"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
First, it is exactly relevant.abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.Audie wrote:First, it is exactly relevant.abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
Why?
It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.
Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.
* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.abelcainsbrother wrote:I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.Audie wrote:First, it is exactly relevant.abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
Why?
It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.
Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.
* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
Does it make me a racist if I think this is hirarious?Audie wrote:
Prease exprain, talk genetics.
I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.Audie wrote:No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.abelcainsbrother wrote:I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.Audie wrote:First, it is exactly relevant.abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.Audie wrote:Id like to see it done, to produce a great Dane from a a Tibetan mastiff, in one generation.
"Normal variation" and all.
Why?
It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.
Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.
* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?
You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.
If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.
It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.
You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.
Prease exprain, talk genetics.
If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
abelcainsbrother wrote:I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.Audie wrote:No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.abelcainsbrother wrote:I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.Audie wrote:First, it is exactly relevant.abelcainsbrother wrote:
That is irrelevant as long as scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves.They are not using any evidence that demonstrates what you said and they can't,they are using normal variation for evidence life evolves. It is actually a regression in science about life evolving since Darwin.
Why?
It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.
Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.
* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?
You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.
If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.
It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.
You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.
Prease exprain, talk genetics.
If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.
So at no point do novel traits emerge?abelcainsbrother wrote:Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
abelcainsbrother, are you insisting that new traits do not emerge?abelcainsbrother wrote:Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Can we then use the same method on wolves and jackals?abelcainsbrother wrote: OK but its a waste of time when we already know. We've known for thousands of years all dogs are related to wolves,even Darwin knew it and is a big reason why he assumed life evolves based on this knowledge man has had for thousands of years. Even the ancient Greeks knew dogs came from wolves,so why do we need to waste time in a science lab demonstrating it?
My understanding is that dog breeds are produced by mating ones which both have the same slight difference from their siblings or from most other dogs of the same breed (smaller size, for example) to further develop the difference. Dogs in particular have a wide variety of difference between breeds (much more so than with cats or other domesticated animals), but they're still dogs.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So at no point do novel traits emerge?abelcainsbrother wrote:Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
Well in the USA some folks consider dogs as people...Nicki wrote:My understanding is that dog breeds are produced by mating ones which both have the same slight difference from their siblings or from most other dogs of the same breed (smaller size, for example) to further develop the difference. Dogs in particular have a wide variety of difference between breeds (much more so than with cats or other domesticated animals), but they're still dogs.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So at no point do novel traits emerge?abelcainsbrother wrote:Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
You have no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates mutations causes life to evolve and that is very important,but you keep ignoring it,yet believing it by assuming they do. How can you be so scientifically smart and not know what "normal variation" means? I mean dogs are a good example of normal variation in reproduction,with all of the dog breeds and yet when I post a link to you showing you that scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves like the salamanders using it for evidence for MACRO-evolution,not micro-evolution, that show normal variation in reproduction? You totally ignore it and somehow assume mutations causes life to evolve,eventhough there is no evidence that demonstrates it.Audie wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.Audie wrote:No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.abelcainsbrother wrote:I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.Audie wrote:
First, it is exactly relevant.
Why?
It shows that your "normal variation" / great "Dain" (sic) is a crock.
You KNOW that it is not within that range, that it will never happen.
Saying it is irrelevant as long as others do things they dont do is bonkers.
Second, "normal variation"* is not now, and never was used as evidence of evolution.
The claim that it is, is a crock.
* not that you ever defined what you might mean by this expression.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?
You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.
If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.
It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.
You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.
Prease exprain, talk genetics.
If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.
You cant answer the peekapoo / wolf question, you cannot answer anything about genetics, which is, after all, what gives variation. Genetics. But nothing on that from you. So you dont know what you are talking about when you say "natural variation". You just say it. Over and over. You didnt say if you think mutations are part of normal variation, just the same chant about Darwin and assumptions.
"Why should you keep telling me"? No need to, you've shown your hand.
"Why should you keep telling me?" "assumed life evolves based on variation"
You should not.
I dunno why you keep saying it over and over and over in every post. You should stop. Its not true, and its is not good to keep repeating falsehoods.
It is impossible to be a creationist such as yourself of any of the variants, and also be informed and honest.
Your post has two massive fails, the "variation" thing, and the "mutations causes life to evolve" thing that nobody claims and is as such a classic strawman fallacy.,
People who know what they are talking about dont need fallacies.
I think you at least make a moderate effort to be honest, but you sure are uninformed.
B. W. wrote:Well in the USA some folks consider dogs as people...Nicki wrote:My understanding is that dog breeds are produced by mating ones which both have the same slight difference from their siblings or from most other dogs of the same breed (smaller size, for example) to further develop the difference. Dogs in particular have a wide variety of difference between breeds (much more so than with cats or other domesticated animals), but they're still dogs.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So at no point do novel traits emerge?abelcainsbrother wrote:Probably producing a Great Dain? It's still a dog though and shows normal variation that we already know about.We have different color roses too,again normal variation. My point is and has been that this is not and cannot be evidence life evolves and yet it is used as evidence.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Also, if I bred dogs for size, what is going on with the genes in my pack?
http://theweek.com/articles/536712/dog- ... ating-like
Love it!abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:I have already told you and explained what normal variation means. I even told you what you need to do to know,but yet you did'nt. Why should I keep telling you? Read Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" because he assumed life evolves based on variation,it was the very thing that caused him to believe life evolves and this is why it cannot be used for evidence life evolves today and yet it is as I've showed you. The salamanders I posted clearly shows normal variation in reproduction. And about mutations? You have no evidence mutations causes life to evolve,you only have evidence that shows normal variation in reproduction. So we must go by the evidence and mutations does not cause life to evolve when all you have to show for evidence is normal variation in reproduction.Audie wrote:No, Ab, "normal variation " is not so used. That is your idea, but it is mistaken.abelcainsbrother wrote:
I have a link to prove normal variation is used for evidence life evolves. Why do you ignore it? Please explain how this evidence is not scientists using normal variation for evidence life evolves.This is no different than the normal variation we see with dogs,cats,humans,finches,rats,salamanders,roses,viruses,bacteria,etc being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02
And please, saying it three times in one five line post?
You are not understanding the article, nor, even if it said as you think, would one article "prove" that millions of people around the world are as stupid as you are presenting.
If you must have it explained why you are not understanding, I can make the effort.
Or begood can.
It would be terrifically helpful if you could say what you think "normal variation" is, tho.
You have not said what you think "normal variation" is, nor if you think a pair o' peekapoos
could have a wolf pup, nor why or why not.
Prease exprain, talk genetics.
If you have some space. say if you are considering mutations to be "normal variation".
It must be demonstrated mutations causes life to evolve,we cannot assume they do based on normal variation in reproduction.If we did assume? We would be right back to where Darwin was 150 years ago assuming life evolves based on normal variation and we cannot do that.
You cant answer the peekapoo / wolf question, you cannot answer anything about genetics, which is, after all, what gives variation. Genetics. But nothing on that from you. So you dont know what you are talking about when you say "natural variation". You just say it. Over and over. You didnt say if you think mutations are part of normal variation, just the same chant about Darwin and assumptions.
"Why should you keep telling me"? No need to, you've shown your hand.
"Why should you keep telling me?" "assumed life evolves based on variation"
You should not.
I dunno why you keep saying it over and over and over in every post. You should stop. Its not true, and its is not good to keep repeating falsehoods.
It is impossible to be a creationist such as yourself of any of the variants, and also be informed and honest.
Your post has two massive fails, the "variation" thing, and the "mutations causes life to evolve" thing that nobody claims and is as such a classic strawman fallacy.,
People who know what they are talking about dont need fallacies.
I think you at least make a moderate effort to be honest, but you sure are uninformed.Mutations do not cause evolution, nobody says they do.You have no evidence in evolution science that demonstrates mutations causes life to evolve
It is very important that you attempt ;to understand evolution before saying it is wrong.and that is very important,but you keep ignoring it,yet believing it by assuming they do.
I was trying to get you to show if you undrestand it.How can you be so scientifically smart and not know what "normal variation" means?
I understand it fine. If you understood it and could explain it, you could ansser the q about whether a pair of wolves could have a baby peekapoo. Or vice versa.
,I post a link to you showing you that scientists are using normal variation for evidence life evolves like the salamanders using it for evidence for MACRO-evolution,not micro-evolution
Three problems:
-You posted a link to an article that you did not understand.
-it did not say what you think it says
-even if it did, one article about one salamander does not stand for all of
geology, biology, genetics, paleontolo gy etc. No more than David Karesh stood for all Christians.You have a habit of drifting too far from the shore, making statements of facts not in evidence, which is actually indistinguishable from making things up. In court, we call it perjury.You are assuming it is true based on being taught it,but overlooked the lack of evidence.
a) I am not "assuming" what you think, nor thinking it in any way shape or form.
Mutations does not cause evolution any more than a wheel causes a car to go.
b. You are making the false and insulting assumption that I think it is "true" because it is what I was taught. So, that I just soak up and believe as "true" (science does not do "true" btw) whatever I am told, no thinking, no understanding, no investigation?
One of your sycophants made the same deliberately offensive statement about me, also perjuring himself before such god as he may have.
c. There is no "lack of evidence" for evolution. There is tho, very obviously a lack of education on your part. It is not the same thing.