Jump to content

Most Liked Content

#91203 Evolution Did It

Posted by gilbo12345 on 29 June 2013 - 05:45 PM

Its become increasingly clear that many evolutionists are not concerned with scientific validity or with the truth.


The reason I state such a hefty claim is because from discussions here and things I see on the internet, most people merely assert evolution as a fact of life without actually demonstrating it is. When asked for a demonstration they may cite things like, speciation, antibiotic resistance, DNA similarity, even the field of medicine (though medicine has no relationship to evolution at all, and would still exist without evolution, indeed it existed before Darwin was born).


The sad thing with these examples is that they are all based on the assumption of "evolution did it". The fact of the matter is that there is no way to verify these claims. If I walked up to you and said I can fly, you'd ask for verification of such a claim, however the same cannot be said for evolution.


Asking for verification of evolution is basically taboo to some ardent evolutionists, you must believe in it fully, you must put your blind devoted faith towards it.You are not allowed to question or ponder on evolution, nor consider the details, the details do not matter, "evolution did it" and that is all you need to know.


But is it really?


Does suppressing opposition really make for a compelling case for something claimed to be scientific? Scientific inquiry allows, actually stimulates, skepticism in any hypothesis or claim and encourages scientists to test the claim to ensure its validity. Additionally from testing, new information may be found as to the details of the claim, its limits and strengths. THIS is how science operates, not by suppressing opposition.


I challenge the evolutionist to provide verification of their claims of "evolution as a fact". By verification I mean scientific / empirical experimentation which has been done, observations leading to a hypothesis or assumptions are not valid forms of verification.

  • goldliger, SUPERDAVE, driewerf and 3 others like this

#114551 Evolution Did It

Posted by Giovanni on 03 November 2014 - 07:09 AM

As I said, if you believe an intelligent race seeded life here, then that intelligent race had to arise and evolve to the point of interstellar travel in a fraction of the time all life has arisen here. Am I in the ball park?


In other words, dead end? Here's a funny yet accurate flowchart I read back in time:



  • gilbo12345, NewPath, Bonedigger and 2 others like this

#111768 Tetrapod Limbs - How Evolution Absorbs Contradictory Data

Posted by lifepsyop on 15 August 2014 - 07:24 PM

Evolutionists claim that the digits of tetrapods are homologous to the digits of fish.  The different but similar patterns of these digits (or distal elements)  found in fossils are likewise claimed to be evidence of the transition from a fin to a limb.  Images like the following are frequently presented to mass audiences as if they are proof of how these structures shape-shifted through time. 






However, more recently, researchers discovered that the digits of mice are expressed by different genetic pathways than the digits of fish.


This leads to the conclusion that the, contrary to popular belief, the digits of tetrapods and fish are not homologous, and the lineage leading to tetrapods must have "evolved" new morphology to replace the fish digits, before crawling onto land. 



Conservation and Divergence of Regulatory Strategies at Hox Loci and the Origin of Tetrapod Digits


....We found the same bimodal chromatin architecture in fish embryos, indicating that the regulatory mechanism used to pattern tetrapod limbs may predate the divergence between fish and tetrapods. However, when assessed in mice, both fish regulatory landscapes triggered transcription in proximal rather than distal limb territories, supporting an evolutionary scenario whereby digits arose as tetrapod novelties through genetic retrofitting of preexisting regulatory landscapes.  (rolleyes.gif) We discuss the possibility to consider regulatory circuitries, rather than expression patterns, as essential parameters to define evolutionary synapomorphies.


Here's a less technical article on this research.




.....The researchers conclude that, although fish possess the Hox regulatory toolkit to produce digits, this potential is not utilized as it is in tetrapods. Therefore, they propose that fin radials, the bony elements of fins, are not homologous to tetrapod digits, although they rely in part on a shared regulatory strategy.




This is a simple example of how Evolution theory is comfortable with both the prediction, and the contradiction of that prediction.   Evolutionists predict the relatively similar digit-like structures shared between different animal groups must be evidence that they share a common ancestor.   They use these similarities in graphical presentations as 'evidence' of the evolutionary transition over time.


However, when further research reveals that those features are not homologous, (not derived from a common ancestral feature) then evolutionists simply accommodate the contradictory data as something unexpected that evolution did over millions and millions of years.


Heads they win, tails you lose.  We can see that Evolution theory is comfortable with opposing outcomes, yet proponents will still use either outcome as a positive confirmation of the theory.


This is the fog of evolution settling around a shifting landscape of data.

  • Calypsis4, Bonedigger, FaithfulCenturion and 2 others like this

#95282 Richard Dawkins Lies After Losing A Debate

Posted by FaithfulCenturion on 18 October 2013 - 12:58 AM

That is what Krauss did with his debates with Craig.. The man is absolutely deplorable and continually interrupts Craig in order to stop him from making his points. He did exactly the same with a discussion on a radio show with Lennox, I got frustrated with the radio moderator letting Krauss have free reign that I stopped listening... Not that Krauss would have said anything revolutionary, his book "A universe from Nothing" is VERY similar to Hawkings recent book "The Grand Design", so similar some reviews have pointed this out.

Ah yet more evidence for my hypothesis! ;) I believe I will name it FC's law! Which states that in any debate, whether formal or not, the atheist/evolutionist will, at some point continuously interrupt, talk over, or degrade their opponent in an effort to silence opposition to their worldview. ^_^ There, now its all nice and official!
  • Adam Nagy, gilbo12345, HammerOfGod and 1 other like this

#88480 Experimentation Versus Observation

Posted by Stripe on 11 January 2013 - 10:38 AM

I'm interested to see what both sides of the debate have to say on whether observations can be considered scientific claims or not, and what exactly constitutes as experimental testing of the hypothesis (for example, does it have to take place in a lab?).

The theory of evolution is a case of historical science. There are experiments one can do to test elements and predictions of the theory, but in order to determine the veracity of evolution, it must be assessed as history.

Because evolution cannot be repeated in order to show the change from (say) dinosaur to bird, the evidence for that claim rely upon the presupposition of evolution. Now presupposition isn't a bad thing, as long as the presupposition is always declared.

Where evolutionists tend to fall down is that they insist there is no assumption and that there are no other possibilities. So when we see an experiment, be it bacterial adaptation or genetic studies, the theory of evolution is treated like a fact and the terminology used insulates any investigation (internal or challenging) from considering alternative explanations for the results we find.

I don't mind evolution being held as an explanation when the proponent is willing to consider other explanations for experimental results we can achieve without insisting that evolutionary terms are the ones that have to be used.
  • gilbo12345, Bonedigger, Bond007 and 1 other like this

#82652 25 Common Misconceptions About Evolution

Posted by Isabella on 30 March 2012 - 10:59 AM

As most of you probably know, a straw man argument involves misrepresenting your opponent’s position and refuting the misrepresentation. One of the best ways to avoid an unintentional straw man argument is to fully understand your opponent’s viewpoint; this holds true for evolutionists and creationists alike. I enjoy posting here because the creationists on this site are well-educated when it comes to evolutionary concepts, but I’ve noticed that there are still a great deal of misconceptions out there. I have compiled this list based my experiences on this forum and in everyday life. My aim here is not to start a debate, but if you feel that any of the below points have been wrongly labelled as false I would like to hear your reasoning.

If you would like me to elaborate on any of the following, please let me know and I will be happy to do so. I purposely limited my explanations to a sentence or two, but in most cases there is a lot more I can say on the subject.

25 Common Misconceptions about Evolution:

1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.

2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.

3. Evolution results in increased complexity.
False. It certainly can, but complexity is not always advantageous and sometimes simple traits are favoured.

4. Evolution plans ahead to achieve goals.
False. Only traits that provide an immediate advantage will be selected for. Traits don’t stick around with the intention of becoming useful some day.

5. Evolution ignores the impossibility of irreducible complexity.
False. An evolutionary model would be logically incorrect if the necessity of a trait preceded its appearance, and thus no model depends on this impossibility.

6. Humans represent the end product of evolution.
False. If anything, humans demonstrate that intelligence is an extremely powerful adaptation.

7. For a mutation to be significant, it must occur in a gene.
False. Mutations in regulatory elements can affect where and when genes are expressed, leading to major changes.

8. Individuals can evolve, and a developed mutation is passed down on to future generations.
False. This is the logic behind Lamarckism, and we all know Lamarckism is false... right? Mutations must arise in the sperm or eggs to be heritable.

9. Macroevolutionary changes above the level of species occur from one generation to the next.
False. Evolution is a gradual process; it does not predict that one animal will give birth to an entirely new animal, nor does it claim that this has ever happened in the past.

10. Hybridization is an evolutionary mechanism that produces new species.
True, but only in rare cases (ex. certain plants). Frequent hybridization between two species generally counteracts speciation by mixing gene pools.

11. Natural selection is the only evolutionary mechanism.
False. Natural selection is important, but there are several mechanisms driving evolution.

12. “Fitness” refers to strength or power.
False. In the context of biological evolution, fitness refers to reproductive success. In other words, the number of fertile offspring an individual can produce in their lifetime.

13. The phrase “Survival of the Fittest” suggests that the strong individuals should kill the weak.
False. In the context of biological evolution, this statement refers to the “survival” of an individual’s genetic code in future generations via the production of offspring.

14. Social Darwinism and biological evolution are one in the same.
False. Just as religion has been misused to support personal and political agendas, so has evolution. The vast majority of evolutionists do not support Social Darwinist ideas.

15. Richard Dawkins is the spokesman for evolution.
False. Just because he’s famous, doesn’t mean his opinions are representative of what all evolutionists think.

16. Darwin is the leader of modern evolutionary research.
False. Just as you wouldn’t credit Alexander Graham Bell with the invention of the newest iPhone, Charles Darwin is not directly responsible for modern evolutionary ideas.

17. The old earth theory was made up to accommodate the evolution timeline.
False. The old earth view was accepted among scientists long before Darwin came along.

18. Gaps or uncertainties in the fossil record present a serious problem for evolution.
False. Fossil formation, fossil preservation, and fossil discovery are all low-probability events. Gaps in the fossil record are expected.

19. Since humans are animals, it’s acceptable to act like animals.
What does this even mean? Clams don’t act like elephants. Rabbits don’t act like jellyfish. Animal behaviours are diverse and unique, including human behaviour.

20. Evolution promotes racism.
False. Evolution actually promotes racial equality by suggesting that all humans shared a common ancestor and have been evolving for the same amount of time.

21. Evolutionary hypotheses never change—that would be a sign of a weak theory.
False. Hypotheses are revised and discarded all the time, just like any other field of empirical science. This is a strength, not a weakness.

22. Scientific journals only publish results that support evolution.
False. While positive results are often showcased in the news and on non-scholarly websites, journals publish negative/inconclusive results too.

23. Scientists work together to make sure weaknesses in the theory remain hidden.
False. Research is a competitive field, and experimental results are under constant scrutiny.

24. Evolution cannot be falsified.
False. There are plenty of discoveries that could falsify or dramatically alter our current understanding of evolution.

25. All evolutionists are atheists.
False. There are many theistic evolutionists.
  • menes777, CzarAlex, Remnant of The Abyss and 1 other like this

#126720 Atheist's Burden Of Proof

Posted by Mike Summers on 16 September 2015 - 07:47 PM

So sorry to hear of your difficulty.  If I recall, this is another cross for you to bear healthwise.  Hopefully, when you can get the operation, it will be successful and all will be well.

Thanks guys for your concern and prayers.

I remember hearing a sermon at church when I had all my parts and could "visually" see better.

The minister said our body ages but our mind doesn't have to follow. It was good information. I am still a child at heart. I try to be as playful as I can.

The doctor said "we" have to wait until the cataracts ripen before they can be removed. Apparently my body is devolving! I usually have to copy a post and put it into my word processor and enlarge the type to read it.

Many years ago God and I had some knock down drag out arguments far more intense than I have had on this site. I told Him if he did not heal me, I was going to let everyone knw He was a slum landlord that refused to keep up His property. When I told one of my Christian brothers, they asked me wasn't I afraid of what God would do to me? I said, "Nope! What's He going to do love me to death"? "Aren't you afraid He will send a lightening bolt and destroy you"? "How much sense would that make--destroying what He created" That would be like cutting off his nose to spite his face (a quip I got from mom). Nah! Knowing Him all he will do is correct me". I went on, "Nope! He knows what I think and where to find me! You have got God confused with Thor. He's the one that uses lightening bolts". LOL I retorted on, "I didn't ask to come to this stupid planet and be a stupid human, I was happy in the land of non existence! He can always send me back where I was an eternity ago! He was the One that created me so if He doesnt like what he created..." I got the impression God was not impressed with my tirade. LOL

Some of my family worked hard to keep me in a nursing home when I lost my legs. It was like a prison. God did allow me to escape finally . What an experience that was.

  • gilbo12345, Giovanni, Goku and 1 other like this

#125997 Evolution Of The Eye

Posted by gjones on 05 September 2015 - 06:42 AM

Here's how this will go down:


1. We will propose a possible pathway for the evolution of the eye.

2. You will ask for "experiments" which support this proposed pathway.

3. You will argue that we cant test it because it happened in the past.

4. We will end up with a discussion about terminology.


Doesn't this ever get old? If you were honestly interested in discussing biology why not do it somewhere that biologists and geneticists actually discuss this sort of thing? Why hide in the butt crack of the internet pretending that you're "teaching" science when it's obvious you know very little to nothing about it? 


If you REALLY want answers I would suggest you look into molecular sequencing of the Pax genes (Pax6 specifically), and papers discussing the evolution of crystallins and opsins. 


But my guess is you would rather remain ignorant. 

  • Mambo, nnjamerson, GodlessGamer and 1 other like this

#123539 2 Questions For Atheists...

Posted by mike the wiz on 02 August 2015 - 08:56 AM

Funny I was reading Gilbo's link to some sort of, skepticism and rationalism, website.


One of the atheists commenting said something along the lines;


"God and magic are no different, therefore God is the same and there is nothing more to be said."


If this was put into a syllogism it would be unsound:


All magic is false

God is magic or the same as magic

Therefore God is false.


The fault in this argument was that God is magic or equal to it, as that is an unproven premise.


It is very, very popular for atheists, especially anti-theists to use either magic or something imaginary, and to equate God with those things. This is why the Invisible pink unicorn is often brought up by them. The IPU is actually a question-begging-epithet, used only as emotive terminology, because what they need to do to prove their claim, is first show us that God truly is equatable to magic or imaginary, fictional entities.


So then what is the basis for the comparison? 




They deem that because an IPU is invisible, and so is God, that they are the same. They deem that because the IPU is some sort of entity, and so is God, He is the same.


The problem with the composition is that is is never 100% equivalent. In order for their claim to be true, they have to prove there is a 100% equal composition. Why?


Here is why:


I look like mike, so does the waxwork standing in front of you.

I dress like mike, so does the waxwork standing in front of you.

I have the same colour eyes as mike, so does the waxwork standing in front of you.

I have soft hair like mike, so does the waxwork in front of you.


So far the composition of characteristics is accurate, but it only takes one mis-match for the argument to topple. What is it?


I have DNA like mike. The waxwork DOESN'T.


It is the same with God and pink unicorns. What is the mis-match?


The mis-match is that truly we do know that the IPU was invented by atheists to argue against theism, but as for God, nobody can know if He was invented, strictly technically speaking.


this is how you take an anti-theist's sophistry to pieces. It is most satisfying when you can find an edge over them, by leaving no stone un-turned. :) ;)


You see I really am a true skeptic/rationalist, and a Christian, which no doubt they would see as an oxymoron, and for what reasons? Well, because they're just morons. Which makes it highly amusing to read atheists saying they are rational, when they don't know their proverbial rational butt-cheek from their proverbial rational elbow.



  • gilbo12345, Mike Summers, goldliger and 1 other like this

#122248 Is Coach Sandusky A H*mos*xual?

Posted by Calypsis4 on 29 June 2015 - 06:17 AM

I'm surprised no other YEC seems to have an opinion on this but ok...


TeeJay, what specific bible passages lead you to want the death penalty for h*m*sexuals?


I don't advocate death to h*m*sexuals. I favor conversion to Christ and the grace of God be given to them. The Mosaic law brought death to those who practiced the sin but so did it likewise for adultery, fornication, and rebellious children. That Law was given by God to Israel alone and it was for the purpose of defining sin and just how a holy God looks upon human iniquity. It was not given to anyone else in the world. The church is not given the authority to execute anyone for sin nor criminal offences and those 'Christian' denominations that did so used civil authority to accomplish their will. It was wrong because that is not what the gospel is all about. 


I and my like-minded brethren believe in love and forgiveness for all sinners whether they be H*mos*xual sinners, murdering sinners, thieving sinners, adulterous sinners, or lying sinners. All need to come to know God and receive His love and grace through Jesus Christ. I have never mistreated g*ys even if they did not like my counsel and turned away from what I said but I never failed to tell them that they must turn from that sin to the Lord if they expect to have any hope of heaven. So it is with all sinners and so it was for me.

  • Fjuri, FaithfulCenturion, piasan and 1 other like this

#122236 Evolution And The Nature Of Science And Reality

Posted by mike the wiz on 28 June 2015 - 02:00 PM

Thanks Calypsis.


Yes, that's the bat drawing, it shows that from going to a quadruped mammal to a flying mammal wouldn't have any real-life directionality, IMHO. Stages of that drawing show that the strange flipper-like early wings would have no reason to even be there.


Evolutionists it seems to me, use this to say creationists don't understand evolution, but it's ironic because usually the layman-evolutionist doesn't actually understand the implications of his beloved theory. I think Iguana's know-it-all attitude is because he genuinely believes he has a deep scientific knowledge that we don't know, but all atheists associate themselves with, "science". Associating it and "standing" for it, doesn't make you scientific. The connection is only rhetorical, because without science, atheism truly is a pitiful stance, they need evolution to prop it up(ipse dixit), and I have never met an atheist that did not associate themselves with science, the scientific way, understanding science, and approving of it. They seem to think this then qualifies them as scientific. Lol


Take this as an example:




Iguana: Mike: yes, it's true. If we had found mammals under trilobites, we would have concluded tht mammals came before trilobites, because evolution is based on fitting the hypothesis to the evidence, unlike creationism, which is based ob fitting evidence to the a priori conclusion a.k.a the Bible. What you're saying would be valid... if we had already found all the mammal and trilobite fossils and took out conclusions from that



Here Iguana, contradicts himself, as he constantly does. He says here that the bible knowing something apriori, would not be valid, yet he claims evolution PREDICTS evidence. In fact predictive-apriori knowledge is much stronger science because posteriori-knowledge can be tautological.


The fact we can read our bibles, read about a flood, and then go and find evidence for it and for animal kinds, if anything shows a strong hypothesis. But fitting up a fossil record from already-known fossil record as an evolution is tautological, because as Iguana doesn't realize, he admits that evolution would have also concluded the fossil record was because of evolution if mammals had came first.


So Iguana admits to a tautology without even knowing he does so. For if a hypothesis can fit with any facts, in any occurrence, then this is a WEAK hypothesis.


Think about it - if we had found the mammals in the cambrian, Iguana said they would have said it was evolution, and if they have found reptiles first, it would have been evolution, and if they had found invertebrates, then it would have been them first. This is exactly what a tautology is - something that would be true in any circumstance, which is why so many tautologies are such WEAK arguments.


So I show creation can predict evidence, and then Iguana changes his mind and now says that predictive explanations are weak. Lol - talk about changing the goal posts!


I am english indeed,  my friend,.... but don't hold it against me because of the two devious "D"s. ;) (Dawkins + Darwin). 

  • gilbo12345, Mike Summers, Calypsis4 and 1 other like this

#115600 Just Got Accepted For A Teaching Fellowship!

Posted by want the truth on 06 December 2014 - 05:26 PM

I'm going to be afforded the chance to go back to college, and get the credits I need to teach science (preferably biology).  Plus, I'd also be relieved of the previous loan debt I accumulated from my B.S.


I have another job opportunity as well, so I'm still undecided on what I want to do.  I'm leaning towards going back to school and teaching though.


I'm pretty excited :)

  • Calypsis4, FaithfulCenturion, Schera Do and 1 other like this

#115388 Are Creationists Moving The Goal Posts Like Evolutionists Claim

Posted by lifepsyop on 28 November 2014 - 08:15 PM


Here, Talk Origins gives a coherent and well sourced explanation for Macroevolution.  They describe what it is and what it always was.  http://www.talkorigi...oevolution.html




Did you even read that TO link?  One of the first sections explains how the terms have never been specifically defined. 





Ways in which the term "macroevolution" is used by scientists. Some are exact in the way they use it, while others are less exact. These usages are not all the same, and this causes some confusion. Why do scientists not agree on the meaning of their terms?


The meaning modern authors give to the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is often confusing, and varies according to what it is they are discussing. This is particularly the case when "large-scale" evolutionary processes are being discussed. For example, R. L. Carroll, in his undergraduate textbook (1997: 10) defines microevolution as "involving phenomena at the level of populations and species" and macroevolution as "evolutionary patterns expressed over millions and hundreds of millions of years". Eldredge says, "Macroevolution, however it is precisely defined, always connotes "large-scale evolutionary change" (1989: vii) and throughout his book speaks of macroevolution as roughly equivalent to the evolution of taxa that are of a higher rank than species, such as genera, orders, families and the like."



Micro and macro evolution are caused by the same mechanism.  No one ever said anything different


Again, your very own link contradicts you.




Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense."



  • gilbo12345, Calypsis4, Bonedigger and 1 other like this

#115370 Are Creationists Moving The Goal Posts Like Evolutionists Claim

Posted by Calypsis4 on 28 November 2014 - 03:23 PM



Below is every single statement that you made to Enoch complaining about quote mining. Now please observe that  you DID NOT document your statements nor did you show us that HIS SOURCES were quote mined by showing us other statements from those sources that counter his position.


Then I do not know what you are referring too in regards to physics.


Wrong.  Scientific models are constructed conceptually or mathematically from available data and theories in order to help explain how something works.  Construction models of PREDICTIVE UTILITY (please try to understand that term) is paramount to our understanding anything because they can be used to create tests and predictions that can further our understanding.  If a theory is able to create models of predictive utility, it is a robustly proven theory indeed.


No documentation. Your position stated here is mere opinion until you reference a source.


Cosmology: "The cosmic microwave background radiation (the oldest light in the universe) was predicted to exist 14 years before it was discovered.

Paleontology: The Tiktaalik fossil was predicted to exist before it was discovered.  Paleontologists not only predicted it would exist, but they used the fossil record to predict where it would be found!


No documentation. Your position stated here is mere opinion until you reference a source.

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
I include this statement by Enoch because all can see he referenced his source.
Ah yes, creationists do love to quote mine.  It is true, we can not predict exactly what the biosphere of Earth is going to evolve into millions of years in the future.  We can make guesses based on current trends, but there are too many variables.  However, nothing stops us from using a MODEL of PREDICTIVE UTILITY (these words are important to remember) constructed from the theory of evolution to predict things we should discover about our past.  Here's my favorite example. Every other member of Hominidae besides humans has 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans only have 23.  So the question was; where did the missing pair go?  It must mean that two pairs of chromosomes fused together into one pair sometime in our distance past after early humans split off from the branch that included chimpanzees.  Once the technology to analyze genomes was developed, this prediction was confirmed by observing the structure of our number two pair of chromosomes.



No documentation. Your position stated here is mere opinion until you reference a source.


."many tropes that creationists fall into". Along with another Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)... Mostly "because they all read the same sources".


No documentation here either.


 "whilecreationists feel it necessary to create this idea of different types of science, they also want to merge different fields of science."


None here either.


Not at all, they just misuse them.


Where is your documentation? This is mere opinion.


You are the one who is misinformed, my friend.


He documented his statement that you replied to above. You did not.


Yes!  He is.  I don't know much about this man or that quote, but I know that the Theory of Evolution does not and cannot include Abiogenesis or Cosmology.  They are completely different fields and do not share a common mechanism.  You see, unlike religion, we don't hold any source as infallible.  Humans are capable of making mistakes and everyone is capable of making reasonable objective conclusions.  Nothing is written in stone just because it is in a book or said by someone with a title in front of his name.  That's what makes science work so well; it is a self correcting process.  I disagree with statements made by many very smart people ranging from college professors to Carl Sagan.  And this isn't a matter of opinion, I can PROVE it!  This doesn't mean I am smarter than they are in their fields, only that they made a mistake without realizing it.


None here either.


Like I said, I could not find it in it's original context in it's original source.  I might be able to find a physical copy of that issue of Science in an archive somewhere, but typing he phrase into Google yielded only a direct quote on creationism websites.  Nothing more, nothing less.


Or here.


If you mean that cosmology is related to evolution because evolution occurs in the universe, then yes they are "interconnected".  But besides that, I don't see your point for bringing up the quote originally.  If evolution were completely disproved tomorrow, it would do nothing to shake the support of any other theory such as the Big Bang.


Nor here.


If the test is more accurate, shows different results, and is repeatable than yes it should supplant the older study.  A more modern definition of evolution is more appropriate because we've discovered more accurate information over the last fifty years!  The understanding of the origin of life has changed significantly in that time.


Incorrect.  No matter which mechanism for the formation of the first life forms and the formation of genetic alleles turns out to be correct (even if that mechanism is an invisible man in the sky) it would not change our understanding of the mechanisms which change the alleles.


You can't just quote one "evolutionist" and claim that his statement is 100% accurate or inline with what the scientific community accepts.


Again, Enoch documented his statement and you gave  mere opinion. How are we to know you have support for your positions if you refuse to take the time to document them?


"All you have done is take quotes from the abstract of biological medical science papers" 


I never said that they, or the quotes you just posted above, were erroneous.  You did not provide the reason for posting them.  What do they prove?  What papers did you get them from?  Since they are not in my field, I doubt I will be able to fully understand them, but I am willing to give it a shot.  I highly doubt, what ever your reason for quoting them was, that the authors do not accept evolution or are trying to disprove it.


Any creationist is.  Evolution is the fundamental principle of biology.  Nothing makes sense without it.


Where is the documentation for your position on these positions? How did Enoch quote mine his sources?  You haven't shown us yet and I haven't detected a single one.


And yet... we observe proteins and amino acids forming naturally.  Did you read the article I posted earlier about finding them in space?


Where do proteins and amino acids form naturally outside of already existing DNA living cells? Where is your documentation?

Any proof for this intelligence?

I would never do that.  DNA codes for proteins.  That's it's purpose.

Why would I attempt to prove that?  That's just absurd.


Again, no support for your position, just a bare statement. Are your declarations 'truth' just because you say so?


Strawman.  The chemical reactions that are involved in life are understood just like any other chemical reaction.  They are natural propensities of the compounds.  You are drawing comparisons that do not make sense.  It is a non sequitur.


Support that statement with observable science. Document it.


Hmm... so that means, these would all be considered humans?  Interesting.

Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Neanderthalensis.


None here either.




That's spelled 'what'? according to Websters dictionary. I documented that for you.


Humans did not evolve from modern bacteria.


Modern or not, humans didn't evolve at all. But you are free to document the contrary and we will be glad to read it. Give us a documented example of humans that evolved from bacteria in any stage-by-stage, a.b.c.d.e.f.g. scenario as documented by the fossil record.

The majority of mutations are inert and do nothing to enhance or impeded the organism's fitness in its environment.  Sometimes the mutation is detrimental and the organism does not survive to reproduce.  Occasionally, a mutation occurs that actually increases an organism's fitness.  These are favored and passed on.  Accumulate enough of these mutations and you have the the development of novel features.  If this line of mutations occurs in an isolated group of a species, this becomes a subspecies.  If the change is significant enough to cause the subspecies to be unable to create fertile offspring than a speciation event has occurred.  Guess what?  You have about 200 mutations that your parents do not have.

Non sequitur.


That's not evolution and a fly will always be a fly.  Evolution doesn't say that one thing ever stops being what it already was.


Regurgitating from an ex cathedra that you do not understand does not equate to an argument.  If you want to disprove 99.9% of all scientific tests, you have to at least try to find the .1% that you think say otherwise.


Again he supported his statement about this but you did not.


The mechanisms for evolution have been observed... so evolution has been observed.  Seems like this discussion is over if you agree with this.


No documentation here.....for ANYthing.


Nope.  It fits with all available evidence.  The genetic tree, taxonomic tree, fossil tree, anatomic tree all have been independently assembled and match perfectly.  How do you explain this?


More misquoting of scientific sources The original idea of the base of the tree was very different from what it is now.  That is what has been changed with subsequent discoveries.  It was then overly sensationalized.  I'm afraid I do not have time to go over everything above in detail, I'm late as it is.


But you did not prove his misquoting by quoting other statements from his source article revealing that Enoch was misrepresenting them. Why?


You have demonstrated nothing.  Micro and macro evolution are caused by the same mechanism.  No one ever said anything different.


Again, an opinion, nothing more. I didn't manage to get your last few statements copied & pasted here but they likewise did not have documenation to anything you said. You clearly don't know the difference between documented statements and mere opinion and yet you think you are going to school us on quote mining?


Now either you admit that you attacked his position unjustly because you did not prove he quoted mined anyone...or we will ask for your apology.


P.S. In answer to my statement "That's an opinion, fella. Nothing more. You did not demonstrate from his source that he dishonestly quoted them.


I have not given any opinion. 


You aren't telling the truth for that is all you gave in your reply to Enoch.


The fundamental problem debating with creationists in science is that you first have to educate them in science.


I am an ex-evolutionist who taught science for 26 years and I say that you are not being accurate nor honest in your statements.


Here, Talk Origins gives a coherent and well sourced explanation for Macroevolution. 


Finally, we get one....after the fact. Now you are welcome to bring those specifics out and we will deal with each of them one by one. We've done it many times.

  • gilbo12345, Enoch 2021, bov930527 and 1 other like this

#115154 Macro And Micro

Posted by gilbo12345 on 21 November 2014 - 12:42 AM

Such as? I am asking for experiments not a recollection of what you get told in school.

Actually, I explained how what i was taught in school was wrong, or at least out dated.


 I see this as an attempt to dodge what I have asked you to do...Which was to provide an example of what you were claiming.... Where is the example of an experiments? Do you have experiments to support your claims?




I think you are the one who is misunderstanding something.... I have asked you for EXPERIMENTS... Are you going to provide some?

I'm afraid that there are no experiments that are going to contain the phrase, "And therefore, micro evolution equals macro evolution."  They were never thought to be different mechanisms.


So you admit that you have no experimental basis for your claims...


Also it seems you've unwittingly admitted that the belief that micro is the same as macro is due to people's thoughts, (aka opinions)... Sorry buddy, opinions and what people "think" is correct isn't science, its called having an opinion on what you "think" is logical...


Are opinions evidence for science, or will you admit that you have no experimental basis for your claims?


Its replies like these which demonstrate how evolutionist's and their brand of "science" are destroying the integrity of the scientific literacy.





You claim these terms are describing different "levels" of evolution... I am merely asking for your evidence... Please don't reply again until you have some experiments to present which support your aforementioned assumptions..

Perhaps you will respond better to analogy.  One day, a man invents a new form of moving a human body from point A to point B.  It is called, "Walking".  After the scientific community concludes that walking is an efficient and simple technique of human powered locomotion, they decide to further distinguish it by describing walking across a single room as "micro walking" while traveling between buildings is called "macro walking".  However, upon further consideration, it is concluded that those extra terms are unnecessary.  How does one distinguish a micro walking event from a macro walking event?  If macro walking is the process of walking from one building to another, what about very large buildings that have an interior distance equal to the distance between a couple of suburban houses.  Is one micro and one macro despite being the same distance?  And the mechanism for micro and macro walking is exactly the same, so are those terms really necessary?  No, so they are no longer used.  Walking is just walking.


Actually I would respond better if you could actually provide some experimental evidence, like I have asked.... A story isn't evidence...


(Again demonstrating how evolutionary "science" destroys science literacy by way of teaching kids that stories are science or can be used as evidence)



1. The only points I see is the fact that you've failed to do as I asked multiple times... Even this reply is ignoring the question I asked you...


Why do evolutionists make these claims without evidence? I really would like to know the answer to this since it perplexes me that for a group of people who tout about the necessity of evidence in science, they have none for their own beliefs and assumptions... I find the whole situation ironic to the nth degree.


2. Again you've completely ignored the question... If you cannot provide experimental basis for your assumptions, (as has happened), then would you be willing to admit that they are incorrect? Its a no-brainer question... Of course you can be wrong if you have no evidence, hence why I asked you for evidence and why I find the fact that you ignored this request very important.


3. What explanations? I already stated that I wanted EXPERIMENTS not a recount of what your favourite scientist's opinions are... I want evidence not more assumptions and unsupported claims.


4. Nope I wrote these just for you... Do you ignore any question a person asks you about your evidence? Is this what science-literacy is reduced to these days?

Your questions did not get answered in the form you were asking because they were non sequitur.


Care to demonstrate how these questions are non sequitur? Or will this be yet more unsupported claims, which you'd demand we accept by faith....

I had thought the questions rather logical... If you haven't provided evidence, (twice now) then why not ask...


- why do evolutionists make this claim without evidence?

- would you be willing to retract your statements in the quote above?

- are you concerned that evolutionists claim this is science, despite having no experimental basis which is the fundamental basis for the scientific method?

- are you even more concerned that it is called "a fact" despite having no evidence? Shouldn't we be skeptical of unsupported claims such as these?




Then they ARE prokaryotes.... Duh!


Please go look up what a prokaryote is, because you've just given the text-book example right there...

I said they were similar to prokaryotes in that they lacked membrane bound organelles.  But there were no organelles period!  These were not true prokaryotes yet and they wouldn't be for quite a while later.  The earliest cells that can be loosely called life were simple fatty acid bilayers containing primitive strands of R.N.A.  Both of these compounds can be observed forming naturally and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that R.N.A. could have been encapsulated by the semi-permeable fatty acid bilayer membrane.  These cells are not prokaryotes or eukaryote yet.


Firstly, do you have any experiments which can confirm these claims of yours? Or are these yet more claims we are required to accept on faith?


Secondly, as I attempted to say (perhaps not bluntly enough), that in your description of what you claimed Eukaryotes "evolved" from you described a prokaryotic cell....


Thirdly, to claim a form of 'proto-cell' before-hand would be to engage in with the imaginary since there is no evidence of life simpler than prokaryotes (apart from viruses that is).


Firstly what experiments confirm this? Or are we, yet again, treated to another round of "just so stories" courtesy of evolutionist assumptions... Again I am asking for EXPERIMENTS.

I am sorry, but I have been unable to find sources on the internet that don't require paying to access more than just the abstract, but horizontal gene transfer is something that is still observable today.  http://www.cell.com/...30?showall=true

Remember that famous "National Geographic" article showing the tree of life being chopped down with the title "Darwin was Wrong"?  This is what scientific discovery the article was based on was actually describing.  The first life on Earth was not a single source forming and evolving into more complex; their was a lot of horizontal "evolution" before the branching tree of life began to take shape


I know what horizontal gene transfer is, (and it is why I believe we cannot name bacteria since they have the potential to change into a different type within a single generation)...

What I was asking was the evidence used to demonstrate that what you claimed was what occurred in the past... What experiments support your claims?




Additionally how is this possible without sacrificing the structural integrity of the membrane of the cell doing the swallowing? I wrote a thread on this a few years ago and we never got a satisfactory answer...
Are you saying it's not possible that one cell can consume another?  That Amoebas don't eat Paramecium?


Good point. My bad.



So are we still prokaryotes?

No, and we never were.


By your own description the cells which you believe engulfed prokaryotic cells to become Eukaryotic cells are Prokaryotes themselves...


Perhaps you can demonstrate how these cells are different to a prokaryote... DEMONSTRATE, not just say they are without evidence.


(Seems like we have more equivocation from the evolutionist camp...)


The story of the "evolution" of whales sets a "dog-like" creature evolving into a whale... So under your "logic" here, we would be forced to conclude that whales are also "dog-like"...

I haven't heard of the land dwelling ancestor of whales being described as "dog like."  From what I understand, whales and porpoises share a common ancestor with horses, cows, and camels.  What this means is that all five of those groups are still members of the same clade and super clades of which that common ancestor was.  I think those five groups and their ancestor were members of the subclass, Eutheria.  Just like we never stopped being Hominini, Hominidae, Primates, or Mammals despite further evolution and diversification



Pakicetus....I rest my case...

So are whales still dog-like, (or cows if you prefer)....

Or is the claim that organisms don't stop being what they were before as idiotic as it sounds....



Your opinions are not evidence, please understand this.... It will make the learning easier smile.png

I'm not giving opinions.


Actually you are.... I know its a steep learning curve, but its a necessary one... at least for those who truly care about science and scientific integrity.

Otherwise I'd ask you for the evidence to support your claims, IF your claims are not your opinion then you can demonstrate it by way of providing supporting evidence.... (considering your recent track record with providing evidence when asked, forgive me if I do not hold my breath)




So what were these "smaller cells" and these "larger cells" since by your own claims in the post earlier these were exactly like.... Prokaryotes.... Or are you going to arbitrarily claim they were neither in order to try and dodge this contradiction?

They were not Prokaryotes.  It takes more than not having a nucleus to be a Prokaryote.  These early cells didn't even have D.N.A.!  They could not have had D.N.A. because D.N.A. is not a self replicating molecule.


Then what are they?


What evidence do you have to support your claim of their existence.... Again, asking for experiments.... not opinions....



Please try reading WTT's reading...


He isn't asking about whether they exist, the important word you've ignored is the word HOW

How did archea "evolve"? How could they exist in the the extreme environment before having their specialised systems of adaption, yet how could these systems "evolve" when there is no selection pressure of the environment driving selection for those systems to exist... Its a chicken and the egg conundrum, which came first?

This was not an evolutionary event, this was an Abiogenesis event.  The Earth was a very different place from what it is today.  What we call extremeophiles (at least the ones that live in very hot environments) are actually living in environments that are much more similar to what life originally formed in billions of years ago.  It may seem inhospitable to us, but a hot rich chemical soup is actually perfect for life.  There was not a need for life to find away to adapt specialized systems to be able to survive, it was already flourishing.


You've completely ignored the point.... If there was no need for the specialized system then how could it evolve? Remember natural selection only selects for traits that are beneficial, meaning the environment would need to invoke a benefit for the specialized system in order for it to be selected for... However how then did the organism survive without the system whilst it was in the process of "evolving", since evolution takes "millions of years" remember...



How did the micelle "evolve" before the proteins and enzymes necessary in membrane formation and maintenance "evolve"?... Its the same conundrum as above.

Proteins and enzymes?  No.  R.N.A. and fatty acid bilayers form naturally without requiring D.N.A. transcription.


Where did the proteins and enzymes come from?





Do you realise that much of what you've stated is simply stories?...

  • want the truth, Enoch 2021, bov930527 and 1 other like this

#115136 Are Creationists Moving The Goal Posts Like Evolutionists Claim

Posted by Enoch 2021 on 20 November 2014 - 11:23 AM


**  Of course, having said all of that, Ipso Facto renders and summarily Eliminates the Masqueraders from the remote vicinity of any "science" discussion... Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology, Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology, because you can't do "repeatable" TESTS/Experiments.


Are you saying that the fields of Paleontology, Anthropology, Geology, Evolutionary Biology, Theoretical (I assume you are referring to quantum mechanics) Physics, and Cosmology have not been used to create models of predictable utility?  None at all?  Would you care to retract that before I provide examples of how you are wrong regarding each of those?  It's not that hard.  I do not know much about Anthropology and I am marginally better at Geology, but I still could do it with not a lot of effort.


Don't Assume, Quantum Mechanics is not in my list.


I'm saying that the Masqueraders in my list Do Not and CANNOT follow the Scientific Method (they are Inherently Antithetical to it); Ergo....are not "science". Models are not TESTS!  Please show the Independent Variables of these models....is it the amount/type of glue or color of the Pins?


I'm not retracting anything.....go ahead and wheel out your examples. Please put each postulate in the Scientific Method starting with "Observe a Phenomenon" then Validate.  As part of the examples, go ahead and wheel out anything dealing with evolution, with this in mind....


“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014



I'm a "Creationist" and I don't "create" this; As Evidenced By, my stance depicted above.  You also have a Stereotype (Fallacy) and a Generalized Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) x 2.


You did a decent job of summerizing the scientific method, but regretably there are many tropes that creationists fall into.  Mostly because they all read the same sources.  It is not a "stereotype" nor a "generalized baseless assertion" to point out that the terms I described were made up by creationists.  Because they were.



Yes it was a Stereotype (Fallacy) and you just did it again..."many tropes that creationists fall into". Along with another Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)... Mostly "because they all read the same sources".


Also, do you have Special evo Mind Powers or something that affords you access to what ALL "creationists" do??  If so, let me know I have a TEST to assess your "guessing" Acumen.


Here is the statement I was commenting on in your previous post (I'll Highlight the Stereotype and the underline the 2 Baseless Assertions.... "while creationists feel it necessary to create this idea of different types of science, they also want to merge different fields of science."



So you're saying that "Creationists" made up the Terms "Macro" and "Micro", eh?


And then evolutionists decided to have a World Conference on the subjects....


Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution':

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.)


​You're either severely misinformed or about 3 degrees from Sincerity.



Theodosius Dobzhansky (Geneticist and The Father of 20th Century Evolution Theory)....


"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409


Gratuitous--- lacking sound reason, unwarranted, uncalled for.


I'm afraid the good doctor is incorrect if he actually said this (I can't find this quote on any non creationist website.)  If the Theory of Evolution had to comprise the creation of... everything, then would not Biologists also have to be Cosmologists?  No, those fields are unrelated.  The creation of the universe was very different to the origin of life or the diversity of life.



So the Father of 20th Century evolution Theory is incorrect and your Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) is correct, eh? Hmmm think.gif  


Does that mean you found it on a "Creationist" Website?  Why don't you dive headlong into the Ad Hominem (Fallacy) and post where you did find it...? (even though the source is listed right in front of your eyes).


And a Strawman (Fallacy)  Nobody said those field were "related" but the paradigm is interconnected just like T.G Dobzhansky said.



General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.


Let's go with something a little more modern: Theory of Evolution: The change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Strickenberger's Evolution 4th Edition, B. K. Hall & B. Hallgrímsson. 2008.

That's much more accurate.



Strawman Fallacy.  Is Strickenberger defining anew the General Theory of Evolution?  If not.....SEE: Strawman (Fallacy).


This is Tantamount to saying that "Apples are a Fruit" is more Accurate than "Bananas are a Fruit". 


More Modern?  lol.  Do you think this is some kind of a recent study showing the effects of B12 supplementation on cancer prevention and it's supplanting of older B12 supplementation studies?


Describing evolution without Abiogenesis is Tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight!


“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.”
Slack, G., What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008



Information---  That which Informs.  It requires a sender and a receiver that are "On The Same Page".  In the context which you are using it, as in Genetic Information,....This Information exhibits Functionally Sequence Complexity (FSC).  It's Algorithmic and Cybernetic.


The Contrarian view to this is Tantamount to....viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponential Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day". Then concluding...

That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board is responsible for the Arrangement of those Letters and the Message thereof.



To what is this referring?



"Nucleotides are grouped into triplet Hamming block codes, each of which represents a certain amino acid. No direct physicochemical causative link exists between codon and its symbolizedamino acid in the physical translative machinery. Physics and chemistry do not explain why the "correct" amino acid lies at the opposite end of tRNA from the appropriate anticodon. Physics and chemistry do not explain how the appropriate aminoacyl tRNA synthetase joins a specific amino acid only to a tRNA with the correct anticodon on its opposite end."


Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29


Or these...


Michael Polanyi chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK)...

‘As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content.


"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink"

Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)



So please, use this against me.....?  I Triple Dog Dare You!! tongue.png


All you have done is take quotes from the abstract of biological medical science papers.  What is your argument and how do these papers support it?  I'm pretty sure from what I've read that none of these people are creationists nor did they write these papers with the idea of disproving biology or confirming biblical creation.



geez.  Baseless "erroneous" Assertion (Fallacy)---- "All you have done is take quotes from the abstract of biological medical science papers"  You have proof of this?  Then show how THE CONTENT OF THE MATERIAL is erroneous......?


This is Tantamount to being eviscerated by the business end of a Grizzly Bear.... all the while being overly preoccupied with where the bear came from!  Painfully Irrelevant.


Who cares whether they're: Creationists, Baseballists, Footballists, BlueBerry Pieists.  How about the VERACITY of the content of the MESSAGE?


"Disproving Biology"?? Disproving The Study of Life, eh?  Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) and nonsensical.  Who is doing or attempting this??


My argument, eh?  Here it is...


DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

To refute:

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....
2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.



Basically, How did Stupid Atoms write their own Software? 



It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information or Change in Allele Frequency). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!


What is a "kind" anyways?  That's another creationist invented word. 



Kind = This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie....Coyotes/Wolves ect)


Snakes: Short/Long, Venomous/Benign, Black/Red/Gray/Chartreuse/ et al.


Get the idea?



I digress, what if a member of a species experiences a gene duplication?  It now has two verions of the same gene, but that means that one of these copies is free to mutate and possibly create a novel function in future generations while the other copy is preserved so any vital function it is related to is preserved?



Oh my, not the Gene Duplication.  What if, Before I handed in my Biochem Research Paper "That ROCKS", I go and make a Photocopy of it.  When I hand the Original in, and invariably get the A+, ....if I hand the duplicate afterwords, do you think my Professor will give me another A+ ??




Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).  
DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm
Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect) 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!!)???

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect? 


It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!!  AND IT'S STILL A FLY!


Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University....

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." {Emphasis Mine}
'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

Really??  .....
The authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage.
Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007 



“Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution.


Gene drift, duplication, deletions have never been observed?  The independently discovered taxonomic, genetic, and paleo trees of life all matching perfectly has not been observed? 



Yes, they have been observed......SO?


Tree of Life, eh? More like "The Tree of Begging The Question Fallacies".  I'm afraid that's been sent to the Wood-Chipper.....


Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life; New Scientist, 21 January 2009....
"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another… We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more…"
"Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches."
"Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates".
"But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric Bapteste".
"RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse".
"And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy".
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution; Nature, 27 June 2012.....
"Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree."
'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats; Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, November 2012 ....
"Also, "Our analyses have shown that… there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."
- An elephant shrew is closer to an elephant than to other shrews.
- Horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows.
- Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome.

- Sponges share 70% of human genes including for nerves and muscles.
- Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome.
- Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome.
- Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp.
- The chimp Y chromosome is "horrendously different" from our 'Y'.
- The human Y is astoundingly similar all over the world lacking the expected mutational variation

- Mitochondrial Eve "would be a mere 6000 years old" by ignoring chimp DNA and calculating by mutation rates.
- Roundworms have far more genes than Darwinist predictions,19,000, compared to our 20,500.
- Snake DNA contains a quarter of the cow genome.



The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.


I'm afraid not.  It is impossible to say one is possible without saying the other is as well.



I'm afraid so....You have nothing more than an Equivocation (Fallacy), they are Mutually Exclusive as I have demonstrated.




And you forgot to address this....


Huh?  huh.png


The first statement you said... "macro/micro evolution ideas is that macro evolution is evolution above the species level.  This is more accurate..."   (This is correct)


Then you say....."it does happen and it has been observed happening in both of the life domains.  All that is required for speciation  to occur..."


This is a Strawman (Fallacy).  If "Macro"-evolution is ABOVE Species Level  (Which it is)... Then, How on Earth is providing proof of "Speciation".....Proof of "Macro"-evolution????  dummy.gif


Any more "Hanging Curve-Balls" ?

  • gilbo12345, Calypsis4, bov930527 and 1 other like this

#113820 Fossils And The Geologic Column

Posted by lifepsyop on 21 October 2014 - 01:27 PM

1)  Why are there no mammals in the Cambrian?


The Cambrian is largely characterized by creatures that were restricted to benthic (seafloor) ecosystems.  Can you name any mammals that fit this description?

  • Calypsis4, MarkForbes, NewPath and 1 other like this

#113314 The Evolution Of The Heart?

Posted by Genesis6:4 on 26 September 2014 - 11:23 AM

Its amazing that evolution could design such a sophisticated pumping and electrical system complete with electrical currents, back up electrical systems in case the SA node is not functioning correctly, nodes, pumps, valves, chambers etc.  Even though we only see such advanced systems require intelligence to create, evolution must of did it first!

/sarcasm off .

  • gilbo12345, Calypsis4, Kairos2014 and 1 other like this

#112043 Getting To Grips With Common Design

Posted by FaithfulCenturion on 21 August 2014 - 10:06 PM

Because you are applying an observation about humans, and the principles of human design, to god, whom you know nothing about.

We know nothing about God?
I'm sorry, let me introduce you to Him. Here's His business card:


Here's His autobiography:


Oh! Here He is now!

  • Genesis6:4, Enoch 2021, HammerOfGod and 1 other like this

#111060 Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialism

Posted by gilbo12345 on 31 July 2014 - 06:40 PM

Check out this video, (it explains it much better than I ever could)..




One should ask that if observation creates a back-log for our observation, can this apply to the light-speed issue?

  • Calypsis4, Zaccarias, Enoch 2021 and 1 other like this