Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

If it's not too much to ask, let's not gang up on abelcainsbrother. Thank you
No, reproduction is not evolution.
So abelcainsbrother, what makes Shih Tzu's so small?

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.

peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction

There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence.

You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?

The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?

Try answering just that one question.

You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.

Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

If it's not too much to ask, let's not gang up on abelcainsbrother. Thank you
No, reproduction is not evolution.
So abelcainsbrother, what makes Shih Tzu's so small?

It is normal variation in reproduction. Look at all of the different races of humans,different sizes,some people are smart,some not,there are tall people,short people,dwarf people,etc but they are still humans. It is the same thing with a Shih Tzu and all other dog breeds no difference and this is my point. You are without even realizing it claiming normal variation in reproduction is evolution.

Morny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Is reproduction evolution?

No.

abelcainsbrother wrote:What is the difference between reproduction and evolution?

Google is your friend.

abelcainsbrother wrote:First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

No wonder you always appear ignorant about evolution. Darwin was meticulous about finding supporting evidence for his theories.

And even excluding his theory of evolution, Darwin's other bodies of work made him a scientist of the first rank. You might want to (but surely won't) keep that in mind when your next urge to dismiss Darwin arises.

You cannot throw Darwin under the bus now and one reason you cannot do it and has been my ongoing point is that Charles Darwin assumed life evolves based on variation and yet today 150 years later scientists are claiming variation is evolution so it is actually worse for scientists today than it is for Darwin.

Evolution became a scientific theory because of Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" and scientists have not in noway even come close to showing Darwin was right,as a matter of fact evolution should have been dropped along time ago yet it was'nt.

But even if you choose to ignore Darwin,go ahead,but you still only have normal variation in reproduction for evidence life evolves and based on this there is no way you should believe life evolves.It takes alot of faith and assumption just like with Darwin 150 years ago to believe life evolves. You started out with Darwin's assumption variation leads to life evolving while now using variation for evidence life evolves. Evolutionists have not made any progress and have even regressed since Darwin.

And it still won't matter if you bring up definitions scientists use either because variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves regardless of the definition you use.

Cross standing in the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Geq51VZEypA

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.

peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction

There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence.

You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?

The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?

Try answering just that one question.

You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.

Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.

I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid? Such nonesnse!

Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.

It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.

Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?

Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.

Mutations produce new genetics.

Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing

It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.

Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.

If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.

If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.

Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Yes dogs came from wolves.

You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.

peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction

There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence.

You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?

The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?

Try answering just that one question.

You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.

Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.

I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid? Such nonesnse!

Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.

It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.

Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?

Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.

Mutations produce new genetics.

Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing

It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.

Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.

If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.

If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.

Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.

You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.

peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction

There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence.

You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?

The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?

Try answering just that one question.

You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.

Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.

I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid? Such nonesnse!

Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.

It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.

Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?

Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.

Mutations produce new genetics.

Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing

It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.

Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.

If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.

If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.

Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.

You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

Whatevs.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.




You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?

The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?

Try answering just that one question.

You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.

Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.

I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid? Such nonesnse!

Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.

It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.

Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?

Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.

Mutations produce new genetics.

Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing

It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.

Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.

If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.

If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.

Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.

You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

Whatevs.

All of that for "whatevs"? I cannot change your mind if you refuse to change it,I can only give you the reasons I reject evolution and I've only been focusing on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves problem,but this is enough of a reason to reject evolution. We can agree to disagree though,but I think I've helped you and I think if you take the time to look into this,you'll reject evolution too. Just check it out and see for yourself. Indoctrination happens and those it effects don't even know and we've seen this many times in history too. You'll be OK though if you realize you were indoctrinated and you'll learn from it. I'm just helping you to see more clearly so I hope you can handle it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.

Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.

I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid? Such nonesnse!

Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.

It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.

Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?

Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.

Mutations produce new genetics.

Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing

It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.

Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.

If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.

If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.

Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.

You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

Whatevs.

All of that for "whatevs"? I cannot change your mind if you refuse to change it,I can only give you the reasons I reject evolution and I've only been focusing on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves problem,but this is enough of a reason to reject evolution. We can agree to disagree though,but I think I've helped you and I think if you take the time to look into this,you'll reject evolution too. Just check it out and see for yourself. Indoctrination happens and those it effects don't even know and we've seen this many times in history too. You'll be OK though if you realize you were indoctrinated and you'll learn from it. I'm just helping you to see more clearly so I hope you can handle it.

All that was nothing but blather, "Whatevs" is more than it deserves.

You really should watch it on the falsehoods, if you actually believe in your god.

i leave you to begood. Tho I think you are far beyond anyone's reach.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid? Such nonesnse!

Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.

It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.

Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?

Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.

Mutations produce new genetics.

Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing

It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.

Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.

If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.

If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.

Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.

You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

Whatevs.

All of that for "whatevs"? I cannot change your mind if you refuse to change it,I can only give you the reasons I reject evolution and I've only been focusing on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves problem,but this is enough of a reason to reject evolution. We can agree to disagree though,but I think I've helped you and I think if you take the time to look into this,you'll reject evolution too. Just check it out and see for yourself. Indoctrination happens and those it effects don't even know and we've seen this many times in history too. You'll be OK though if you realize you were indoctrinated and you'll learn from it. I'm just helping you to see more clearly so I hope you can handle it.

All that was nothing but blather, "Whatevs" is more than it deserves.

You really should watch it on the falsehoods, if you actually believe in your god.

i leave you to begood. Tho I think you are far beyond anyone's reach.

OK I'll leave you with this then. Don't believe everything you read,instead go by evidence to determine what is true or not. That's it,no reason to keep going in circles because I've already given you a solid reason why I reject evolution and I cannot be reached by a lack of evidence. Why is evolution so important to you? It is not like it proves God wrong or the bible or anything which is why I'd accept evolution if there was evidence,but there is'nt,so I can't and I have not even brought up my creation stance either, you can't stand. This is just evolution talk with no creationism involved and I can tell you I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist and I would be still speaking out about how much of a myth it really is.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

Whatevs.

All of that for "whatevs"? I cannot change your mind if you refuse to change it,I can only give you the reasons I reject evolution and I've only been focusing on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves problem,but this is enough of a reason to reject evolution. We can agree to disagree though,but I think I've helped you and I think if you take the time to look into this,you'll reject evolution too. Just check it out and see for yourself. Indoctrination happens and those it effects don't even know and we've seen this many times in history too. You'll be OK though if you realize you were indoctrinated and you'll learn from it. I'm just helping you to see more clearly so I hope you can handle it.

All that was nothing but blather, "Whatevs" is more than it deserves.

You really should watch it on the falsehoods, if you actually believe in your god.

i leave you to begood. Tho I think you are far beyond anyone's reach.

OK I'll leave you with this then. Don't believe everything you read,instead go by evidence to determine what is true or not. That's it,no reason to keep going in circles because I've already given you a solid reason why I reject evolution and I cannot be reached by a lack of evidence. Why is evolution so important to you? It is not like it proves God wrong or the bible or anything which is why I'd accept evolution if there was evidence,but there is'nt,so I can't and I have not even brought up my creation stance either, you can't stand. This is just evolution talk with no creationism involved and I can tell you I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist and I would be still speaking out about how much of a myth it really is.

Do you understand what "whatevs" means? Or falsehood? You havent half a clue what you are talking about. THAT is a fact, complete with extensive data. Now just quit, I am putting you on ig so I wont be tempted to the unworthy.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You're just preaching.You are just preaching the evolution doctrine and expecting us to believe you without evidence. You have no evidence for what you just preached,there is no evidence in evolution science that mutations causes life to evolve the only think the evidence shows an demonstrates is normal variation in reproduction and it is explained this is evolution because of mutations and you believe it. But where is the evidence?

As a matter of fact the evidence shows that even after mutations life still does not evolve and you still have normal variation in reproduction. Like bacteria for instance that adapted to eat nylon and yet it just contines to show normal variation and remains bacteria and you claim based on normal variation that we see with humans,dogs,roses,rats,viruses,finches,etc it evolved. It is no different than all of the different dog breeds that are still dogs,the bacteria shows normal variation after it adapted but it is still bacteria,so how is it evolving? It will always be bacteria just like the dogs will always be dogs is what the evidence shows regardless of what they say and explain about it evolving. It is make believe.

Technically evolution science proves the bible true that God created and made life to produce after its kind.

Whatevs.

All of that for "whatevs"? I cannot change your mind if you refuse to change it,I can only give you the reasons I reject evolution and I've only been focusing on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves problem,but this is enough of a reason to reject evolution. We can agree to disagree though,but I think I've helped you and I think if you take the time to look into this,you'll reject evolution too. Just check it out and see for yourself. Indoctrination happens and those it effects don't even know and we've seen this many times in history too. You'll be OK though if you realize you were indoctrinated and you'll learn from it. I'm just helping you to see more clearly so I hope you can handle it.

All that was nothing but blather, "Whatevs" is more than it deserves.

You really should watch it on the falsehoods, if you actually believe in your god.

i leave you to begood. Tho I think you are far beyond anyone's reach.

OK I'll leave you with this then. Don't believe everything you read,instead go by evidence to determine what is true or not. That's it,no reason to keep going in circles because I've already given you a solid reason why I reject evolution and I cannot be reached by a lack of evidence. Why is evolution so important to you? It is not like it proves God wrong or the bible or anything which is why I'd accept evolution if there was evidence,but there is'nt,so I can't and I have not even brought up my creation stance either, you can't stand. This is just evolution talk with no creationism involved and I can tell you I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist and I would be still speaking out about how much of a myth it really is.

Do you understand what "whatevs" means? Or falsehood? You havent half a clue what you are talking about. THAT is a fact, complete with extensive data. Now just quit, I am putting you on ig so I wont be tempted to the unworthy.

Wow Audie surprised you even read the post, as they were, I thought, might be way too long for you bother to read...

Your progressive minded tolerance and acceptance of things sure shines through!


-
-
-

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.

You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.

If it's not too much to ask, let's not gang up on abelcainsbrother. Thank you
No, reproduction is not evolution.
So abelcainsbrother, what makes Shih Tzu's so small?

It is normal variation in reproduction. Look at all of the different races of humans,different sizes,some people are smart,some not,there are tall people,short people,dwarf people,etc but they are still humans. It is the same thing with a Shih Tzu and all other dog breeds no difference and this is my point. You are without even realizing it claiming normal variation in reproduction is evolution.

By normal variation in reproduction, do you mean that we are basically just mixing available traits or are mutations involved sometimes?

I haven't made any claims so far. Just asking questions.