Evolution... Do we believe?

[popsthebuilder]

Evolution defined as the will of existence as a whole to better it's existence through experience and habitat is most definitely Universal.

Thanks.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Your definition of evolution omits its two key elements and defines the debate out of existence. We do not argue that things cannot change; we deny evolution.

When we're dealing with living, sexually reproducing organisms, yes.

So when dealing with bacteria, then what?

Ok, you don't agree that populations undergo genetic change via mutation and selection. Let's keep that in mind.

You need to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say.

So what mechanism do you believe determines whether an allele becomes fixed or eliminated from a population?

The fixicity of an allele is a non issue. This question is a consequence of the useless definition of evolution you have offered.

What is important is function, and function is the only significantly accessible factor we are able to study at this time.

I already showed you the Hall experiment that negates this argument. There are plenty of others too.

And I already showed how your answer fails.

Yes it is. How else do you think the population developed resistance (and remember, these are single-clone experiments, so it can't be that the trait was already in the population)?

The trait was already in the genome.

I'm using the definition as stated by the scientific community. Why would anyone do any different?

Because they are interested in a rational discussion, not an appeal to popularity. My objection is either valid or it isn't, telling me how many other people have made the same error as you does nothing to advance the discussion.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a single common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. That is the concept we say is not real. Saying that evolution is just "change" does nothing but define the debate out of existence.

Another tactic Darwinists use to stay in the conversation yet protect their precious religion.

So how do you think the traits arise then?

They don't. They emerge. They become expressed through response to a change in environment or because something breaks.

Seriously Stripe? That's your rebuttal to the Hall experiment? "Nuh uh"? If that's all you can muster, I'll let it speak for itself.

That which you present without support I am justified in fobbing off without reason.

When you declare victory without backing yourself up, I will declare your statements to be nonsense without any preamble.

How long is it going to take before you learn to engage rationally?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your definition of evolution

It's not my definition; it's the definition of the scientific community.

omits its two key elements

What elements?

We do not argue that things cannot change; we deny evolution.

So how do populations change over time, if not via evolution?

So when dealing with bacteria, then what?

Obviously the reproductively isolated criterion doesn't apply, so we utilize criteria that are relevant, e.g., phenotypes and DNA hybridization.

You need to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say.

You need to stop playing games. Let's clarify. Do you believe that populations change their genetic makeup over time via mutation and selection?

The fixicity of an allele is a non issue. This question is a consequence of the useless definition of evolution you have offered.

What is important is function, and function is the only significantly accessible factor we are able to study at this time.

You're dodging again. Again, what mechanism do you believe fixes or eliminates alleles in populations?

And I already showed how your answer fails.

All you did was say "Nope". If you truly think that's a valid rebuttal, I'll let that speak for itself.

The trait was already in the genome.

Either you're trolling or you're one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered. I just pointed out that the experiments are conducted on single-clone populations. That means the entire population is descended from a single individual that we know is susceptible to the antibiotic. Yet after a few generations, some of the population is now resistant and has new genetic sequences that were not in the original ancestor (we establish this by before and after sequencing).

So again, how did this trait arise?

Because they are interested in a rational discussion, not an appeal to popularity. My objection is either valid or it isn't, telling me how many other people have made the same error as you does nothing to advance the discussion.

So it's acceptable to you if we all just make up our own definitions for words?

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a single common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. That is the concept we say is not real. Saying that evolution is just "change" does nothing but define the debate out of existence.

You've already been corrected on this but obviously accuracy isn't your concern.

But either way, if we both agree that populations change over time, please explain how (i.e., by what mechanisms) you think that occurs.

They don't. They emerge. They become expressed through response to a change in environment or because something breaks.

Where do they emerge from?

That which you present without support I am justified in fobbing off without reason.

I posted a link to the full paper, described the experiment and results, and you ignored it. Now you're trying to wave it away by saying "Nuh uh" and nothing more.

I'll let that speak for itself.

 

[6days]

Jose... You have been asked many times to provide definitions, that evolutionists agree on to those terms .... If you have ever attempted to provide a definition, I missed it.

That's kinda strange, since in my last post I did just that. So to repeat...
Populations evolving means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance)

Thanks for your definitions .....

Populations 'evolving' (adapting) means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance) is evidence of an intelligent Creator... the Creator God of the Bible.*

, and speciation means populations evolving to the point where a new species is formed (e.g., the examples you provided earlier).

Circular 'logic'. That's like saying that a species means they have speciated. *

Rapid 'speciation' / adaptation fits the Biblical model of God programming organisms to survive and adapt rapidly in changing environments. Also, this is evidence against the common ancestor belief since 'speciation' is often a result of organisms losing genetic information... which is essentially a language programmed by God.

 

[Jose Fly]

Populations 'evolving' (adapting) means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance)

And you agree that this happens, correct?

Circular 'logic'. That's like saying that a species means they have speciated. *

As I noted to Stripe, when we're dealing with living, sexually-reproducing organisms, speciation is when two populations diverge to the point where they are genetically unable to reproduce with each other.

Do you agree that this happens?

 

[Stripe]

What elements?

So how do populations change over time, if not via evolution?

Do you believe that populations change their genetic makeup over time via mutation and selection?

So again, how did this trait arise?

But either way, if we both agree that populations change over time, please explain how (i.e., by what mechanisms) you think that occurs.

Where do they emerge from?

Again, what mechanism do you believe fixes or eliminates alleles in populations?

Evolutionists hate reading.

Obviously the reproductively isolated criterion doesn't apply, so we utilize criteria that are relevant, e.g., phenotypes and DNA hybridization.

And similar exceptions creep in when we look at other issues. All the exceptions make your definition of species unusable. When the "scientific community" uses the term, they do not mean what you do.

So it's acceptable to you if we all just make up our own definitions for words?

As long as you're willing to defend your ideas by using your terminology carefully and your definitions are reasonable: Sure.

However, we have seen that is not the case with evolutionists. You equivocate on the definition of "evolution" and leave out its key components. You define "species," but you'll never stick to the definition in general conversation. And you ask for a definition of "kind," but then pretend the answer doesn't exist.

I posted a link to the full paper, described the experiment and results, and you ignored it. Now you're trying to wave it away by saying "Nuh uh" and nothing more.I'll let that speak for itself.

Your unsupported ramblings will be ignored in the same order they are posted.

 

[Cruciform]

Evolutionists hate reading.

So-called "biblical creationists" hate thinking.

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice Stipe is still not forthcoming about his definition of "species", and again has declined to show us his amazing math that refutes evolution.

And now he thinks that "change in allele frequency over time" leaves out some key element of evolution, but he won't tell us what that is.

How about just coming clean for a change, Stipe? Step up and support your claims.

 

[The Barbarian]

6days finally accepts the fact of evolution:

Populations 'evolving' (adapting) means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance) is evidence of an intelligent Creator... the Creator God of the Bible.*

That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[6days]

6days finally accepts the fact of evolution:
That wasn't so hard, was it?

For in six days, God created the heavens and the earth....

Man from the dust
Woman from mans rib
Light before the sun
Plants before the sun
Whales before land animals

Its easy.... God said it.

 

[Kdall]

For in six days, God created the heavens and the earth....

Man from the dust
Woman from mans rib
Light before the sun
Plants before the sun
Whales before land animals

Its easy.... God said it.

How the hell did plants live before the sun?

 

[6days]

How the hell did plants live before the sun?

God's Word tells us He created light on the first day with evening and mornings.....
He created the sun and moon on the 4th day.
Its in Genesis 1

 

[Kdall]

God's Word tells us He created light on the first day with evening and mornings.....
He created the sun and moon on the 4th day.
Its in Genesis 1

I get that. But that's not a biography. Something you don't seem to understand. Question: where did light come from if it existed before the sun and moon? Distant stars could not provide enough light to make a difference to people on Earth

 

[6days]

Question: where did light come from if it existed before the sun and moon?

Genesis 1:3 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[Kdall]

Genesis 1:3 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So......magic? How scientific

 

[everready]

So......magic? How scientific

God doesn't care much for our scientific he's supernatural.


everready

 

[rainee]

Dear Barbarian,
I tried several times to come back here and respond but the VA shootings yesterday morning have just about ruined all my joy. Im feeling kinda depressed over it.
And I do have to feel a bit of joy to get onto this discussion...

So let me just tell you something that I've tried to say before, ok?
I am indebted to You.
Maybe for more than one thing, but the one thing I am thinking of is what you posted only once, years ago on the Lewis Forum.

You posted an article about prokaryotes and the rest of the species in the domain of Eukaryota.

The whole naming of the proks and euks came into question because it showed exactly how scientists assumed it should be: prokaryotes are named from "before" or "nut, kernel" and eukaryotes are named from "good".

The basic, simple would develop first, the good would be what came later as having more and being more.

But apparently an onion's rather long string under study brought up the question of whether another creation with a comparatively short string would come first or simply be what's left if some of its code was lost or ditched.

And you said after posting the article, like a smart educated man talking to another smart educated man (for you were talking to a moderator of the science forum) that maybe there would be change or something like that in regard to the view of evolution.

And, Barbarian, with that my mind exploded.

Remember what was said about the junk DNA? One side (the creation side) would say God didn't make junk. But the other side (the Evo side) would hold their ground and say that even with certain things discovered, quite a bit was still fragmented, broken junk...
And, once again you - weren't you the one who explained to me we had the broken mechanism for making our own Vitamin C

So maybe you are right Barbarian, but maybe instead of it pointing to change from simple to complex...

Maybe it all points to creation starting off very good, with man as one example of incredible, horrifyingly long, complex code - and what we see today is the broken, fragmented strands of what is left?


I hope to come back and perhaps argue your finer points. However, I have found there are always claims to study and evidence that remain arguable... Sigh.
But please accept this for now, that I do try to remember I am indebted to you.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. For example

 

[Interplanner]

Dear Barbarian,
I tried several times to come back here and respond but the VA shootings yesterday morning have just about ruined all my joy. Im feeling kinda depressed over it.
And I do have to feel a bit of joy to get onto this discussion...

So let me just tell you something that I've tried to say before, ok?
I am indebted to You.
Maybe for more than one thing, but the one thing I am thinking of is what you posted only once, years ago on the Lewis Forum.

You posted an article about prokaryotes and the rest of the species in the domain of Eukaryota.

The whole naming of the proks and euks came into question because it showed exactly how scientists assumed it should be: prokaryotes are named from "before" or "nut, kernel" and eukaryotes are named from "good".

The basic, simple would develop first, the good would be what came later as having more and being more.

But apparently an onion's rather long string under study brought up the question of whether another creation with a comparatively short string would come first or simply be what's left if some of its code was lost or ditched.

And you said after posting the article, like a smart educated man talking to another smart educated man (for you were talking to a moderator of the science forum) that maybe there would be change or something like that in regard to the view of evolution.

And, Barbarian, with that my mind exploded.

Remember what was said about the junk DNA? One side (the creation side) would say God didn't make junk. But the other side (the Evo side) would that even with certain things discovered, quite a bit was still fragmented, broken junk...
And, once again you - weren't you the one who explained to me we had the broken mechanism for making our own DNA?

So maybe you are right Barbarian, but maybe instead of it pointing to change from simple to complex.

Maybe it all points to creation starting off very good, with man as one example of incredible, horrifyingly long, complex code - and what we see today is the broken, fragmented strands of what is left?


I hope to come back and perhaps argue your finer points. However, I have found there are always claims to study and evidence that remain arguable... Sigh.
But please accept this for now, that I do try to remember I am indebted to you.

What was the Lewis forum?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists hate reading.

And thus ends yet another attempt to get Stripe to engage in a discussion. Oh well.

 

[Stripe]

And thus ends yet another attempt to get Stripe to engage in a discussion. Oh well.

Nope. I answered your questions. Pretending that I didn't is your way of extracting yourself from the discussion and protecting your precious religion.