Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

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.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

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:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: 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.

I have already given you one example with the variety of dog breeds,variation is normal in reproduction.Yes it is just mixing available traits,however when you bring mutations into this you start venturing off into no evidence territory,you've only got normal variation in reproduction for evidence to work with but you have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,as a matter of fact even after mutations you still get normal variation in reproduction according to the evidence. I think fruit flies are an example of even after mutations you still get more fruit flies and no evolution except in the minds of those who have drank the magic mushroom of evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
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.

I have already given you one example with the variety of dog breeds,variation is normal in reproduction.Yes it is just mixing available traits,however when you bring mutations into this you start venturing off into no evidence territory,you've only got normal variation in reproduction for evidence to work with but you have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,as a matter of fact even after mutations you still get normal variation in reproduction according to the evidence. I think fruit flies are an example of even after mutations you still get more fruit flies and no evolution except in the minds of those who have drank the magic mushroom of evolution.

Ok so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that mutations just add to the variability?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Ok so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that mutations just add to the variability?

No,variability is normal and is not evolution,it cannot be used for evidence.I've already explained why.Reproduction is not evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Ok so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that mutations just add to the variability?

No,variability is normal and is not evolution,it cannot be used for evidence.I've already explained why.Reproduction is not evolution.

It seems like you are trying to read between the lines. Please take my statements at face value.
So are you saying when a mutation does occur it does or does not add to the variability?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Ok so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that mutations just add to the variability?

No,variability is normal and is not evolution,it cannot be used for evidence.I've already explained why.Reproduction is not evolution.

It seems like you are trying to read between the lines. Please take my statements at face value.
So are you saying when a mutation does occur it does or does not add to the variability?

Since there is no evidence mutations add to variability and you only have variation for evidence we must go by the evidence,not assumptions without evidence.Since all we have for evidence is normal variability we must go by it and not assume,basically normal variation in reproduction is all we have to go on according to the evidence in evolution science and this is called micro-evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Nicki wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.

So, are there such things as mutations, and do they sometimes get expressed?

melanie wrote:

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.

So, are there such things as mutations, and do they sometimes get expressed?

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.

So, are there such things as mutations, and do they sometimes get expressed?

Nicki wrote:

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.

So, are there such things as mutations, and do they sometimes get expressed?

Probably, but differences between siblings are usually just due to the parents having different gene combinations that they inherited from their parents - if I remember rightly we all have two versions of each gene, one from each parent, and they can be the same or different. I suppose gene mutations could be what makes adaptation possible though.

Nicki wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?

Yes, they've inherited different combinations of genes from their parents.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Ok so if I am understanding correctly you are saying that mutations just add to the variability?

No,variability is normal and is not evolution,it cannot be used for evidence.I've already explained why.Reproduction is not evolution.

It seems like you are trying to read between the lines. Please take my statements at face value.
So are you saying when a mutation does occur it does or does not add to the variability?

Since there is no evidence mutations add to variability and you only have variation for evidence we must go by the evidence,not assumptions without evidence.Since all we have for evidence is normal variability we must go by it and not assume,basically normal variation in reproduction is all we have to go on according to the evidence in evolution science and this is called micro-evolution.

Ok let's look at variation more closely.
Let's say a wolf pup and it's sibling are very alike. They were just born but they already have slight differences. What accounts for the differences, is it in their DNA?