[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[pfilmtech]

Heidi, animals mate a breed. I have not denied that. I am actually pointing out that you take that point and misapply it in a such a way that it easily brushes aside what you claim evolutionary theory is. This is called a strawman.

The clarification I'm asking for is: Do you think that evolution requires for man to be created by the breeding of a man with a monkey? Many times over the course of these discussions, you've wandered over the map on this and I'd like to know for sure what you're trying to say. Part of that 'understanding the other sides actual arguments' thing that's all the rage these days.

I don't know how evolution can occur because it's an impossiblity for a man to mate with a monkey or for animal genes to change into human genes on their own. So how to you explain how "evolution" happens? :o

The population of Species A gives birth to offspring that are slightly different genetically. Those offspring give birth to offspring that are slightly different genetically. Repeat for millions of years, and the resulting population will be different from the original population millions of years ago.

They have actually produced this effect with fruit flies. Fruit flies breed very fast and are easy to maniuplate genetically so experiments with them are common. They've found if they split a bunch of fruit flies into two seperate populations and let them breed for a couple dozen generations when the recombine the group they will no longer interbreed.

 

[reznwerks]

how

[

I don't know how evolution can occur because it's an impossiblity for a man to mate with a monkey or for animal genes to change into human genes on their own. So how to you explain how "evolution" happens? :o

No body knows how evolution occurs but they do know that it does. Someday they may know but not knowing now does not mean anything. It's only an answer waiting to be found and no evidence of God.

 

[armed2010]

Re: how

[

I don't know how evolution can occur because it's an impossiblity for a man to mate with a monkey or for animal genes to change into human genes on their own. So how to you explain how "evolution" happens? :o

No body knows how evolution occurs but they do know that it does. Someday they may know but not knowing now does not mean anything. It's only an answer waiting to be found and no evidence of God.

Errors in the copying of genes during the allele transfer?

 

[Grengor]

Reznworks, what do you mean we don't know how evolution occurs? It has observed mechanisms. Granted there's still some holes to be hammered out but we're past that stage.

 

[Heidi]

Re: how

[

I don't know how evolution can occur because it's an impossiblity for a man to mate with a monkey or for animal genes to change into human genes on their own. So how to you explain how "evolution" happens? :o

No body knows how evolution occurs but they do know that it does. Someday they may know but not knowing now does not mean anything. It's only an answer waiting to be found and no evidence of God.

So if no one knows how evolution occurs, then how can they say it occurs? Are you saying it's illogical and contradicts reality? :o If not, then why is it not easy to understand? It sounds like they invented the theory before they found evidence for it. That's the same as you saying that Jesus didn't exist when you have no evidence to support your claims. These are therefore, all imaginary claims.

There's no evidence for God to people who deny reality and invent contradictory explanations for the creation of the universe. Once again, the biblical account of creation describes reality perfectly. So if you want to know the truth about God, all you have to do is look at reality because they are one in the same, my friend.

 

[Frost Giant]

Burden of proof. Nobody needs evidence that you're wrong, you need to present evidence that you're right.

 

[Heidi]

Burden of proof. Nobody needs evidence that you're wrong, you need to present evidence that you're right.

Sorry, but you're showing your ignorance of the law too. A man is considered innocent until proven guilty. Thefore, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Jesus has already made his case. It is therefore up to you to prove him wrong. Otherwise you are simply slandering his name for no reason...which he also predicted, by the way. :

 

[Frost Giant]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in scientific debates. Unless you want it to. In which case, I also want the presupposition that a god does not exist to apply to debates too, just for the heck of it.

 

[Heidi]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in scientific debates. Unless you want it to. In which case, I also want the presupposition that a god does not exist to apply to debates too, just for the heck of it.

But evolutionists have not proven how it's possible for animal genes to change into human genes. And I have provided proof that this does not happen in reality. And you have no proof that it does. Nothing. Zip. :

So sorry, but demanindg facts from others in a debate when you have zero facts for your suppositions, doesn't get you off the hook. It simply shows your theory is unprovable. But I can prove that each animal breeds its own kind and humans rule over the animals. Therefore, Again, God has made his case because reality confirms the biblical account of creation but it does not confirm the ever-changing theory of evolution. :

 

[armed2010]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in scientific debates. Unless you want it to. In which case, I also want the presupposition that a god does not exist to apply to debates too, just for the heck of it.

But evolutionists have not proven how it's possible for animal genes to change into human genes. And I have provided proof that this does not happen in reality. And you have no proof that it does. Nothing. Zip. :

So sorry, but demanindg facts from others in a debate when you have zero facts for your suppositions, doesn't get you off the hook. It simply shows your theory is unprovable. But I can prove that each animal breeds its own kind and humans rule over the animals. Therefore, Again, God has made his case because reality confirms the biblical account of creation but it does not confirm the ever-changing theory of evolution. :

Heidi, our common ancestor and the lineage of species that came after it which eventually lead to us got to us through mutation and natural selection. There wasn't a goal to the evolution that said "hey, let's become this! We have to make sure that all these specific genes come at this time so that we will be humans by this date." There were simply mutations, things became advantages or disadvantages through natural selection, and what we call "human" today came out as a result of that. We could have been something different if the environment was different in the past. We are simply the result of what happend. You need to stop thinking of the evolution of humans using goal based thinking though, because humans weren't a "goal" that was trying to be achieved by evolution, it was just a result of various factors.

 

[Frost Giant]

But evolutionists have not proven how it's possible for animal genes to change into human genes. And I have provided proof that this does not happen in reality. And you have no proof that it does. Nothing. Zip. :

Step 1: A mutation happens -- Reproduction isn't a perfect replicator; it doesn't copy itself exactly, and has errors. These errors are known as mutations. Mutations can change anything about an animal. Anything. Mutations can be positive, neutral, or negative. Most mutations are neutral, and help an animal in some environments and hurt it in others. Like fish fins: good in water, don't work so well on land. Note: I'm not saying fins happened in 1 mutation.

Step 2: Natural Selection -- If the mutation in Step 1 benefits the animal, it will most likely pass on the mutation to its children. Note: This doesn't always happen. Sometimes, through a fluke, the animal will die anyway. Maybe the animal is quicker than others of its kind but still not quick enough to escape that hungry predator.

Step 3: Reproduction -- If the animal had a mutation and lives to reproduce, then it will spread its new gene(s) around, and said gene(s) will become part of the gene pool of its population. Note: Populations evolve, not individuals.

Step 4: Separation -- How animals split into multiple species is through separation. Maybe a meteor hit and divided the valley where a population of animals were, splitting them into 2 populations. Over time, they mutate and mutate and their genes become so different that they can no longer reproduce. If a population isn't divided, all the animals of that population will evolve together. If a population becomes divided, then the resulting populations will evolve separately of eachother.

 

[Heidi]

But evolutionists have not proven how it's possible for animal genes to change into human genes. And I have provided proof that this does not happen in reality. And you have no proof that it does. Nothing. Zip. :

Step 1: A mutation happens -- Reproduction isn't a perfect replicator; it doesn't copy itself exactly, and has errors. These errors are known as mutations. Mutations can change anything about an animal. Anything. Mutations can be positive, neutral, or negative. Most mutations are neutral, and help an animal in some environments and hurt it in others. Like fish fins: good in water, don't work so well on land. Note: I'm not saying fins happened in 1 mutation.

Step 2: Natural Selection -- If the mutation in Step 1 benefits the animal, it will most likely pass on the mutation to its children. Note: This doesn't always happen. Sometimes, through a fluke, the animal will die anyway. Maybe the animal is quicker than others of its kind but still not quick enough to escape that hungry predator.

Step 3: Reproduction -- If the animal had a mutation and lives to reproduce, then it will spread its new gene(s) around, and said gene(s) will become part of the gene pool of its population. Note: Populations evolve, not individuals.

Step 4: Separation -- How animals split into multiple species is through separation. Maybe a meteor hit and divided the valley where a population of animals were, splitting them into 2 populations. Over time, they mutate and mutate and their genes become so different that they can no longer reproduce. If a population isn't divided, all the animals of that population will evolve together. If a population becomes divided, then the resulting populations will evolve separately of eachother.

And we've already established that mutation comes from damaged cells, not the ability to produce entirely new and advanced cells. Otherwise scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone and let them mutate into healthy ones on their own. But they don't because they know mutation doesn't work that way. So your whole post is just another fabrication in your mind of how animal genes can turn into human genes which has no basis in reality. :

 

[Frost Giant]

LOL. Are you actually denying that positive mutations can happen? What a joke.

 

[noblej6]

Hi bibleberian,

Once upon a time you said this.......

Those who say God used evolution to "create the heavens and the earth" don't understand evolution and obviously haven't a clue as to what the bible says.

That insult was directed at me. I called you on it and offered to debate a biblical issue and you ran and hid...no, that may not be true, you could have went to hide slowly , i don't know.

Solo called me a plant in a round about way, but he stopped by and laid out a post and then he ran and hid too, well, he may have hid slowly.

I can see why you won't jump into verbal battle on the timing of the great tribulation...because you would lose. So we'll have to go back to this evolution vs. creation thing. My problem is that I see it that Jesus created everything in the universe so I can't argue an either /or situation. However, I do know that evolution exists.

So let's get at it boys, I think I deserve the opportunity to illusatrate that I do know a bit about the bible since you two degraded me earlier.

noble6

 

[armed2010]

But evolutionists have not proven how it's possible for animal genes to change into human genes. And I have provided proof that this does not happen in reality. And you have no proof that it does. Nothing. Zip. :

Step 1: A mutation happens -- Reproduction isn't a perfect replicator; it doesn't copy itself exactly, and has errors. These errors are known as mutations. Mutations can change anything about an animal. Anything. Mutations can be positive, neutral, or negative. Most mutations are neutral, and help an animal in some environments and hurt it in others. Like fish fins: good in water, don't work so well on land. Note: I'm not saying fins happened in 1 mutation.

Step 2: Natural Selection -- If the mutation in Step 1 benefits the animal, it will most likely pass on the mutation to its children. Note: This doesn't always happen. Sometimes, through a fluke, the animal will die anyway. Maybe the animal is quicker than others of its kind but still not quick enough to escape that hungry predator.

Step 3: Reproduction -- If the animal had a mutation and lives to reproduce, then it will spread its new gene(s) around, and said gene(s) will become part of the gene pool of its population. Note: Populations evolve, not individuals.

Step 4: Separation -- How animals split into multiple species is through separation. Maybe a meteor hit and divided the valley where a population of animals were, splitting them into 2 populations. Over time, they mutate and mutate and their genes become so different that they can no longer reproduce. If a population isn't divided, all the animals of that population will evolve together. If a population becomes divided, then the resulting populations will evolve separately of eachother.

And we've already established that mutation comes from damaged cells, not the ability to produce entirely new and advanced cells. Otherwise scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone and let them mutate into healthy ones on their own. But they don't because they know mutation doesn't work that way. So your whole post is just another fabrication in your mind of how animal genes can turn into human genes which has no basis in reality. :

Wait, mutations come from damaged cells? When exactly did we "establish" this Carico, as you have just claimed?

Time for some education Carico, which you desperately need. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

 

[pfilmtech]

Mutations are not all good or all bad. They are random variations in the genetic code produced during reproduction. They can do good things, bad thing or just plain nothing. The point is mutations add new random genetic coding to a species that it would not get otherwise. Without genetic varitation evolution cannot occur.

 

[noblej6]

Okay Solo and Berian,

Show me where it limits the creation of Heaven and earth to a 24 hour day.

noble6

 

[bibleberean]

Here is some interesting information discussing beneficial mutations...

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, ‘Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.’

by Jonathan Sarfati, with Michael Matthews

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... apter5.asp

 

[armed2010]

Here is some interesting information discussing beneficial mutations...

Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
Evolutionists say, ‘Mutations and other biological mechanisms have been observed to produce new features in organisms.’

by Jonathan Sarfati, with Michael Matthews

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... apter5.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

 

[Frost Giant]

More PRATTs. Tell me, if mutations are able the change the DNA of an animal, and DNA controls every physical aspect of an animal, then why aren't mutations able to change animals in any way possible -- in negative, neutral, and positive ways?