Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then I await your presentation of the facts which outline how evolution science has reproduced ANYTHING relative to it's claims ..... and before you waste our time with diversionary nonsense, I don't consider presenting evidence of variation and adaptation within a particular species as valid reproduction, nor particularly responsive to the more pertinent aspect of one species transforming into another by genetic mutation, and natural selection.
The hard cold truth is, given that the theory proposes that evolution, including speciation takes Millions of years to occur, makes it rather impractical to reproduce, test, and validate! Consequently, this renders the "theory of evolution" as not a valid scientific theory at all, based on your own stated criteria! And since it was your claim that irreproducible results are "thrown out", you may leave now, and take your un-scientific darwinian speculations with you.
But before you go, I should like to point out, that given this Darwinian process of evolution has been on going for eons, generating Billions of diffetent species along the way ... and as far as I am aware, no one has suggested evolution has stopped, or taken a vacation, we should be seeing new species pop up by the dozens each and every year ... you just need to use a calculator ... it's fairly simple math which should not pose you significant challenge.
Your assumption is that new species are not emerging. That is false.
In the context of Intelligent Design, yes, because GMO crops have been artificially genetically manipulated by an intelligent cause to be different than their forebears.
ID: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Exactly. GMOs do not fit the ToE.
I think you are limiting the scope of the theory. The theory incorporates artificial selection because a theory of anything, in this case 'evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs', incorporates many facts surrounding this phenomenon.
From the wiki article on evolution:
'In both natural and artificial selection the variations are a result of random mutations, and the underlying genetic processes are essentially the same...'
I am not sure why you are so adamant about this limiting factor, if not to undermine the theory with an example of intelligent creatures doing the selecting as if this somehow then can be extended to some sort of metaphysical creature called GOD in order to not rely upon natural means of evolutionary change? But alas you said both exists.
Then I await your presentation of the facts which outline how evolution science has reproduced ANYTHING relative to it's claims.
Excuse me? Every piece of evidence that scientists have provided for evolution comes from experiments that are reproducible, and most have been reproduced. Any paleontologist can return to any particular fossil stratum and find other examples of the original finds, and many have. Any geneticist can re-sequence the endogenous retroviruses in the human and chimpanzee genome to prove common ancestry, and many have. Any scientist can repeat Lenski's long term e-coli experiment, and several have. Any field biologist can examine the rapidly evolving Italian Wall Lizards in Croatia and measure the dramatic changes in morphology and digestion system, and many have. And any taxonomist can arrange living organisms by homology and analogy (both anatomical and genetic) and come up with an identical "tree of life" that otherwise would have no rational likelihood of existing in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
..... and before you waste our time with diversionary nonsense, I don't consider presenting evidence of variation and adaptation within a particular species as valid reproduction, nor particularly responsive to the more pertinent aspect of one species transforming into another by genetic mutation, and natural selection.
Your loss. Because that is reproducible evidence too. But you see above, its only a small part.
I think the GMO angle lends itself to the Gaia hypothesis more than ID.
01-28-2014, 01:35 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
As mentioned in my other posts, this too is a clear indication of "confirmation bias", whereas you clearly show an immovable and entrenched position with this "what could possibly..."
These types of statements reveal a closed mind, committed to it's current beliefs, and the answer is of course ... NOTHING could possibly refute evolution as far as you are concerned. That's fine ... it's a free country (or so the story goes), but let's be honest ... what you are really saying is "don't waste your breath ... I've already decided, amd nothing will change that belief".
I point this out because, while this confirmation bias is so widespread, very few people actually recognize their own bias, while never failing to notice it from others who don't share their beliefs.
Sorry, that was not my quote - I never said that. Some other poster said that.
Quote:
One of the most significant failings in this debate over "evolution" is the confusion injected by mixing the terms "evolution" and "theory of evolution" as if they were synonymous. They are not interchangeable.
In the general sense, "evolve" means "to develop gradually", which can apply to many things, such as "my golf skill has evolved a good bit over the years". Applied to biology, "evolve" means to develop over successive generations, AND, in pure biological terms relative to the "theory of evolution", a change over time from simple to more complex.
Not true, chemistry is chemistry whether taking place in Chimps, Dolphins, or Humans. Complex, what does that even mean? Am I more complex than a Dolphin - I sure can not use echo location - that's pretty complex don't you think.
Quote:
On the other hand, the "Theory of Evolution" extends way beyond that of "evolution", as it proposes not only the mechanism of action producing this gradual change in successive generations within individual species of life, but also claims that ALL LIFE evolved from one single parent organism, by tfe mechanism of genetic mutation and natural selection.
Wrong Again! There is not just one mechanism for evolution. But this has been pointed out to you many a time. That's alright just keep getting it wrong. Try studying Evo-Devo!
Quote:
Now there is well documented evidence of "evolution" taking place. There is little room for debate on that point, as we can observe this evolution occurring, such as a bacteria developing ressitence to antibiotics. This shows the change gradually occurring over successive generations of said bacteria. However, this provides ZERO evidence supporting the much broader "Theory of Evolution", as such observable evolutionary changes do not identify the actual mechanism of action responsible for those changes, and it certainly doesn't provide evidence of "speciation".
Wrong Again! Speciation has be proven. The ToE encompasses what you would call micro-evolution.
Quote:
The fraud of using evidence proving evolution occurs as proof of ToE is transparently evident. An analogy can illustrate this fraud: let's say there is the Sun God Religion that claims that the Sun God has a string attached to the Sun, and each morning he hoists the Sun up, dangles it across the sky from east to west, and then lowers it in the evening. These Sun God worshipers point to the provable fact that the Sun does rise in the morning, traversing an east to west path before setting in the west each evening. Does this observable behavior of the Sun serve as any form of evidence of the claim that the Sun God has a string attached to it, and is responsible for this movement? Of course not! But that is precisely the tactic used by Darwinists who want to use observable evolutionary changes as proof that genetic mutation and natural selection is the cause of those changes.
LMAO! Must stop with these artificial boundaries that you have yet to define let alone substantiate exists. We know that macro evolution took place by molecular evidence and fossil evidence to name two.
Quote:
Furthermore, this explanation for such change relies on a fundamental premise that has long ago been thoroughly disproven. That premise is "Genetic Control". Genetic Control stipulates that a cell's genetic code determines what that cell will produce when it replicates. And this must be true for Darwin's process of genetic mutation and natural selection to do what he claimed. Keep in mind that the ToE says that random changes in the genetic code (mutations) are then subject to the process of natural selection, which weeds through the vast majority of these negative changes, while keeping those rare changes that provide benefit to the organism's survival. But if the genetic code is not the determing factor in what is produced, then the theory falls completely apart.
You need not take my word for this ... you can research the work of Dr. Bruce Lipton, who's stem cell research in the 1970's proved that a cell's outside environment determined what that cell would produce, NOT it's genetic code. This was published in mainstream peer reviewed journals, and has never been refuted or even challenged. It has simply been ignored, in spite of it's dramatic implications to consensus biological sciences, including ToE.
I'm going to summarize in another post as this crap tablet I'm using is now slowed down to unusable
Your assumption is that new species are not emerging. That is false.
And what's particularly funny, is that even the big creationist organizations don't assume that. They have admitted that speciation takes place and has been observed taking place since at least the late 1980s.
I think you are limiting the scope of the theory. The theory incorporates artificial selection because a theory of anything, in this case 'evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs', incorporates many facts surrounding this phenomenon.
From the wiki article on evolution:
'In both natural and artificial selection the variations are a result of random mutations, and the underlying genetic processes are essentially the same...'
GMO crops are NOT the result of random mutations.
Quote:
this somehow then can be extended to some sort of metaphysical creature called GOD
I never said anything about God. And neither does ID.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, why are their no ID claims that God created GMO crops?
