[_ Old Earth _] Evolution debunked once and for all

[Heidi]

I have repeatedly asked those who espouse evolution to give an answer of why humans don't breed zebras or giraffes as descendants. Naturally, they have avoided answering that question because it proves their whole theory a lie. But one person did answer it by saying that humans don't breed zebras as descendants because zebras and humans aren't the same species.

His answer is correct but not thorough enough. Humans don't carry Zebra DNA any more than we carry; elephant, giraffe, squirrel, monkey, skunk, monkey, fish, lion, tiger or bear DNA. That means that neither do; zebras, giraffes, skunks, moneys, squirrels, fish, lions, tigers, and bears carry human DNA either. So one cannot breed the other. But nevertheless, if evolutionists want to call humans apes, they're free to do so. But all they're saying is that humans have always only given birth to humans as creationists have always known. So either way, evolutionists defeat their own theory. ;-)

Once again, the truth is always simple and has to agree with reality, not the imaginations of men. Nevertheless, those who try to deny God, propose ludicrous, crazy and impossible scenarios that end up denying reality as well.

So the above, added together with a lack of historical documentation, and the myriad of contradictions and made-up history, the theory of evolution has proven itself to be one of the biggest hoaxes and delusions of all time. It once again proves that humans are in a state of decay, not becoming superior. ;-)

 

[jwu]

His answer is correct but not thorough enough. Humans don't carry Zebra DNA any more than we carry; elephant, giraffe, squirrel, monkey, skunk, monkey, fish, lion, tiger or bear DNA. That means that neither do; zebras, giraffes, skunks, moneys, squirrels, fish, lions, tigers, and bears carry human DNA either. So one cannot breed the other.

Actually we share a whole bunch of DNA with all these species - just not enough to procreate with them.

 

[Heidi]

His answer is correct but not thorough enough. Humans don't carry Zebra DNA any more than we carry; elephant, giraffe, squirrel, monkey, skunk, monkey, fish, lion, tiger or bear DNA. That means that neither do; zebras, giraffes, skunks, moneys, squirrels, fish, lions, tigers, and bears carry human DNA either. So one cannot breed the other.

Actually we share a whole bunch of DNA with all these species - just not enough to procreate with them.

if we share their deny, then why don't we humans ever produce baby zebras? : So you are incorrect. the reason that human DNA is similar to animal DNA is because in order to live in the environment that God created, animals and humans both have to have:

1) A heart
2) A brain
3) A respiratory system
4) A circulatory system
5) A reproductive system
6) Lungs
7) some type of skin
8) Limbs
9) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth
10) A stomach

And on and on and on and on. So of course we're going to have similar DNA because we have more similar traits than different ones! But that doesn't make it possible for one species to breed offspring with another as reality and the definition of a species shows. So instead of making up nonsensical scenarios in one's imagination, all one has to have is common sense, a basic knowledge of biology and good contact with reality to see what each species breeds. It's really quite simple as the truth always is. ;-)

 

[jwu]

if we share their deny, then why don't we humans ever produce baby zebras? : So you are incorrect.

Because sharing a good portion of DNA is not sufficient for that.

But that doesn't make it possible for one species to breed offspring with another as reality and the definition of a species shows.

And no-one claims that they should be able to do so...you've been informed of this for years, but you still don't grasp how evolution works. Just like you failed to grasp the difference between planets and stars...

 

[Heidi]

if we share their deny, then why don't we humans ever produce baby zebras? : So you are incorrect.

Because sharing a good portion of DNA is not sufficient for that.

[quote:501f2]But that doesn't make it possible for one species to breed offspring with another as reality and the definition of a species shows.

And no-one claims that they should be able to do so...you've been informed of this for years, but you still don't grasp how evolution works. Just like you failed to grasp the difference between planets and stars...[/quote:501f2]

So how do you propose we can "inherit" the DNA to produce Zebras as descendants? : Do you not know that mating and breeding is what produces descendants? :o If so, then you have to find one species who is capable of breeding with another in order to exchange their genes. And since by definition, one species cannot breed with another, then the theory of evolution is impossible. End of story. ;-)

 

[jwu]

Huh? Where did i say that we humans could breed zebras`?

 

[Heidi]

Huh? Where did i say that we humans could breed zebras`?

You're claiming that an ape or monkey or some animal other than human can breed human descendants. I've shown you that it's impossible. Therefore, humans have always come from humans. End of story.

 

[jwu]

You're claiming that an ape or monkey or some animal other than human can breed human descendants.

Nope, i claim no such thing. Children always belong to the same species as their parents. They however don't necessarily belong to the same species as their great^5000-grandparents, as the frame of reference for the species in question shifts over time.

 

[Heidi]

You're claiming that an ape or monkey or some animal other than human can breed human descendants.

Nope, i claim no such thing. Children always belong to the same species as their parents. They however don't necessarily belong to the same species as their great^5000-grandparents, as the frame of reference for the species in question shifts over time.

:o :o You have just contradicted everything else you've said in this thread and the definition of a species. : By definition, one species cannot give birth to another as i already informed you.

Secondly, by your post, that means that humans can breed zebras since we're not the same species. :o But that contradicts your explanation of why humans don't breed zebras as descendants. So now everything you've said has contradicted everything else you've said. :roll: But again, that's what lies do. one has to tell a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. lie to explain the first until they either forget the first lie or contradict it. So your posts are proving that one has to lie to espouse evolution. Sorry, jwu, it's a waste of time responding to your contradictory posts. :roll:
'

 

[jwu]

:o :o You have just contradicted everything else you've said in this thread and the definition of a species. : By definition, one species cannot give birth to another as i already informed you.

Please point out a specific contradiction between my statements by quoting them for comparison.

Secondly, by your post, that means that humans can breed zebras since we're not the same species.

No, a species changing over time doesn't mean that anything can happen. Humans evolving into zebras would be a jump of the clade, which is prohibited by the ToE. Once speciated, always speciated.

 

[Heidi]

:o :o You have just contradicted everything else you've said in this thread and the definition of a species. : By definition, one species cannot give birth to another as i already informed you.

Please point out a specific contradiction between my statements by quoting them for comparison.

Secondly, by your post, that means that humans can breed zebras since we're not the same species.

No, a species changing over time doesn't mean that anything can happen. Humans evolving into zebras would be a jump of the clade, which is prohibited by the ToE. Once speciated, always speciated.

"Humans can't breed zebras because they are different species."

And:

"Nope, i claim no such thing. Children always belong to the same species as their parents. They however don't necessarily belong to the same species as their great^5000-grandparents, as the frame of reference for the species in question shifts over time.

You made the first quote in the thread; "What people who endorse evolution ignore" and you made the second comment in this thread. In the latter you're claiming that humans aren't the same species as their ancestors, and in the former you claim that one species cannot breed another. Endless contradictions. :roll: In fact you make so many contradictions, you have no clue what you've said, or obviously, what you believe. :

 

[jwu]

"Humans can't breed zebras because they are different species."

And:

"Nope, i claim no such thing. Children always belong to the same species as their parents. They however don't necessarily belong to the same species as their great^5000-grandparents, as the frame of reference for the species in question shifts over time.

That's not a contradiction at all, because in the second statement you cannot insert any species which you want. It would be a different species, but not a random one, and especially not one that already exists elsewhere. E.g. in case of humans it would necessarily be another species of primates. Zebras are equidae.

 

[Heidi]

"Humans can't breed zebras because they are different species."

And:

"Nope, i claim no such thing. Children always belong to the same species as their parents. They however don't necessarily belong to the same species as their great^5000-grandparents, as the frame of reference for the species in question shifts over time.

That's not a contradiction at all, because in the second statement you cannot insert any species which you want. It would be a different species, but not a random one, and especially not one that already exists elsewhere. E.g. in case of humans it would necessarily be another species of primates. Zebras are equidae.

talk about incoherent ramblings! That's like Clinton wanting to redefine "is." : So what's the difference between a different species and a random one? : : Again, do you know why humans can't breed; zebras, skunks, or elephants? What's random about those species? :

Sorry, jwu, but your talk tangle only entangles you into a further web of contradictions from which you can't extract yourself. All you prove is that you can't admit you're wrong even when your fallicies are staring you in the face. But you don't fool those who can see them and you certainly don't fool God. Just yourself and others who ignore their own contradictions. ;-)

 

[jwu]

Again, do you know why humans can't breed; zebras, skunks, or elephants? What's random about those species? :

I've already answered this. Zebras are equidae. Elephants are proboscidea. Skunks are canoidea. Humans can eventually turn into a different species, but that would have to be a species of primates.

And most importantly, it would be a new species, not one that already exists elsewhere. One species turning into another species which already exists elsewhere would be quite a problem for the ToE.

 

[Heidi]

Again, do you know why humans can't breed; zebras, skunks, or elephants? What's random about those species? :

I've already answered this. Zebras are equidae. Elephants are proboscidea. Skunks are canoidea. Humans can eventually turn into a different species, but that would have to be a species of primates.

And most importantly, it would be a new species, not one that already exists elsewhere. One species turning into another species which already exists elsewhere would be quite a problem for the ToE.

And where's proof that we can turn into another species? If you claim it's a primate, then what happened to "survival of the fittest"? :o

So are you claiming that a primate is the same species as humans? if so, then what different species are we going to turn into? :o If not, then that contradicts your statement that one species cannot breed another. So you have a lot of contradictions to address, jwu. :roll:

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I have a little experiment to try Heidi to help u understand something.

Type up a document in Word. Print it out and then make 1,000 copies of it on a copy machine. Do they all look the same? They should all be pretty close to the original.

Now, we will repeat this, except a little differently. Print your first copy. Then, pull out the original, and put the copy in and make a copy of the copy. When the new sheet comes out, put it in the scanning bed. Repeat this 1,000 times. Now, tell me if the last copy looks the same. It will likely be unreadable.

(now i know 2,000 copies is a little expensive to prove a point, but just try it both ways with 10 copies and you should see the difference)

The reason it does this is because in example 1. each imperfection on each copy is not passed on because the next reproduction will not originate with it. It originates with the original copy. So youll get a slight imperfection 1,000 times.

In example two, the copy will pass on its imperfection to the next copy, and that copy will have that imperfection plus a new one. When it gets place in the scanner, it will pass on the two imperfections to the new copy plus one will be added. This continues. Eventually, as stated, the documents will look drastically different than the original master because of this, and will no longer produce a anything similar to the original.

Reproduction suffers the same. The only way to prevent this is for there to never be any imperfection (mutation), or there to be only one couple making offspring. We know both of those are false. Therefore we get large changes over time. Eventually, if two groups are seperated and no longer allowed to breed with each other, mutations will become so large that they are not able to breed with each other.

Take 2,000 humans (split 50/50 male and female). Split the group into two 1,000 groups (again with 50/50 male female). Plant one group on continent A and the other on B (with there being no way to travel between the two) and give some time and speciation will happen because of this effect.

So, to deny the ability of to create new species from the same pool, you would have to deny one of these:
1. Mutations happen
2. The earth has existed a really long time
3. At some point in history, groups from the same species have become seperated in some way and prevented from mixing again.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on genetics, but this is my understanding of the process. Anyone care to chime in and correct my errors?

*the example of the copy machine came from somewhere, I just do not remember where I read that good example

 

[John]

But in the end even with all them imperfections, you still have the same "copy"

If the word "log" was the word on the original copy, how many copying mistakes would have to occur for it to spell cat?

 

[Heidi]

I have a little experiment to try Heidi to help u understand something.

Type up a document in Word. Print it out and then make 1,000 copies of it on a copy machine. Do they all look the same? They should all be pretty close to the original.

Now, we will repeat this, except a little differently. Print your first copy. Then, pull out the original, and put the copy in and make a copy of the copy. When the new sheet comes out, put it in the scanning bed. Repeat this 1,000 times. Now, tell me if the last copy looks the same. It will likely be unreadable.

(now i know 2,000 copies is a little expensive to prove a point, but just try it both ways with 10 copies and you should see the difference)

The reason it does this is because in example 1. each imperfection on each copy is not passed on because the next reproduction will not originate with it. It originates with the original copy. So youll get a slight imperfection 1,000 times.

In example two, the copy will pass on its imperfection to the next copy, and that copy will have that imperfection plus a new one. When it gets place in the scanner, it will pass on the two imperfections to the new copy plus one will be added. This continues. Eventually, as stated, the documents will look drastically different than the original master because of this, and will no longer produce a anything similar to the original.

Reproduction suffers the same. The only way to prevent this is for there to never be any imperfection (mutation), or there to be only one couple making offspring. We know both of those are false. Therefore we get large changes over time. Eventually, if two groups are seperated and no longer allowed to breed with each other, mutations will become so large that they are not able to breed with each other.

Take 2,000 humans (split 50/50 male and female). Split the group into two 1,000 groups (again with 50/50 male female). Plant one group on continent A and the other on B (with there being no way to travel between the two) and give some time and speciation will happen because of this effect.

So, to deny the ability of to create new species from the same pool, you would have to deny one of these:
1. Mutations happen
2. The earth has existed a really long time
3. At some point in history, groups from the same species have become seperated in some way and prevented from mixing again.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on genetics, but this is my understanding of the process. Anyone care to chime in and correct my errors?

*the example of the copy machine came from somewhere, I just do not remember where I read that good example

Sorry but variations in traits can only occur within each species. That's why the definition of species is; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."

So gene variations do not occur from one species breeding another. That's why no human on earth has given birth to a giraffe, elephant, skunk, squirrel, etc. but to humans with varying traits. This is so elementary that it's an embarrassment to have to explain it to people who consider themselves intelligent!! so go study up on basic biology before you engage in contradictory talk tangles that contradict reality. Unbelievable. :roll:

 

[VaultZero4Me]

But in the end even with all them imperfections, you still have the same "copy"

If the word "log" was the word on the original copy, how many copying mistakes would have to occur for it to spell cat?

And we are not copy machines either are we.......


You are just distorting the example without really answering my question. What is the significance of the finaly copy being nothing but black lines versus spelling another word?

If it no longer can serve the purpose of the original copy, it ceases to be a copy. It is no longer able to reporduce a copy that looks anything like the original at some point. Although, it will be so slight of changes each time, it will be hard to determine micro, when it is no longer a copy. Thats the substance behind the example.

Its simple really. Each offspring's genes differ from slightly from their parents. If any of a species is ever removed from the main group for an extended period of time, eventually they will no longer be able to reproduce with the original group.

Has that been proven? No. No one has lived long enough to perform that experiement. Is there solid evidence to back that up? Very much so, and gaining more and more everyday. I do not even think dembski denies that.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Sorry but variations in traits can only occur within each species. That's why the definition of species is; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."

So gene variations do not occur from one species breeding another. That's why no human on earth has given birth to a giraffe, elephant, skunk, squirrel, etc. but to humans with varying traits. This is so elementary that it's an embarrassment to have to explain it to people who consider themselves intelligent!! so go study up on basic biology before you engage in contradictory talk tangles that contradict reality. Unbelievable.

Sorry, but if you truly are sincere in your posts, I have to assume you failed out of science class, or either went to a school that did not teach science.

I highly doubt you are sincere. To be honest, months ago when I reviewed your posts, I had the gut feeling you are a poser on this sight having fun pretending. If I am right then thats sad, if I am wrong, I apologize.

If I am wrong you really need to start at the basics and review some science 101 books.