has been observed and documented where the other has not. Your side tries to define a member of the same family as a different species,sort a member of the dog or cat family is still a cat or a dog. I was educated at the university of Arizona and my major was molecular biology social am very familiar with what your side teaches. I went to the dark side because I saw that the theory was impossible. I could not look the other way when everything was telling me life is not the result of random chance,it was the product of design.

My side? What does that mean? Since you took biology classes you should know that species is an arbitrary term. The line is drawn by people. I think we should all be able to agree that when animals cannot mate anymore because they are so genetically different that they are obviously not in a breeding population anymore. If we observe a species that once could mate and now cannot we have witnessed macroevolution by definition. It seems that misconceptions, not evidence have led you to believe the theory of evolution is impossible. IMO

 

[St.Blues]

Look at Bush's fingers and thumb.. Tell me that's not Illuminati!

I hope you are kidding because I think conspiracy theorists are nuts.

One way or the other Bush is a dangerous prick... He good for a laugh as well.
The RINO asshole.

Blues

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is not silly to say it is the accurate. Science is about observation and evidence, not proof and truth.

What do they lead to ?

Knowledge and understanding.

If we have knowledge and understanding we can have the truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are confusing the terms. Macroevolution just means above the species level and we have observed speciation. Also, macroevoltuion is just a lot of microevolution so evidence of microevolution with predictions that continuously prove correct is evidence of macroevolution.

I am well aware of the terms,but I don't buy what you term above the species level. One has been observed and documented where the other has not. Your side tries to define a member of the same family as a different species,sort a member of the dog or cat family is still a cat or a dog. I was educated at the university of Arizona and my major was molecular biology social am very familiar with what your side teaches. I went to the dark side because I saw that the theory was impossible. I could not look the other way when everything was telling me life is not the result of random chance,it was the product of design.

My side? What does that mean? Since you took biology classes you should know that species is an arbitrary term. The line is drawn by people. I think we should all be able to agree that when animals cannot mate anymore because they are so genetically different that they are obviously not in a breeding population anymore. If we observe a species that once could mate and now cannot we have witnessed macroevolution by definition. It seems that misconceptions, not evidence have led you to believe the theory of evolution is impossible. IMO

I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.

 

[FurthurBB]

What do they lead to ?

Knowledge and understanding.

If we have knowledge and understanding we can have the truth.

You might or you might be extremely close to it, but you never really know and any theory can be modified or even falsified if you find new information. That is what makes it science.

 

[FurthurBB]

I am well aware of the terms,but I don't buy what you term above the species level. One has been observed and documented where the other has not. Your side tries to define a member of the same family as a different species,sort a member of the dog or cat family is still a cat or a dog. I was educated at the university of Arizona and my major was molecular biology social am very familiar with what your side teaches. I went to the dark side because I saw that the theory was impossible. I could not look the other way when everything was telling me life is not the result of random chance,it was the product of design.

My side? What does that mean? Since you took biology classes you should know that species is an arbitrary term. The line is drawn by people. I think we should all be able to agree that when animals cannot mate anymore because they are so genetically different that they are obviously not in a breeding population anymore. If we observe a species that once could mate and now cannot we have witnessed macroevolution by definition. It seems that misconceptions, not evidence have led you to believe the theory of evolution is impossible. IMO

I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My side? What does that mean? Since you took biology classes you should know that species is an arbitrary term. The line is drawn by people. I think we should all be able to agree that when animals cannot mate anymore because they are so genetically different that they are obviously not in a breeding population anymore. If we observe a species that once could mate and now cannot we have witnessed macroevolution by definition. It seems that misconceptions, not evidence have led you to believe the theory of evolution is impossible. IMO

I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

Then why did they need two different terms to define evolution and when one of the terms has very little evidence to support it they just call macro-evolution micro-evolution.

They merged the two because they knew all they had was micro-adaptations.

Similarity proves nothing. I have read the closer number is actually 5% DNA difference between humans and chimps. Well when you do the math 5% of 3 billion base pairs is a 150 million base pair difference. That is huge when you figure in how many beneficial mutations would have to take place to make a chimp a human. We know at the current rate of mutations it would have taken 6 billion years for a chimp to become a human.

But that is not the only problem, there are many more neutral and harmful mutations then there are beneficial mutations. That is a problem when you need a major number in the net gain area for beneficial mutations being the engine of macro-evolution.

The rearranging of the information in mutations tend to be more harmful. We have over 4,500 genetic disorders and you can only name a few beneficial mutations. copying errors is not helpful to any equation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My side? What does that mean? Since you took biology classes you should know that species is an arbitrary term. The line is drawn by people. I think we should all be able to agree that when animals cannot mate anymore because they are so genetically different that they are obviously not in a breeding population anymore. If we observe a species that once could mate and now cannot we have witnessed macroevolution by definition. It seems that misconceptions, not evidence have led you to believe the theory of evolution is impossible. IMO

I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

 

[Divine Wind]

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

Try running that experiment the other way and you might impress yourself.

Random mutations that produce adverse effects quickly die out. Those that produce an advantage allow the critter in question to survive.

This is often seen in nature such as the Peppered Moth and in human populations with the nurtured evolution of cattle, dogs, crops and other domesticated animals and plants.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

Try running that experiment the other way and you might impress yourself.

Random mutations that produce adverse effects quickly die out. Those that produce an advantage allow the critter in question to survive.

This is often seen in nature such as the Peppered Moth and in human populations with the nurtured evolution of cattle, dogs, crops and other domesticated animals and plants.

Many evolutionist point to the peppered moth as evidence.

What is your point ?

 

[FurthurBB]

I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

Then why did they need two different terms to define evolution and when one of the terms has very little evidence to support it they just call macro-evolution micro-evolution.

They merged the two because they knew all they had was micro-adaptations.

Similarity proves nothing. I have read the closer number is actually 5% DNA difference between humans and chimps. Well when you do the math 5% of 3 billion base pairs is a 150 million base pair difference. That is huge when you figure in how many beneficial mutations would have to take place to make a chimp a human. We know at the current rate of mutations it would have taken 6 billion years for a chimp to become a human.

But that is not the only problem, there are many more neutral and harmful mutations then there are beneficial mutations. That is a problem when you need a major number in the net gain area for beneficial mutations being the engine of macro-evolution.

The rearranging of the information in mutations tend to be more harmful. We have over 4,500 genetic disorders and you can only name a few beneficial mutations. copying errors is not helpful to any equation.

There are not two different terms to define evolution there is only one. Evolution is a change in allelic frequency in a population over time or in layman's terms decent with modification. Macroevolution is a term to describe evolution above the species level, microevolution is the term to describe genetic variations in a species. Both macroevolution and microevolution deal with decent with modification because they are both terms to describe evolution. Also, adaptations is not all anyone has. The evolutionary theory has so much evidence to back it up that you could not read it all if you started now and read every second of the rest of your life. Evolutionary biology is a large and complex field of science. Without it there would be no modern biology and hence no modern medicine. I told you that the deal with chimps is very complex and it is, you have to understand that you can have many hundreds of different base pairs than either of your parents and how many years did it take to get from them to you? Since part of the difference between most primates and humans is a huge chromosomal translocation, how did that figure into your math because I have never heard these figures and have no idea how you are calculating it. You are thinking of mutations and how they effect humans. That is not going to get you anywhere when thinking about the validity of the evolutionary theory. Complex multicellular organisms already have a very high genetic load because everything is very specialized. That means that almost any mutation is going to be detrimental. Now, single celled organisms have a very low genetic load. They can handle multiple mutations before anything really bad is going to happen. I was talking earlier about stationary phase mutagenesis. This is a process by which certain single celled organism replicate their DNA with a low fidelity polymerase during stationary phase to produce mutations. These cells are dying because they cannot grow and only a mutation is going to change that fact. This would never help humans or dogs because it would cause more problems than it would fix, but it helps the organisms who utilize it to survive. Large changes are so much more common when organisms are less complex. Also in history all the niches that are filled today were free, so there were times when more mutations meant more food and more successful reproduction.

 

[FurthurBB]

I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

Where does natural selection and reproduction fit into your experiment? Without it, it is pretty useless as an example.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.

Let's see how mutations help in improving a sentence.

" mutations help benefit a setence"

1 mutation

mutations help beneEit a setence

2 mutations

mutationsVhelp benefit a tetence

5 mutations

muiafions hZlp ben3fit a seten1e

10 mutations

muaa5ionr hplpbenefit aX8etOnce

That is the reality of random mutations and what they do to the information.

Where does natural selection and reproduction fit into your experiment? Without it, it is pretty useless as an example.

There are processes working to fix the transcription errors,and yes we have natural selection working to remove mutations another process preventing your theory from ever happening. Mutations have a hard time surviving in the genepool. All mutations result in a loss of information not a gain.

So now explain to me how these beneficial mutations survive in the genepool ? Are you telling me natural selection knows the difference in a beneficial mutation and a mutation that needs to be removed ?

While you're at it you show me how many beneficial mutations there are and i'll point out how many harmful mutations exist.