|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: An Education For the Creationist Species |
 |
|
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:54:20 -0700, Ben Goren wrote:
| Quote: |
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
It's an old game and we've seen it before. What we've never seen
is an adequate explanation why the theists feel it necessary
to engage in willful and intentional dishonesty of this sort,
rather than an open and honest examination of the data.
Oh, it's trivial to explain.
You see, Jesus died to save us from our sins. Specifically, he /had/
to come to offer redemption from the Original Sin.
The Original Sin was that whole fruit incident in the Garden of Eden,
if you recall.
But if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then that means that the
stories in Genesis are worng. And if they're worng, then there wasn't
any Garden of Eden, which means no Adam and Eve, and no Original
Sin...
...and, thus no reason for Jesus to even come at all, let alone die
for us. The whole thing unravels, right before your very eyes.
Because, the long and short of it is that, if Darwin is right, then
we won't be singing hosannas to Jesus after we die. We'll just be
dead.
Now, the /real/ question is why so many Christians are so
terrified of being dead. I strongly suspect it has something to do with
the futility with which they lead their lives....
|
Indeed. I have no fear of death, if for no other reason than I will
leave behind family and friends, as well as - in a few cases at least -
some things of note which made my being here worth my being here.
I define what I am, what I do. I take pride in my accomplishments, but
realize they wouldn't be possible without the help of others. I live my
life to benefit myself, but realize that I'm already better off than
many, so I try, here and there, to better their lot as well. I define my
own purpose, and the only one who judges that - the only one competent to
judge me - is me.
I don't look forward to death, but neither do I fear it, as I have
accomplished much and can look back and say that no, my life was not
wasted. Parts of it, certainly. I could have done better in many areas,
certainly. I am not perfect - but then neither is anyone else.
Perfection is not required; just the action of doing your part to help,
to do something useful with your life.
If you have done this, death holds no fear, as you have left your mark on
the world.
I'm put in mind of Marty Leipzig. In his home town, a storm blew
through, knocking over a tree - right through the roof of the local
church house. What did the believers do? They stood around and moped.
What did Marty and his roaming gang of atheists do? They gathered wood
and tools, chopped up the tree and patched the roof.
At the end of the day, which group would you expect to fear death - Marty
and his gang who *do* things, who *live* life, who *leave* their mark, or
the gutless and gullible, standing around gaping, accomplishing nothing?
No, we do not fear death - because we live life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:53 am Post subject: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
| Quote: |
Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
you wish).
|
I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
replace [god] with any deity you wish).
If you can't do that, then can you cut & paste even one example where
the Theory of Evolution is defined solely by your bullshit LIES and
nothing else?
When you've addressed my questions fully, questions arising from your
dishonest question, questions I've been asking you for weeks, only to
see you RUN AWAY, then I'll address your question.
That was the deal I made with you when I fist responded to your
bullshit dishonest question weeks ago. I'm still waiting on you
honoring that deal.
Are you not a Christian? Do you not believe in going the extra mile?
Or do you hate Jesus as much as you hate your fellow Christians who
are also evolutionists, and whom you have insulted repeatedly, whom
you have labeled frauds and LIARS, and to whom you flatly refuse to
apologize?
Until then, all you have to look forward to is JUDGMENT Gabriel. It's
on an express train and it's heading your way.
And you're too dumb too get off the track.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: > you wish).
:
: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
animals only ever produce after their kind.
And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
Genesis 1:24-25 KJVR And God said, Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God
made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after
his kind: and God saw that it was good.
:
: If you can't do that, then can you cut & paste even one example where
: the Theory of Evolution is defined solely by your bullshit LIES and
: nothing else?
I've already addressed this before. Here it is again: It matters
not what you base your beliefs on, just like you'll be quick to
point out it doesn't matter what we base *our* beliefs in where
God is concerned. You'll be quick to point out that what we
believe in has never been observed, and we're right here doing
the same thing: pointing out that what you believe has never been
observed in the entire recorded history of the human race. The
only real problem is, you hate it that you can't have it both
ways: dismiss our beliefs because it's never been observed, but
not have your beliefs dismissed because it's never been observed.
So any time you're willing to show an observation of populations
of [rat]s producing, over generations, supposedly via mutations
and accumulation of small changes, animals that are now [rat]s,
we'll be waiting. They try by artificially inducing Speciation,
but that only leads again to [rat]s producing more [rat]s, not
what they really claim happens over generations. So, still
waiting for an observation that you have yet to show even one of
your religious beliefs on where all different life forms came
from.
:
: When you've addressed my questions fully, questions arising from your
: dishonest question, questions I've been asking you for weeks, only to
: see you RUN AWAY, then I'll address your question.
:
: That was the deal I made with you when I fist responded to your
: bullshit dishonest question weeks ago. I'm still waiting on you
: honoring that deal.
:
: Are you not a Christian? Do you not believe in going the extra mile?
: Or do you hate Jesus as much as you hate your fellow Christians who
: are also evolutionists, and whom you have insulted repeatedly, whom
: you have labeled frauds and LIARS, and to whom you flatly refuse to
: apologize?
:
: Until then, all you have to look forward to is JUDGMENT Gabriel. It's
: on an express train and it's heading your way.
:
: And you're too dumb too get off the track.
:
: Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Gabriel Admits God's Creation is a Myth - Falls Face First I |
|
|
On Jun 3, 9:58 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: > you wish).
:
: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
I rest my case.
|
You;re a head case.
| Quote: |
What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms.
|
Thanks for admitting that you blindly and gullibly believe in a myth.
You cannot supply one iota of scientific evidence for your beliefs and
that's where your story ends. Now that we have an on-the-record
admission of it, we can proceed.
And thanks for ignorantly falling face first into my trap. Yes,
that's what it was - it wasn't the challenge which you cannot meet.
It was just a simple trap to force you into facing the challenge you
cannot meet.
Now shall we get back to the question you've been running from for the
last several weeks you pathetic little coward? Here's the preface to
it. I'll put it in block caps so it's closer to your reading grade:
IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT OBSERVATION OF A CRIME BY A WITNESS, WHAT
DOES THE COURT USE TO PROSECUTE A CASE?
By what means does a court prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person
'A' committed crime 'X' when there were no eye witnesses?
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Jun 3, 12:29 pm, jemcd <1> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: > you wish).
:
: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
animals only ever produce after their kind.
And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
Please excuse me for interrupting.
|
It's a free forum. Jump right on in!
| Quote: |
I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
|
He's asking for eye witness testimony and it took a while to even get
him to admit that, so good luck with your other questions.
You see, Gabriel thinks he's God Almighty. He thinks he can establish
reality simply by saying it.
He has absolutely no scientific qualifications at all, but he insists
upon defining evolution one way and one way only - *HIS* way. Then he
insists that's the *only* way it can be defined or proven. Then he
makes up a bullshit challenge for evolutionists meet, which not only
includes *his* definition (even though he actually won't tell you what
it is - it serves him too well to keep it as vague as he can), but
also demands that a person, a priori, select one individual animal
amongst the millions on Earth (animal, not plant, fungus, bacterium,
etc), and sit doing nothing but stare at that one animal int he vague
hope that, over millions of years, it will give rise to something "not
that animal" (but he won't tell you he'll accept, or how much genomic
change he requires for it to be "not that animal".
And for Gabriel's sake don't you *dare* have the temerity to ask for
clarification or you'll suffer the WRATH of GABRIEL!!!!
| Quote: |
of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
convincing "new animal".
Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
today?
As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
speciation, yes?
|
Now you did it. You tried to get him to clarify! You;re for it now.
Nope, he flat refuses to use the commonly accepted biological
classifications. In fact, you'll be extremely lucky if you can even
trick him into stepping away from the tiny class of mammalia.
In Gabriel World (TM), there's nothing but mammals. Preferably large
ones, ones he knows typically take literally millions of years to
develop into the differentiation he appears to demand but flat refuses
to clarify.
[snipped rest]
I gave him a list of 666 examples and evidences supportive of
macroevolution, which is what he appears to be demanding, but he
denies that there's speciation.
When you prove it has been directly observed, he runs away from that
and starts talking about "type" again, and when you ask him to define
"type" he runs away from that.
If you give him an example that meets his criteria, refuses to
entertain it and/or changes the criteria.
He doesn't refute it scientifically because he's too ignorant to even
understand science. Instead, he refutes it the creationist way, by
chanting "No it isn't" or by moving the goalposts of his bullshit
question.
Good luck with your endeavor.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jemcd
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: > you wish).
:
: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
animals only ever produce after their kind.
And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
|
Please excuse me for interrupting.
I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
convincing "new animal".
Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
today?
As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
speciation, yes? A definition of speciation is the formation of new
species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or
behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations
from breeding with each other. OK with that definition?
Speciation has been observed. Given enough time, these examples should
eventually fulfill the visually convincing new animal criteria you ask
for, but it would be long after our death. We have tons of
observations supporting speciation, and I think it's safe to say
biologists in general consider it a fact. Also, if you concede micro
evolution you are in fact conceding macro evolution, but I'm assuming
you'll stomp all over that statement. Patience is a virtue.....
Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
By Chris Stassen
Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four
relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had
documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all
common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the
available examples.
Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding
affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created
incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the
chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are
generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as
the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you
suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original
stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium
angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in
less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is
unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the
parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since
they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural
interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different
coloration. While it might be possible that different species are
inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
Harvard University Press. p. 348
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
This is a page with numerous examples of plants:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
caio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: ><budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: >
: >: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: >: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: >: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: >: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: >: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: >: > you wish).
: >:
: >: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: >: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: >: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: >: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
: >
: >I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: >unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
: >you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
: >that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
: >[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: >accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
: >you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
: >alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
: >
: >But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
: >always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
: >That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
: >more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
: >replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
: >scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
: >animals only ever produce after their kind.
: >
: >And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
: >[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
:
: Please excuse me for interrupting.
: I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
: of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
: convincing "new animal".
: Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
: bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
: today?
Not even close. We observe bills and we observe that they stack
and we know stacking that many is physically impossible at any
time ever, rather than it being possible a few billion years ago
but not today.
What you believe in has never once been observed, and you want to
act like because it's impossible to observe that we should just
take your word for it that it just happens. Using your logic,
then you should take our word for it that God created all the
animals, since it must be so because how dare you ask for a
phenomenon that happened thousands of years ago that you know we
cannot observe. That's the logic you wish to invoke, which is
clearly flawed. Not to mention at least we can observe test and
verify what God's word also tells us: that [rat]s only ever
produce [rat]s. (Replace [rat] with any animal you wish).
: As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
: speciation, yes? A definition of speciation is the formation of new
: species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or
: behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations
: from breeding with each other. OK with that definition?
No, because this leads to what we know: that populations of
[rat]s will produce, over generations, more [rat]s that might be
different but are still clearly rats. We already know this
happens. Dogs go through minor changes and we call them a new
species of dogs. But they are *still dogs*. Critical point.
This in no way means it's automatically true that populations
that are clearly not [rat]s will produce, over generations
(supposedly via mutations and accumulation of small changes)
animals that are now [rat]s. Such a bold claim would need to have
been observed and has never once been observed.
: Speciation has been observed.
We already know that [mosquitoes] produce different [mosquitoes]
that are still [mosquitoes].
: Given enough time, these examples should
: eventually fulfill the visually convincing new animal criteria you ask
: for,
This is where you've introduced your imagined, never once
observed belief. You want to use what you observe, which no one's
questioning:
** Speciation ([rat]s producing [rat]s that are still
[rat]s but have small changes), animals only producing
after their kind, **
to imply that your *belief* must also be true: that animals that
are not [rat]s could, over generations, supposedly via mutations
and accumulations of small changes, produce animals that are
[rat]s.
Sorry, but if you want to claim this belief is true, you need an
observation of that drastically different phenomenon as well. If
you cannot, you merely offer up a belief that is unobservable,
unverifiable, and untestable. You want to act like just because
the way you define your own beliefs being unobservable that we
should ignore it and act like we've observed it; that we should
just accept your beliefs that it happened millions of years ago.
Sorry it doesn't work that way. If it did work that way, you'd
have to take our word for it that God created the animals to
produce after their kind because that's all we *ever* observe:
that animals *do* only produce after their kind ([rat]s produce
[rat]s and so on). Which you'd then correctly say "show us an
observation of God doing that". If we were using your logic, we'd
say "that's an unfair question: it happened thousands upon
thousands of years ago.. Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof
that a 9 trillion one dollar bills placed in one stack will
extend beyond the moon and show me today." But of course suddenly
you'd admit how ridiculous that logic is.
: but it would be long after our death. We have tons of
: observations supporting speciation, and I think it's safe to say
: biologists in general consider it a fact. Also, if you concede micro
: evolution you are in fact conceding macro evolution, but I'm assuming
: you'll stomp all over that statement. Patience is a virtue.....
: Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
:
: By Chris Stassen
: Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four
: relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had
: documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all
: common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the
: available examples.
:
: Example one:
:
:
: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
: male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
: strong intra-strain mating preferences.
: (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding
: affinity.)
:
: Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created
: incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
[flies] producing [flies]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
populations of [flies] producing animals that are clearly not
[flies].
:
: Example two:
:
:
: Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the
: chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are
: generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as
: the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you
: suggested.)
: (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original
: stock.)
:
: Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium
: angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
[Plants] producing [plants]. Again irrelevant.
:
: Example three:
:
:
: Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in
: less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
: (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is
: unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the
: parent stock.)
:
: Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
: W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
[Mice] producing more [mice]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
populations of [mice] producing, over generations, animals that
are clearly not [mice]. Or animals that are clearly not [mice]
producing, over generations, animals that now are [mice].
:
: Example four:
:
:
: Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since
: they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
: Lake Nagubago.
: (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural
: interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different
: coloration. While it might be possible that different species are
: inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
:
: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
: Harvard University Press. p. 348
[fish] producing [fish].
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
:
:
: This is a page with numerous examples of plants:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
:
: caio
So again, you've only shown [rat]s producing [rat]s. Even
artificially induced Speciation cannot show what you believe in:
that populations of animals that are not [rat]s will produce,
over generations, supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
small changes, animals that are now [rat]s.
If you have such an observation, please provide it. Because all
that belief is: something not observable, not verifiable and not
testable: not science. Just a religious belief on how all the
different life forms got here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
[snips]
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
convincing "new animal".
|
Bingo.
| Quote: |
Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me today?
|
Bingo.
| Quote: |
As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of speciation,
yes?
|
No. He and/or one of his cohorts went down that road, had it thrown back
in their faces ("it don't happen!" "Actually, here, see, it does") and
promptly changed it back to an undefined mishmash of sloppy verbiage
which allows him an out regardless of what you do: "Speciation? But I
meant it had to grow three extra legs", "Three extra legs? I meant it
had to change from animal to vegetable to mineral and back."
| Quote: |
A definition of speciation is
|
is quite well known to him, which is precisely why he absolutely refuses
to use sensibly defined terms - they'll show him wrong, each and every
time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jemcd
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:07:18 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: ><budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: >: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: >: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: >: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: >: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: >: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: >: > you wish).
: >:
: >: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: >: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: >: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: >: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
:
: >I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: >unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
: >you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
: >that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
: >[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: >accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
: >you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
: >alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
:
: >But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
: >always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
: >That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
: >more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
: >replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
: >scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
: >animals only ever produce after their kind.
:
: >And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
: >[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
:
: Please excuse me for interrupting.
: I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
: of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
: convincing "new animal".
: Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
: bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
: today?
Not even close. We observe bills and we observe that they stack
and we know stacking that many is physically impossible at any
time ever, rather than it being possible a few billion years ago
but not today.
|
You missed the point, that both demands are impossible. We can do the
math and figure out exactly how large the stack would be, but we
physically can't do it. We have speciation observations, but we do not
live long enough to observe changes of the magnitude you are
demanding. We do have fossils that indicate transitions, and we have
animals and plants right now that demonstrate changes in separated
groups of the same species. We do not have scientifically recorded
information by humans far enough in the past to have the extreme
examples you require as proof.
| Quote: |
What you believe in has never once been observed,
|
Wrong. You refuse to accept what is accepted by trained experts.
| Quote: |
and you want to
act like because it's impossible to observe that we should just
take your word for it that it just happens.
|
You demand that (for instance) a rat is turned into a dog. The time it
takes to do that makes it impossible for us to observe it in our or
the next dozen generations. I am not asking you to take my word for
anything, you can do your own research, but I'm guessing that you
refute trained scientists because it doesn't fit your ideology.
| Quote: |
Using your logic,
then you should take our word for it that God created all the
animals, since it must be so because how dare you ask for a
phenomenon that happened thousands of years ago that you know we
cannot observe. That's the logic you wish to invoke, which is
clearly flawed.
|
No shit sherlock. The difference is that you want to see it go *POOF*
in front of your eyes when the process takes huge amounts of time.
As for the logic ploy, show me clinically observed and repeatable
instances of god creating anything, like create a piece of dust will
do, we'll keep it simple.
I showed you known examples of speciation, which proves that
speciation is observable and does happen. Speciation is the first
major step before something can evolve into something much different.
| Quote: |
Not to mention at least we can observe test and
verify what God's word also tells us: that [rat]s only ever
produce [rat]s. (Replace [rat] with any animal you wish).
|
In the lifetimes of the writers, and in their realm of knowledge, it
had to seem like a fact.
| Quote: |
: As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
: speciation, yes? A definition of speciation is the formation of new
: species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or
: behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations
: from breeding with each other. OK with that definition?
No, because this leads to what we know: that populations of
[rat]s will produce, over generations, more [rat]s that might be
different but are still clearly rats. We already know this
happens. Dogs go through minor changes and we call them a new
species of dogs. But they are *still dogs*. Critical point.
|
Not ok with the definition or not ok that speciation is even relevant?
Dogs can still breed with other dogs, so that example is not a point
at all.
| Quote: |
This in no way means it's automatically true that populations
that are clearly not [rat]s will produce, over generations
(supposedly via mutations and accumulation of small changes)
animals that are now [rat]s. Such a bold claim would need to have
been observed and has never once been observed.
|
What you demand requires a time machine. Whatever preceeded rats was
maybe before homo sapiens.
| Quote: |
: Speciation has been observed.
We already know that [mosquitoes] produce different [mosquitoes]
that are still [mosquitoes].
|
If we induce speciation, where the new mosquitoes can not breed with
the original mosquitos, then we have only the first step. It does
prove the mechanism. With separation, and different conditions from
tha original, small changes will occur repeated many times over a VERY
long period could indeed produce something unrecognizable as a
mosquito.
| Quote: |
: Given enough time, these examples should
: eventually fulfill the visually convincing new animal criteria you ask
: for,
This is where you've introduced your imagined, never once
observed belief.
|
I imagined? You are not suggesting that I came up with speciation and
evolution, right? It's becoming apparent that you are not really
seeking the truth, you are fighting against it.
| Quote: |
You want to use what you observe, which no one's
questioning:
** Speciation ([rat]s producing [rat]s that are still
[rat]s but have small changes), animals only producing
after their kind, **
|
It takes too much time for us to observe what you demand.
| Quote: |
to imply that your *belief* must also be true: that animals that
are not [rat]s could, over generations, supposedly via mutations
and accumulations of small changes, produce animals that are
[rat]s.
|
Something that didn't look like a rat preceded the rat, and whatever
it was could not have bred with the rat, then yes, it happened. We do
have rats and they were not conjured out of thin air or dirt or holy
dust like *POOF*.
| Quote: |
Sorry, but if you want to claim this belief is true, you need an
observation of that drastically different phenomenon as well. If
you cannot, you merely offer up a belief that is unobservable,
unverifiable, and untestable. You want to act like just because
the way you define your own beliefs being unobservable that we
should ignore it and act like we've observed it; that we should
just accept your beliefs that it happened millions of years ago.
Sorry it doesn't work that way.
|
I am not believing in speciation and evolution because I thought it up
or somebody wrote it up 2k years ago and passed the story down to me
in meetings and an old book. Even set aside the translation errors and
forgeries and verbal origins repeated umpteen times.
I believe in speciation and evolution for much different reasons than
why you believe what you do. I base my beliefs on what modern science
builds as a body of knowledge and has repeatably verified and tested.
Also, when the predictions that this body of knowledge makes is later
proved correct, it furthers my confidence that we are learning the
truth about the real world.
I am not bothered by the mistakes made by scientific endeavors, as
they are found and corrected in the due progress of the scientific
method, known as self correcting. I am not bothered by the gaps in the
scientific knowledge, even the big puzzling ones and the ones that
theists jump all over to push as proof of their god. It is a fact that
the god of the gaps is continually in smaller and fewer gaps as we
answer more and more of the mysteries. I did not define this system
and I did not imagine anything. I am merely trying to be a rational
observer of our times, as I suspect you are not.
| Quote: |
If it did work that way, you'd
have to take our word for it that God created the animals to
produce after their kind because that's all we *ever* observe:
that animals *do* only produce after their kind ([rat]s produce
[rat]s and so on). Which you'd then correctly say "show us an
observation of God doing that". If we were using your logic, we'd
say "that's an unfair question: it happened thousands upon
thousands of years ago.. Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof
that a 9 trillion one dollar bills placed in one stack will
extend beyond the moon and show me today." But of course suddenly
you'd admit how ridiculous that logic is.
|
I wrote it, do you think I just might have an inkling how ridiculous
it was? I was trying to come up with an impossible demand, like you
have. Show me comparable examples that prove the mechanism or entity
god exists, as in the examples I gave you of the speciation I was
talking about.
| Quote: |
: but it would be long after our death. We have tons of
: observations supporting speciation, and I think it's safe to say
: biologists in general consider it a fact. Also, if you concede micro
: evolution you are in fact conceding macro evolution, but I'm assuming
: you'll stomp all over that statement. Patience is a virtue.....
: Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
:
: By Chris Stassen
: Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four
: relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had
: documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all
: common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the
: available examples.
:
: Example one:
:
:
: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
: male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
: strong intra-strain mating preferences.
: (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding
: affinity.)
:
: Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created
: incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
[flies] producing [flies]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
populations of [flies] producing animals that are clearly not
[flies].
|
If current observations of speciation mean nothing to you, then go
here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Much information of transitions in the magnitude you demand.
If transitions such as from reptiles to first mammals (long) or
transition from reptiles to first birds is not enough, then I don't
know what might be. The information that is listed in the contents
page link above shows something precisely akin to your rats becoming
other than rats.
| Quote: |
:
: Example two:
:
:
: Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the
: chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are
: generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as
: the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you
: suggested.)
: (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original
: stock.)
:
: Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium
: angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
[Plants] producing [plants]. Again irrelevant.
|
Are you demanding that plants become animals before you acknowledge
this as speciation?
| Quote: |
:
: Example three:
:
:
: Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in
: less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
: (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is
: unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the
: parent stock.)
:
: Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
: W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
[Mice] producing more [mice]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
populations of [mice] producing, over generations, animals that
are clearly not [mice]. Or animals that are clearly not [mice]
producing, over generations, animals that now are [mice].
|
go to the link above.
| Quote: |
:
: Example four:
:
:
: Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since
: they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
: Lake Nagubago.
: (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural
: interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different
: coloration. While it might be possible that different species are
: inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
:
: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
: Harvard University Press. p. 348
[fish] producing [fish].
which cannot breed across the change. |
try:
fish to sharks, skates, rays
primitive fish to bony fish
from fishes to first amphibians
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
same link
| Quote: |
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
:
:
: This is a page with numerous examples of plants:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
:
: caio
So again, you've only shown [rat]s producing [rat]s. Even
artificially induced Speciation cannot show what you believe in:
that populations of animals that are not [rat]s will produce,
over generations, supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
small changes, animals that are now [rat]s.
If you have such an observation, please provide it. Because all
that belief is: something not observable, not verifiable and not
testable: not science. Just a religious belief on how all the
different life forms got here.
|
Interesting that you call me out as having religious beliefs. Why
would a religious person call a non-religious person religious?
Besides erroneous, how could that be an insult or point in your favor?
Is it that I would be making the same kind of mistake that you are but
it opposes your fallacy so my fallacy is lesser in truth than yours?
Is that something like how theists do that "my god is better than
their god" thing?
You rail against my position as not science, not observable, not
verifiable, when my position can only be the result of observable
testable science, because the claims I have all made in this post are
from scientists who make observations and test and verify all they
can. It is beyond me why somebody who is clearly unqualified to
disprove these scientists rants against them. If you have proof that
destroys any commonly held scientific knowledge, take it to the
scientific world and make them your bitch. Making impossible demands
to prove something that is already proven and then stating that your
demands are the criteria that would prove it is simply weird.
I have no expectation that our conversation will move you to think
anything differently than what you thought before, and that's your
business. You will not be able to change mine, for more than one
reason, firstly you base your position on something I have no respect
for, which is myth purported to be fact, and secondly, you oppose
modern knowledge with no apparent credential to do so, why should I
trust you who opposes a working system of factual knowledge
acquisition?
If you had something to rock the world of science, you wouldn't be
wasting your time in a newsgroup. Also, if you want to learn, you
should start somewhere else, there's nutbars in here with wild
claims..... ;-{} |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ray Martinez
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
On Jun 3, 7:30 pm, "Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:at3b44h0f4cdglaofa9a1lo568vcm0o97h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: ><budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: >: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: >: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: >: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: >: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: >: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: >: > you wish).
: >:
: >: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: >: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: >: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: >: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
:
: >I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: >unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
: >you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
: >that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
: >[rat]s producing, over generations (supposedly via mutations and
: >accumulation of small changes) animals that now are [rat]s. (And
: >you can replace [rat] with any animal anyone has ever observed
: >alive in the entire recorded history of the human race).
:
: >But what is entirely observable, verifiable and testable, and has
: >always been for the entire recorded history of the human race?
: >That populations of [rat]s only ever produce, over generations,
: >more [rat]s. The same is true for every animal alive that you can
: >replace for [rat]. This is observable, testable, and verifiable -
: >scientific support for what God tells us in His Word: that
: >animals only ever produce after their kind.
:
: >And the kicker is, even if they induce artificial Speciation,
: >[rat]s will still only ever produce [rat]s.
:
: Please excuse me for interrupting.
: I'm just guessing, that you (Gabriel) are asking for observed examples
: of a phenomenon that takes a very long time to exhibit a visually
: convincing "new animal".
: Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof that a 9 trillion one dollar
: bills placed in one stack will extend beyond the moon and show me
: today?
Not even close. We observe bills and we observe that they stack
and we know stacking that many is physically impossible at any
time ever, rather than it being possible a few billion years ago
but not today.
What you believe in has never once been observed, and you want to
act like because it's impossible to observe that we should just
take your word for it that it just happens. Using your logic,
then you should take our word for it that God created all the
animals, since it must be so because how dare you ask for a
phenomenon that happened thousands of years ago that you know we
cannot observe. That's the logic you wish to invoke, which is
clearly flawed. Not to mention at least we can observe test and
verify what God's word also tells us: that [rat]s only ever
produce [rat]s. (Replace [rat] with any animal you wish).
: As I understand it, you are specifically asking for proof of
: speciation, yes? A definition of speciation is the formation of new
: species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or
: behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations
: from breeding with each other. OK with that definition?
No, because this leads to what we know: that populations of
[rat]s will produce, over generations, more [rat]s that might be
different but are still clearly rats. We already know this
happens. Dogs go through minor changes and we call them a new
species of dogs. But they are *still dogs*. Critical point.
This in no way means it's automatically true that populations
that are clearly not [rat]s will produce, over generations
(supposedly via mutations and accumulation of small changes)
animals that are now [rat]s. Such a bold claim would need to have
been observed and has never once been observed.
: Speciation has been observed.
We already know that [mosquitoes] produce different [mosquitoes]
that are still [mosquitoes].
: Given enough time, these examples should
: eventually fulfill the visually convincing new animal criteria you ask
: for,
This is where you've introduced your imagined, never once
observed belief. You want to use what you observe, which no one's
questioning:
** Speciation ([rat]s producing [rat]s that are still
[rat]s but have small changes), animals only producing
after their kind, **
to imply that your *belief* must also be true: that animals that
are not [rat]s could, over generations, supposedly via mutations
and accumulations of small changes, produce animals that are
[rat]s.
Sorry, but if you want to claim this belief is true, you need an
observation of that drastically different phenomenon as well. If
you cannot, you merely offer up a belief that is unobservable,
unverifiable, and untestable. You want to act like just because
the way you define your own beliefs being unobservable that we
should ignore it and act like we've observed it; that we should
just accept your beliefs that it happened millions of years ago.
Sorry it doesn't work that way. If it did work that way, you'd
have to take our word for it that God created the animals to
produce after their kind because that's all we *ever* observe:
that animals *do* only produce after their kind ([rat]s produce
[rat]s and so on). Which you'd then correctly say "show us an
observation of God doing that". If we were using your logic, we'd
say "that's an unfair question: it happened thousands upon
thousands of years ago.. Sorta like asking for demonstrated proof
that a 9 trillion one dollar bills placed in one stack will
extend beyond the moon and show me today." But of course suddenly
you'd admit how ridiculous that logic is.
: but it would be long after our death. We have tons of
: observations supporting speciation, and I think it's safe to say
: biologists in general consider it a fact. Also, if you concede micro
: evolution you are in fact conceding macro evolution, but I'm assuming
: you'll stomp all over that statement. Patience is a virtue.....
: Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
:
: By Chris Stassen
: Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four
: relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had
: documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all
: common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the
: available examples.
:
: Example one:
:
:
: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
: male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
: strong intra-strain mating preferences.
: (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding
: affinity.)
:
: Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created
: incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
[flies] producing [flies]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
populations of [flies] producing animals that are clearly not
[flies].
:
: Example two:
:
:
: Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the
: chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are
: generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as
: the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you
: suggested.)
: (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original
: stock.)
:
: Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium
: angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
[Plants] producing [plants]. Again irrelevant.
:
: Example three:
:
:
: Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in
: less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
: (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is
: unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the
: parent stock.)
:
: Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
: W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
[Mice] producing more [mice]. Irrelevant. Show an observation of
populations of [mice] producing, over generations, animals that
are clearly not [mice]. Or animals that are clearly not [mice]
producing, over generations, animals that now are [mice].
:
: Example four:
:
:
: Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since
: they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock,
: Lake Nagubago.
: (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural
: interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different
: coloration. While it might be possible that different species are
: inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
:
: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
: Harvard University Press. p. 348
[fish] producing [fish].
:
:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
:
:
: This is a page with numerous examples of plants:
:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
:
: caio
So again, you've only shown [rat]s producing [rat]s. Even
artificially induced Speciation cannot show what you believe in:
that populations of animals that are not [rat]s will produce,
over generations, supposedly via mutations and accumulation of
small changes, animals that are now [rat]s.
If you have such an observation, please provide it. Because all
that belief is: something not observable, not verifiable and not
testable: not science. Just a religious belief on how all the
different life forms got here.
Wow! Are you stupid! You apparently cannot understand what you read so you
repeat your ignorant mantras. There's no reason for any intelligent
individual to waste time responding to your shit. You are obviously a
moron!
Cj
|
Everything Gabriel has said makes perfect sense. Your reaction simply
indicates anger caused by the inability to respond to each point
logically.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
[snips]
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:43:42 +0200, jemcd wrote:
| Quote: |
If we induce speciation, where the new mosquitoes can not breed with the
original mosquitos, then we have only the first step.
|
Oh, we have much more than that.
Assume you can get him to "honest up" enough to admit a speciation
event. He won't, but assume he does. What does this single event tell
us? It tells us the following:
1) A parent population can give rise to a distinct, non-interbreeding
daughter population
2) There exists some mechanism by which such changes can - and do - occur
3) There is no reason to think such changes will not continue to occur
4) If such changes continue to occur, the populations are unlikely to
each encounter the _same_ sets of changes (if they were, why are they not
interfertile _now_?)
5) As a result of this, the populations can be expected to diverge more
over time, short of an extinction event
6) Lacking a barrier to _how much_ change can be introduced over time,
there is quite literally no limit to how much they can diverge
7) No such barrier has ever been hypothesized, let alone demonstrated
Therefore there are only two possible outcomes of this event: extinction
for one or both, or perpetual differentiation, perpetual accumulation of
small, subtle changes, but again, different changes for each population.
Which is to say, you've just admitted the entire ball of wax as concerns
evolution, as a necessary outcome of the very process you've just agreed
occurred.
Or, more simply, don't expect him to ever admit speciation, even if you
rub his nose in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cj
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: Re: The Challenge Which Gabriel Cannot Meet |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:at3b44h0f4cdglaofa9a1lo568vcm0o97h@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:29:21 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:58:30 -0400, Gabriel
: <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: ><budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
:
: >: On Jun 1, 7:52 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: [snipped material form which Bastard Coward Gabriel RUNS EVERY TIME]
: >: > Want to show I'm wrong? Cut and paste even ONE example of
: >: > populations of [mosquitoes] producing animals, over generations,
: >: > that are clearly not [mosquitoes], and show the link where you
: >: > got that from. (and you can replace [mosquitoes] with any animal
: >: > you wish).
: >:
: >: I'll make you a deal. Cut and paste even ONE indisputable example of
: >: gods producing special creations, over 6 days, that are clearly not
: >: evolved, and show the link where you got that from. (and you can
: >: replace [god] with any deity you wish).
:
: >I rest my case. What we have is an unobservable, untestable,
: >unverifable belief: that of God creating all life forms. And what
: >you have is an unobservable, untestable, unverifiable belief:
: >that of evolutionism: populations of animals that are clearly not
: >[rat]s producing, over generations (su | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
