The Big Bang and Evolution

[ratiocinator]

Majority does not determine truth.

True - but that wasn't the point.

There are may well qualified scientist who reject evolution and they reject it on scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence?

Nothing in the TOE has eve been proven. Prove me wrong.

That is a very silly statement. There are plenty of documented examples of evolution by natural selection (some of which I've posted links to). Natural selection cannot possibly not happen given the correct circumstances. That's part of the beauty of the theory - the main process is basically a statement of the obvious.

 

[ratiocinator]

You don't even understand the TOE. For a change os species the kid must have a characteristic not in the gene pool of it s parents. Parents with no gene for bones will NEVER have a kid with bones. Parents with no gene for fins, will NEVER have a kid with fins. That is genetics 101.

Again the utterly silly example that has nothing to do with ToE. And again a denial of the existence of mutations.

They offered no evidence.

So, you think they just made up all that analysis of DNA?

The laws of genetics prove that for a kid to have a specific characteristic, that characteristic MUST be in the gene pool of it parents.

Back to denial of mutation.

I haven't mentioned redefining the term species.

Yes, you did: you claimed that ring species didn't demonstrate speciation because they are all one species - which denies the scientific meaning of the term.

Hopefully one day you will learn that someone saying something is not evidence.

However, the results of scientific research that have been published in peer reviewed journals that describe repeatable results that can (and have been) checked by others are slightly more significant than some guy on a message board.

Do you have this problem with all of science? That is how it works, you know.

 

[omega2xx]

In no way does real science refute the ToE.

If you understood genetics, you would understand it does

The ToE is the best-supported theory in science.

Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to provide just one example of something the ToE says that has been proven. Since you are new let me tell you I have quit reading links because they NEVER provide any evidence. If you want to cut wand paste the evidence a link provides, I will address it.

Do you no know that one a theory has been proved, it is no longer called a theory.

There are four different spheres of observations and over 30 lines of evidence.

Then present them. Please include the "how" the observation is a mechanism for a change of species.

What other theory can you say that for?

How about the LAWS of gravity or the LAWS of genetics. Notice they are no longer called theories. I will let you guess why. If you can';t figure it out ask me and I will explain why theories become laws.

In addition, there are no competing scientific theories or hypotheses and no observable evidence that contradicts it.

Theories or hypothesis do not contradict anything. Only proof can contradict a theory.

So, if you are not a science denier, which I must accept at this point since I am new here, on what basis do you make the claim that "Real science" refutes it?

I will give you one example to chew on---the laws of genetics has proved that for an offspring to receive a characteristic, the gene for that characteristic MUST be in the gene pool of the parents. IOW no gene for fins, which pakicetus did not have, no kid with fins. FYI a mutation CANNOT change a leg into a fin. It is even more absurd to say a mutation can change a nose into a blowhole.

Further, how do you explain the observation that evolution occurs if not via the modern ToE?

Don't tell me, give me an example.

 

[omega2xx]

The theory of evolution is proven correct in several ways from the fossil record through to DNA and DNA doesn't lie, ask anyone convicted on DNA evidence.

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional. In ove 100 years no intermediate fossil has been found.

Oh and could you please provide a list of some of those scientists you say reject evolution on scientific grounds.

Are you so naive that you think all scientist accept evolution as a fact? Check the faculty at the ICR and Answersw in Genesis.

As far as i am aware, 93% of scientists support evolution on scientific grounds, the remaining 7% reject it on religious grounds.

That simply isn't true. If you want to see it rejected on scientific grounds go the ICR website and read what they say about whale evolution or any other subject you care to. They will not mention the Bible. The check the same subjet at "Talk Origins," and tell me what scientific evidence they provide.

 

[omega2xx]

True - but that wasn't the point.

Yes it was

What scientific evidence?

There is no scientific way a leg can become a fin or a nose can become a blowhole. Yet that is part of the explanation for whale evolution.

That is a very silly statement. There are plenty of documented examples of evolution by natural selection (some of which I've posted links to). Natural selection cannot possibly not happen given the correct circumstances. That's part of the beauty of the theory - the main process is basically a statement of the obvious.

Then give me one example and include the HOW it happened.


No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it." Colin Patterson.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you want to see it rejected on scientific grounds go the ICR website...

The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.

 

[omega2xx]

Again the utterly silly example that has nothing to do with ToE. And again a denial of the existence of mutations.

Your answer showa you have no understanding of what evolution preaches and you also do not understand what mutation do, Give me an example of a mutatgion being the mechanism for a change of species.

So, you think they just made up all that analysis of DNA?

Another example of something you don't understand. DNA separates, it doe sdnot ujnite.

Back to denial of mutation.

I don't deny mutations. They have been scientifically proven. I understand them, you don't.

Yes, you did: you claimed that ring species didn't demonstrate speciation because they are all one species - which denies the scientific meaning of the term.

Go back and read what I said---ring species do not prove evolution because the species DOES NOT change

Let me help you out---The basic doctrine of the TOE, is that species change. If the species remains the same, evolution has not taken place.

However, the results of scientific research that have been published in peer reviewed journals that describe repeatable results that can (and have been) checked by others are slightly more significant than some guy on a message board.

Then it should lbe easy for you to post one example of something that cause a change of species.

Do you have this problem with all of science? That is how it works, you know.

I don't have a problem with science, I insist it be used at all times.

 

[omega2xx]

The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist

Evolution is not about oil, it is about how an A can evolve into a B. Can you explain that scientifically?

 

[ratiocinator]

Your answer showa you have no understanding of what evolution preaches and you also do not understand what mutation do, Give me an example of a mutatgion being the mechanism for a change of species.

This is getting a little comical. You tell me I don't understand and then post something that shows that you don't.

Another example of something you don't understand. DNA separates, it doe sdnot ujnite.

This doesn't make sense. The mechanism described was gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the copy.

I don't deny mutations. They have been scientifically proven. I understand them, you don't.

If you did you wouldn't keep on saying that offspring can't have new characteristics.

Go back and read what I said---ring species do not prove evolution because the species DOES NOT change

I know exactly what you said. Ring species do change the species according to the scientific definition of the word - the clue was in the title of the article: "Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation"

 

[omega2xx]

This is getting a little comical. You tell me I don't understand and then post something that shows that you don't.

What?

This doesn't make sense. The mechanism described was gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the copy.

A mutation cop;y will not result in a change of species. If you understood mutation, you would know that.

If you did you wouldn't keep on saying that offspring can't have new characteristics.

A change of eye color is not a new characteristic. A leg becoming a fin is an exasmpel of a new characteristic.

I know exactly what you said. Ring species do change the species according to the scientific definition of the word - the clue was in the title of the article: "Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation"

Then go back a quote me.

 

[ratiocinator]

A mutation cop;y will not result in a change of species.

No, but together with the additional mutation, it did result in a new characteristic: trichromatic vision.

Keeping on asking for a single mutation that is going to magically turn one species into a totally different one or turn fins into legs or something, just emphasises the fact that you don't understand the ToE. In fact, that sort of dramatic change would to a lot to undermine the theory because it would be miraculous. Evolutionary change is necessarily gradual.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolution is not about oil...

The point was that ICR had been teaching falsehoods.

 

[ArtieE]

A change of eye color is not a new characteristic. A leg becoming a fin is an exasmpel of a new characteristic.

Or like a leg becoming a wing. A wing "program" is just a modified leg "program". Here's an interesting article about Hox genes. Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns

 

[omega2xx]

Or like a leg becoming a wing. A wing "program" is just a modified leg "program". Here's an interesting article about Hox genes. Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns

That a wing is a modified leg is absurd. It shows how ignorant you are of genetics. It is even more absurd and genetically impossible for a nose to evolve into a blowhole.

Why in the world would a land animal surviving very well on land enter a hostile environment where its survival would be much less assured? That is natural selection in reverse.

I didn't read your link, but without reading it, I will guarantee it did not tell HOW it happened. It just said it did happen. Prove me wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

No, but together with the additional mutation, it did result in a new characteristic: trichromatic vision.

No it didn't.

Keeping on asking for a single mutation that is going to magically turn one species into a totally different one or turn fins into legs or something, just emphasises the fact that you don't understand the ToE. In fact, that sort of dramatic change would to a lot to undermine the theory because it would be miraculous. Evolutionary change is necessarily gradual.

Keep on saying it will eventually and you are just emphasing you do not understand genetics or mutations. Hint: Time will not change the laws of genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

The point was that ICR had been teaching falsehoods.

Be specific. Quote what the ICR was teaching.
The important truth is that oil has NOTHING to do with evolution.

I doubt if the ICR was teaching anything about oil.

 

[ArtieE]

That a wing is a modified leg is absurd. It shows how ignorant you are of genetics.

Your statement shows how ignorant you are of genetics. Here is the link again to the Genetic Science Learning Center. Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns "the “wing” program didn’t come about from scratch—it’s simply a modified “leg” program." Read the link.

 

[ratiocinator]

No it didn't.

Down to pantomime contradiction, I see.

Be specific. Quote what the ICR was teaching.
The important truth is that oil has NOTHING to do with evolution.

I doubt if the ICR was teaching anything about oil.

Did you even read the quote? They "teach" about geology - which is just one of the many scientific disciplines that need to be denied in order to promote their anti-science dogma of young Earth creationism.

Keep on saying it will eventually and you are just emphasing you do not understand genetics or mutations. Hint: Time will not change the laws of genetics.

I didn't suggest that it did.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in engaging in a conversation with you if you don't bother to read what is being said. Your responses amount to nothing but silly contradiction and a total refusal to even read or consider what is being said to you.

 

[omega2xx]

Your statement shows how ignorant you are of genetics. Here is the link again to the Genetic Science Learning Center. Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns "the “wing” program didn’t come about from scratch—it’s simply a modified “leg” program." Read the link.

Without reading your link I will tell you it will not offer any scientific evidence as to HOW it happened. They will just say it did. Now cut and paste the evidence they offered and prove me wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

Down to pantomime contradiction, I see.



Did you even read the quote? They "teach" about geology - which is just one of the many scientific disciplines that need to be denied in order to promote their anti-science dogma of young Earth creationism.

You mentioned oil. All geology doe snot include oil.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in engaging in a conversation with you if you don't bother to read what is being said. Your responses amount to nothing but silly contradiction and a total refusal to even read or consider what is being said to you.

There is no need to read links that do not offer the evidence to support what they say. I offered you the opportunity to prove me wrong, you did not take it, because they offered no evidence. PROVE ME WRONG.