AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[abelcainsbrother]

Nothing without evidence.Stop ignoring this and show it,show they do instead of imply.

What evidence? We are talking about the definition of evolution. Red-herring!

What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

Is it "Nothing"? Do you then agree with the statement that your concept of evolution is meaningless and therefore wrong?

Red herring? Go by that definition and explain how reproduction or adaptation leads to change in populations over successive generations,you have not done this at all,you start out with a virus,it adapts,natural selection has no effect on it after it adapts and it is still a virus and nothing has changed,it always remains a virus and never changes over successive generations,yet you believe somehow dinosaurs evolved into birds,you believe this without evidence,you think man evolved from a common ancestor of apes and man but your evidence does not show life evolves like you believe,all you have is adaptation.You see what I mean?

Now you cannot ignore that science teaches dinosaurs evolved into birds,but you will skip over this and go to the evolution tree like it backs you up.Why are they teaching this as scientific truth?propagandizing people to believe life evolves?The evidence does not show of prove it and yet you think I'm crazy for believing the bible by faith?

You have not proved anything or showed it does,you like to imply it does but this moves you into the faith realm.I know all about believing things by faith.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Change is not variations in reproduction or adaptation.Dogs bread from wolves proves this.Is reproduction evidence of change?I don't think so at all.It is up to you to show life evolves,not that there is variation in reproduction,you cannot use this as evidence and assume the rest,this is what Darwin did and what you are doing with no evidence.Stop playing word games trying to imply evolution is the same thing because they are not.

This does not answer the question. What's the fucking mechanism?

Be intellectually honest.

Fuck you, you lying twat.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I know what it is.Micro-evolution is variations in reproduction.And the word micro-evolution has that word evolution on the end of it with the assumption of evolution but all it is is the different breeds of dogs that were bread from wolves and this is not evidence life evolves,you are assuming it leads to evolution but have no proof,keep in mind dogs were bread from wolves thousands of years ago and all we still have are dogs and no evolution or evidence that life evolves.

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.

Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

dogs were bread from wolves thousands of years ago and all we still have are dogs

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Well done.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I haven't yet talked about virus or dinosaurs or apes.
I'm trying to explain to you what evolution actually means.
You gave and half-assed attempt to avoid facing the problem by saying "No, no, no, that is not what evolution means". Then I asked what do you think that means? And so far you failed to give anything that resembles anything definite.

So for the last fucking time:
What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I know what it is.Micro-evolution is variations in reproduction.And the word micro-evolution has that word evolution on the end of it with the assumption of evolution but all it is is the different breeds of dogs that were bread from wolves and this is not evidence life evolves,you are assuming it leads to evolution but have no proof,keep in mind dogs were bread from wolves thousands of years ago and all we still have are dogs and no evolution or evidence that life evolves.

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.

Then of this is true? they should be able to demonstrate to everybody life evolves and they haven't like I have pointed out.Both chimpanzees and humans having similar DNA does in Noway prove life evolves as there are other explanations but you won't look at other explanations so I'm not going to try to get you to however a creator would use similar DNA for chimpanzees and humans and a 2% difference is still a lot more than evolutionists realize or admit.

This is conspiracy theory territory.I know this is important evidence to evolutionists but if life evolves they could demonstrate it does as this would predict they could,but they never have,so the prediction is off and a creator giving similar DNA to man,apes,chimpanzees is just as plausible but you won't accept the creator idea.

Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

Wrong!We don't expect to see a cat giving birth to a dog at all,this is a lie.If life truly evolves there should be no problem demonstrating it does,but they never have ,and when we push for evidence?it gets twisted around into something nobody thinks.

dogs were bread from wolves thousands of years ago and all we still have are dogs

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Well done.

Well done? Stop with the lies,how can you lie so easily? Evolution predicts change over successive generations and there has been no change with dogs.If micro-evolution is all you've got then stop teaching dinosaurs evolved into birds,stop teaching man and apes evolved from a common ancestor then,only teach as truth what the evidence shows,now micro-evolution is just variations in reproduction like with dogs and there has been no evolution only reproduction.

But also the problem you have still? Is the fact that in order to try to give evidence life evolves scientists use reproduction or adaptation in order to trick people into believing there is no difference between life adapting or reproduction and life evolving,this is a serious problem for science that cannot be glossed over when it is being taught as truth life evolves althroughout the societies of the world and that they only want evolution taught too.This is looking like propaganda.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Then of this is true? they should be able to demonstrate to everybody life evolves and they haven't like I have pointed out.

[

Yes they have, despite your continued lies and misrepresentations.

Both chimpanzees and humans having similar DNA does in Noway prove life evolves as there are other explanations

There are other explanations that can account for that, just like there are other explanations that can explain lots of other close relationships that we see in the biosphere, but there is no other explanation that can cover the vast array of nested hierarchies that we see right across the biosphere. Moreover, your idiotic fucking magic man IS NOT AN EXPLANATION, it's an admission of defeat by the terminally fucking stupid.

but you won't look at other explanations so I'm not going to try to get you to however a creator would use similar DNA for chimpanzees and humans and a 2% difference is still a lot more than evolutionists realize or admit.

The problem here is that you're looking at similarity of DNA alone, and entirely overlooking the close correlation of ERVs and other inherited characteristics. Your silly magical explanation not only isn't an explanation, it literally cannot account for this. You're wrong.

This is conspiracy theory territory.

Yes, you are well into conspiracy theory territory when you insist that you, one of the most benightedly stupid and ignorant people I've ever come across, know better than all the world's scientists on a broad array of scientific topics in different fields, and that this is somehow erected just to counter your fuckwitted fantasy. Nobody fucking cares of you want to wank off over your imaginary friend, but it has no place in science.

I know this is important evidence to evolutionists

What's an evolutionist?

but if life evolves they could demonstrate it does as this would predict they could,but they never have

They have, despite your repeated fucking lies.

,so the prediction is off and a creator giving similar DNA to man,apes,chimpanzees is just as plausible but you won't accept the creator idea.

Your creator idea is not only not just as plausible, it isn't remotely fucking plausible, except to somebody so magic-addled that they'll accept any kind of fucking non-answer. It's a stupid fantasy, accepted only by stupid people.

Wrong!We don't expect to see a cat giving birth to a dog at all,this is a lie.

You expect the offspring of dogs to not be dogs, contrary to what evolutionary theory actually says.

If life truly evolves there should be no problem demonstrating it does,but they never have

Many demonstrations have been given, but you're too fucking stupid top grasp them, or you simply dismiss them as not good enough.

,and when we push for evidence?it gets twisted around into something nobody thinks.

You've been beaten about the head with the evidence so much that even the rest of us are feeling punch-drunk. You're simply lying when you say otherwise.

Well done? Stop with the lies,how can you lie so easily? Evolution predicts change over successive generations and there has been no change with dogs.

Yes there has, and it's been observed. Do all dogs look like the wolves from which they descend? Of course not, because they've evolved.

If micro-evolution is all you've got

It isn't, and not only is it not, I just fucking got through explaining why that isn't all we've got, you moron.

then stop teaching dinosaurs evolved into birds,stop teaching man and apes evolved from a common ancestor then,only teach as truth what the evidence shows,now micro-evolution is just variations in reproduction like with dogs and there has been no evolution.

Microevolution IS evolution, as is adaptation, as are variations in reproduction. That you're liar and an idiot won't change that fact.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Reproduction.

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=UVOrHvq34hg

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

That is it. I'm done!
I'm tiered of of beating him over the head with the same thing over and over again so that I can get trolled with a youtube video.
You are never going to be able to make him think. What a pathetic waste of time.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Yep.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I want evidence life evolves like you believe.I do not want you to just say "You don't know what you're talking about." Or to tell me life evolves.It is a shame you all deny my point about how reproduction or adaptation is not evidence life evolves.You all keep ignoring this thinking I don't know what I'm talking about and it shows intellectual dishonesty on your part that you see no problem using reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves.Then you play dumb about what demonstrating life evolves means.I'm sorry but you all are just intellectually dishonest and it shows that you just believe life evolves despite what the evidence shows.I am not lying at all,you all are just refusing to acknowledge it.You offer no evidence and just act like I don't know what I'm talking about,no it is you all who believe life evolves that have the problem.

Just answer me this how can you believe life evolves based on reproduction or adaptation? How is this evidence life evolves? And do not try to say I'm lying about this because I'm not.This is why I reject evolution and it has nothing to do with the gap theory.I discovered the gap theory after I realized this about evolution and yes I do believe the gap theory better explains what the evidence shows but I'd reject evolution regardless.Reproduction or adaptation is not evidence life evolves,it does not show anybody life evolves at all.Is this why only scientists in a lab can know life evolves? I don't buy it,look at the evidence they use as evidence.

How is that I have evidence to back up what I believe but you all don't.Yes you deny the evidence I give but it is evidence.I believe a former world existed and have given evidence you all know about and yet you act like this is impossible when it is not based on the evidence.I'm the only one who has given evidence to back up what the evidence proves meanwhile you all believe life evolves but just declare it happens with no evidence to back it up.

All you have is denial and belief life evolves.If the evidence used as evidence only shows reproduction or adaptation how can you be so confident life evolves
How can you know and then continue to look at the evidence from this perspective? You can deny it all you want to but when you look at viruses,bacteria,finches,fruit flies,salamanders,frogs,etc when you look at this peer reviewed evidence life evovles,how can you know life evolves based on this evidence? Because it is only either reproduction or adaptation being used as evidence without any evolution happening.

I've explained this elsewhere:

Chemistry.

That's the simplest answer anyone can give you.

Chemical reactions occur: there are no "barriers" to prevent chemical reactions from occurring that "cross-over" from one "kind" or "species" to another.

That's because "kinds" and "species" don't exist: they are just our attempt to categorize life-forms based on shared attributes.

"Kinds" are called that simply because "they look like each other" (phenotype (body-shape)).

"Species" are categorized scientifically by a more complex method based on a number of different criteria of shared attributes at various lower levels (genotype (DNA)/morphology (skeletal/organs/etc), etc).

Life is one long chemical reaction: it's like a river, which is simply a flow of water - the fact that different parts of the river may have different names (tributaries, distributaries, estuaries, etc) does not change the fact that it's still the same flow of water.

In the river analogy, distributaries and deltas are (examples of) speciation.

Changes in biochemical reactions, due to mutations, result in changes in species over time - eventually, these changes "cross the barrier" from one species to another.

Thus, biochemical reactions cause adaptations which are passed on - inherited - and it is these inherited adaptations that result in transitions from one species to another.

Because there are no "barriers" to (bio)chemical reactions.

This is why evolution is nothing more than inherited adaptations, whether mutations are inherited through natural selection and/or sexual selection.

In declaring that "bacteria are always bacteria", you're completely ignoring the fact that the process is binary - one mutation-based biochemical path leads to bacteria (micro-evolution), the other leads elsewhere (macro-evolution).

=====

I'll repeat - again - what I said:

And you still haven't addressed the two questions I've asked you.

Nor have you provided proof regarding your "snow ball Earth" claim that scientists "weakened" the idea.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

I want to see scientific evidence that shows reproduction or adaptation leads to life evolving but I' m going to tell you this,I already don't like it how scientists are using reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves and they are.

I don't care what you do and don't like, I care only about what we can show to be true. Reproduction and adaptation are parts of evolution, deal with it.

You still haven't answered my question though: What evidence would convince you that evolution happens? Hint: The answer can't be "that it happens".

I do not want to have to believe life evolves by faith.If you can produce evidence that shows and demonstrates life evolves then I'd like to see it,but if it shows reproduction or adaptation I'm going to point it out.

I repeat my question:
A fish with arms? A single celled organism becoming multi-celled? A dog giving birth to a cat?

What would you accept as evidence?

I don' t see how you can think I have not looked at the evidence for evolution.

Considering my sister (14) understands it better than you I'd say "I think you haven't looked at the evidence because you're still ignorant as all hell".

I mean viruses are used as evidence,so is bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,etc.I am not making this up,you all know this is evidence life evolves,yet they only show either reproduction or adaptation,not evolution.

It's reproduction and adaptation, which are both part of evolution, so yeah, that's evolution.

So how can you say I don't know what I'm talking about.

Your arguments are incoherent, easily shown to be false and based on simple misunderstandings of how science works. This is so elementary, I have to ask: Are you done with school yet? It doesn't seem like it.

Explain how the virus evolved,why don't you.

:lol: Which one? :lol:

Wikipedia[/url]"]Since Dmitri Ivanovsky's 1892 article describing a non-bacterial pathogen infecting tobacco plants, and the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by Martinus Beijerinck in 1898, about 5,000 viruses have been described in detail, although there are millions of different types.

You are even more ignorant than dandan and that's saying something. Holy shit. Explain how THE VIRUS evolved. I mean really, how can you still breathe on your own with such an empty head? For fucks sake man, do you know anything about anything at all?

In any case, you still haven't answered my question:
Ablecainsbrother, what would YOU accept as proof that evolution happens? A fish with arms? A single celled organism becoming multi-celled? A dog giving birth to a cat?

What criterion would suffice for you to accept that evolution does happen?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

First off you all need to know the difference between reproduction or life adapting and life evolving.I know the difference but ya'll think they are the same things so until you know the difference we are wasting our time.It is a shame that you all put on an act like you are highly educated but you don't know the difference between the three.

The fact is you have no evidence to prove or show life evolves like you believe but you use reproduction or adaptation as evidence,it is a shame but don't think you're going to trick me.I know the difference between reproduction,life adapting and life evolving.You all are confused about it.

Let's just stop because you're never going to convince me that reproduction or life adapting leads to life evolving without evidence life evolves,take your belief and prove it.You can't do it though.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Reproduction is NOT life evolving.Life adapting is NOT life evolving.No matter how much you want to believe they are the same thing.You cannot use REPODUCTION or ADAPTATION as evidence LIFE EVOLVES and this is exactly what the evidence shows science is doing.

The fact is that the only thing scientists have proven is life reproduces and life can adapt to survive in hostile environments.They have not proven or showed anybody life evolves,AGAIN the evidence does not prove or show anybody life evolves,the only thing the evidence shows us is life reproduces and life can adapt,this DOES NOT prove or show anybody life evolves!

No matter how much you assume it happens,believe it happens,teach it happens,etc the evidence shows you are WRONG!
And life never evolves even though life reproduces and life can adapt,this is what the evidence PROVES!

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Now since I have proven and showed everybody that no evidence can be produced that shows or demonstrates life evolves and nobody can or has provided any because they can't because it will only show reproduction or adaptation like I said.

I' m now going to use the gap theory with the evidence used as evidence for evolution like the age of the earth,the fossils and mass death and extinction,and since you have no evidence life evolves?You cannot blur and distort what the evidence really tells us,it tells us there was a former world on this earth that perished,this world had many different kinds of both plants,trees and life than the life,trees and plants this world has.This theory blows the theory of evolution away and is much much more believable based on the evidence.We have a lost world that nobody knows about because of this unproven theory life evolves.

We had man-like beings living in a world with dinosaurs and this is how they have found man like feet prints next to dinosaur foot prints.The former world was much different than this world is and this is the truth based on the evidence in the earth.I have evidence and you don't.

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/03/13/an-ancient-and-alien-forest-reconstructed-a-challenge-to-young-earth-creationism-part-i/

 

[Deleted member 619]

Let's just stop because you're never going to convince me that reproduction or life adapting leads to life evolving without evidence life evolves

Nor would I expect to, for two reasons: Firstly, you're too stupid to change your mind and, secondly, reproduction and adaptation don't 'lead to life evolving', they ARE evolution.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Let's just stop because you're never going to convince me that reproduction or life adapting leads to life evolving without evidence life evolves

Nor would I expect to, for two reasons: Firstly, you're too stupid to change your mind and, secondly, reproduction and adaptation don't 'lead to life evolving', they ARE evolution.

They are three different things and the evidence does not show life evolves at all.You're trying your trick trying to make it seem like micro-evolution is evolution,while ignoring natural selection and macroevolution and these are all apart of the theory of evolution and you can't suddenly pretend like they are'nt and only talk about micro-evolution.

This is a common thing to do when pushed for evidence life evolves to shrink the whole theory of evolution down to just micro and to hide behind micro but micro is just variations in reproduction like dogs,you have no evidence life evolves and dogs have not evolved at all,like I said you're confused with reproduction and evolution you're only showing reproduction even if you want to call it micro evolution,it is still just reproduction.

I know you want to only go by scientific terms like micro-evolution to imply evolution but micro evolution is not life evolving as it is just what animal breeders were aware of thousands of years ago,this is how dogs were bread from wolves and the different varieties of dogs were produced but you can't use reproduction as evidence life evolves and you cannot ignore natural selection and macro evolution and evolution like you are doing,they are all apart of the theory of evolution.

 

[Deleted member 619]

They are three different things

No, they are two different factors in evolution.

and the evidence does not show life evolves at all.

It most certainly does..

You're trying your trick trying to make it seem like micro-evolution is evolution,

I already explained this. Unlike you, I'm not given to repeating myself.

while ignoring natural selection

How can I be ignoring natural selection, when that's the mechanism behind adaptation? The difference between us is that I know better than to think that NS is all there is to it, because NS is itself only a small part of a broader process, namely population resampling, which comprises NS and drift.

and macroevolution

Already explained why you were wrong about that, and gave examples of observed macroevolution.

I can cite one instance, in Heliconius butterflies, in which a speciation event occurred in a wild population, was replicated in the lab, and neither daughter population was interfertile with the parent population, but both daughter populations were interfertile with each other.

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006)

Full paper downloadable from here:

http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4131/1/Mavarez_Salazar_Bermingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdf

and these are all apart of the theory of evolution and you can't suddenly pretend like they are'nt and only talk about micro-evolution.

And where did I do that, pray tell?

This is a common thing to do to shrink the whole theory of evolution down to just micro and to hide behind micro but micro is just variations in reproduction like dogs,you have no evidence life evolves and dogs have not evolved at all,like I said you're confused with reproduction and evolution you're only showing reproduction even if you want to call it micro evolution,it is still just reproduction.

Err, except that I gave examples of macroevolution, and explained in detail what macroevolution is, because you clearly only have whatever clue was given you by a lying fuckwit cretinist moron. In other words, no fucking clue at all.

I know you want to only go by scientific terms like micro-evolution to imply evolution

You're lying. I've done more than that in this thread alone, as have others.

but micro evolution is not life evolving

Wrong.

as it is just what animal breeders were aware of thousands of years ago,

And that makes it not evolution how, moron?

this is how dogs were bread from wolves and the different varieties of dogs were produced but you can't use reproduction as evidence life evolves and you cannot ignore natural selection and micro evolution and evolution like you are doing,they are all apart of the theory of evolution.

I've ignored nothing, while you've ignored everything anybody has ever said to you, because you're a lying, trolling fuckwit, and we're done.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

They are three different things

No, they are two different factors in evolution.

and the evidence does not show life evolves at all.

It most certainly does..

You're trying your trick trying to make it seem like micro-evolution is evolution,

I already explained this. Unlike you, I'm not given to repeating myself.

while ignoring natural selection

How can I be ignoring natural selection, when that's the mechanism behind adaptation? The difference between us is that I know better than to think that NS is all there is to it, because NS is itself only a small part of a broader process, namely population resampling, which comprises NS and drift.

and macroevolution

Already explained why you were wrong about that, and gave examples of observed macroevolution.

I can cite one instance, in Heliconius butterflies, in which a speciation event occurred in a wild population, was replicated in the lab, and neither daughter population was interfertile with the parent population, but both daughter populations were interfertile with each other.

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006)

Full paper downloadable from here:

http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4131/1/Mavarez_Salazar_Bermingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdf

and these are all apart of the theory of evolution and you can't suddenly pretend like they are'nt and only talk about micro-evolution.

And where did I do that, pray tell?

This is a common thing to do to shrink the whole theory of evolution down to just micro and to hide behind micro but micro is just variations in reproduction like dogs,you have no evidence life evolves and dogs have not evolved at all,like I said you're confused with reproduction and evolution you're only showing reproduction even if you want to call it micro evolution,it is still just reproduction.

Err, except that I gave examples of macroevolution, and explained in detail what macroevolution is, because you clearly only have whatever clue was given you by a lying fuckwit cretinist moron. In other words, no fucking clue at all.

I know you want to only go by scientific terms like micro-evolution to imply evolution

You're lying. I've done more than that in this thread alone, as have others.

but micro evolution is not life evolving

Wrong.

as it is just what animal breeders were aware of thousands of years ago,

And that makes it not evolution how, moron?

this is how dogs were bread from wolves and the different varieties of dogs were produced but you can't use reproduction as evidence life evolves and you cannot ignore natural selection and micro evolution and evolution like you are doing,they are all apart of the theory of evolution.

I've ignored nothing, while you've ignored everything anybody has ever said to you, because you're a lying, trolling fuckwit, and we're done.

Look I know you are frustrated and you think that I'm stupid when it comes to evolution and let me say that I'm actually glad that you have finally tried to give evidence life evolves but I'm going to show you that I am not ignorant about the theory of evolution.I have taken the time to research evolution and to examine the evidence for evolution.

I know that you accept evolution and you believe it is true backed up by all kinds of evidence but all you have really gave as evidence life evolves is butterflies which only shows reproduction like I said,no evolution of the butterflies,you started out with butterflies and ended with butterflies and yet you claim the reason they evolved was because they could no longer breed.

This is your evidence life evolves butterflies reproducing butterflies which is reproduction but you say they evolved when they could no longer breed but you should know that this is not evidence life has evolved because there are many kinds of life that is said to have evolved that can still breed,yet you want to claim the butterflies evolved because they could no longer breed so it is selective evidence at the discretion of the scientists,so that in order to see life evolve? We must trust scientists that are only showing reproduction as evidence,we must trust them though that the butterflies evolved because they could no longer breed.This is weak evidence that life evolves and only shows reproduction and it was done in a lab too.Keep this in mind, in a lab.

Look I want to see evidence that shows life evolves and if life evolves why can't scientists demonstrate it does?All they are showing is reproduction and telling us it evolved,but all I see is reproduction,no evidence that dinosaurs could evolve into birds,no evidence that apes and man could evolve from a common ancestor,no only reproduction in a science lab.

Here go down to the bottom portion of this page and read notes 2 and you'll see that just because life can no longer breed does not mean it evolved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

[Deleted member 619]

you think that I'm stupid when it comes to evolution

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with it, and I don't merely think it.

I am not ignorant about the theory of evolution.

you started out with butterflies and ended with butterflies and yet you claim the reason they evolved was because they could no longer breed.

These two statements are in direct contradiction, because the latter shows that the former is bollocks. Nobody who was not entirely ignorant of evolution could erect the latter statement.

Firstly, I didn't say the reason they evolved is that they could no longer breed. I already told you that evolution occurs in every single generation, regardless of speciation. Allele frequencies vary with every birth and death, and this variation is what we call evolution. When the variation between two populations of a single species is sufficient that they can no longer interbreed, the populations diverge. We call this speciation, and this is properly a macroevolutionary event, because it is variation of allele frequencies at or above species level.

Here go down to the bottom portion of this page and read notes 2 and you'll see that just because life can no longer breed does not mean it evolved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Hahahaha! You think that agrees with you, you fucking idiot? Here's what I said to you:

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.

Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

you think that I'm stupid when it comes to evolution

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with it, and I don't merely think it.

I am not ignorant about the theory of evolution.

you started out with butterflies and ended with butterflies and yet you claim the reason they evolved was because they could no longer breed.

These two statements are in direct contradiction, because the latter shows that the former is bollocks. Nobody who was not entirely ignorant of evolution could erect the latter statement.

Firstly, I didn't say the reason they evolved is that they could no longer breed. I already told you that evolution occurs in every single generation, regardless of speciation. Allele frequencies vary with every birth and death, and this variation is what we call evolution. When the variation between two populations of a single species is sufficient that they can no longer interbreed, the populations diverge. We call this speciation, and this is properly a macroevolutionary event, because it is variation of allele frequencies at or above species level.

Here go down to the bottom portion of this page and read notes 2 and you'll see that just because life can no longer breed does not mean it evolved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Hahahaha! You think that agrees with you, you fucking idiot? Here's what I said to you:

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.

Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

Let me ask you this I know you can explain evolution but where is your evidence that shows life evolves? Keep in mind that you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and apes and man evolved from a common ancestor but all I see as evidence is butterflies that reproduce butterflies which I expect to see.

I don't expect to see a butterfly give birth to a dragon fly,etc It seems your evidence for this is reproduction but you dress it up in scientific talk and explain it evolved and I guess this is what happened to you and you accepted it.

But I do not go on explanation,I go by evidence which is why I often back up what I believe with evidence even if it is rejected. I see no reason based on the evidence to believe life evolves even if they share genes,this is a different side issue but really only seems real if you believe life evolves and I don't.

I know that God could've given similar DNA to the life he created and that scientists have interpreted it wrongly by looking at it like life evolves,if you believe life evolves? This would seem like evidence life evolves but what if God just gave them similar DNA? Then you are looking at it wrong.This is why I need evidence life evolves so that I do not interpret the evidence wrongly.

And if evolution is so true scientifically? Then it should be no problem at all to show evidence that shows us that dinosaurs could evolve into birds and apes and man could evolve from a common ancestor but all I see is reproduction,which is what I expect to see.

I'm not doing everything I can to reject evolution as it would not effect my belief in God if it were true but I just do not see evidence life evolves like you do.