[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Since I'm not the one who has done the science, I can only direct you to info where descriptions of the science (proof) can be found. I'm just trying to fill in the gaps in your supposed 'science' education. But you apparently refuse to actually read the scientific reports on the evidence.

I read the so called evidence however I am able to scientifically refute it.

Whales, for instance, are clearly shown in the fossil record to have evolved. There are clear 'steps' in changes between land and water habitation, how the nasal passages changed, etc. This could easily be found in any library (except, I guess, at that school you attend which you keep secret).

Please show me a sequense of fossils of a whale evolving into a land animal. I would love to see this fossil evidence.. so would the world.

I also gave you evidence of "'new' information in DNA" being given since bacteria do it all the time. Read that post again. Or does science actually bore you and so prevent you from finishing even a post here (much less a whole article or even the book I suggested).

Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

The Bacteria example is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo. Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? NO
In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Bottom line, no matter what traits your example of bacteria has developed, it is STILL BACTERIA 2 1/5 million (per 20min) generations later. So please stop trying to pass of evidence of micro as evidence for macro evolution. If you are going to show me a bacterium that evolved, show me one that evolved and changed not a virus, a fungus or heck, even a bird ;)

[achampio21]

I found this just cruising around the net today and I couldn't believe how wildly close to home it was. I thought this would add some lighter fluid to our fire. I apologize Credo for going off subject with this, but I think it is relative in a different kind of way. ;)

And I thought NeedKarma would get a nice kick out of this quote also. :p


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

[lobrobster]

Huh? How can you seem so sure its erroneous and then say it might be right?

Because whether it is right or wrong, the *logic* you are using to derive an answer is erroneous. If I used wolf howling to tell me whether it's going to rain tomorrow, I might get it right. But the method I used is still wrong. C'mon De Maria. I know you're logic must be better than this!

But frequently, scientists have subjective agendas which they confuse with objective evidence and then their conclusions turn out overly biased.

I've been through this too many times before on these forums. If you REALLY want to believe that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz to pull the wool over our eyes with respect to evolution and the age of the earth to further some agenda, there is certainly nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I would just ask you to consider that the majority of people are those with faith. So if they want funding, wouldn't it make sense to appease them and not us minority atheists?

[sassyT]

Because whether it is right or wrong, the *logic* you are using to derive an answer is erroneous. If I used wolf howling to tell me whether it's going to rain tomorrow, I might get it right. But the method I used is still wrong. C'mon De Maria. I know you're logic must be better than this!




I've been through this too many times before on these forums. If you REALLY want to believe that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz to pull the wool over our eyes with respect to evolution and the age of the earth to further some agenda, there is certainly nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I would just ask you to consider that the majority of people are those with faith. So if they want funding, wouldn't it make sense to appease them and not us minority atheists?

They may not have an agenda but they definitely have FAITH.

[achampio21]

HEY SASSYT


Does your professor at your college, where you are studying a masters in Biology, teach that seeds and everything else came from God?

Because if he/she doesn't you are paying an awful lot of money to someone that "obviously doesn't know what they are talking about".

[lobrobster]

they may not have an agenda but they definately have FAITH.

It is only FAITH if you are using no evidence. The evidence for evolution and the age of the earth are overwhelming. You just choose not to accept it for whatever reason. And yeah, why haven't I asked you this before...

Why do you choose not to accept it? Exactly why do you think all these scientists are wrong? In other words, people who devote their entire lives to geology and make their living from dating things have no problem accepting the evidence of how old the earth is. But you, SassyT, do not. Don't you think that's weird?

[WVHiflyer]

BELIEVE[/B] there is no God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual
You BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- i am yet to see conclusive evidence
You BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature--- fossil evidence denies this
You BELIEVE there is no life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions used
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is not a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax exept status as religious organisations.

You BELIEVE there is a God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual

(While I'm just as sure there are no gods)

You don't BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- and no amount of evidence will convince you as long as you remain anti-scientific
You do not BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature and that 'even the fossil evidence denies this' --- though it's improbable such fossil evidence of that would be found, science doesn't need fossils to prove everything
You BELIEVE there is life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You don't BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions that your faith demands you use
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax except status as religious organisations<sic> along with the Red Cross, Big Brothers, United Way, etc. - all non-relig

Are you so insecure in you own faith that you have a compulsion to see 'belief' in all opinions or conclusions?



-It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment. --Galileo Galilei; The Authority of Scripture in Philosophical Controversies (condemned by the Inquisition)

[WVHiflyer]

Achamp, I like that Galileo quote. Before I read it, I'd added a similar one to a post (one prev to this)

Glad you like my hillbilly wisdom.

-

[WVHiflyer]

I read the so called evidence however I am able to scientifically refute it.

You haven't used science to either refute or support anything.

Please show me a sequense of fossils of a whale evolving into a land animal. I would love to see this fossil evidence.. so would the world.

Your scientific ignorance is showing again. I said the fossil evidence clearly shows the progression of whales, not the reverse.


Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

The Bacteria example is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo.
Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Again you show you do not understand how evolution works. There is no direction. A 'loss' of info could be as beneficial as a 'gain' and either could eventually result in speciation. The missing ingredient is time, lots of it. No one was trying to get e-coli to 'evolve' but were trying to get them to adopt ne characteristics for specific uses. That would be artificial selection, not natural.



-

[asking]

These definitions of loss and gain of information seem pretty flexible. I think to have a good discussion, you need to define these terms more strictly. Until then:

I have been traveling for most of the last month, so am not up on this discussion. Sassy, did you ever respond to my example of dogs speciating? I read that beagles and golden retrievers (I think) are now reproductively isolated. They are morphologically distinct and (also) they cannot produce fertile puppies together. By definition they are separate species. This seems to show that it's not true that humans have never produced new species.

Furthermore, I don't even think you need such a great example. It's obvious that if chihuahuas and great danes were found in the wild, they would be considered different species. And many species that are less different and CAN interbreed--such as lions and tigers--are considered separate species. These two kinds of big cats clearly function differently in the wild--behaving differently, catching different prey, living in different environments. Chihuauas and great danes, both descended from wolves, would certainly fill different ecological niches if they lived in the wild, just as lions and tigers do and just as wild dogs and coyotes do.

Sassy, do you agree that dogs are descended from wolves, as all the genetics shows?
What do you think of the beagle/retriever example of speciation? Do you accept the "biological species concept" definition of species, which says that a species is a population of organisms that can breed with its own kind but not with others? If so, that makes beagles and retrievers separate species. If not, how would you define a species?

[sassyT]

HEY SASSYT


Does your professor at your college, where you are studying a masters in Biology, teach that seeds and everything else came from God?

Because if he/she doesn't you are paying an awful lot of money to someone that "obviously doesn't know what they are talking about".

No, however one of my science teachers who is also a Darwinist tries to tell me that I share a common ancestor with a seed. He tells me this mythical ancestor was a little one cell creature who crawled out of warm soup and miraculously morphed into all the biological diversity we see today. So apparently according to this Dawinists teacher of mine, the seed is one of my distant cousins. :p

I think he is getting paid too much money because I am interested in learning Biology not myths about ameobas and little warm ponds.

[N0help4u]

Yeah the one cell morphing into us is what I would love Cred to explain but he keeps dodging the ?

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

It is only FAITH if you are using no evidence. The evidence for evolution and the age of the earth are overwhelming. You just choose not to accept it for whatever reason. And yeah, why haven't I asked you this before...

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming however the evidence for Macro evolution is non existant. So it takes a leap of faith to assume the changes that occur within species, over billions of years, will produce a totally different never seen before animal. That has never been observed.

Why do you choose not to accept it? Exactly why do you think all these scientists are wrong? In other words, people who devote their entire lives to geology and make their living from dating things have no problem accepting the evidence of how old the earth is. But you, SassyT, do not. Don't you think that's weird?

Again I did not say they are wrong I just said I don't share the same Faith they do in the unproven assuptions made as a basis of the theory.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

You BELIEVE there is a God ---- But you can not prove that to be factual

Unlike you I don't claim unproven beliefs to be facts.

(While I'm just as sure there are no gods)

You don't BELIEVE a big bang created the universe --- and no amount of evidence will convince you as long as you remain anti-scientific
You do not BELIEVE we evolved from a one cell creature and that 'even the fossil evidence denies this' --- though it's improbable such fossil evidence of that would be found, science doesn't need fossils to prove everything
You BELIEVE there is life after death---- you have zero evidence of this
You don't BELIEVE the universe is 14.3 billion years old ---- but you ignore the assuptions that your faith demands you use
You BELIEVE Secular Humanism is a religion ---- and yet it has the same tax except status as religious organisations<sic> along with the Red Cross, Big Brothers, United Way, etc. - all non-relig

Yes, you are right I don't believe in the above because I have not seen conclusive evidence for any of it.

Are you so insecure in you own faith that you have a compulsion to see 'belief' in all opinions or conclusions?

I am not the one who is insecure about my faith. I am not the one who is claiming to be an atheist and yet spend half my life on religious forum.
All opinions and conclusions that do not have 100% factual irrefutable evidence to back them up, are BELIEFS. Sorry :)

[NeedKarma]

This is going around in circles. They should close this question.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

These definitions of loss and gain of information seem pretty flexible. I think to have a good discussion, you need to define these terms more strictly. Until then:

I have been traveling for most of the last month, so am not up on this discussion. Sassy, did you ever respond to my example of dogs speciating? I read that beagles and golden retrievers (I think) are now reproductively isolated. They are morphologically distinct and (also) they cannot produce fertile puppies together. By definition they are separate species. This seems to show that it's not true that humans have never produced new species.

What you have described in your post is micro evolution within the same KIND/genus.
Barriers to reproduction do arise among varieties of species that once interbred. However that does in anyway prove macro evolution nor does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others.

The fact is the dog, wolf etc are still the same genus. According to the Genesis model of origins, God created not each individual species, but the wider genus to which each species belongs.
For example, the scientific name for the domesticiated dog is Canis familiaris. Canis is the genus, while familiaris is the species. Canis is Latin for "dog," referring to the wider dog "kind," while familiaris refers to the familiar, domesticated dog as an individual species. Canis incompasses wolves and coyotes, Canis lupus is the wolf (lupus being Latin for "wolf"), while Canis ladrans is the coyote.
So I have no quams believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins, fruit flies and palm tress. :rolleyes: (macroevolution). There is no evidence for macro evolution where animals evolve to a totally different genus.

[asking]

So, S, you are saying that God created genera such as Canis (including C. familiaris-dog-, C. lupus-wolf- and C. latrans)-coyote), but not the individual species? And then the individual species evolved on their own through what you are calling microevolution?

Is that correct?

[sassyT]

So, S, you are saying that God created genera such as Canis (including C. familiaris-dog-, C. lupus-wolf- and C. latrans)-coyote), but not the individual species? And then the individual species evolved on their own through what you are calling microevolution?

Is that correct?

Correct... there is overwhelming irrefutable evidence of micro evolution, that is animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all sharing a common canine ancestor (microevolution). However there is NO evidence that as Darwinists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins, flowers, butterflies and palm trees.
Genesis thus indicates that God created each genus, not each individual species. Within each genus He provided a blueprint for diversity, enabling each genus to split, over time (not billions of years), into numerous species i.e speciation.

So darwinist tend to make the mistake of using evidence for micro evolution as evidence for MACRO.

[WVHiflyer]

asking> Do you accept the "biological species concept" definition of species, which says that a species is a population of organisms that can breed with its own kind but not with others? If so, that makes beagles and retrievers separate species. If not, how would you define a species?

I hate to give Sassy anything she thinks of as ammunition, but there's a big debate now on the definition of a species. While most still generally accept the def you gave, there are other defs. The example of ligers and tilons you gave is one reason why. And if the info on beagles and golden rets is right, that's another.

-

[WVHiflyer]

Sassy> Unlike you I don't claim unproven beliefs to be facts.

But you do. You claim there is an intelligent designer responsible for all. Your belief in that is expressed as a fact - you determination in believing that supernatural claim shows you to believe it a fact. My acceptance of evolution is as much a fact as that that says the Earth orbits the Sun. What I study to learn about are all the theories by which evolution happens.

And you cannot 'learn biology' without a proper understanding of evolution. You don't have to accept it, just understand it. You do not as yet because of your religious blinders.

Sassy> however there is NO evidence that as Darwinists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins, flowers, butterflies and palm trees.

Except that the evidence is there and there's an overwhelming amount of it. And it increases every day. You just refuse to accept it.

And 'acceptance' is not the same as 'belief.'

-