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.
In general, we have not seen new more complex types of animals or plants created by breeding. Just variations of existing types.
Ha, the creationist proof that miracles do not exist. But that was not your argument. You was talking about species, now you want to talk at the family or genus level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
If we can't give you a specific and detailed answer about something people have wondered about over the ages, that means your wild guess must be correct???
And there is the irrelevant goal post moving that has nothing to do with anything I have said. Unless you are misrepresenting the 110 years of science you ignore as a 'wild guess'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I didn't make up the concept. It is commonly believed, outside your little atheist world.
So is Christianity and Islam. So basically your 'logic' is that Christianity must be true until the time Islam becomes the biggest religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
And scientists can't answer all your questions with controlled experiments. Sometimes we must rely on observation and experience and logic.
So far all you have is experience. Which means you are arguing all the other religions that have spiritual experiences must also be correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
You have naive blind faith in experimental science. Only certain kinds of questions can be addressed with controlled experiments.
No, we have faith in science because it works. You would not know this as you have been ignoring the last 110 years.
Micro and macro are two completely different things. Micro has been observed and can be created, macro has never been observed and cannot be created.
Creationist BS. Macro evolution is just a matter of degree, and is observed in the fossil record as well as the genome of different genera within the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There is absolutely no reason to assume micro grades into macro.
So what is this mechanism that stops the observed differences in the genome from growing even wider? Because if you can not give us a scientific reason, then there is every reason to accept micro to macro considering the fossil and genetic record that we have.
And now we have organized scientific establishments, or Big Science, which is influenced by money and connected to powerful institutions. Very often what we call "science" is actually Big Science, which is just as trustworthy as big corporations or big governments.
Ha, the creationist slander of science while ignoring the 'buy our creationist video' button on every creationist site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There are certain changes within a species that the species is capable of producing, and these can be selected from. A species of moth might have the potential to be light or dark, and the color of its habitat will select one or the other. That kind of change was assumed to be what happens in evolution in general. It is not.
Every kind of change created by artificial breeding brought out one or another potential of the species. Artificial breeding has NEVER created anything new.
If you breed dogs for intelligence, for example, a ceiling will be reached at the limit of the normal range for dog intelligence. And the same goes for any trait you breed any species for.
I give up. G4N is impervious to reason, and every exchange is a variation on a nuanced, supported point, which results in G4N responding with “nuh uh!”
And like Mystic did, he has resorted to creationist arguments.
Nobody could ever beat Eusebius for denial - not even C34. or was it 45?
Eusebius is not Omega. Not only is their writing styles different (Eusebius appears educated), Omega accidentally exposed his real identity a few months ago. No, I am not telling how.
Eusebius is not Omega. Not only is their writing styles different (Eusebius appears educated), Omega accidentally exposed his real identity a few months ago. No, I am not telling how.
If you take non -tender £coins... but the Omega is Eusebius debate has been going on. I'm sure, but willing to be convinced that he ain't.
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.
Nobody could ever beat Eusebius for denial - not even C34. or was it 45?