The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

[trulyenlightened]

Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.

But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.

And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.

This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.

So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.

And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.

It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.

Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.

I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.

Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don

Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.

Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.

If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.

This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.

Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.

Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.

Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.

Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don

Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean

.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.

Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.

I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.

You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.

Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.

Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.

DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don

[abelcainsbrother]

Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.

I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.

Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don

Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.

Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.

If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.

This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.

Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.

Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.

Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.

Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don

Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean

.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.

Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.

I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.

You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.

Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.

Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.

DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

[RickD]

Chi auh auh?

ACB,

What the hell is that?

[abelcainsbrother]

Chi auh auh?

ACB,

What the hell is that?

Chi uah uah.I mispelled it.

[RickD]

Chi auh auh?

ACB,

What the hell is that?

Chi uah uah.I mispelled it.

Ay Chihuahua!

[abelcainsbrother]

I really do like to be challenged about the Theory of evolution and why I reject it.It is not based on my faith in God that I reject evolution at all as there are many Christians who accept evolution.Evolution is not a reason to reject God and it does not prove the bible wrong and it is not evidence atheism is true either.But I'm just trying to back up and explain why I cannot accept evolution. Don't hold back when it comes to evidence either if you think I'm wrong.

I know enough about evolution to know that no matter what evidence you present for evidence life evolving it will just be demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations.I reject evolution based on evidence and the lack of a credibile mechanism for how life evolves. None of the evolution definitions like natural selection,macro-evolution,speciation,etc and neither will DNA help you when the only thing that will be demonstrated is it just leads to normal variation amongst the populations. It is just stating the obvious when you try to use normal variation for evidence life evolves.

No matter how technical your scientific knowledge is it won't matter much when the only thing evolutionary scientists have proven is that everything about the theory of evolution only leads to normal variation amongst the populations and everything else about evolution must be believed by faith and assumptions.

[trulyenlightened]

Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.

Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.

If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.

This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.

Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.

Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.

Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.

Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don

Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean

.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.

Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.

I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.

You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.

Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.

Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.

DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

"A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed". Now you're saying, "This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed". This is nonsense. If two members of the same species can't interbreed, then one is not of the same species, period. It doesn't matter what method you use to supplant mating, no viable offsprings will result. Man cannot breed a human from an ape, no matter what artificial method he uses. I'm curious if you even know WHAT prevents conception from happening? The mechanics of whether both breeds could mate in the wild is irrelevant, compared to whether they can produce viable offsprings. If you put ONE chihuahua and ONE german shepherd on a deserted island, it is more likely that both breeds would die out(assuming one is male and one is female). But if you put a thousand male german shepherds and a thousand female chihuahuas(or vise versa) on a desert island, I guarantee that nature will find a way to maintain the population. All biological organisms have evolved the skills to survive and procreate.

But all this is irrelevant if you can't even see with your own eyes that both breeds can interbreed, and produce living pups that express the traits of both parents. So are you now saying that you were wrong, and that chihuahuas and german shepherds really can interbreed? Speciation is only possible, BECAUSE VARIATION EXISTS WITHIN THE GENOME OF EACH MEMBER OF THE POPULATION. Without these tiny differences occurring over time, no new inherited traits could be passed onto the progeny. It is the accumulation of these difference that will eventually evolve into new species. Even the tiniest changes over time can produce a new species. One grain of sand over time can produce sand dunes, beaches, and deserts.

The ToE simply attempts to explain the evidence and data it receives. Are you suggesting that the evidence and data supporting the ToE, are all lies? Is the evidence for mutation, as a mechanism for change, in all biological systems a lie? Can alleles be manipulated to express different traits? Is protein synthesis the same in all organisms a lie? Is the consistency of the fossil records, all a lie? Is it a lie that humans have ancestors? Is it a lie that the more similar species are, the more things they have in common? Is it just coincidence that all species need air, water, food, and the ability to procreate, to survive? These and thousands of other questions are answered by the ToE.

It is very hard to respond to your train of logic, when it is based entirely on unsupported assertions, truth claims, denials, and groundless editorializing. It is common sense, and just stating the obvious, that variation occurs within the population. There are variations that occur within the human population as well(race, color, height, language, size, features, etc.). So what? I'm assuming you mean not just physical variation(chromosomal, genes, allele expression, environmental, etc.). Again, so what? Since you are not interested in the significance of those variations, or the mechanism for change, then it is best that you continue chanting your one-dimensional mantras(" Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim"). I never claimed that either was a new species, I claimed that they were of the same species. If you still think that some dogs can't produce puppies with other dogs, then there is no way you can understand the nuances of speciation, or Natural Selection. It is also clear that you are more interested in faith, then you are in facts. Don

[abelcainsbrother]

Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.

Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.

Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don

Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean

.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.

Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.

I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.

You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.

Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.

Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.

DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

"A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed". Now you're saying, "This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed". This is nonsense. If two members of the same species can't interbreed, then one is not of the same species, period. It doesn't matter what method you use to supplant mating, no viable offsprings will result. Man cannot breed a human from an ape, no matter what artificial method he uses. I'm curious if you even know WHAT prevents conception from happening? The mechanics of whether both breeds could mate in the wild is irrelevant, compared to whether they can produce viable offsprings. If you put ONE chihuahua and ONE german shepherd on a deserted island, it is more likely that both breeds would die out(assuming one is male and one is female). But if you put a thousand male german shepherds and a thousand female chihuahuas(or vise versa) on a desert island, I guarantee that nature will find a way to maintain the population. All biological organisms have evolved the skills to survive and procreate.

But all this is irrelevant if you can't even see with your own eyes that both breeds can interbreed, and produce living pups that express the traits of both parents. So are you now saying that you were wrong, and that chihuahuas and german shepherds really can interbreed? Speciation is only possible, BECAUSE VARIATION EXISTS WITHIN THE GENOME OF EACH MEMBER OF THE POPULATION. Without these tiny differences occurring over time, no new inherited traits could be passed onto the progeny. It is the accumulation of these difference that will eventually evolve into new species. Even the tiniest changes over time can produce a new species. One grain of sand over time can produce sand dunes, beaches, and deserts.

The ToE simply attempts to explain the evidence and data it receives. Are you suggesting that the evidence and data supporting the ToE, are all lies? Is the evidence for mutation, as a mechanism for change, in all biological systems a lie? Can alleles be manipulated to express different traits? Is protein synthesis the same in all organisms a lie? Is the consistency of the fossil records, all a lie? Is it a lie that humans have ancestors? Is it a lie that the more similar species are, the more things they have in common? Is it just coincidence that all species need air, water, food, and the ability to procreate, to survive? These and thousands of other questions are answered by the ToE.

It is very hard to respond to your train of logic, when it is based entirely on unsupported assertions, truth claims, denials, and groundless editorializing. It is common sense, and just stating the obvious, that variation occurs within the population. There are variations that occur within the human population as well(race, color, height, language, size, features, etc.). So what? I'm assuming you mean not just physical variation(chromosomal, genes, allele expression, environmental, etc.). Again, so what? Since you are not interested in the significance of those variations, or the mechanism for change, then it is best that you continue chanting your one-dimensional mantras(" Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim"). I never claimed that either was a new species, I claimed that they were of the same species. If you still think that some dogs can't produce puppies with other dogs, then there is no way you can understand the nuances of speciation, or Natural Selection. It is also clear that you are more interested in faith, then you are in facts. Don

I stand by my statement that German Shepards ans Chiuahuahs cannot breed.You believe life evolves so much based on faith and assumption that you fail to see the flaw.But the fact is that scientists already know that there are many examples where the life is supposed to have evolved and yet it can still breed,even talk origins admits this. It is scientists that decide when it means life will evolve and it is scientists that choose when. But even of I give it to you that they can breed,which is not true.

You are overlooking that it can be done artificially with man ,but without man's input they cannot breed,so that it could not happen in nature.But even if I give it to you it still just leads to normal variation amngst the populations and not life changing into another kind of life.

This is because normal variation amongst the populations is used for every example of so called examples and evidence of life evolving.It is what their own evidence shows,not that life evolves,like they claim and believe based on faith and assumptions. Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence?

I want evidence for example you claiming that mutations is a mechanism for how life evolves. Yet there is no evidence produced that will even come close to demonsatrating it despite their preaching it will. This is because even if there are mutations according to their own evidence it just leads to normal variation amongst the population.

So that it does not lead to life evolving just normal variation. This is the lack of a credibile mechanism I'm talking about as to why I reject the theory of evolution. It needs to be demonstrated that natural selection and mutations will lead to life evolving not just producing normal variation amongst the population.

So that all of your assumptions claiming that if we took thousands of German Shepards and Chiuahuahs and put them on an island that they would evolve in order to protect the population is myth that no evidence will even come close to demonstrating. It is all a faith statement by you based just on normal variation amongst the populations through reproduction.

Besides Francis Crick who you mentioned earlier in his "Central Dogma" revealed that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nucleus of the germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. Yet you have bought into the evolution myth that environmental pressures can modifuy the DNA because of mutations and lead to life evolving over time. So evolutionists have known for years and years natural selection and mutations cannot modify the DNA of any life based on environmental pressures.Yet they believe by faith life evolves without any evidence. Just demonstrating it leads to normal variation amongst the populations is just stating the obvious.

As a matter of fact evolutions own evidence actually proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.This is demonstrated over and over with every example of so called evidence of life evolving even when it comes to examples of micro evolution and macro-evolution. For instance salamanders is used for an example of macro-evolution and yet all we get is a variation of salamanders which is kinds producing after its kind. It is not evidence life will evolve over time,not even close. It is like a new dog breed which is normal variation amongst the population of dogs or it is like a different colored rose,like a yellow rose instead of a red rose,etc. Normal variation amongst the populations.

[trulyenlightened]

Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean

.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.

Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.

I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.

You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.

Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.

Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.

DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

"A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed". Now you're saying, "This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed". This is nonsense. If two members of the same species can't interbreed, then one is not of the same species, period. It doesn't matter what method you use to supplant mating, no viable offsprings will result. Man cannot breed a human from an ape, no matter what artificial method he uses. I'm curious if you even know WHAT prevents conception from happening? The mechanics of whether both breeds could mate in the wild is irrelevant, compared to whether they can produce viable offsprings. If you put ONE chihuahua and ONE german shepherd on a deserted island, it is more likely that both breeds would die out(assuming one is male and one is female). But if you put a thousand male german shepherds and a thousand female chihuahuas(or vise versa) on a desert island, I guarantee that nature will find a way to maintain the population. All biological organisms have evolved the skills to survive and procreate.

But all this is irrelevant if you can't even see with your own eyes that both breeds can interbreed, and produce living pups that express the traits of both parents. So are you now saying that you were wrong, and that chihuahuas and german shepherds really can interbreed? Speciation is only possible, BECAUSE VARIATION EXISTS WITHIN THE GENOME OF EACH MEMBER OF THE POPULATION. Without these tiny differences occurring over time, no new inherited traits could be passed onto the progeny. It is the accumulation of these difference that will eventually evolve into new species. Even the tiniest changes over time can produce a new species. One grain of sand over time can produce sand dunes, beaches, and deserts.

The ToE simply attempts to explain the evidence and data it receives. Are you suggesting that the evidence and data supporting the ToE, are all lies? Is the evidence for mutation, as a mechanism for change, in all biological systems a lie? Can alleles be manipulated to express different traits? Is protein synthesis the same in all organisms a lie? Is the consistency of the fossil records, all a lie? Is it a lie that humans have ancestors? Is it a lie that the more similar species are, the more things they have in common? Is it just coincidence that all species need air, water, food, and the ability to procreate, to survive? These and thousands of other questions are answered by the ToE.

It is very hard to respond to your train of logic, when it is based entirely on unsupported assertions, truth claims, denials, and groundless editorializing. It is common sense, and just stating the obvious, that variation occurs within the population. There are variations that occur within the human population as well(race, color, height, language, size, features, etc.). So what? I'm assuming you mean not just physical variation(chromosomal, genes, allele expression, environmental, etc.). Again, so what? Since you are not interested in the significance of those variations, or the mechanism for change, then it is best that you continue chanting your one-dimensional mantras(" Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim"). I never claimed that either was a new species, I claimed that they were of the same species. If you still think that some dogs can't produce puppies with other dogs, then there is no way you can understand the nuances of speciation, or Natural Selection. It is also clear that you are more interested in faith, then you are in facts. Don

I stand by my statement that German Shepards ans Chiuahuahs cannot breed.You believe life evolves so much based on faith and assumption that you fail to see the flaw.But the fact is that scientists already know that there are many examples where the life is supposed to have evolved and yet it can still breed,even talk origins admits this. It is scientists that decide when it means life will evolve and it is scientists that choose when. But even of I give it to you that they can breed,which is not true.

You are overlooking that it can be done artificially with man ,but without man's input they cannot breed,so that it could not happen in nature.But even if I give it to you it still just leads to normal variation amngst the populations and not life changing into another kind of life.

This is because normal variation amongst the populations is used for every example of so called examples and evidence of life evolving.It is what their own evidence shows,not that life evolves,like they claim and believe based on faith and assumptions. Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence?

I want evidence for example you claiming that mutations is a mechanism for how life evolves. Yet there is no evidence produced that will even come close to demonsatrating it despite their preaching it will. This is because even if there are mutations according to their own evidence it just leads to normal variation amongst the population.

So that it does not lead to life evolving just normal variation. This is the lack of a credibile mechanism I'm talking about as to why I reject the theory of evolution. It needs to be demonstrated that natural selection and mutations will lead to life evolving not just producing normal variation amongst the population.

So that all of your assumptions claiming that if we took thousands of German Shepards and Chiuahuahs and put them on an island that they would evolve in order to protect the population is myth that no evidence will even come close to demonstrating. It is all a faith statement by you based just on normal variation amongst the populations through reproduction.

Besides Francis Crick who you mentioned earlier in his "Central Dogma" revealed that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nucleus of the germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. Yet you have bought into the evolution myth that environmental pressures can modifuy the DNA because of mutations and lead to life evolving over time. So evolutionists have known for years and years natural selection and mutations cannot modify the DNA of any life based on environmental pressures.Yet they believe by faith life evolves without any evidence. Just demonstrating it leads to normal variation amongst the populations is just stating the obvious.

As a matter of fact evolutions own evidence actually proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.This is demonstrated over and over with every example of so called evidence of life evolving even when it comes to examples of micro evolution and macro-evolution. For instance salamanders is used for an example of macro-evolution and yet all we get is a variation of salamanders which is kinds producing after its kind. It is not evidence life will evolve over time,not even close. It is like a new dog breed which is normal variation amongst the population of dogs or it is like a different colored rose,like a yellow rose instead of a red rose,etc. Normal variation amongst the populations.

When I say, "..able to breed" I am talking about ALL dogs being able to reproduce and produce a viable(able to reproduce) offspring. Are there mechanical difficulties in the mating process, between one of the largest breeds and the smallest breed? Yes! But as my father once told me, "Where there is enough will, there will always be a way". Nature is no exception. Your statement was that these breeds are so genetically dissimilar, that they are unable to breed and produce a viable offspring. This would mean the either the chihuahua or the german shepherd is NOT a dog, or does not belong to the species canis lupus. Since you have looked at the evidence that clearly show that they both are dogs, can reproduce, and why they can reproduce, then there is not much more I can add. If you simply choose not to accept the "brute truth" that you are wrong, then your voice will be given all the attention it deserves. Although, to my knowledge, no one has done that particular experiment. However similar interspecies experiments are being done in many of the pharmaceutical, fishery, horticultural, and food(GM) industries. I have no idea WHY you keep stating that normal variation will appear in all members of the population? This is obvious, and I certainly agree with you. So move on. Macro-evolution is nothing more than the result of a series of micro-evolutions.

Science does not believe in anything, or have faith in anything, or even makes assumption. These are HUMAN ATTRIBUTES, not Scientific Attributes. Science simply interprets the information(data, evidence, logic, etc.) to explain a natural phenomenon. That is it! Science uses the scientific method of inquiry, which doesn't care what your beliefs are, what your demands are, or what your emotional needs are. It must always remain impartial and objective in its explanations, expectations, and demands.

"Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence"? I do believe the scientist, because I know the standards and level of objective evidence that is required to support any claim. I know that the evidence will not be entirely based on belief, or to support anyone's confirmation bias. I know that the evidence and data will be reproducible, predictable, observable(empirically), practical, logical, but most of all falsifiable. It is not magical pixies pushing electron through a copper wire, that produce light or electricity, no matter how much you may want to believe it. Maybe you might want to apply that same standard of proof, and critical thinking to your beliefs, that you seem to expect science to do? But this is not my purpose.

I think you might find some disagreement among the earlier residences, and their offsprings, that lived in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Kyshtym. I think they are indeed the experts of the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation on their DNA Molecule. It is clear that you don't understand the importance of what DNA replication entails, or have any understanding of the 8 types of chromosomal or genetic(base) mutations. Or even the importance of mutations, as a natural mechanism to allow the organism to adapt to changes in its environment. So I am not really sure if explaining to you why small changes(genetic variations) within the population, will eventually lead to large changes over many generations. This will eventually lead to a new species, incapable of reproducing with the original parent species. Thus a new species is born. But if your mind is closed, it's closed. All this becomes irrelevant, and only belief becomes relevant. So if you wish to believe that all life and all things began from a thought, then that is what you Believe. But it is certainly not science. Don

[abelcainsbrother]

You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.

Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.

Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.

DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

"A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed". Now you're saying, "This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed". This is nonsense. If two members of the same species can't interbreed, then one is not of the same species, period. It doesn't matter what method you use to supplant mating, no viable offsprings will result. Man cannot breed a human from an ape, no matter what artificial method he uses. I'm curious if you even know WHAT prevents conception from happening? The mechanics of whether both breeds could mate in the wild is irrelevant, compared to whether they can produce viable offsprings. If you put ONE chihuahua and ONE german shepherd on a deserted island, it is more likely that both breeds would die out(assuming one is male and one is female). But if you put a thousand male german shepherds and a thousand female chihuahuas(or vise versa) on a desert island, I guarantee that nature will find a way to maintain the population. All biological organisms have evolved the skills to survive and procreate.

But all this is irrelevant if you can't even see with your own eyes that both breeds can interbreed, and produce living pups that express the traits of both parents. So are you now saying that you were wrong, and that chihuahuas and german shepherds really can interbreed? Speciation is only possible, BECAUSE VARIATION EXISTS WITHIN THE GENOME OF EACH MEMBER OF THE POPULATION. Without these tiny differences occurring over time, no new inherited traits could be passed onto the progeny. It is the accumulation of these difference that will eventually evolve into new species. Even the tiniest changes over time can produce a new species. One grain of sand over time can produce sand dunes, beaches, and deserts.

The ToE simply attempts to explain the evidence and data it receives. Are you suggesting that the evidence and data supporting the ToE, are all lies? Is the evidence for mutation, as a mechanism for change, in all biological systems a lie? Can alleles be manipulated to express different traits? Is protein synthesis the same in all organisms a lie? Is the consistency of the fossil records, all a lie? Is it a lie that humans have ancestors? Is it a lie that the more similar species are, the more things they have in common? Is it just coincidence that all species need air, water, food, and the ability to procreate, to survive? These and thousands of other questions are answered by the ToE.

It is very hard to respond to your train of logic, when it is based entirely on unsupported assertions, truth claims, denials, and groundless editorializing. It is common sense, and just stating the obvious, that variation occurs within the population. There are variations that occur within the human population as well(race, color, height, language, size, features, etc.). So what? I'm assuming you mean not just physical variation(chromosomal, genes, allele expression, environmental, etc.). Again, so what? Since you are not interested in the significance of those variations, or the mechanism for change, then it is best that you continue chanting your one-dimensional mantras(" Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim"). I never claimed that either was a new species, I claimed that they were of the same species. If you still think that some dogs can't produce puppies with other dogs, then there is no way you can understand the nuances of speciation, or Natural Selection. It is also clear that you are more interested in faith, then you are in facts. Don

I stand by my statement that German Shepards ans Chiuahuahs cannot breed.You believe life evolves so much based on faith and assumption that you fail to see the flaw.But the fact is that scientists already know that there are many examples where the life is supposed to have evolved and yet it can still breed,even talk origins admits this. It is scientists that decide when it means life will evolve and it is scientists that choose when. But even of I give it to you that they can breed,which is not true.

You are overlooking that it can be done artificially with man ,but without man's input they cannot breed,so that it could not happen in nature.But even if I give it to you it still just leads to normal variation amngst the populations and not life changing into another kind of life.

This is because normal variation amongst the populations is used for every example of so called examples and evidence of life evolving.It is what their own evidence shows,not that life evolves,like they claim and believe based on faith and assumptions. Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence?

I want evidence for example you claiming that mutations is a mechanism for how life evolves. Yet there is no evidence produced that will even come close to demonsatrating it despite their preaching it will. This is because even if there are mutations according to their own evidence it just leads to normal variation amongst the population.

So that it does not lead to life evolving just normal variation. This is the lack of a credibile mechanism I'm talking about as to why I reject the theory of evolution. It needs to be demonstrated that natural selection and mutations will lead to life evolving not just producing normal variation amongst the population.

So that all of your assumptions claiming that if we took thousands of German Shepards and Chiuahuahs and put them on an island that they would evolve in order to protect the population is myth that no evidence will even come close to demonstrating. It is all a faith statement by you based just on normal variation amongst the populations through reproduction.

Besides Francis Crick who you mentioned earlier in his "Central Dogma" revealed that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nucleus of the germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. Yet you have bought into the evolution myth that environmental pressures can modifuy the DNA because of mutations and lead to life evolving over time. So evolutionists have known for years and years natural selection and mutations cannot modify the DNA of any life based on environmental pressures.Yet they believe by faith life evolves without any evidence. Just demonstrating it leads to normal variation amongst the populations is just stating the obvious.

As a matter of fact evolutions own evidence actually proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.This is demonstrated over and over with every example of so called evidence of life evolving even when it comes to examples of micro evolution and macro-evolution. For instance salamanders is used for an example of macro-evolution and yet all we get is a variation of salamanders which is kinds producing after its kind. It is not evidence life will evolve over time,not even close. It is like a new dog breed which is normal variation amongst the population of dogs or it is like a different colored rose,like a yellow rose instead of a red rose,etc. Normal variation amongst the populations.

When I say, "..able to breed" I am talking about ALL dogs being able to reproduce and produce a viable(able to reproduce) offspring. Are there mechanical difficulties in the mating process, between one of the largest breeds and the smallest breed? Yes! But as my father once told me, "Where there is enough will, there will always be a way". Nature is no exception. Your statement was that these breeds are so genetically dissimilar, that they are unable to breed and produce a viable offspring. This would mean the either the chihuahua or the german shepherd is NOT a dog, or does not belong to the species canis lupus. Since you have looked at the evidence that clearly show that they both are dogs, can reproduce, and why they can reproduce, then there is not much more I can add. If you simply choose not to accept the "brute truth" that you are wrong, then your voice will be given all the attention it deserves. Although, to my knowledge, no one has done that particular experiment. However similar interspecies experiments are being done in many of the pharmaceutical, fishery, horticultural, and food(GM) industries. I have no idea WHY you keep stating that normal variation will appear in all members of the population? This is obvious, and I certainly agree with you. So move on. Macro-evolution is nothing more than the result of a series of micro-evolutions.

Science does not believe in anything, or have faith in anything, or even makes assumption. These are HUMAN ATTRIBUTES, not Scientific Attributes. Science simply interprets the information(data, evidence, logic, etc.) to explain a natural phenomenon. That is it! Science uses the scientific method of inquiry, which doesn't care what your beliefs are, what your demands are, or what your emotional needs are. It must always remain impartial and objective in its explanations, expectations, and demands.

"Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence"? I do believe the scientist, because I know the standards and level of objective evidence that is required to support any claim. I know that the evidence will not be entirely based on belief, or to support anyone's confirmation bias. I know that the evidence and data will be reproducible, predictable, observable(empirically), practical, logical, but most of all falsifiable. It is not magical pixies pushing electron through a copper wire, that produce light or electricity, no matter how much you may want to believe it. Maybe you might want to apply that same standard of proof, and critical thinking to your beliefs, that you seem to expect science to do? But this is not my purpose.

I think you might find some disagreement among the earlier residences, and their offsprings, that lived in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Kyshtym. I think they are indeed the experts of the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation on their DNA Molecule. It is clear that you don't understand the importance of what DNA replication entails, or have any understanding of the 8 types of chromosomal or genetic(base) mutations. Or even the importance of mutations, as a natural mechanism to allow the organism to adapt to changes in its environment. So I am not really sure if explaining to you why small changes(genetic variations) within the population, will eventually lead to large changes over many generations. This will eventually lead to a new species, incapable of reproducing with the original parent species. Thus a new species is born. But if your mind is closed, it's closed. All this becomes irrelevant, and only belief becomes relevant. So if you wish to believe that all life and all things began from a thought, then that is what you Believe. But it is certainly not science. Don

I thought you had alot of technical scientific knowledge and yet it seems like you are hiding it now.I did not say or state that a German Shepard and Chiuahuah are so genetically different that they are not able to produce viable off-spring,or that they do not belong to the same population.I just said they cannot breed without man artificially producing it and the reason why it is important is because of speciation and you believing that once life evolves it can no longer breed based on it.I just pointed out an example where it is not the case.I'm trying to test evolution and go by their own definitions,the definitions you believe are true like speciation and there are many examples of times when they can still breed as I already said.Scientists know this too.So that it is a faith belief you and scientists have without real evidence.

And it does not matter if you bring up mutations and changes in DNA because for instance even in Chernobyl in radiation bacteria still produces normal variation amongst the population of bacteria and so no evolution has happened at all. So it proves that even with mutations because of radiation we still get normal variation amongst the population of bacteria.This proves everything about how you explain it causes life to evolve over time is a myth. Mutations just lead to normal variation amongst the population too,it does not lead to the bacteria evolving because of evvironmental pressures. I don't know if you've heard of the bacteria in chernobyl but it actually feeds on radiation,but still it is still just normal variation amongst the population of bacteria like a new dog breed in that population or a yellow rose instead of a red rose in that population. Life is either able to adapt or it dies and this is what the evidence shows,in this case the bacteria was able to adapt but not all life could adapt and it would die,this is what the evidence proves,not that it causes it to evolve.

Scientists already know this too but they believe life evolves so much that they make up myths and see what they want to see because scientists did many tests with fruit flies in the lab using radiation to induce mutations and just like with the bacteria in Chernobyl it still produced fruit flies,which is normal variation amongst the population too.

So how can scientists keep on believing myths like environmental pressures,natural selection and mutations causes life to evolve over time based just on proving normal variation amongst the populations?

You know evolutionist Rupert Sheldrake came out and admitted evolution has no credible mechanism for how life evolves and he proposed a mechanism( An invisible morphic field) to try to help evolution and yet scientists called him an evolution heretic and ignored him and he was trying to help evolution.He was put down and criticized. But any criticism of evolution gets you ignored by the majority who protect and defend evolution and they hide behind peer review.

[trulyenlightened]

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

"A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed". Now you're saying, "This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed". This is nonsense. If two members of the same species can't interbreed, then one is not of the same species, period. It doesn't matter what method you use to supplant mating, no viable offsprings will result. Man cannot breed a human from an ape, no matter what artificial method he uses. I'm curious if you even know WHAT prevents conception from happening? The mechanics of whether both breeds could mate in the wild is irrelevant, compared to whether they can produce viable offsprings. If you put ONE chihuahua and ONE german shepherd on a deserted island, it is more likely that both breeds would die out(assuming one is male and one is female). But if you put a thousand male german shepherds and a thousand female chihuahuas(or vise versa) on a desert island, I guarantee that nature will find a way to maintain the population. All biological organisms have evolved the skills to survive and procreate.

But all this is irrelevant if you can't even see with your own eyes that both breeds can interbreed, and produce living pups that express the traits of both parents. So are you now saying that you were wrong, and that chihuahuas and german shepherds really can interbreed? Speciation is only possible, BECAUSE VARIATION EXISTS WITHIN THE GENOME OF EACH MEMBER OF THE POPULATION. Without these tiny differences occurring over time, no new inherited traits could be passed onto the progeny. It is the accumulation of these difference that will eventually evolve into new species. Even the tiniest changes over time can produce a new species. One grain of sand over time can produce sand dunes, beaches, and deserts.

The ToE simply attempts to explain the evidence and data it receives. Are you suggesting that the evidence and data supporting the ToE, are all lies? Is the evidence for mutation, as a mechanism for change, in all biological systems a lie? Can alleles be manipulated to express different traits? Is protein synthesis the same in all organisms a lie? Is the consistency of the fossil records, all a lie? Is it a lie that humans have ancestors? Is it a lie that the more similar species are, the more things they have in common? Is it just coincidence that all species need air, water, food, and the ability to procreate, to survive? These and thousands of other questions are answered by the ToE.

It is very hard to respond to your train of logic, when it is based entirely on unsupported assertions, truth claims, denials, and groundless editorializing. It is common sense, and just stating the obvious, that variation occurs within the population. There are variations that occur within the human population as well(race, color, height, language, size, features, etc.). So what? I'm assuming you mean not just physical variation(chromosomal, genes, allele expression, environmental, etc.). Again, so what? Since you are not interested in the significance of those variations, or the mechanism for change, then it is best that you continue chanting your one-dimensional mantras(" Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim"). I never claimed that either was a new species, I claimed that they were of the same species. If you still think that some dogs can't produce puppies with other dogs, then there is no way you can understand the nuances of speciation, or Natural Selection. It is also clear that you are more interested in faith, then you are in facts. Don

I stand by my statement that German Shepards ans Chiuahuahs cannot breed.You believe life evolves so much based on faith and assumption that you fail to see the flaw.But the fact is that scientists already know that there are many examples where the life is supposed to have evolved and yet it can still breed,even talk origins admits this. It is scientists that decide when it means life will evolve and it is scientists that choose when. But even of I give it to you that they can breed,which is not true.

You are overlooking that it can be done artificially with man ,but without man's input they cannot breed,so that it could not happen in nature.But even if I give it to you it still just leads to normal variation amngst the populations and not life changing into another kind of life.

This is because normal variation amongst the populations is used for every example of so called examples and evidence of life evolving.It is what their own evidence shows,not that life evolves,like they claim and believe based on faith and assumptions. Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence?

I want evidence for example you claiming that mutations is a mechanism for how life evolves. Yet there is no evidence produced that will even come close to demonsatrating it despite their preaching it will. This is because even if there are mutations according to their own evidence it just leads to normal variation amongst the population.

So that it does not lead to life evolving just normal variation. This is the lack of a credibile mechanism I'm talking about as to why I reject the theory of evolution. It needs to be demonstrated that natural selection and mutations will lead to life evolving not just producing normal variation amongst the population.

So that all of your assumptions claiming that if we took thousands of German Shepards and Chiuahuahs and put them on an island that they would evolve in order to protect the population is myth that no evidence will even come close to demonstrating. It is all a faith statement by you based just on normal variation amongst the populations through reproduction.

Besides Francis Crick who you mentioned earlier in his "Central Dogma" revealed that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nucleus of the germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. Yet you have bought into the evolution myth that environmental pressures can modifuy the DNA because of mutations and lead to life evolving over time. So evolutionists have known for years and years natural selection and mutations cannot modify the DNA of any life based on environmental pressures.Yet they believe by faith life evolves without any evidence. Just demonstrating it leads to normal variation amongst the populations is just stating the obvious.

As a matter of fact evolutions own evidence actually proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.This is demonstrated over and over with every example of so called evidence of life evolving even when it comes to examples of micro evolution and macro-evolution. For instance salamanders is used for an example of macro-evolution and yet all we get is a variation of salamanders which is kinds producing after its kind. It is not evidence life will evolve over time,not even close. It is like a new dog breed which is normal variation amongst the population of dogs or it is like a different colored rose,like a yellow rose instead of a red rose,etc. Normal variation amongst the populations.

When I say, "..able to breed" I am talking about ALL dogs being able to reproduce and produce a viable(able to reproduce) offspring. Are there mechanical difficulties in the mating process, between one of the largest breeds and the smallest breed? Yes! But as my father once told me, "Where there is enough will, there will always be a way". Nature is no exception. Your statement was that these breeds are so genetically dissimilar, that they are unable to breed and produce a viable offspring. This would mean the either the chihuahua or the german shepherd is NOT a dog, or does not belong to the species canis lupus. Since you have looked at the evidence that clearly show that they both are dogs, can reproduce, and why they can reproduce, then there is not much more I can add. If you simply choose not to accept the "brute truth" that you are wrong, then your voice will be given all the attention it deserves. Although, to my knowledge, no one has done that particular experiment. However similar interspecies experiments are being done in many of the pharmaceutical, fishery, horticultural, and food(GM) industries. I have no idea WHY you keep stating that normal variation will appear in all members of the population? This is obvious, and I certainly agree with you. So move on. Macro-evolution is nothing more than the result of a series of micro-evolutions.

Science does not believe in anything, or have faith in anything, or even makes assumption. These are HUMAN ATTRIBUTES, not Scientific Attributes. Science simply interprets the information(data, evidence, logic, etc.) to explain a natural phenomenon. That is it! Science uses the scientific method of inquiry, which doesn't care what your beliefs are, what your demands are, or what your emotional needs are. It must always remain impartial and objective in its explanations, expectations, and demands.

"Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence"? I do believe the scientist, because I know the standards and level of objective evidence that is required to support any claim. I know that the evidence will not be entirely based on belief, or to support anyone's confirmation bias. I know that the evidence and data will be reproducible, predictable, observable(empirically), practical, logical, but most of all falsifiable. It is not magical pixies pushing electron through a copper wire, that produce light or electricity, no matter how much you may want to believe it. Maybe you might want to apply that same standard of proof, and critical thinking to your beliefs, that you seem to expect science to do? But this is not my purpose.

I think you might find some disagreement among the earlier residences, and their offsprings, that lived in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Kyshtym. I think they are indeed the experts of the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation on their DNA Molecule. It is clear that you don't understand the importance of what DNA replication entails, or have any understanding of the 8 types of chromosomal or genetic(base) mutations. Or even the importance of mutations, as a natural mechanism to allow the organism to adapt to changes in its environment. So I am not really sure if explaining to you why small changes(genetic variations) within the population, will eventually lead to large changes over many generations. This will eventually lead to a new species, incapable of reproducing with the original parent species. Thus a new species is born. But if your mind is closed, it's closed. All this becomes irrelevant, and only belief becomes relevant. So if you wish to believe that all life and all things began from a thought, then that is what you Believe. But it is certainly not science. Don

I thought you had alot of technical scientific knowledge and yet it seems like you are hiding it now.I did not say or state that a German Shepard and Chiuahuah are so genetically different that they are not able to produce viable off-spring,or that they do not belong to the same population.I just said they cannot breed without man artificially producing it and the reason why it is important is because of speciation and you believing that once life evolves it can no longer breed based on it.I just pointed out an example where it is not the case.I'm trying to test evolution and go by their own definitions,the definitions you believe are true like speciation and there are many examples of times when they can still breed as I already said.Scientists know this too.So that it is a faith belief you and scientists have without real evidence.

And it does not matter if you bring up mutations and changes in DNA because for instance even in Chernobyl in radiation bacteria still produces normal variation amongst the population of bacteria and so no evolution has happened at all. So it proves that even with mutations because of radiation we still get normal variation amongst the population of bacteria.This proves everything about how you explain it causes life to evolve over time is a myth. Mutations just lead to normal variation amongst the population too,it does not lead to the bacteria evolving because of evvironmental pressures. I don't know if you've heard of the bacteria in chernobyl but it actually feeds on radiation,but still it is still just normal variation amongst the population of bacteria like a new dog breed in that population or a yellow rose instead of a red rose in that population. Life is either able to adapt or it dies and this is what the evidence shows,in this case the bacteria was able to adapt but not all life could adapt and it would die,this is what the evidence proves,not that it causes it to evolve.

Scientists already know this too but they believe life evolves so much that they make up myths and see what they want to see because scientists did many tests with fruit flies in the lab using radiation to induce mutations and just like with the bacteria in Chernobyl it still produced fruit flies,which is normal variation amongst the population too.

So how can scientists keep on believing myths like environmental pressures,natural selection and mutations causes life to evolve over time based just on proving normal variation amongst the populations?

You know evolutionist Rupert Sheldrake came out and admitted evolution has no credible mechanism for how life evolves and he proposed a mechanism( An invisible morphic field) to try to help evolution and yet scientists called him an evolution heretic and ignored him and he was trying to help evolution.He was put down and criticized. But any criticism of evolution gets you ignored by the majority who protect and defend evolution and they hide behind peer review.

You really don't want me to quote all the times you have stated that a german shepherd and a chihuahua CAN'T BREED, do you? What other reason can you think of that would prevent them from producing viable offsprings. Could it be that their genes would be so dissimilar, that it would prevent conception from occurring? But this is the same reason why the population of one species cannot produces offsprings from another species. All dogs belong to the same species, therefore they can ALL produce viable offsprings. Oh wait, that is part of the definition of what a species is. Are you now saying that breeding between the two breeds is impossible without man's intervention? If you are then you are wrong again. I'm sure there are many chihuahua owners, that have been surprised by their new litter. Man assisting in the mating or insemination process, is totally irrelevant to the fact that viable offsprings can be produced by the interbreeding. So I take it that you are now saying that both breeds CAN interbreed(are genetically similar), and CAN produce viable pups? If you don't, cite me the evidence. Let's move on.

I'm sure the irradiated people in the countries I mentioned, would find a lot of comfort in knowing that bacteria(different Kingdom) are not affected by radiation in the same way as humans(Animal Kingdom) are, including their offsprings. I'm afraid that the rest of your post is so full of half-truths, conspiracy theories, logical inconsistencies, untruths, contradiction, and just plain ignorance, for me to comment on. If you wish to believe that all of creation was created by only a thought, then that is your belief not science. If you don't believe that, then let's hear your explanation of the origin of species and the mechanisms that Nature uses to cause change. If all you are going to do is refute everything that I say, with only unsupported and uninformed assertions, then we are both back on the playground, saying, "no it isn't" and "yes it is". From your comments, I certainly think that it is best that you stick with your beliefs, and let science stick with science. Don

[trulyenlightened]

A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed.This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed.But left on their own cannot breed.This blows a big hole in speciation. I'm talking about normal variation amongst the population because this is used as evidence life evolves and it applies to canis lupus if you want to get technical about it but still it just produces normal variation amongst that population and this is not evidence life evolves,not even close.

This is just stating the obvious,yet normal variation is used for evidence life evolves.I've already explained why it is'nt and cannot be evidence life evolves. This is why you are trying to appeal to consensus implying all of these scientists can't be lying,when they are and you are claiming a German Shepard and Chi Auh Auh can breed,when they can't and they have not evolved and it does not lead to evolution like speciation means because they cannot breed,read the speciation link you posted.Even if you put a German Shepard and Chi auh auh on a deserted island neither one would evolve because they cannot breed.None of the evidence used for evidence for evolution would lead anybody to believe it would evolve anyway because the only thing we get from all of the evidence is normal variation amongst a population,despite the lies and myths that are told to make evolution more believable,like the speciation myth.

"A German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed". Now you're saying, "This does not mean man can't do it artificially to produce a new breed". This is nonsense. If two members of the same species can't interbreed, then one is not of the same species, period. It doesn't matter what method you use to supplant mating, no viable offsprings will result. Man cannot breed a human from an ape, no matter what artificial method he uses. I'm curious if you even know WHAT prevents conception from happening? The mechanics of whether both breeds could mate in the wild is irrelevant, compared to whether they can produce viable offsprings. If you put ONE chihuahua and ONE german shepherd on a deserted island, it is more likely that both breeds would die out(assuming one is male and one is female). But if you put a thousand male german shepherds and a thousand female chihuahuas(or vise versa) on a desert island, I guarantee that nature will find a way to maintain the population. All biological organisms have evolved the skills to survive and procreate.

But all this is irrelevant if you can't even see with your own eyes that both breeds can interbreed, and produce living pups that express the traits of both parents. So are you now saying that you were wrong, and that chihuahuas and german shepherds really can interbreed? Speciation is only possible, BECAUSE VARIATION EXISTS WITHIN THE GENOME OF EACH MEMBER OF THE POPULATION. Without these tiny differences occurring over time, no new inherited traits could be passed onto the progeny. It is the accumulation of these difference that will eventually evolve into new species. Even the tiniest changes over time can produce a new species. One grain of sand over time can produce sand dunes, beaches, and deserts.

The ToE simply attempts to explain the evidence and data it receives. Are you suggesting that the evidence and data supporting the ToE, are all lies? Is the evidence for mutation, as a mechanism for change, in all biological systems a lie? Can alleles be manipulated to express different traits? Is protein synthesis the same in all organisms a lie? Is the consistency of the fossil records, all a lie? Is it a lie that humans have ancestors? Is it a lie that the more similar species are, the more things they have in common? Is it just coincidence that all species need air, water, food, and the ability to procreate, to survive? These and thousands of other questions are answered by the ToE.

It is very hard to respond to your train of logic, when it is based entirely on unsupported assertions, truth claims, denials, and groundless editorializing. It is common sense, and just stating the obvious, that variation occurs within the population. There are variations that occur within the human population as well(race, color, height, language, size, features, etc.). So what? I'm assuming you mean not just physical variation(chromosomal, genes, allele expression, environmental, etc.). Again, so what? Since you are not interested in the significance of those variations, or the mechanism for change, then it is best that you continue chanting your one-dimensional mantras(" Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim"). I never claimed that either was a new species, I claimed that they were of the same species. If you still think that some dogs can't produce puppies with other dogs, then there is no way you can understand the nuances of speciation, or Natural Selection. It is also clear that you are more interested in faith, then you are in facts. Don

I stand by my statement that German Shepards ans Chiuahuahs cannot breed.You believe life evolves so much based on faith and assumption that you fail to see the flaw.But the fact is that scientists already know that there are many examples where the life is supposed to have evolved and yet it can still breed,even talk origins admits this. It is scientists that decide when it means life will evolve and it is scientists that choose when. But even of I give it to you that they can breed,which is not true.

You are overlooking that it can be done artificially with man ,but without man's input they cannot breed,so that it could not happen in nature.But even if I give it to you it still just leads to normal variation amngst the populations and not life changing into another kind of life.

This is because normal variation amongst the populations is used for every example of so called examples and evidence of life evolving.It is what their own evidence shows,not that life evolves,like they claim and believe based on faith and assumptions. Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence?

I want evidence for example you claiming that mutations is a mechanism for how life evolves. Yet there is no evidence produced that will even come close to demonsatrating it despite their preaching it will. This is because even if there are mutations according to their own evidence it just leads to normal variation amongst the population.

So that it does not lead to life evolving just normal variation. This is the lack of a credibile mechanism I'm talking about as to why I reject the theory of evolution. It needs to be demonstrated that natural selection and mutations will lead to life evolving not just producing normal variation amongst the population.

So that all of your assumptions claiming that if we took thousands of German Shepards and Chiuahuahs and put them on an island that they would evolve in order to protect the population is myth that no evidence will even come close to demonstrating. It is all a faith statement by you based just on normal variation amongst the populations through reproduction.

Besides Francis Crick who you mentioned earlier in his "Central Dogma" revealed that although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nucleus of the germ cells and modify the DNA pattern. Yet you have bought into the evolution myth that environmental pressures can modifuy the DNA because of mutations and lead to life evolving over time. So evolutionists have known for years and years natural selection and mutations cannot modify the DNA of any life based on environmental pressures.Yet they believe by faith life evolves without any evidence. Just demonstrating it leads to normal variation amongst the populations is just stating the obvious.

As a matter of fact evolutions own evidence actually proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.This is demonstrated over and over with every example of so called evidence of life evolving even when it comes to examples of micro evolution and macro-evolution. For instance salamanders is used for an example of macro-evolution and yet all we get is a variation of salamanders which is kinds producing after its kind. It is not evidence life will evolve over time,not even close. It is like a new dog breed which is normal variation amongst the population of dogs or it is like a different colored rose,like a yellow rose instead of a red rose,etc. Normal variation amongst the populations.

When I say, "..able to breed" I am talking about ALL dogs being able to reproduce and produce a viable(able to reproduce) offspring. Are there mechanical difficulties in the mating process, between one of the largest breeds and the smallest breed? Yes! But as my father once told me, "Where there is enough will, there will always be a way". Nature is no exception. Your statement was that these breeds are so genetically dissimilar, that they are unable to breed and produce a viable offspring. This would mean the either the chihuahua or the german shepherd is NOT a dog, or does not belong to the species canis lupus. Since you have looked at the evidence that clearly show that they both are dogs, can reproduce, and why they can reproduce, then there is not much more I can add. If you simply choose not to accept the "brute truth" that you are wrong, then your voice will be given all the attention it deserves. Although, to my knowledge, no one has done that particular experiment. However similar interspecies experiments are being done in many of the pharmaceutical, fishery, horticultural, and food(GM) industries. I have no idea WHY you keep stating that normal variation will appear in all members of the population? This is obvious, and I certainly agree with you. So move on. Macro-evolution is nothing more than the result of a series of micro-evolutions.

Science does not believe in anything, or have faith in anything, or even makes assumption. These are HUMAN ATTRIBUTES, not Scientific Attributes. Science simply interprets the information(data, evidence, logic, etc.) to explain a natural phenomenon. That is it! Science uses the scientific method of inquiry, which doesn't care what your beliefs are, what your demands are, or what your emotional needs are. It must always remain impartial and objective in its explanations, expectations, and demands.

"Do you just believe scientists when they tell you this will lead to live evolving because such and such happened or do you want evidence"? I do believe the scientist, because I know the standards and level of objective evidence that is required to support any claim. I know that the evidence will not be entirely based on belief, or to support anyone's confirmation bias. I know that the evidence and data will be reproducible, predictable, observable(empirically), practical, logical, but most of all falsifiable. It is not magical pixies pushing electron through a copper wire, that produce light or electricity, no matter how much you may want to believe it. Maybe you might want to apply that same standard of proof, and critical thinking to your beliefs, that you seem to expect science to do? But this is not my purpose.

I think you might find some disagreement among the earlier residences, and their offsprings, that lived in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Kyshtym. I think they are indeed the experts of the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation on their DNA Molecule. It is clear that you don't understand the importance of what DNA replication entails, or have any understanding of the 8 types of chromosomal or genetic(base) mutations. Or even the importance of mutations, as a natural mechanism to allow the organism to adapt to changes in its environment. So I am not really sure if explaining to you why small changes(genetic variations) within the population, will eventually lead to large changes over many generations. This will eventually lead to a new species, incapable of reproducing with the original parent species. Thus a new species is born. But if your mind is closed, it's closed. All this becomes irrelevant, and only belief becomes relevant. So if you wish to believe that all life and all things began from a thought, then that is what you Believe. But it is certainly not science. Don

I thought you had alot of technical scientific knowledge and yet it seems like you are hiding it now.I did not say or state that a German Shepard and Chiuahuah are so genetically different that they are not able to produce viable off-spring,or that they do not belong to the same population.I just said they cannot breed without man artificially producing it and the reason why it is important is because of speciation and you believing that once life evolves it can no longer breed based on it.I just pointed out an example where it is not the case.I'm trying to test evolution and go by their own definitions,the definitions you believe are true like speciation and there are many examples of times when they can still breed as I already said.Scientists know this too.So that it is a faith belief you and scientists have without real evidence.

And it does not matter if you bring up mutations and changes in DNA because for instance even in Chernobyl in radiation bacteria still produces normal variation amongst the population of bacteria and so no evolution has happened at all. So it proves that even with mutations because of radiation we still get normal variation amongst the population of bacteria.This proves everything about how you explain it causes life to evolve over time is a myth. Mutations just lead to normal variation amongst the population too,it does not lead to the bacteria evolving because of evvironmental pressures. I don't know if you've heard of the bacteria in chernobyl but it actually feeds on radiation,but still it is still just normal variation amongst the population of bacteria like a new dog breed in that population or a yellow rose instead of a red rose in that population. Life is either able to adapt or it dies and this is what the evidence shows,in this case the bacteria was able to adapt but not all life could adapt and it would die,this is what the evidence proves,not that it causes it to evolve.

Scientists already know this too but they believe life evolves so much that they make up myths and see what they want to see because scientists did many tests with fruit flies in the lab using radiation to induce mutations and just like with the bacteria in Chernobyl it still produced fruit flies,which is normal variation amongst the population too.

So how can scientists keep on believing myths like environmental pressures,natural selection and mutations causes life to evolve over time based just on proving normal variation amongst the populations?

You know evolutionist Rupert Sheldrake came out and admitted evolution has no credible mechanism for how life evolves and he proposed a mechanism( An invisible morphic field) to try to help evolution and yet scientists called him an evolution heretic and ignored him and he was trying to help evolution.He was put down and criticized. But any criticism of evolution gets you ignored by the majority who protect and defend evolution and they hide behind peer review.

You really don't want me to quote all the times you have stated that a german shepherd and a chihuahua CAN'T BREED, do you? What other reason can you think of that would prevent them from producing viable offsprings. Could it be that their genes would be so dissimilar, that it would prevent conception from occurring? But this is the same reason why the population of one species cannot produces offsprings from another species. All dogs belong to the same species, therefore they can ALL produce viable offsprings. Oh wait, that is part of the definition of what a species is. Are you now saying that breeding between the two breeds is impossible without man's intervention? If you are then you are wrong again. I'm sure there are many chihuahua owners, that have been surprised by their new litter. Man assisting in the mating or insemination process, is totally irrelevant to the fact that viable offsprings can be produced by the interbreeding. So I take it that you are now saying that both breeds CAN interbreed(are genetically similar), and CAN produce viable pups? If you don't, cite me the evidence. Let's move on.

I'm sure the irradiated people in the countries I mentioned, would find a lot of comfort in knowing that bacteria(different Kingdom) are not affected by radiation in the same way as humans(Animal Kingdom) are, including their offsprings. I'm afraid that the rest of your post is so full of half-truths, conspiracy theories, logical inconsistencies, untruths, contradiction, and just plain ignorance, for me to comment on. If you wish to believe that all of creation was created by only a thought, then that is your belief not science. If you don't believe that, then let's hear your explanation of the origin of species and the mechanisms that Nature uses to cause change. If all you are going to do is refute everything that I say, with only unsupported and uninformed assertions, then we are both back on the playground, saying, "no it isn't" and "yes it is". From your comments, I certainly think that it is best that you stick with your beliefs, and let science stick with science. Don

[RickD]

FYI,

Offspring is a mass noun. A mass noun is a noun without a plural form.

[trulyenlightened]

FYI,

Offspring is a mass noun. A mass noun is a noun without a plural form.

Thank you for your grammatical due diligence. I will certainly give its importance and relevance, all the consideration it deserves. Was there something else you wanted to add, that would at least be considered pertinent to this conversation? Don

[RickD]

FYI,

Offspring is a mass noun. A mass noun is a noun without a plural form.

Thank you for your grammatical due diligence. I will certainly give its importance and relevance, all the consideration it deserves. Was there something else you wanted to add, that would at least be considered pertinent to this conversation? Don

Nope. I'm content letting you and ACB go around in circles. You'll find that acb's scientific knowledge is second only to your metaphysical knowledge.