Nature did it is nonsense

ferengi

Well-known member
A new species requires new genes which we have already concluded that evolution is incapable of producing much less a whole gaggle of genes for a new species.
Correct and the atheolibmarxist cannot show us where the original information in the original DNA came from.
 

rossum

Active member
Observing an already in place species is not the same as observing speciation.
Unless and until we have observed a different way for a new species to arise then yes, it is scientifically valid evidence of evolution. As and when you have observed evidence of a god/dess creating a new species from thin air then science will reconsider.

New traits are the results of already pre-existing information in DNA as in artificial selection of woollier sheep.
Not always, as with Down's syndrome or achondroplasia.

All that de Vries could do 116 years ago was postulate which he did in verbose form and even tried to take credit from Mendel for his gene theory.
False. He showed that new species (Oenothera gigas) arose from a full genome duplication of Oenothera lamarckiana. The mutation was from 2N=14 to 2N=28. That was an early observation of a mutation causing speciation.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
False. He showed that new species (Oenothera gigas) arose from a full genome duplication of Oenothera lamarckiana. The mutation was from 2N=14 to 2N=28. That was an early observation of a mutation causing speciation.
False - you have not presented evidence for these claims
 

Temujin

Well-known member
A new species requires new genes which we have already concluded is beyond evolution's poultry capabilities and much less a whole gaggle of genes for a new species.
The evolution of poultry is down to farming techniques, and artificial selection, not evolution.

Evolution is perfectly capable of producing a whole gaggle of geese, sorry genes, as you have been shown many times in the past. Indeed, you have a gaggle, or should that be a flock, of new mutations in your own body, some of which will affect active genes.
 

ferengi

Well-known member

Cisco Qid

Member
Unless and until we have observed a different way for a new species to arise then yes, it is scientifically valid evidence of evolution. As and when you have observed evidence of a god/dess creating a new species from thin air then science will reconsider.
We have already observed intelligence creating and designing using forethought and ingenuity. Time to reconsider.
Not always, as with Down's syndrome or achondroplasia.
This is the same as the disabled fruit fly that fruit flyatologists have been able to produce but no new traits, genes or species. As I state before (giving credit to Dr. Jonathan Wells) the only product of a mutated fruit fly is a ff, a disabled ff or a dead ff.
 
Last edited:

Cisco Qid

Member
The evolution of poultry is down to farming techniques, and artificial selection, not evolution.

Evolution is perfectly capable of producing a whole gaggle of geese, sorry genes, as you have been shown many times in the past. Indeed, you have a gaggle, or should that be a flock, of new mutations in your own body, some of which will affect active genes.
Thanks for the English lesson but try to stay away from mutations, they're not good for you. Nor me for that matter.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Thanks for the English lesson but try to stay away from mutations, they're not good for you. Nor me for that matter.
It's OK. Most are completely harmless, and some are good for you. More importantly, all are good for the species.
 

rossum

Active member
We have already observed intelligence creating and designing using forethought and ingenuity. Time to reconsider.
I eagerly await your observations of any intelligent god or goddess creating anything.

This is the same as the disabled fruit fly that fruit flyatologists have been able to produce but no new traits, genes or species.
Your sources are misinforming you again. New traits were observed. New genes were produced. Why do you believe sources that continually lie to you?
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Darwin's book was called "On the Evolution of Species". So now you are telling us that you have no problem with the evolution of species. Can I ask then why all the creationist hoo-hah about Darwin and evolution? Has Ken Ham got it wrong, and Darwin was really right to say that species do evolve?

Wow, talk about twisting a point. Speciation is what is called horizontal evolution...NOT...vertical evolutionism.
Let me remind you one more time....the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. For some reason you can't seem to absorb that information.


There are many known examples. The mammals contain over 1,200 genera and there were no mammals in the Cambrian period. Hence all mammal genera have evolved since the first proto-mammals appeared. Every single genus of mammals has evolved since then.

The genera is a man made term based upon evolutionism. The animals started off as Kinds. Yet another aspect of creation science that you present as brand new to you.
What observable process stops a basal carnivore differentiating into cats (genus: Felidae) and wolves (genus: Lupus)? You accept speciation, so what process prevents a new species evolving into a closely related group of species that becomes a genus?
New information is required. Speciation is arrived at due to a mixing or removing of genetic information. To turn. cat into a dog new genetic information arranged precisely is required to change a cat into a dog. The evolution have no mechanism that allows for this to occur with any animal species. Then again you already knew that.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
It's OK. Most are completely harmless, and some are good for you. More importantly, all are good for the species.
What percentage of harmless and what percentage are good for you? I'm not asking for an exact number...a ballpark number will suffice.

If you can provide numbers please present a peer reviewed source as typically you evos make up there numbers.
 

rossum

Active member
Speciation is what is called horizontal evolution...NOT...vertical evolutionism.
Argumentum as Humpty Dumpty. You are introducing undefined terms here. Try "I accept horizontal Christianity... NOT... vertical Christianism." Does that mean anything?

You said above: "You need to understand that the creationist allow for speciation." Was that incorrect? Darwin was talking about the origin of species, that is speciation, which you say creationists "allow for". If so, then what is your problem with Darwin?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
What percentage of harmless and what percentage are good for you? I'm not asking for an exact number...a ballpark number will suffice.

If you can provide numbers please present a peer reviewed source as typically you evos make up there numbers.
Either you accept a generic estimate, which you have rejected in the past, or you accept articles and papers which explain why "ball park figures" are impossible because all cases are different and figures depend on the environmental factors. You have rejected these on the past also. Or alternatively you can produce your own figures based on your research into the subject. This too you have refused to do. There is no point in answering you, since you refuse to accept any answer given, whatever the premise, whatever the source. The reason for this is that any figure whatsoever that includes some beneficial mutations, however few, and a majority of neutral mutations, will result in evolution. The basis of your question is dishonest.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
The evolution of poultry is down to farming techniques, and artificial selection, not evolution.

Evolution is perfectly capable of producing a whole gaggle of geese, sorry genes, as you have been shown many times in the past. Indeed, you have a gaggle, or should that be a flock, of new mutations in your own body, some of which will affect active genes.
I believe it's a murder...

A murder of new mutations.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
I eagerly await your observations of any intelligent god or goddess creating anything.
The postulate was intelligence. No one said anything about a god or goddess at least not from the scientific point of view.
Your sources are misinforming you again. New traits were observed. New genes were produced. Why do you believe sources that continually lie to you?
Where when and how? If you can't produce any current evidence now then certainly de Vries didn't do it over a hundred years ago.
 

rossum

Active member
The postulate was intelligence. No one said anything about a god or goddess at least not from the scientific point of view.
Then we need an observation of intelligence at the time and place the design happened. Stonehenge was designed by humans, and there is independent evidence of humans in the area at the time.

Where is your independent evidence of intelligence present at the time when, say, the bacterial flagellum was designed? Absent such evidence then your hypothesis is very weak.

Where when and how? If you can't produce any current evidence now then certainly de Vries didn't do it over a hundred years ago.
de Vries was studying plants, not Drosophila. Try Mutations in the Drosophila Melanogaster Gene Encoding S-Adenosylmethionine Suppress Position-Effect Variegation for something more recent. The references contain additional relevant examples. Google Scholar is your friend.
 

Michael R2

Active member
No no, it's a murder of crows, which are notoriously solitary. When one crow flies in to join another, the first invariably flies off. So all you normally get is an attempted murder.
Please tell this to the crows that gather near my house every Monday, waiting for me to put out my trash. The only thing they murder is my bag, leaving me to clean up the mess.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Please tell this to the crows that gather near my house every Monday, waiting for me to put out my trash. The only thing they murder is my bag, leaving me to clean up the mess.
If you see a rook on its own, it's a crow. If you see a large bunch of crows, they are rooks.

Doesn't help with the mess of course. I get ravens in my garden, which keep the crows away. They are more intelligent than some of the posters here.
 
Top