[_ Old Earth _] The End Of Evolution.

[John]

VenomfangX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CNV2A55Ilk

Venom asked me to review it last night, time to spread it around.

Here is the text, in case you don't like Venoms voice :

If it can be clearly demonstrated that no single living creature contains a trait that can be classified as a chronological increase of physical traits such as a new limb, organ, sensory ability, or similar clearly new traits over its provable ancestors, (and are not repeated or altered versions of old traits, muscles, or bone structures), then it can reasonably be concluded that the variations of traits across the various species of all life forms are not the result of increased genetic complexity via evolution (as the proponents of evolution theory would suppose), but rather the result of maintaining the traits within a kind from its ancestral history from the original creation (that is to say, animals were created as kinds by a designer, in their full complexity, rather than through a process of evolution). It can therefore be demonstrated that no animal or plant within its kind (a lion, a tiger, a cheetah, a leopard, are all cats) will contain any trait (as defined above, with the exclusion of detrimental or beneficial mutations that alter traits that already existed in the past, without actually introducing a new trait) that can not be found within its provable ancestral history. This would undeniably prove that the types of changes evolution theory requires to bypass the distinct kinds of animals from one to another is a physical impossibility, both in the present and the past, as no living creature alive today shows any signs of gradual change that can be classified as being the precursors to an act of evolution into another kind of animal by introduction of new traits (not simply multiplying or subtracting or otherwise altering old traits).

The mutations witnessed today have never shown to introduce new features (such as an animal growing wings, or the beginnings of such an ability). It is therefore possible to conclude with absolute certainty based on this line of reasoning that the variations of animals and plants throughout the world living today are not the result of evolution (the act of increased genetic and physical traits), but rather the survival of an original prototype through generations of survival.

Should evolution theory be true, we would expect at very least one single animal or plant to show clear signs of development of new traits from its likewise kind (a bird for example that has something no other bird alive today has). However, to assume just because two birds are radically different (for example, a penguin and a woodpecker) and conclude based upon their differences that they must have evolved from a common ancestor, can not be used as evidence of evolution, for the penguin and the woodpecker do not necessarily have a common ancestor. Rather, it can be demonstrated due to lack of provable evidence that these two birds share a common ancestor, compounded with the fact that you can not prove the penguin or the woodpecker did not have the traits it now possesses in its ancestrial history, to conclude that these two animals (while both birds) were in fact designed to be birds originally, with distinct traits from other birds of its kind, as with every major species of animal and plant on the planet. This means the radical differences we see within a kind (such as within the plant world, for example a maple tree and a palm tree) are therefore surviving remnants of the original creation and design which was created with diversity from the beginning, and has survived until today as separate species, and yet the same kind.

It is therefore also useless to use the fossil record in this demonstration, because it can not be demonstrated clearly that two of the same kind of animals that are radically different shared a common ancestor (e.g. a T-rex and a Brontosaurus). It is also useless to show the difference between living creatures (such as a house cat and a lion) who exhibit slight alterations of features, like the lions mane, without being able to prove a house cat and a lion share a common ancestor. If my theory be true, the cat kind (along with all other kinds of animals) were created diversified originally, and they have maintained through survival of these separate species many of their individual characteristics without becoming a new kind of animal, while remaining the kind of animal they were originally created to be (a cat in this case), with the possibility of interbreeding (thus introducing traits that may be new for a species, but not for the overall kind).

To further elaborate, the theory of evolution states that simple life increased in genetic material, thereby introducing new organs, functionality, design and intelligence (in the case of humans). A supporter of evolution would claim evolution takes too long to see any of the traits I am describing emerge. This objection is simply not fair; it does not explain why not a single animal or plant living today exhibits any single clearly identified gradual alteration or change of its physical traits that would act as a departure from its clearly provable ancestral history (or from another species of its same kind) that would otherwise be defined as an event leading to a new kind of animal, or be inarguably the beginning of such a transformation or new trait (as defined originally).

Therefore, when comparing two species of animals that are clearly the same kind (a donkey and a zebra), to assume they share a common ancestor is an error, simply because they share common design. Even if the Zebra had a new organ (or in this case, a stripe pattern that other horses do not), this is not evidence of the fact that zebras and horses shared a common ancestor and the zebras "evolved". Rather, the ancestor of the zebra and the ancestor of the donkey had offspring which through the generations survived until today (by reason of logic), and while they are the same kind and can even potentially interbreed, they do not necessarily share a common ancestor and were potentially created with different features to begin with. To falsify this claim, it must be clearly demonstrated that the zebra and the donkey share a common ancestor (as opposed to a common designer who created them separately and slightly differently) and that not only did the zebra gain its stripes through mutation, but that no other explanation exists whereby the zebra and the donkey could logically be so different, yet similar. Evolutionists are guilty of assuming all horses (donkeys, zebras) share a common ancestor for their bias against the possibility of a designer who made the horse kind diversified to begin with. I repeat, to falsify my claims, it must be demonstrated that a zebra and donkey share a common ancestor, and that by the introduction of new traits (via evolution) they diversified, as opposed to the possibility that the two were never related to begin with and were created differently, yet with many similarities (being the same kind of animal, a horse).

In the event that the donkey and zebra do have a common ancestor, that still does not prove evolution, for the minor changes between a zebra and a donkey may very well be attributed to natural selection, mutation, and adaptation (not evolution, despite the claim that evolution works on these principals). To prove evolution, it must be demonstrated that two creatures of the same kind which are simply too different to have contained its current traits from its ancestry (in other words, gained traits its ancestors did not possess), and yet are clearly the same kind of animal, showing the appearance or beginnings of traits as defined originally, excluding the possibility by way of evidence that the two do not share a two separate ancestors (thereby proving beyond any doubt that two animals of the same kind inherited traits that the other did not have, and were clearly not from its ancestor or another species from the same kind).

In conclusion, if no single animal or plant exhibits any variation from its kind that can be demonstrated to have been absent from its provable ancestral history (and not members of the same kind that differ), then evolution can be confirmed to be impossible both now, and in the past, for its lack of present day appearance in any living creatures or plant life. For evolution to be true, it must be a continual process that does not simply "end" when it is convenient or when looked at under a microscope. There must be a single provable example living today (although there should be countless of such examples across every single form of plant and animal life, yet there are none), whereby an animal or plant possesses a trait (or beginning of) that its provable ancestors did not possess. If no such trait can be found, then evolution is officially impossible and should be proclaimed to be so immediately

 

[Jayls5]

Ahh, I see. So according to the argument,

We must demonstrate something about a living thing today that an ancestor did not have the "beginning traits of."

AND,

We cannot use the fossil record to argue about the traits of that ancestor.

How would we even compare the traits of an ancestor if the fossil record is stated to be invalid? Does he expect a species to grow wings within 1 generation or something?

 

[Jayls5]

I just realized you pulled that from VenomfangX. I'd expect something like this from him. He's that guy on youtube who makes all of these TERRIBLE straw man arguments, then he doesn't allow anyone to critique it or respond to it. It's not just coincidence that all of his videos have supportive comments and "conversion" claims.

I actually made a video response to one of his stupid arguments, and of course, he didn't allow it. The irony of course, is that he challenged someone to refute his argument. When I did, he denied the argument to be shown. He's obviously crazy, and he loves using straw men and non sequitur arguments to promote his own religion if I remember correctly.

 

[jmm9683]

All this guy does is rehash old Hovind strawmen arguments. Plus he rates his own videos 5 stars and then shuts off voting, and also deletes any comments that don't agree. He's a loser.

 

[Bryce]

I see a few insults, but no responses to his words directly :roll:

Thought at first look, I don't think he is correct.

 

[John]

C'mon jwu you know you want to bite at this , lol

 

[Jayls5]

I see a few insults, but no responses to his words directly :roll:

Thought at first look, I don't think he is correct.

Really? You must have missed the first post that pretty much single-handedly showed the fallacy of his argument, using his words.

 

[proponent]

If you aren't allowing the use of the fossil record as evidence then Jayls is right, the time it takes for noticable variation to take place is on a fairly massive scale. You claim that adaptation isn't an argument for evolution but saying that it isn't doesn't make it true. If you admit to macro-adaptation then you pretty much admit to evolution. If we look at the horse of today and the horse of the past, it is evident that the horse of the past was smaller than today's horse. Size is a trait that has become commonplace in horses. The smaller horses were less survivable, and died out, while larger horses flourished: Evolving to meet the needs of their surroundings. There you have it. A trait that has come about over time. A minor MINOR mutation causing change in the entire species.

 

[Barbarian]

If it can be clearly demonstrated that no single living creature contains a trait that can be classified as a chronological increase of physical traits such as a new limb, organ, sensory ability, or similar clearly new traits over its provable ancestors, (and are not repeated or altered versions of old traits, muscles, or bone structures), then it can reasonably be concluded that the variations of traits across the various species of all life forms are not the result of increased genetic complexity via evolution (as the proponents of evolution theory would suppose), but rather the result of maintaining the traits within a kind from its ancestral history from the original creation

No. For example, specific RNAse in some species of monkeys permits more efficient digestion of leaves, and is the result of a gene duplication, followed by mutation of one copy. It is an increase in information and complexity, and presents a new function. But it does this by modifying something existing to a new use. That's how evolution works.

(that is to say, animals were created as kinds by a designer, in their full complexity, rather than through a process of evolution). It can therefore be demonstrated that no animal or plant within its kind (a lion, a tiger, a cheetah, a leopard, are all cats) will contain any trait (as defined above, with the exclusion of detrimental or beneficial mutations that alter traits that already existed in the past, without actually introducing a new trait) that can not be found within its provable ancestral history.

Is English not his first language? This guy packs more more styrofoam than product. Does he know what he was trying to say here?

This would undeniably prove that the types of changes evolution theory requires to bypass the distinct kinds of animals from one to another is a physical impossibility, both in the present and the past, as no living creature alive today shows any signs of gradual change that can be classified as being the precursors to an act of evolution into another kind of animal by introduction of new traits (not simply multiplying or subtracting or otherwise altering old traits).

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance.... :

The mutations witnessed today have never shown to introduce new features (such as an animal growing wings, or the beginnings of such an ability).

How about a new, irreducibly complex enyzme system? That was directly observed to evolve.

It is therefore possible to conclude with absolute certainty based on this line of reasoning that the variations of animals and plants throughout the world living today are not the result of evolution (the act of increased genetic and physical traits), but rather the survival of an original prototype through generations of survival.

Nope, that's demonstrably wrong. The guys in evolutionary development have shown how new genes are modified old ones. New functions, new genes, but evolved from the older ones. New information, too. Would you like to see the numbers on the way a new mutation adds complexity and information to a population?

Should evolution theory be true, we would expect at very least one single animal or plant to show clear signs of development of new traits from its likewise kind (a bird for example that has something no other bird alive today has).

Kiwis. Sensory pits at the tip of the bill. New structure, not found in any other birds.

However, to assume just because two birds are radically different (for example, a penguin and a woodpecker) and conclude based upon their differences that they must have evolved from a common ancestor, can not be used as evidence of evolution, for the penguin and the woodpecker do not necessarily have a common ancestor.

DNA evidence confirms it.

compounded with the fact that you can not prove the penguin or the woodpecker did not have the traits it now possesses in its ancestrial history,

In fact, there are still living intermediates. The piciformes vary from rather ordinary-looking birds that probe rotting wood for insects, to the highly evolved ivory bills that excavate living wood with powerful bills and structural adaptations. And everything in between. It seems extremely foolish to deny that what exists today could not have existed in the past.

If you doubt this, name some character of a woodpecker you suppose to be unique, and I'll show you an intermediate.

It is therefore also useless to use the fossil record in this demonstration, because it can not be demonstrated clearly that two of the same kind of animals that are radically different shared a common ancestor (e.g. a T-rex and a Brontosaurus). It is also useless to show the difference between living creatures (such as a house cat and a lion) who exhibit slight alterations of features, like the lions mane, without being able to prove a house cat and a lion share a common ancestor. If my theory be true, the cat kind (along with all other kinds of animals) were created diversified originally, and they have maintained through survival of these separate species many of their individual characteristics without becoming a new kind of animal, while remaining the kind of animal they were originally created to be (a cat in this case), with the possibility of interbreeding (thus introducing traits that may be new for a species, but not for the overall kind).

Boy, puffery like that approaches an art form. But our pettifogging creationist hits another wall. There are fossil animals that are intermediate between cats and other carnivores. Want to see some of them?

To further elaborate, the theory of evolution states that simple life increased in genetic material, thereby introducing new organs, functionality, design and intelligence (in the case of humans). A supporter of evolution would claim evolution takes too long to see any of the traits I am describing emerge. This objection is simply not fair; it does not explain why not a single animal or plant living today exhibits any single clearly identified gradual alteration or change of its physical traits that would act as a departure from its clearly provable ancestral history (or from another species of its same kind)

He's arguing that giant redwoods can't grow from seeds, because no one has ever seen it happen. Is he really that dumb? Probably not, but he's hoping we are.

Therefore, when comparing two species of animals that are clearly the same kind (a donkey and a zebra), to assume they share a common ancestor is an error, simply because they share common design. Even if the Zebra had a new organ (or in this case, a stripe pattern that other horses do not)

Horses have them. Darwin mentioned this fact, that even with selective breeding, stripes often appear. Quaggas, another species of horse, all had them. In fact, Zebras are polyphyletic, and some are more closely related to horses than they are to other zebras.

Evolutionists are guilty of assuming all horses (donkeys, zebras) share a common ancestor

Evidence. DNA, fossils, etc. Your guy seems to be hopelessly ignorant of the facts regarding horses.

In the event that the donkey and zebra do have a common ancestor, that still does not prove evolution, for the minor changes between a zebra and a donkey may very well be attributed to natural selection, mutation, and adaptation

[/quote][/quote]

That is evolution. That was Darwin's great discovery.

 

[Patashu]

VenomfangX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CNV2A55Ilk

Venom asked me to review it last night, time to spread it around.

Idle question; what are VenomfangX's scientific credentials?

Here is the text, in case you don't like Venoms voice :

If it can be clearly demonstrated that no single living creature contains a trait that can be classified as a chronological increase of physical traits

'chronological increase of physical traits'? This is poorly worded, what is it supposed to mean?

such as a new limb, organ, sensory ability, or similar clearly new traits over its provable ancestors, (and are not repeated or altered versions of old traits, muscles, or bone structures), then it can reasonably be concluded that the variations of traits across the various species of all life forms are not the result of increased genetic complexity via evolution (as the proponents of evolution theory would suppose),

Evolution does not have to create complexity; it can reduce it instead. Creatures that evolve a parasitic nature discard most of their organs as they can eat food from their host pre-digested and use their organs.
In addition, the length or complexity of the genome is not directly related to physiological complexity; see The Onion Test. I'm not sure that's being suggested but just in case.
Finally, everything evolution does IS work with existing traits and features, altering them in step-wise fashion. Why try to create a new organ structure from top to bottom when an alteration of an existing structure will be working and benefitial from the get-go?

but rather the result of maintaining the traits within a kind from its ancestral history from the original creation (that is to say, animals were created as kinds by a designer, in their full complexity, rather than through a process of evolution).

Woah, not so fast. Let's completely ignore all the other hypothetical mechanisms by which such a creature could evolve, then. There isn't just darwinian evolution; if you want to prove ID by disputing all its competitors, you have to dispute ALL its competitors. Darwinian evolution, lamarckian, orthogenesis, etc.
But to take a stab at what is being suggested, VenomFangX is trying to say that if all traits could not be the result of alterations from previous traits and structures, and those alterations from those before, et all. such that the overall chain is at least plausibly likely to be fixed within the population then evolution is not a good hypothesis for the diversity of life and origin of species. The problem is, of course, that this is not the case, but let's read on anyway.

It can therefore be demonstrated that no animal or plant within its kind (a lion, a tiger, a cheetah, a leopard, are all cats) will contain any trait (as defined above, with the exclusion of detrimental or beneficial mutations that alter traits that already existed in the past, without actually introducing a new trait) that can not be found within its provable ancestral history.

By what methodology have the kinds been established? Lions, tigers and cheetahs are all the same kind because...they're referred to by the same name? How similar or what traits do you have to share with members of a kind to also be part of that kind, or what is the operative definition of a kind?
Also, how is altering a trait distinguished from introducing a new one? How new does it have to be to not count as an alteration on a pre-existing trait? Ie if there was a mutation that granted lions a new behaviourial pattern, is it a new trait or an alteration of a pre-existing trait since lions already had the genetic code that would allow them to take on behaviours? If they get a new set of legs, is that a new trait (having extra legs) or an alteration on a pre-existing trait (having legs)? What if an addition mutation was introduced and it changed some trait of the lion, is that always going to be an alteration of a pre-existing trait since you're just altering the genome? And finally, what kind of mutations does creationism strictly prevent, because evolution has ALWAYS been about the alternation of pre-existing traits, structures and genetic material, not forming them from top to bottom out of cloth. In fact, if a new trait sprung fully formed with entirely new structure and optimizations already in place in a species it would actually raise doubts about darwinian evolution, because this is not what mutations do!

This would undeniably prove that the types of changes evolution theory requires to bypass the distinct kinds of animals from one to another is a physical impossibility, both in the present and the past, as no living creature alive today shows any signs of gradual change that can be classified as being the precursors to an act of evolution into another kind of animal by introduction of new traits (not simply multiplying or subtracting or otherwise altering old traits).

'bypass'? Bypass what? What is stopping me from taking a phenotypical 'walk' between a prehistoric creature and it's modern predecessor? Remember that in evolution, creatures do not turn into other creatures that already exist but move to fill an ecological niche; they become a future species, not one that already exists in the present. If kind barriers apply only to the present, ie a modern cat won't evolve into a modern dog, then nothing has been proven since a cat can never gain a dog's lineage. Recognizing that evolution creates trees of lifeforms that branch out and copy from their direct ancestors, once a species is within a classification of taxonomy it can't get out, because such a classification refers to its evolutionary ancestry. If kinds are static throughout time then why does this classification work at all above whatever level kind is supposed to represent (I've never gotten a consistent answer on this)?
Once again you're not counting for the alteration of pre-existing traits as 'evolution'. Whatever you're trying to disprove it's not darwinian evolution because evolution is all about these alteration and step-wise iterative changes over generations. Evolution alters traits, then alters the alterations, et cetera. If I can just keep changing the genome and thus the phenotype expressed by said genome, and clearly nothing will stop me from doing this, I can eventually end up with whatever I want. In nature? As long as the pathway isn't detrimental in the creature's environment it can happen.

The mutations witnessed today have never shown to introduce new features (such as an animal growing wings, or the beginnings of such an ability). It is therefore possible to conclude with absolute certainty based on this line of reasoning that the variations of animals and plants throughout the world living today are not the result of evolution (the act of increased genetic and physical traits), but rather the survival of an original prototype through generations of survival.

Examples of Benefical Mutations in Humans
Building off of pre-existing traits to give new advantages. Such benefitial mutations could easily lead to new traits and functions, when compounded with further benefitial mutations. We can take steps, why can't we do it again and take a walk?
Here, have some more beneficial mutations.
Note that most identified benefitial mutations are either going to be in microorganisms (because of their explosive population growth and swift reproduction, this means mutations occur more and faster) or in humans (we're the most well studied species, after all!). This does not mean others do not exist; the slow (comparatively) reproduction rate of most organisms makes it unfeasible to observe them sheerly to find new mutations.

Should evolution theory be true, we would expect at very least one single animal or plant to show clear signs of development of new traits from its likewise kind (a bird for example that has something no other bird alive today has).

Why does it have to be completely new? A single mutation isn't going to create something completely new, it has to work with what's already there.

However, to assume just because two birds are radically different (for example, a penguin and a woodpecker) and conclude based upon their differences that they must have evolved from a common ancestor, can not be used as evidence of evolution, for the penguin and the woodpecker do not necessarily have a common ancestor.

Phenotypical evidence for common ancestry:
We can arrange all known species in the present and all known species from the past in what's known as a twin nested hierarchy; that means it's like a branching tree, with each species holding all the traits of its ancestor while gaining new ones, which holds all the traits of ITS ancestor, etc. The fact that we can do such a thing is evidence for common ancestry.
Then there's the genetic evidence:
There is something known as a background mutation rate; most of all genomes is junk DNA, and mutations in it are completely neutral. Now, when we look at the genomes of two organisms, the more closely related they are by their most recent common ancestor the more of their genome they have in common. This would indicate that they split apart from a common ancestor species at a time ago proportional to the difference in genome between the two.

Rather, it can be demonstrated due to lack of provable evidence that these two birds share a common ancestor, compounded with the fact that you can not prove the penguin or the woodpecker did not have the traits it now possesses in its ancestrial history, to conclude that these two animals (while both birds) were in fact designed to be birds originally, with distinct traits from other birds of its kind, as with every major species of animal and plant on the planet. This means the radical differences we see within a kind (such as within the plant world, for example a maple tree and a palm tree) are therefore surviving remnants of the original creation and design which was created with diversity from the beginning, and has survived until today as separate species, and yet the same kind.

You can't say Darwinian-Evolution-is-wrong-therefore-creationism-is-right, if you want to prove a theory by disproving all other options, it has to be ALL other options. Again: Disprove lamarckism as well, and orthogenesis, and any other possible mechanism driving the diversity of life.
Now, onto falsification of your theory. What possible evidence would disprove the notion of a kind? If I record a speciation event, what further evidence would also show it to be splitting-off-of-a-kind event and thus disprove the notion of a kind? Because if any creature that descends from one in a kind is in the same kind no ifs no buts no matter what mutations it gains then your theory is telling us nothing that common ancestry already does, since taxonomy already classifies species in a manner like this.

It is therefore also useless to use the fossil record in this demonstration, because it can not be demonstrated clearly that two of the same kind of animals that are radically different shared a common ancestor (e.g. a T-rex and a Brontosaurus).

Therefore? How does this follow from the previous point? I mean, if you assume common ancestry is false then it's useless to try and demonstrate it, but that's a given.
So, if we find that the genomic difference in % between two species indicates a most recent common ancestor at X million years ago, then we find a fossilized specimen that dates to that age and has the features of both species, what are we supposed to conclude except common ancestry?

It is also useless to show the difference between living creatures (such as a house cat and a lion) who exhibit slight alterations of features, like the lions mane, without being able to prove a house cat and a lion share a common ancestor. If my theory be true, the cat kind (along with all other kinds of animals) were created diversified originally, and they have maintained through survival of these separate species many of their individual characteristics without becoming a new kind of animal, while remaining the kind of animal they were originally created to be (a cat in this case), with the possibility of interbreeding (thus introducing traits that may be new for a species, but not for the overall kind).

Kind, kind, kind. What is the operational definition of a kind? What is the invisible forcefield that separates a kind from all other kinds and makes it impossible for mutations to lead it past this unseen barrier? Why COULDN'T a dinosaur evolve into a bird, or are they the same kind now too?
Your theory is unfalsifiable if it cannot explain objectively how the kind is defined and how animals are classified into their various kinds.

To further elaborate, the theory of evolution states that simple life increased in genetic material, thereby introducing new organs, functionality, design and intelligence (in the case of humans).

If the mutations arise and if it is benefitial to spread through the population. And over a vast number of generations, using only step-wise changes and variations on pre-existing traits and genetic material.

A supporter of evolution would claim evolution takes too long to see any of the traits I am describing emerge. This objection is simply not fair; it does not explain why not a single animal or plant living today exhibits any single clearly identified gradual alteration or change of its physical traits that would act as a departure from its clearly provable ancestral history (or from another species of its same kind) that would otherwise be defined as an event leading to a new kind of animal, or be inarguably the beginning of such a transformation or new trait (as defined originally).

It's not that you can't see such traits emerge but that you can't see them in your lifetime or mine. If you want to see evolution in action, microorganisms have sufficiently fast generations to demonstrate evolution in one's lifetime. If you don't? Luckily, the earth itself records its past, and fossils and the ability to date them paints a picture of the evolutionary past.
You don't have to see something to provide evidence for it; it can also be inferred. You won't see a species evolving a new organ functionality in your lifetime but you can look at the fossil record and infer that it has happened.

Therefore, when comparing two species of animals that are clearly the same kind (a donkey and a zebra),

You're just SAYING that they're clearly the same kind. This is completely subjective; no definition of kind has been provided, I don't KNOW that they are the same kind because I don't know what a kind is. You cannot utilize nor argue against a definition that is not given.

to assume they share a common ancestor is an error, simply because they share common design.[quote:10e4b]
Why would God/the designer/space aliens create two species such that their and all other genetic, molecular and phylogenic evidence along with the fossil record lines in perfectly with an evolutionary model? Why is their JUNK DNA more closely related than the junk DNA from a donkey and a wolf?
Finally, if it is God you were advocating, reusing designs is something that is only done under the constraints of imperfect beings. You reuse designs because you already know they work and because they're roughly what you want in the new project. God would have no need for these; he could surely design the zebra so that it is perfectly suited to ITS task, whatever that is, and if it is utterly ideal as any perfect being would make it then it should not share common design with the donkey.
[quote:10e4b]Even if the Zebra had a new organ (or in this case, a stripe pattern that other horses do not), this is not evidence of the fact that zebras and horses shared a common ancestor and the zebras "evolved".

But the fossils and phylogenic and genetic and molecular blah blah blah already said this.

Rather, the ancestor of the zebra and the ancestor of the donkey had offspring which through the generations survived until today (by reason of logic), and while they are the same kind and can even potentially interbreed, they do not necessarily share a common ancestor and were potentially created with different features to begin with.

Huh?

To falsify this claim, it must be clearly demonstrated that the zebra and the donkey share a common ancestor (as opposed to a common designer who created them separately and slightly differently)

And decided to reuse the exact same junk DNA in the process?

and that not only did the zebra gain its stripes through mutation, but that no other explanation exists whereby the zebra and the donkey could logically be so different, yet similar.

No theory is the ONLY possible explaination for the phenomenon it describes, only the most accurate, most predicting and most parsimonious known. Space aliens could have zapped zebras and donkeys separately into existence fully formed, but the space aliens theory has less predictive power than evolution.

Evolutionists are guilty of assuming all horses (donkeys, zebras) share a common ancestor for their bias against the possibility of a designer who made the horse kind diversified to begin with. I repeat, to falsify my claims, it must be demonstrated that a zebra and donkey share a common ancestor, and that by the introduction of new traits (via evolution) they diversified, as opposed to the possibility that the two were never related to begin with and were created differently, yet with many similarities (being the same kind of animal, a horse).

In the event that the donkey and zebra do have a common ancestor, that still does not prove evolution, for the minor changes between a zebra and a donkey may very well be attributed to natural selection, mutation, and adaptation (not evolution, despite the claim that evolution works on these principals).

That IS darwinian evolution. Thanks for agreeing it exists, though now I'm baffled as to what you're fighting against. :-?

To prove evolution, it must be demonstrated that two creatures of the same kind which are simply too different to have contained its current traits from its ancestry (in other words, gained traits its ancestors did not possess), and yet are clearly the same kind of animal, showing the appearance or beginnings of traits as defined originally, excluding the possibility by way of evidence that the two do not share a two separate ancestors (thereby proving beyond any doubt that two animals of the same kind inherited traits that the other did not have, and were clearly not from its ancestor or another species from the same kind).

In conclusion, if no single animal or plant exhibits any variation from its kind that can be demonstrated to have been absent from its provable ancestral history (and not members of the same kind that differ), then evolution can be confirmed to be impossible both now, and in the past, for its lack of present day appearance in any living creatures or plant life. For evolution to be true, it must be a continual process that does not simply "end" when it is convenient or when looked at under a microscope. There must be a single provable example living today (although there should be countless of such examples across every single form of plant and animal life, yet there are none), whereby an animal or plant possesses a trait (or beginning of) that its provable ancestors did not possess. If no such trait can be found, then evolution is officially impossible and should be proclaimed to be so immediately

[/quote:10e4b][/quote:10e4b]
Okay, I've had enough.
Evolution does not end when we look at it; it is a process between generations, not over the lifetime of every creature. The fact IS that we won't see organisms wildly evolving just looking at them since the mutation rate just isn't that high. The fact that we can't is not a blow against evolution; it just means we can't observe evolution just by watching macro organisms from generation to generation, since it would take an impractical length. Evolution's viability is demonstrated instead through the evidence we CAN gather; observing microorganisms (and on occasion flies), noting the benefitial mutations we do see in humans, plants and animals, looking at phylogenic, genetic and molecular evidence that all fits in with the twin nested hierarchy model that common descent with modification would produce.
And...I dunno, I just really didn't like reading this, and not just because I didn't agree with it. Felt so bulky, repetitive and mindless. Is it just me? And how much theoretical or practical work in the fields of biology and/or evolutionary biology has VenomFangX done to come to his conclusion that darwinian evolution cannot happen? How many papers in the field of biology or evolution has he read and rebutted?

 

[Dunzo]

Hahaha, are you serious, John? VenomFangX?! The guy literally repeats Kent Hovind's moronic arguments word for word. Sounds just like you, come to think of it.

I'd recommend you watch Thunderf00t's videos for a harsh but fair response.

I actually made a video response to one of his stupid arguments, and of course, he didn't allow it. The irony of course, is that he challenged someone to refute his argument. When I did, he denied the argument to be shown.

The very same?

 

[Jayls5]

Hahaha, are you serious, John? VenomFangX?! The guy literally repeats Kent Hovind's moronic arguments word for word. Sounds just like you, come to think of it.

I'd recommend you watch Thunderf00t's videos for a harsh but fair response.

I actually made a video response to one of his stupid arguments, and of course, he didn't allow it. The irony of course, is that he challenged someone to refute his argument. When I did, he denied the argument to be shown.

The very same?

Yes, that's me. I'm a science nerd. I build lasers, make thermate, play with my plasma generator, and make crazy stereos with my friends. It's mostly my friends being shown in my videos, and I'm often the one taping. The video in question is a response to "proving the eternal God" or something like that. I just exposed his straw man since he said "nobody could argue against it," then he denied my video response.

 

[Jayls5]

And...I dunno, I just really didn't like reading this, and not just because I didn't agree with it. Felt so bulky, repetitive and mindless. Is it just me? And how much theoretical or practical work in the fields of biology and/or evolutionary biology has VenomFangX done to come to his conclusion that darwinian evolution cannot happen? How many papers in the field of biology or evolution has he read and rebutted?

It certainly wasn't just you.

Seeing as how I have zero background in biology, I could only analyze it from the perspective of sound reason. Once I saw his use of ambiguous language, impossible (and vague) criteria that needed to be satisfied, and a complete dismissal of the fossil record as viable evidence, I knew he was full of it.

Then I saw it was VenomFangX, and it all made sense. :

I attacked it in the simplest way possible that took the least amount of effort: exposing the impossible criteria he sets up to "prove" his strawman version of evolution.

Seriously, I feel bad for anyone that immediately thought this was compelling in the least bit. I highly recommend they take a class on logic and focus on the inductive section with informal fallacies. Once you fine tune this, you really waste a lot less time being fooled by terrible arguments. Even with essentially no bio background, I smelled the stench of a crappy argument from a mile away.

 

[John]

Hahaha, are you serious, John? VenomFangX?! The guy literally repeats Kent Hovind's moronic arguments word for word. Sounds just like you, come to think of it.

I'd recommend you watch Thunderf00t's videos for a harsh but fair response.

I actually made a video response to one of his stupid arguments, and of course, he didn't allow it. The irony of course, is that he challenged someone to refute his argument. When I did, he denied the argument to be shown.

The very same?

I am not a fan of this "tunderfoot" although his name is a pretty clear description of the sound my foot would make when i kicked him is his buns for being so ignorant

 

[Snidey]

lolol Thunderf00t's videos are scientific asskickings, calling him ignorant and deeming VenomFangX (a name I imagine I would have thought cool when I was 12) intellectually superior is indicative of your actual grasp on science. What specifically about Thunderf00t do you find so ignorant? Name some specific claims.

 

[John]

lolol Thunderf00t's videos are scientific asskickings, calling him ignorant and deeming VenomFangX (a name I imagine I would have thought cool when I was 12) intellectually superior is indicative of your actual grasp on science. What specifically about Thunderf00t do you find so ignorant? Name some specific claims.

Well of course anyone willing to defend such a hilarious adult fairy tale is not only ignorant but willingly ignorant..you would need help to be that dumb.

 

[Bryce]

I see a few insults, but no responses to his words directly :roll:

Thought at first look, I don't think he is correct.

Really? You must have missed the first post that pretty much single-handedly showed the fallacy of his argument, using his words.

I mis-read that the first time, but I meant a more in detail argument such as The Barbarian and Patasu gave. You made a good point though.

Interesting stuff on the Thunderf00t and Venom, never heard of either on them until today :roll:

 

[Bryce]

Well of course anyone willing to defend such a hilarious adult fairy tale is not only ignorant but willingly ignorant..you would need help to be that dumb.

Cmon now, have some respect.

You insult a great many scientists who dedicated there lives to research and study, you may not have agreed with the cause, but at least give credit when credit is due.
If it was so simple as an 'adult fairy tale' then the 'End of Evolution' would have occured shortly after the theory was composed

 

[John]

Well of course anyone willing to defend such a hilarious adult fairy tale is not only ignorant but willingly ignorant..you would need help to be that dumb.

Cmon now, have some respect.

You insult a great many scientists who dedicated there lives to research and study, you may not have agreed with the cause, but at least give credit when credit is due.
If it was so simple as an 'adult fairy tale' then the 'End of Evolution' would have occured shortly after the theory was composed

Yeah i suppose :

Well the "end of evolution" ... Goo to You has zero evidential weight, so yeah the end of evolution happened about 1 secs after it was thought up by charly dawrwin.

 

[Snidey]

lolol Thunderf00t's videos are scientific asskickings, calling him ignorant and deeming VenomFangX (a name I imagine I would have thought cool when I was 12) intellectually superior is indicative of your actual grasp on science. What specifically about Thunderf00t do you find so ignorant? Name some specific claims.

Well of course anyone willing to defend such a hilarious adult fairy tale is not only ignorant but willingly ignorant..you would need help to be that dumb.

lol right, it's the vast, vast majority of experts in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc that "need help to be that dumb," not the kid on the Internet getting his information from CreationWiki and VenomfangX videos.