RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[neo-x]

Of course they're predictions.

And yes, the predictions made by Ross in his book, are falsifiable.

Ross is the Author of the book. He has biologists who work with him. And I only brought him up because you keep saying PC doesn't have predictions.

I am sorry but I have gone through Ross' predictions before and never found them worth it.

Hey, that's fine. You don't agree with them. That doesn't mean they're not predictions. I find the Theory of Evolution wanting. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a legitimate theory.

If you're honest, you'll stop saying PC doesn't have any predictions. It's almost as bad as someone who says life isn't evolving.

Actually no. I have reasons for why they are not predictions and why pure science doesn't also consider them predictions. There is a reason that is so. You may have missed the edit on my previous post on this.

You may say PC has predictions, but if they can't be tested then they are merely words. They are not legitimate at all. Perhaps as a belief they may work but not as science alone.

So, you're saying one celled life to human evolution, is testable and verifiable?

Obviously, otherwise why accept it?

[RickD]

I am sorry but I have gone through Ross' predictions before and never found them worth it.

Hey, that's fine. You don't agree with them. That doesn't mean they're not predictions. I find the Theory of Evolution wanting. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a legitimate theory.

If you're honest, you'll stop saying PC doesn't have any predictions. It's almost as bad as someone who says life isn't evolving.

Actually no. I have reasons for why they are not predictions and why pure science doesn't also consider them predictions. There is a reason that is so. You may have missed the edit on my previous post on this.

You may say PC has predictions, but if they can't be tested then they are merely words. They are not legitimate at all. Perhaps as a belief they may work but not as science alone.

So, you're saying one celled life to human evolution, is testable and verifiable?

Obviously, otherwise why accept it?

Ok. I'm waiting to hear how it's testable and verifiable. You can refer me to a link that has it in layman's terms if you prefer.

[neo-x]

Hey, that's fine. You don't agree with them. That doesn't mean they're not predictions. I find the Theory of Evolution wanting. That doesn't mean I don't think it's a legitimate theory.

If you're honest, you'll stop saying PC doesn't have any predictions. It's almost as bad as someone who says life isn't evolving.

Actually no. I have reasons for why they are not predictions and why pure science doesn't also consider them predictions. There is a reason that is so. You may have missed the edit on my previous post on this.

You may say PC has predictions, but if they can't be tested then they are merely words. They are not legitimate at all. Perhaps as a belief they may work but not as science alone.

So, you're saying one celled life to human evolution, is testable and verifiable?

Obviously, otherwise why accept it?

Ok. I'm waiting to hear how it's testable and verifiable. You can refer me to a link that has it in layman's terms if you prefer.

I doubt all of it will be layman. But to be concise all the predictions of ToE have been true since it was posed as a model. And all the mechanisms of evolution are testable and verifiable. Do you have a specific evidence in your mind, any specific test which might satisfy you, or which you may accept? I doubt you will read a paper and agree to it since if that was the case there are a plethora of books and papers already out there which I am sure you must have heard about.

For instance, whale evolution is one model you should research into since there is are transitional forms which show the transformations. Birds and reptile from dinosaurs is another. Fossil record with evolution predictions is another. Dna is another.

I hope you don't think that there is one paper which says that one cell just turned to man. That is of course not true, since there is a complete series of transformations. You have to step back and take everything into account. And seeing it together is the key.

I would actually encourage you to start with Darwin's and Wallace's "The origin of species", if only for reference. Later books can correct what they might have had gotten wrong.

[abelcainsbrother]

[float=][/float]

"A virus is still a virus". I think this leads to the heart of at least one confusion that besets creationists. Genesis cheerfully announces that God made various organisms "after their kind" but is very unscientific about what is meant by a "kind". Answersingenesis says "at the level of family and possibly order ... On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels." Bit of bet-hedging going on there if you ask me. That wonderful ark in Kentucky is supposed to have carried "about 1,500" different kinds, which, given that there are well over that number of orders in the animal kingdom, must include at least some kinds at the level of classes or higher.

Abelcainsbrother lists these as all being of the same "kind" and says they are all examples of "normal variation": Panthera leo, Panthera tigris, Panthera pardus, Puma concolor, Acinonyx jubatus, Lynx lynx, to which we could no doubt add various other "cats" such as Felis catus, Felis sylvestris and, I dare say, the sabre-toothed tiger as well. Including other "cats", this appears to place the "cat" kind at the level of the family. They're all cats, and only differ from each other "normally."

Well, here, irrefutably according to abelcainsbrother, is proof - not just evidence but proof - that the evolution of separate species is all part of the "normal variation" he admits - indeed, insists on. Whereas various hybrids are possible between members of the same genus, resulting in ligers and tigons, interbreeding is certainly not possible between, say, a cheetah and a lynx, which are in different genera.

So at last abelcainsbrother will admit that speciation is proved.

Where is your evidence like I have given? You preach it well but a virus adapting remaining a virus always causes you problems. You are assuming but have no evidence that confirms life evolves. I'm asking for evidence,not proof,but you have no evidence to provide in order to believe one kind of life can evolve into a different kind of life,because all the evidence you can provide shows that there is only normal variation amongst kinds. This means that you must assume and speculate about one kind of life evolving into a different kind of life,the evidence will show it cannot ever happen. And based on this you cannot include sabre teeth cats into the family of cats in this world and God' word explains that God both created and made life after their kind,so when God made this world he created and made life in this world after the kinds of life that lived in the former world and sabre teeth cats are extinct and are not in the family of cats in this world they lived in a totally different world than this world.You can disagree but because you have no evidence that even comes close to demonstrating life evolves my theory is as good as yours. The former world had hominids in it also and are now extinct. Since evolutionists have had 150 years to show and demonstrate life evolves and have failed they have no credibility.Instead of preaching how about backing it up with evidence like I have?You are not right just because it makes sense to you and to assume and speculate like you must do.

I do have to give you some credit though,you did try to give evidence with the HIV virus,unlike other evolutionists on here who just preach evolution is true and hide behind the peer review evolution wall. But as I showed there is no evolutin going on with the virus,you just have evidence that proves no matter how much it can adapt it remains a virus always and does not ever evolve,just like all other kinds of life and the evidence shows. Like salamanders which is used for evidence for macroevolution,it shows the exact same thing the virus evidence shows and that is no matter how much it adapts it will always remain a salamander and cannot ever evolve. Just normal variation in both examples and that dogs and roses show too you seem to just keep overlooking. Where is your evidence life can evolve? Because the definition according to Oxford's Dictionary of Biology says that Present day organisms evolved from simpler ancestral types by the process of natural selection acting on the variability found in populations.

Yet you have no evidence life can even evolve and no evidence that shows the effects of natural selection acting on the variability found in populations this is just skipped over in the assumption,speculation and blind faith that life evolves.All you have is variability amongst the populations,and that is all,which just normal variation in reproduction that seems to get ignored. Variation in reproduction = evolution today based on evolution's own evidence.

[RickD]

Actually no. I have reasons for why they are not predictions and why pure science doesn't also consider them predictions. There is a reason that is so. You may have missed the edit on my previous post on this.

You may say PC has predictions, but if they can't be tested then they are merely words. They are not legitimate at all. Perhaps as a belief they may work but not as science alone.

So, you're saying one celled life to human evolution, is testable and verifiable?

Obviously, otherwise why accept it?

Ok. I'm waiting to hear how it's testable and verifiable. You can refer me to a link that has it in layman's terms if you prefer.

I doubt all of it will be layman. But to be concise all the predictions of ToE have been true since it was posed as a model. And all the mechanisms of evolution are testable and verifiable. Do you have a specific evidence in your mind, any specific test which might satisfy you, or which you may accept? I doubt you will read a paper and agree to it since if that was the case there are a plethora of books and papers already out there which I am sure you must have heard about.

For instance, whale evolution is one model you should research into since there is are transitional forms which show the transformations. Birds and reptile from dinosaurs is another. Fossil record with evolution predictions is another. Dna is another.

I hope you don't think that there is one paper which says that one cell just turned to man. That is of course not true, since there is a complete series of transformations. You have to step back and take everything into account. And seeing it together is the key.

I would actually encourage you to start with Darwin's and Wallace's "The origin of species", if only for reference. Later books can correct what they might have had gotten wrong.

Birds from dinosaurs being verifiable would be a start. Might be easier than modern humans from single-celled life.

[Audie]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

[Hortator]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

They are now saying that dinosaurs probably "honked" rather than roared.

These paleontologists are ruining my childhood!

[RickD]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

[Audie]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

They are now saying that dinosaurs probably "honked" rather than roared.

These paleontologists are ruining my childhood!

Take comfort knowing that Spinosaurus and T rex always went
about with mouth wide open, showing all their teeth.

[hughfarey]

So at last abelcainsbrother will admit that speciation is proved.

Where is your evidence like I have given?

My evidence, which surely you must think is rock solid, is the BIBLE and YOU.
1) The Bible says that everything was made after its kind.
2) You say that cheetahs and lynxes are "normal variations" of the cat kind.
3) Since cheetahs and lynxes are completely different genera, then "normal variation" must include speciation.
QED. That's proof.

[Audie]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

"Verifiable" is not a good word to use. There is tho, a very large body of data that is very consistent
in showing birds ( and crocodiles) are living examples from the Archosaurs.

"Dinosaur" is kind of an unfortunate term, lumping as it does unrelated reptiles on the basis of size,
as per many svience of decades ago.

If you actually never heard that feathered dinosaurs are a thing, it is going to be hard to get you up
tobspeed on this topic.

[Audie]

So at last abelcainsbrother will admit that speciation is proved.

Where is your evidence like I have given?

My evidence, which surely you must think is rock solid, is the BIBLE and YOU.
1) The Bible says that everything was made after its kind.
2) You say that cheetahs and lynxes are "normal variations" of the cat kind.
3) Since cheetahs and lynxes are completely different genera, then "normal variation" must include speciation.
QED. That's proof.

Id agree, it is normal.

Wonder what "kind" this is..https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... r2=piv-web

[RickD]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

"Verifiable" is not a good word to use. There is tho, a very large body of data that is very consistent
in showing birds ( and crocodiles) are living examples from the Archosaurs.

"Dinosaur" is kind of an unfortunate term, lumping as it does unrelated reptiles on the basis of size,
as per many svience of decades ago.

If you actually never heard that feathered dinosaurs are a thing, it is going to be hard to get you up
tobspeed on this topic.

Audie,

I used "verifiable" because it's part of the definition of a scientific fact.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

And neo believes the Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact.

[Audie]

Ardie, do you accept that many dinosaurs had feathrrs?

I have no idea if dinosaurs had feathers, Audie.

I just want to read how what is commonly referred to as macroevolution, is testable or verifiable.

"Verifiable" is not a good word to use. There is tho, a very large body of data that is very consistent
in showing birds ( and crocodiles) are living examples from the Archosaurs.

"Dinosaur" is kind of an unfortunate term, lumping as it does unrelated reptiles on the basis of size,
as per many svience of decades ago.

If you actually never heard that feathered dinosaurs are a thing, it is going to be hard to get you up
tobspeed on this topic.

Audie,

I used "verifiable" because it's part of the definition of a scientific fact.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

And neo believes the Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact.

Neo can speak for himself, but I do not think he is insane. This is so mixed up, I do wonder if you sre into some leg-pulling.

[abelcainsbrother]

So at last abelcainsbrother will admit that speciation is proved.

Where is your evidence like I have given?

My evidence, which surely you must think is rock solid, is the BIBLE and YOU.
1) The Bible says that everything was made after its kind.
2) You say that cheetahs and lynxes are "normal variations" of the cat kind.
3) Since cheetahs and lynxes are completely different genera, then "normal variation" must include speciation.
QED. That's proof.

You're speculating again,now I agree with your point 1 but not 2 and 3 because there is no evidence life can evolve. You've kindof got the cart before the horse,speculating but the bottom line is kinds produce after their kind. You still see normal variation and it does not effect anything that they cannot breed,it would be a very rare event anyway if they were capable of breeding,like say a Liger it is rare but possible and still produces a cat which is just variation and even if they can't you still only have cats because of who they can breed with.Either way it is we still gets cats.Explain how them not being able to breed would effect anything,cats will still only ever produce cats and so we would still see variability amongst the population.But please explain why breeding or not matters and how it could effect them,cause them to evolve,etc.