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.
Now, I'm not going to dissect the entire mess, nor am I going to subject myself to the allegation of "cherry picking" so I will address ONE example, and I take the first one on this list
Evening Primrose -(Oenothera Lamarckiana)
This guy studying the genetics of his Evening Primrose 109 years ago (1905), discovered one of them unable to breed with the other ... upon investigation, he discovered the "variant" to have 4 additional chromosomes, so he thus labeled his "new species" Oenothera gigas. How charming.!
Now for the layman translation ... this knucklehead discovered among his evening primrose plants ONE of them suffered chromosome damage which prevented it breeding with the others, but nonetheless still a freaking evening primrose plant!
If this is the criteria for declaring a "new species" discovered ... no one need go all the way back to 1905 ... and use a damned plant as the example .... just go back to the 1960's and you can discover new human species ... there are plenty of hippies from that era who suffered chromosome damage from taking one too many "trips" down blacklight lane.
Now, go study "confirmation bias" (there should be mugshot of you above the definition)
If you were not so heavily afflicted by this rather common human psychological predisposition, you'd not need me to explain this bunk to you, as you would recognize this Darwinian kiddie porn for what it is.
Actually, I suspect that Mr. Rogers would understand the material far better than you do. Let's cut to the quick, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Now for the layman translation ... this knucklehead discovered among his evening primrose plants ONE of them suffered chromosome damage which prevented it breeding with the others, but nonetheless still a freaking evening primrose plant!
Gong!!
There was no chromosomal damage. The new species is a perfectly ordinary plant with undamaged chromosomes, and it persists to this day as a separate primrose species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
If this is the criteria for declaring a "new species" discovered ...
Gong!! You should have quit while you were ahead. Oh. You were never ahead. Strike that.
That's not the criteria for declaring a new species. Reproductive isolation is.
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.
I've already told you to publicly challenge the greatest minds...
Sure they are. How did those original genes come to be that were modified.
AGAIN, you are incorrect as if you havent been told enough by many people.....
Quote:
never said anything about God. And neither does ID.
Lolz. Yes you've been told countless times that the modern ID movement was started by relgious fundamentalist.
01-28-2014, 02:56 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin_Muzik_NJ
If the selection is artificial by way of creatures selecting which genetic information is altered, how is that random though?
Random is not necessarily specifically defined - both are not truly random per-se. The point here is that whether one artificially or naturally selects the principle underlying the results is still at work. Randomness can be thought of as an event with a probability distribution or an event where the out comes are equally likely. But I get what you are saying. My point again is that whatever is doing the selecting the results still qualify as evolution and encompassed within the ToE - generally speaking.
LOL ... I've noticed a lot of spin and desperation in this thread too ... but it's not coming from the atheists...
Oh yes it is........
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.
