17 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou 'creationists' are supposedly being palmed off. There are countless theists who accept evolution, don't drag them all down with you Rob. 🙂
yes but that is not my gripe, my gripe is that we theists are being palmed off with
adaptation as if it were transmutation and then on top of that we are being told we
dont know what we are talking about, when clearly we do.
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI know how it is theorised, i stated as much at the outset, but look, this is my point, i will say it clearly for i am having trouble getting it across. You people state that adaptation, that is an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environmental change leads to mutation, at a molecular level, thus we see finches for example with different beaks. That is adaptation. But you are palming it off as transmutation, that is the finches change into something other than birds, that would be a transmutation. This is what i am trying to draw your attention to. You keep trying to assert that adaptation is transmutation when its not. Do you understand?
Do you know actually know how speciation occurs?
17 May 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobwe are being palmed off, they need to come up to our level. look how they try to ascribe consciousness and everything to your theory, they know zilch.
You 'creationists' are supposedly being palmed off. There are countless theists who accept evolution, don't drag them all down with you Rob. 🙂
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand what you're saying. But transmutation is continued adaption spread over a long, long stretch of time.
I know how it is theorised, i stated as much at the outset, but look, this is my point, i will say it clearly for i am having trouble getting it across. You people state that adaptation, that is an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environmental change leads to mutation, at a molecular level, thus we see finches for example with different b ...[text shortened]... o. You keep trying to assert that adaptation is transmutation when its not. Do you understand?
This is wrong -
that is an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environmental change leads to mutation
It's the other way round. The mutation occurs, then if it is beneficial to the organism in it's environment it will remain in the genome.
Does that make sense? I'm going to talk you through this once i'm back from the Post Office.
17 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobGood luck. Ultimately anything you say will be taken as the words of Satan intending to defraud him of eternal life.
I understand what you're saying. But transmutation [b]is continued adaption spread over a long, long stretch of time.
This is wrong -
that is an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environmental change leads to mutation
It's the other way round. The mutation occurs, then if it is beneficial to the organism in it's env ...[text shortened]... oes that make sense? I'm going to talk you through this once i'm back from the Post Office.[/b]
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo by "new" you meant "new species"? Or did you mean "new kind" where "kind" is flexibly defined so as to allow you to change it when someone proves you wrong?
sigh, here we go, by definition? ok, why are the E coli bacteria that Noobster mentioned now new, by definition. Are they new variations, new strains, new species, have they changed into something other than E Coli.
In either case your claim:
It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new.
cannot possibly be true as "species" is a flexible definition made by man, and no scientist could have possibly made a proof that involved your flexible definition of 'kind'.
Essentially, my answer is yes, if we choose to call the descendant of an E. Coli bacteria with one mutation a new species then we can. It is by definition a new variation and we could quite readily call it a new strain (another man made flexible term).
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes it makes sense, but i do not dispute this, adaptation occurs, without a doubt.
I understand what you're saying. But transmutation [b]is continued adaption spread over a long, long stretch of time.
This is wrong -
that is an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environmental change leads to mutation
It's the other way round. The mutation occurs, then if it is beneficial to the organism in it's env ...[text shortened]... oes that make sense? I'm going to talk you through this once i'm back from the Post Office.[/b]
Transmutation is what i dispute , whether its over quadrillions of zillions of years.
17 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadwell that is for you to decide, it was after all, you that stated, by definition, which of course, would be your definition.
So by "new" you meant "new species"? Or did you mean "new kind" where "kind" is flexibly defined so as to allow you to change it when someone proves you wrong?
In either case your claim:
[b]It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new.
cannot possibly be true as "species" is a flexible definition made by man, and no scie ...[text shortened]... on and we could quite readily call it a new strain (another man made flexible term).[/b]
17 May 11
Different species cannot mate and produce viable offspring. At one time, there was just one type of human being, but through evolution, different types are now here.......whites, blacks, oriental, Hispanics , Indians, etc. However, despite our differences, we can all interbreed and therefore we are one species. If one group became isolated long enough, the changes would mount up to the point that there could not be interbreeding and thus a new species is formed. Yet all came from the same ancestor. At one time there was an ancestor to both Chimps and Humans. In fact at one point there was a common ancestor to worms and Humans, and if you go back even further, trees and humans have a common ancestor!
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Impressive. Most impressive. Obi-Wan has taught you well. You have controlled your
Good luck. Ultimately anything you say will be taken as the words of Satan intending to defraud him of eternal life.
fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me." 😉
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joemuhaha, and you have the audacity to trouble theists with unobserved events and
Different species cannot mate and produce viable offspring. At one time, there was just one type of human being, but through evolution, different types are now here.......whites, blacks, oriental, Hispanics , Indians, etc. However, despite our differences, we can all interbreed and therefore we are one species. If one group became isolated long enough, ...[text shortened]... to worms and Humans, and if you go back even further, trees and humans have a common ancestor!
unseen agencies, get over it, your religion takes a greater leap of faith to believe than
it does to believe in a divine creator.
17 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have misrepresented nothing:
thats a complete misrepresentation of the facts, evolution teaches that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds (now disputed) birds became mammals and mammals are what gave rise to humans. It relies on a few basic premises, firstly that life evolved from non living matter despite the mathematical improbability (ter ...[text shortened]... hat is not what evolution teaches and you people know it, so let us stop the pretence, shall we.
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
You may of course choose to believe that speciation doesn't actually result from these changes, but to deny that such changes take place is simply incorrect.
17 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatyes indeed, and herein lies the truth of the matter, for what you people are in fact guilty of doing, is representing aberration at a molecular level and stating that it has resulted in transmutation, from one species into another when in fact there are various observable factors which seem to run contrary to these unobserved claims. No one is denying that changes at a genetic level produce different variants, or that adaptation to environment occurs, what i am disputing is a misrepresentation of these details as espoused by Darwinism, that transmutation occurs as a consequence. A lion may be better adapted than other lions, but it remains just that, a fitter and stronger lion, not a zebra. To deny that this is a misrepresentation i think is intellectually and scientifically dishonest and i am discouraged by a failure on the part of atheists and agnostics to differentiate between these two claims.
I have misrepresented nothing:
[b]"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
You may of course choose to believe that speciation doesn't actually result from these changes, but to deny that such changes take place is simply incorrect.[/b]