The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

[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

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.

Well then, you are a true concerned humanitarian. Your social empathy is truly the epitome of righteousness and virtuousness. Maybe intellectual voyeurism is the only position you can take? Although ACB is completely wrong, he does not lie in wait to exploit syntactic or grammatical errors. In any discourse, no matter how many times it goes around, knowledge is still gained by both parties. If you receive some kind of warped sense of contentment from aimless, pointless, and circular arguments, then it is best that you remain only an observer. Regarding my knowledge concerning metaphysical arguments, I find that KNOWLEDGE is totally overrated, and totally IRRELEVANT. Science transcend the, "ingredients for persuasion"(pathos, logos, and ethos), as a means of persuading others to take a particular point of view. Metaphysical arguments are not based on evidence/facts/data, they are based only on logic and reason. With only logic and reason, one can make, "blank" sound good enough to eat, but you still wouldn't put it on the menu. Don

[PaulSacramento]

What about the other TOE's?
And why bring up Darwin's "Origin of Species"?
That has been updated quite a bit since then.

What other ToE's? Since the Theory has been updated, are the updates correct? Other than Radiometrics and Genetics, what are some of these updates? Don

Wow, you don't know ??

[abelcainsbrother]

"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

Yep! You're playing dumb now.I suggest you read the definition of speciation if you don't see why it is important why I pointed out a German Shepard and Chiuahuah cannot breed,it is because it proves speciation is a myth.I mean before you were telling us all about evolution in a very technical scientific way and yet now don't even know the definition of speciation.As I explained already there are many examples of life that is said to have evolved and yet it can still breed and German Shephard's and Chiuahuah's not being able to breed is one of many examples. Yet you keep insisting they can breed. It is an evolution myth that life evolves until it can no longer breed like speciation leads us to believe.

Instead of defending this kind of science like you're trying to do,why not actually realize you have been duped by science when it comes to the theory of evolution? Nothing I have said is wrong and if you truly knew about evolution you'd realize it.But instead you accuse me of half-truths,conspiracy theories,logical inconsistencies,untruths,contradiction and just plain ignorance. I thought you were very knowledgable about the theory of evolution based on your post to start off this thread but you're now playing dumb about evolution and I suspect hiding behind peer review which always happens when confronted with the truth about evolution.

[abelcainsbrother]

OK! Now that we know speciation is a myth.Let's actually get into the evidence used as examples of evolution so that everybody can see it only demonstrates it leads to normal variation amongst the populations and from this kind of evidence everything else about the theory of evolution and how life is said to evolve over time is based just on normal variation amongst the populations. So if you doubt me post any evidence you can find that is used for evidence life evolves and I'll show you that only normal variation amongst the populations is demonstrated,which is just stating the obvious.

Remember that normal variation cannot be used for evidence life evolves because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea life evolves.It was the normal variation we all see and observe and that had been known about for thousands of years before Darwin hence plant and animal breeders that led to Darwin's assumptions that these small variations can lead to big changes given enough time and turn one kind of life into a new and totally different kind of life over time.So variation cannot now be used for evidence life evolves and yet it is as we shall see if we get into the evidence used for evidence for life evolving.Stop hiding and playing dumb and post evidence if you doubt me.

After 150 years of evolution the only thing science has proven is that there is normal variation amongst the populations,This means that there are a bunch of myths you have heard like speciation above that has been debunked that are just made up myths and lies based just on normal variation amongst the populations being proven.They make up these myths and lies to make the theory of evolution more believable as I explained already and people listen to the preaching of how life evolves and believe the lies and myths but only normal variation amongst the populations has been proven by science.

[trulyenlightened]

OK! Now that we know speciation is a myth.Let's actually get into the evidence used as examples of evolution so that everybody can see it only demonstrates it leads to normal variation amongst the populations and from this kind of evidence everything else about the theory of evolution and how life is said to evolve over time is based just on normal variation amongst the populations. So if you doubt me post any evidence you can find that is used for evidence life evolves and I'll show you that only normal variation amongst the populations is demonstrated,which is just stating the obvious.

Remember that normal variation cannot be used for evidence life evolves because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea life evolves.It was the normal variation we all see and observe and that had been known about for thousands of years before Darwin hence plant and animal breeders that led to Darwin's assumptions that these small variations can lead to big changes given enough time and turn one kind of life into a new and totally different kind of life over time.So variation cannot now be used for evidence life evolves and yet it is as we shall see if we get into the evidence used for evidence for life evolving.Stop hiding and playing dumb and post evidence if you doubt me.

After 150 years of evolution the only thing science has proven is that there is normal variation amongst the populations,This means that there are a bunch of myths you have heard like speciation above that has been debunked that are just made up myths and lies based just on normal variation amongst the populations being proven.They make up these myths and lies to make the theory of evolution more believable as I explained already and people listen to the preaching of how life evolves and believe the lies and myths but only normal variation amongst the populations has been proven by science.

How can I argue with such well supported claims? All the scientists are wrong, and the non-scientists are right. Why do you waste your time with me? Oslo is waiting! Maybe you can explain to me the meaning of the Origin of Species and Natural Selection? What do you think the results would be, if the variations within the population were allowed to continue over millions of years? Since common sense and intuition are ineffective, I don't think that the facts would do any good. I suspect that you are not interested in fossil or genetic evidence? And, I'm sure you realize that we can't hang around long enough to watch one species evolve into another. So it is best that you maintain your unfounded beliefs, click your heels together, and keep chanting, "There's no such thing as Evolution, it's just normal variation within the population". Maybe then your dream will come true. Eventually, the intellectual gene pool will rid itself of this unnecessary gene. So you do serve a purpose. Again, maybe you can explain your theory on how different species evolved? Don

[trulyenlightened]

What about the other TOE's?
And why bring up Darwin's "Origin of Species"?
That has been updated quite a bit since then.

What other ToE's? Since the Theory has been updated, are the updates correct? Other than Radiometrics and Genetics, what are some of these updates? Don

Wow, you don't know ??

It is YOU that claim there are other TOE's. I asked what are they? It is you that claim that the ToE has been updated quite a bit. I ask what are these updates? You ask why bring up Darwin's Origin of Species? We're on a thread, speaking about speciation, why would this be a surprise? Your response to this is, "Wow, you don't know"?????? Don

[trulyenlightened]

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

Yep! You're playing dumb now.I suggest you read the definition of speciation if you don't see why it is important why I pointed out a German Shepard and Chiuahuah cannot breed,it is because it proves speciation is a myth.I mean before you were telling us all about evolution in a very technical scientific way and yet now don't even know the definition of speciation.As I explained already there are many examples of life that is said to have evolved and yet it can still breed and German Shephard's and Chiuahuah's not being able to breed is one of many examples. Yet you keep insisting they can breed. It is an evolution myth that life evolves until it can no longer breed like speciation leads us to believe.

Instead of defending this kind of science like you're trying to do,why not actually realize you have been duped by science when it comes to the theory of evolution? Nothing I have said is wrong and if you truly knew about evolution you'd realize it.But instead you accuse me of half-truths,conspiracy theories,logical inconsistencies,untruths,contradiction and just plain ignorance. I thought you were very knowledgable about the theory of evolution based on your post to start off this thread but you're now playing dumb about evolution and I suspect hiding behind peer review which always happens when confronted with the truth about evolution.

Maybe we just have a problem of equivocation. Do you know the difference between artificial breeding to produce dogs of different breeds, and speciation to produce different species? What are some of these other, "life that is said to have evolved and yet it can still breed and German Shephard's and Chiuahuah's not being able to breed is one of many examples"? Since I am dumb,maybe you can explain what artificial breeding have to do with evolution? I can't understand the rest of your post. I'm obviously too dumb to comprehend. Don

[Philip]

Here a molecular biologist talks about some of the issues surrounding speciation, per adaptive changes in multi-cellular organisms reproducing sexually, involving whether a species becomes a genetically, phenotypically, and behaviorally distinct species:https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theor ... es-problem

[trulyenlightened]

Here a molecular biologist talks about some of the issues surrounding speciation, per adaptive changes in multi-cellular organisms reproducing sexually, involving whether a species becomes a genetically, phenotypically, and behaviorally distinct species:https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theor ... es-problem

Did you know that Joseph Stalin sent animal breeders to Africa, to impregnate female monkeys using human sperm? He wanted to produce soldiers that were half monkey and half human. What do you think the results were, and why? This is so simple, that I can't see why there is a problem. ALL DOGS CAN BREED AND PRODUCE VIABLE OFFSPRINGS. I can't believe why anyone would believe that they can't. Even when they can look at the results. Is cognitive dissonance really this powerful? All dogs have 39 pairs of chromosomes, with a phenotypic variation from great danes to toy dogs. The farther apart animals are GENETICALLY, the less likely they are to produce viable offsprings. Members of the same species are not genetically far apart, and can produce viable offsprings.

I read the article, and it was going quite well. Until at the end, when "special pleading" allowed for the Mitochondrial Eve to become the Biblical Adam and Eve. Then I looked at the name of the site "reason.org". "Reason.org" and "answers in Genesis", both require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract. I should have started at the end first.
Don

[RickD]

Here a molecular biologist talks about some of the issues surrounding speciation, per adaptive changes in multi-cellular organisms reproducing sexually, involving whether a species becomes a genetically, phenotypically, and behaviorally distinct species:https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theor ... es-problem

Did you know that Joseph Stalin sent animal breeders to Africa, to impregnate female monkeys using human sperm? He wanted to produce soldiers that were half monkey and half human. What do you think the results were, and why? This is so simple, that I can't see why there is a problem. ALL DOGS CAN BREED AND PRODUCE VIABLE OFFSPRINGS. I can't believe why anyone would believe that they can't. Even when they can look at the results. Is cognitive dissonance really this powerful? All dogs have 39 pairs of chromosomes, with a phenotypic variation from great danes to toy dogs. The farther apart animals are GENETICALLY, the less likely they are to produce viable offsprings. Members of the same species are not genetically far apart, and can produce viable offsprings.

I read the article, and it was going quite well. Until at the end, when "special pleading" allowed for the Mitochondrial Eve to become the Biblical Adam and Eve. Then I looked at the name of the site "reason.org". "Reason.org" and "answers in Genesis", both require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract. I should have started at the end first.
Don

Please provide proof that both Reasons.org and answersingenesis "both require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief.", or apologize and retract your statement.

[Philip]

Truly: Then I looked at the name of the site "reason.org". "Reason.org" and "answers in Genesis", both require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract. I should have started at the end first.

And neither have THEY! Not to mention your arrogance in asserting, without knowing of their backgrounds and contentions, that they have shelved their commitment to scientific integrity. That you don't even know of Hugh Ross and Reasons.org shows me you only want to read info that doesn't challenge what you think you already know. And your bias per your implication that any Christian who is a scientist can't rigorously hold to the scientific method in what is discovered.

Note that the writer did not say that the existence of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam SCIENTIFICALLY proves that these were the Biblical pair, but asks the reader to consider that possibility in the context of "what we believe as Christians." But make no mistake, many scientists theistic beliefs are greatly re-enforced by what they have learned per scientific research, studies and observations - as did Einstein and many others. To assert that all such people have abandoned their commitment to and their immense respect for the scientific method - that would appear to be an assertion driven by the desire to paint scientists of faith as incompetent fools. Only one exceptionally arrogant would assert such a thing.

Buy Reasons.org's book on presenting a testable creation theory: https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory ... B015X4IRCK And here is a list of topics within: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Na ... ethan.html

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/biolo ... logy/27220

http://epicofevolution.com/dialog/evolu ... ution.html

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the- ... ary-theory

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolut ... nk-1.16080

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... enes-wrong

[abelcainsbrother]

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/biolo ... logy/27220

http://epicofevolution.com/dialog/evolu ... ution.html

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the- ... ary-theory

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolut ... nk-1.16080

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... enes-wrong

I read through all of these links and although they did not change my view of the theory of evolution it is still interesting that there are discussions going on amongst evolutionists.However, I'm still afraid that evolution bias from them all will really not do anything to help the theory of evolution.It really just seems that one group of scientists just would rather focus on other aspects of evolution while the others think it is unnecessary.I know how much these scientists believe life evolves but proving normal variation amongst the populations and using it for evidence of evolution is not going to make the problem go away.If they believe life evolves they need to demonstrate it does instead of just demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations. If they could ever demonstrate life evolves then I'd accept evolution.

[trulyenlightened]

Truly: Then I looked at the name of the site "reason.org". "Reason.org" and "answers in Genesis", both require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract. I should have started at the end first.

And neither have THEY! Not to mention your arrogance in asserting, without knowing of their backgrounds and contentions, that they have shelved their commitment to scientific integrity. That you don't even know of Hugh Ross and Reasons.org shows me you only want to read info that doesn't challenge what you think you already know. And your bias per your implication that any Christian who is a scientist can't rigorously hold to the scientific method in what is discovered.

Note that the writer did not say that the existence of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam SCIENTIFICALLY proves that these were the Biblical pair, but asks the reader to consider that possibility in the context of "what we believe as Christians." But make no mistake, many scientists theistic beliefs are greatly re-enforced by what they have learned per scientific research, studies and observations - as did Einstein and many others. To assert that all such people have abandoned their commitment to and their immense respect for the scientific method - that would appear to be an assertion driven by the desire to paint scientists of faith as incompetent fools. Only one exceptionally arrogant would assert such a thing.

Buy Reasons.org's book on presenting a testable creation theory: https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory ... B015X4IRCK And here is a list of topics within: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Na ... ethan.html

Firstly, I know what I know. I don't think that I know what I know. If I only thought that I know something, then I really don't know it. To think that you know something, and actually not know it, is called BELIEF. The more you know about something the less you need to believe that you know it.

Let me repeat this again. SCIENCE DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE! SCIENCE ONLY CARES ABOUT WHAT YOUR PERSONAL SCIENCE IS! Considering that over 82% of the US population have some religious belief, it doesn't take more than a few working brain cells, to deduce that many scientists from the population will also have their own personal beliefs. I did not hire research staff based on their beliefs, and no one else would. In other words, there are no scientists of faith, THERE ARE ONLY SCIENTISTS, PERIOD! If their research work is fueled by their beliefs, so what? If their work is only based on their beliefs, then we have a problem.

You don't know me at all. No one in my community or my inner circle of friends, would ever consider me as being an arrogant person. Most people consider me as being honest, fair, patient, formidable, respectful, and knowledgeable. My comments are based on personal firsthand experiences, research, and information from the general scientific community, including information from other colleagues. This is the sort of information that would never be spread all over the internet. Most earlier scientist since Galileo were agnostics. Einstein was a secular Jew and Pantheist at best. Hawking, Sagan, Curie, Franklin, Darwin, Tyson, Kaku, etc., are and were all agnostics at best. And, Atheists at worst. But NONE searched for their answers in Theism. I love the quote by the Nobel Prize winning physicists and molecular biologist, Venkatraman Ramakrishna, "A culture based on superstitions, will do worst than one based on scientific knowledge and rational thoughts". Just take a look at the few true Theocratic Governments left in the world. This video might best give you an understanding of my position and why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB90bBL2pxk . So NO, I am not trying to paint a demeaning picture of scientist with religious beliefs, no matter how poorly you try to misrepresent my comments. It is just thoroughly irrelevant, immaterial, and tangential, to the science they do. So please, if you are going to make up your own straw men, argue against it and not me.

Regarding Y Chromosomal Adam, it is only a tag that indicates the first Y chromosome. It does not mean that the Biblical Adam is the origin of its paternal lineage. This chromosome can be traced back over 100,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve(X chromosome) can be traced back over 150,000 years ago, there can be no doubt that the X chromosome came first, and the mutated Y chromosome came later. If this fact WAS in any way biblically related, you might need to rethink who came first. Although the author made clear his perspective, I was simply disappointed after reading so much positive information, to conclude with this perspective. That's all.

Regarding Dr. Ross, I'm a little surprised why you would support his Christian position. https://creation.com/the-dubious-apolog ... -hugh-ross , https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ion-story/ , http://www.ldolphin.org/Ross.shtml , http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005 ... hugh-ross/ . His views are controversial to say the leasts. Because his views and interpretation of Genesis, Science, Creationism, Biblical and Scientific Truths, and belief in extraterrestrials, I would have thought he would be been your last choice of Christian scientist you'd wish to champion. But this Canadian is also entitled to his own opinions. Don

[Kurieuo]

Wow, if you're definitely getting your information from sources you must think are extremely credible Don. I thought you claimed to be all scientific, and yet your goto are YEC sites like AiG?