Evolution vs. Creationism...

[Vandeervecken]

Uh no. The class should be taught without bias and with the understanding that each theory in that class is theological ie not claiming them to be myths and not presenting evolution as fact. They're theories..all of them.

They are not theories. You need to learn what makes a scientific theory. They are myths. At best you could call them hypotheses.

They are the factual equivalent of me claiming that god is a sentient hemorrhoid on my cat's tush. There is every bit as much evidence for that claim, as there is for the Christian, Norse, or Greek pantheons.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Evolution is a change in a population from one generation to another. THAT'S IT!!!!! That is all that is required for evolution to have occurred.

That depends on which definition of species you choose to acknowledge. No one has observed this in nature..no one has obsevered this without human interference in the animal kingdom. Inducing speciation in a laboratory is not a default proof that speciation occurs naturally to the degree which the evolutionary theory demands.

For proving that you are lying?

No, because 1. I'm not lying and 2. your choice of language.

And your next post then suddenly saw you retract from that into making the claim that Evolution should be taught as only a theory in a philosophy/origins class.

No. That post was in response to a question regarding whether or not Norse creation stories and Christian creation stories should be taught equally in the theology class.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

They are not theories.

They are theological and philosophical theories.

You need to learn what makes a scientific theory.

I never said they were scientific theories.

 

[Engimo]

That depends on which definition of species you choose to acknowledge. No one has observed this in nature..no one has obsevered this without human interference in the animal kingdom. Inducing speciation in a laboratory is not a default proof that speciation occurs naturally to the degree which the evolutionary theory demands.

Once again, I refer you to this. The idea of a species is simply a human invention to make classification of animals easier. There are many species that can interbreed, especially in the plant kingdom.

 

[steen]

That depends on which definition of species you choose to acknowledge.

Nope. The issue of species is utterly irrelevant to this. You don't need a new species to have observed evolution. You merely need a change in a population from one generation to the next, that's all. Didn't you get that in my post? I guess I need to repeat it because you didn't read what I posted, so here it is again. Please, this time actually read it:

Evolution is a change in a population from one generation to another.

There, did you actually get it this time. Not a word about species, not a word about millions of years. Can I possibly make it more clear to you what evolution actually is? Or are there any other silly untrue assumptions you want to make about evolution

No one has observed this in nature..no one has obsevered this without human interference in the animal kingdom. Inducing speciation in a laboratory is not a default proof that speciation occurs naturally to the degree which the evolutionary theory demands.

We have provided you with several links to speciation observed in nature. Did you read them? I don't think so. I think you dishonestly skipped them so you can continue to spew your lie while telling God that "But Lord, I didn't look at the devil's text, and all this lying, I am doing it for you, Lord."

YOU ARE LYING. You got the links directly proving your claim false and you repeat the false claim. That's lying. You are bearing false witness so much that is Jesus Had not risen, he would be spinning in the grave over the spitting God in the eye you are doing by all your lying.

Now stop it.

No, because 1. I'm not lying and 2. your choice of language.

You are lying A LOT. I documented your lies, and I will continue to document your lies and call you on your lies until you stop lying about science.

No. That post was in response to a question regarding whether or not Norse creation stories and Christian creation stories should be taught equally in the theology class.

And in that post, you stated that evolution should be taught as a theory only, in a philosophy/origins class. Are you retracting that claim now?

 

[tryreading]

My question to evolutionists is how do you think life started?

Stick around for a while and we'll find out. Not knowing yet is no reason to say we will never know. Science will find the answer. We didn't know that we could land a craft on an asteroid until recently, or intercept a comet to retrieve some of its material and bring it back to earth, or split the atom, until last century. Should we believe that none of this happened because we didn't understand the processes before?

50 years ago who would have thought we would be able to effect stem cell transplants today, or install 100,000 transistors in a very small chip? Remember vacuum tubes? I gladly went from vacuum tube technology to solid state, it was a great innovation. I'm sure you did too, depending on your age.

A few years ago the Hubble space telescope took a 'picture' of a very distant, very tiny section of the universe. When you first look at it, you might think there are a lot of stars. But if you look closer, the stars are actually galaxies, so old, so mind-bogglingly far away in distance, and therefore immensely far away in time. When you can see further, you learn more. As you learn, you update your mind. You don't cling to the old numbers, do you?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Nope. The issue of species is utterly irrelevant to this.

No it's not.

You don't need a new species to have observed evolution. You merely need a change in a population from one generation to the next, that's all.

No, thats not all. You're using such vague and incomplete definitions.

We have provided you with several links to speciation observed in nature.

In plants.

You are bearing false witness so much that is Jesus Had not risen, he would be spinning in the grave over the spitting God in the eye you are doing by all your lying.

ROFL!! I don't know who told you I'm Christian but whoever it was lied to you. I haven't lied.

And in that post, you stated that evolution should be taught as a theory only, in a philosophy/origins class. Are you retracting that claim now?

No, I didn't. That post was specifically refering to the proposed theology class. Stop taking things out of context.

 

[steen]

No it's not.

Sure it is irrelevant. Please show me why evolutionary processes need speciation to have occurred. No? Then stop your false misrepresentation of Evolution.

No, thats not all. You're using such vague and incomplete definitions.

You are lying. The ONLY thing needed for evolution to have occurred is that the subsequent generation underwent some change to adapt to the environment. That's it. That your ignorance tells you otherwise is the fault of your ignorance, nothing else.

In plants.

Well, that certainly is speciation, evidencing that you lied.

And speciation was ALSO noted in insects of various kinds at that site, again showing that you didn't actually bother reading the source. And we have provided other links for bacteria, which certainly evolve every time you take antibiotics or are exposed to new food sources. So you are still lying.

As I warned you previously, when you lie about science, I WILL confront you. So are you going to stop lying about science now?

ROFL!! I don't know who told you I'm Christian but whoever it was lied to you. I haven't lied.

You may or may not be a Christian, but I certainly have documented your lies both recently and right now.

So stop your friggin' lying about science. Now is a really good time, unless you want me to continue exposing how much you truly lie.

No, I didn't. That post was specifically refering to the proposed theology class. Stop taking things out of context.

In that proposed theology class, you wanted evolution taught as only a theory. It was right there in your text. Why are you lying about this when it is exposed right there in your own words? Did you forget what you wrote:
Uh no. The class should be taught without bias and with the understanding that each theory in that class is theological ie not claiming them to be myths and not presenting evolution as fact. They're theories..all of them.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Sure it is irrelevant. Please show me why evolutionary processes need speciation to have occurred.

ROFL!!! Read your own definition..that IS speciation.

"Speciation occurs when a population changes sufficiently over time that it becomes convenient to refer to the early and late forms by different names. Speciation also occurs when one population splits into two distinct forms that can no longer interbreed."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Well, that certainly is speciation, evidencing that you lied.

ROFL! No..I said that it hasn't been observed in nature in the ANIMAL kingdom.

And speciation was ALSO noted in insects of various kinds at that site, again showing that you didn't actually bother reading the source.

Which was induced in a laboratory.

And we have provided other links for bacteria, which certainly evolve every time you take antibiotics or are exposed to new food sources.

If you're going to be consistant in your definition then bacteria should not be considered part of the "evolutionary" chain because they reproduce assexually

In that proposed theology class, you wanted evolution taught as only a theory.

No. I CLEARLY stated in my first post that evolution should be taught as a theory in a science class. The post you are reffering to is a response to whether or not Norse creation stories and Christian creation stories should be taught equally in a theology class. Stop taking things out of context. I said that evolution should not be presented as fact..how you interpreted that to mean that evolution should be taught in a theology class is beyond me.

 

[steen]

ROFL!!! Read your own definition..that IS speciation.

Nope. you continue to lie. A population can change in genetic make-up without speciation. The classic example is the moth in Wales. They remain the same species, but show a difference in genetic expression per change sin the environment. That's evolution, your misrepresentation none withstanding. SHEESH, the ignorance you are showing.

"Speciation occurs when a population changes sufficiently over time that it becomes convenient to refer to the early and late forms by different names. Speciation also occurs when one population splits into two distinct forms that can no longer interbreed."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

And even if the change is not sufficient to be another species, it still is evolution.

ROFL! No..I said that it hasn't been observed in nature in the ANIMAL kingdom.

Ah, like fish and mice?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Which was induced in a laboratory.

And observed in nature.

If you're going to be consistant in your definition then bacteria should not be considered part of the "evolutionary" chain because they reproduce assexually

And so? How is that not evolution? The change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next is certainly observed when bacteria change like described.

No. I CLEARLY stated in my first post that evolution should be taught as a theory in a science class. The post you are reffering to is a response to whether or not Norse creation stories and Christian creation stories should be taught equally in a theology class. Stop taking things out of context. I said that evolution should not be presented as fact..how you interpreted that to mean that evolution should be taught in a theology class is beyond me.

It is in the post where you talk about presenting theories in mythology class. You are specifically talking about "that class." Did you already forget what you wrote:

Uh no. The class should be taught without bias and with the understanding that each theory in that class is theological ie not claiming them to be myths and not presenting evolution as fact. They're theories..all of them.

But as I have stated, feel free to retract your claim.

 

[tecoyah]

If indeed...we were to teach the Creation hypothesis in our schools, one needs to ask a very important question:

Once we spend the week or so covering the Genesis part of scripture....do we then continue with the rest of the book?

If so...then what differs from a religious studies course....If not, what do you teach for the rest of the year?


My point is....there really isnt anything to teach that is not religious in nature in this entire Hypothesis, and so, we are teaching christianity....not science. If anyone has an actual basis to form a science cirriculum from the scripture in question, I would like to hear it.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

A population can change in genetic make-up without speciation. The classic example is the moth in Wales. They remain the same species, but show a difference in genetic expression per change sin the environment. That's evolution, your misrepresentation none withstanding. SHEESH, the ignorance you are showing.

The definition you were using is the definition of speciation. Care to make some changes to that definition? Your example is an example of genetic variation which is not evolution in and of itself. None of these things are examples of evolution in and of themselves. Evolution requires that the new variants wipe the old ones out in at least 1 generation.

And[/URL] even if the change is not sufficient to be another species, it still is evolution.

Not true and by the way..the next time you post a link make sure the page is still available

Ah, like fish and mice

LOL..don't you know what "Artificial selection" means?

And observed in nature.

Nope.

And so? How is that not evolution? The change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next is certainly observed when bacteria change like described.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1375505.stm

It is in the post where you talk about presenting theories in mythology class. You are specifically talking about "that class."

Again, you have a habit of taking things out of context. You know very well that I wasn't saying that evolution should be taught in a theology class. That post was in answer to whether or not Norse creation stories and Christian creation stories should be taught with equal merit.

 

[steen]

The definition you were using is the definition of speciation.

No. Change certainly can happen without new species being formed.

Care to make some changes to that definition?

Not really. The definition is accurate and correct.

Your example is an example of genetic variation which is not evolution in and of itself.

If it is genetic variation between generations, then yes it is. I am baffled that you don't even know this when trying to argue against evolution.

The conclusion is that you don't know anything about what you are arguing against. That means that your claims are not sign of problems with evolution, but rather that they are evidence of your ignorance, of problems with your knowledge of what you are talking about.

That is not my fault, nor the fault of Evolution. That is your own fault for not bothering with actually understanding what you argue against, evidencing that your arguments are dishonest.

None of these things are examples of evolution in and of themselves.

Yes, they are.

Evolution requires that the new variants wipe the old ones out in at least 1 generation.

Nope, your claim is false.

This really is a pointless discussion. You can keep making false claims about evolution or make all these claims about what evolution "must" be for your personal belief. That still has nothing to do with evolution.

But don't fret. This is VERY COMMON among creationists, actually to the point of it being the norm, the typical. Creationists usually do NOT have a clue what it is they are arguing against; hence they end up with all those false claims and lies about evolution.

I have stated before that for creationists to not come across as ignorant liars, they need to at least have figured out what evolution is.

And it is enough of a problem that talk.origin has had to devote an entire page to the issue. I strongly recommend you read it so you get a clue what you are arguing against. It is quite short, so it shouldn't be to much bother:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Not true

Yes, that is what evolution is. Your claim is false, it is evidence of ignorance.

and by the way..the next time you post a link make sure the page is still available

Which page are you talking about? This one?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

It still works just fine.

LOL..don't you know what "Artificial selection" means?

Ah, how dishonest. The examples of insects and mice evolving into new species were NOT done artificially. Why are you misrepresenting my points? Could you please cease your dishonesty?

Nope.

You are lying. Speciation has been observed in nature. Links have been provided with the evidence. You are deliberately dishonest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1375505.stm

What about it? You were replying to this post of mine:
And so? How is that not evolution? The change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next is certainly observed when bacteria change like described.

I have already provided links proving this. As this link:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Again, you have a habit of taking things out of context. You know very well that I wasn't saying that evolution should be taught in a theology class. That post was in answer to whether or not Norse creation stories and Christian creation stories should be taught with equal merit.

Your post held ALL of these components together so there was nothing out of context, your false and lying accusation none withstanding. But I am glad that you now unequivocally reports Evolution to be science and not "just a theory" like you describe creationism and other creation stories.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

No. Change certainly can happen without new species being formed.

It can but then it is not evolution in and of itself

Not really. The definition is accurate and correct.

For speciation. Not for evolution itself.

If it is genetic variation between generations, then yes it is.

It must wipe the old variants out in at least 1 generation to be considered evolution..as of yet it hasn't been observed in anything but plants.

The conclusion is that you don't know anything about what you are arguing against. That means that your claims are not sign of problems with evolution, but rather that they are evidence of your ignorance, of problems with your knowledge of what you are talking about.

LOL I've found it to be the exact oppossite. It is you who has no idea what he's talking about. Enjoy your trolling while it lasts.

Yes, they are.

No, they aren't.

This really is a pointless discussion. You can keep making false claims about evolution or make all these claims about what evolution "must" be for your personal belief. That still has nothing to do with evolution.

Are you talking to yourself again?

Creationists usually do NOT have a clue what it is they are arguing against; hence they end up with all those false claims and lies about evolution.

I'm not a creationist so feel free to yap on.

Ah, how dishonest. The examples of insects and mice evolving into new species were NOT done artificially.

Lol..don't blame me. Your own source described the process as "Arificial selection"

Speciation has been observed in nature. Links have been provided with the evidence.

In plants only. The next time you make an evolution argument I'd suggest mentioning the Orchid instead of misrepresenting and patently lying about the science.


No, it is not. Evolution requires that said changes be passed on to the next generation and replace the old variants.

The change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next is certainly observed when bacteria change like described.

No, it is not. Evolution requires that said changes be passed on to the second generation and replace the old variants. Bacteria also cannot "evolve" on their own accord..they require another organism for lateral gene transfer. So if the first organisms were indeed bacteria that presents a problem.

Your post held ALL of these components together so there was nothing out of context, your false and lying accusation none withstanding.

Lol..in other words blah blah blah blah troll troll blah.

But I am glad that you now unequivocally reports Evolution to be science and not "just a theory" like you describe creationism and other creation stories.

I've always said that Evolution is a scientific theory and your own source decribes it as such. Presenting it as fact in such a large scale degree is patently misleading and false.

 

[DocAR]

It's been "proven" correct as much as anything can be "proven" in the sciences. It has as much evidence behind it as, say, gravity. It has been directly observed in laboratories and in nature. Furthermore, it is the cornerstone of modern biology and medicine.

Then why is it still considered a "theory"?

If it were proven, then it would be the "law" of Evolution. (like the law of gravity)

 

[DocAR]

For the record, I say no.

No sense giving the schools yet another subject to f*@k up......

If you want your kids learning creationism, send them to church.

 

[steen]

It can but then it is not evolution in and of itself

Yes, it is. Adaptation to the environment over generations, even without specition, is very much evolution.

You seem determined to continue your misrepresentation of what Evolution is. Why is that?

For speciation. Not for evolution itself.

your claim rmeains false. The definition provided fits evolution just fine even without evolution. Your denial doesn't change this, only ending up underscoring how ignorant you are about the subject, even AFTER I provided you with a source that points out the scientific definition of evolution.

Thye only conclusion that can be drawn is that you now willfully are misrepresenting evolution for the sake of having an argument, or for not having to admit you were wrong/ignorant/losing face.

Regardless, this willful misrepresentation now is representing outright lying, willful deceit and deliberate falsehoods. This is sad and pathetic.

It must wipe the old variants out in at least 1 generation to be considered evolution..

Well, the old generation dies out and the next one still lives, so what is the problem.

That aside, your insistence on this artificial guideline is just more evidence and example of your wuillful deceit. Still sad.

as of yet it hasn't been observed in anything but plants.

We have provided evidence that your claim is false. Even the Moth in the Welsh minig towns is an example, an example you hopefully learned way back in school.

So you are now deliberately lying. I would prefer you cease this as it is highly offensive and insultive to us.

LOL I've found it to be the exact oppossite. It is you who has no idea what he's talking about. Enjoy your trolling while it lasts.

Ah, the creationist vesrion of sticking your fingers in the ears and singing loudly. How childish. :thumbdown

No, they aren't.

:roll: More childish babble in the face of evidence that your claim is false.

I'm not a creationist so feel free to yap on.

You lie as much about evolution as creationists do.

Lol..don't blame me. Your own source described the process as "Arificial selection"

You didn't read the whole thing, obviously. That must be the reason why you make this claim. because surely you wouldn't readc the whole thing nd then repeat the above as an outright lie, would you?

In plants only.[/quote[]YOU ARE LYING. I provided evidence specifically disproving your claim, yet you repeat it. :roll:

No, it is not. Evolution requires that said changes be passed on to the next generation and replace the old variants.

It merely requires a change in the proportion of gene expressions in the next generation, your lie none withstanding.

No, it is not. Evolution requires that said changes be passed on to the second generation and replace the old variants. Bacteria also cannot "evolve" on their own accord..they require another organism for lateral gene transfer. So if the first organisms were indeed bacteria that presents a problem.

More lying 'just because I say so" falsehoods. I provided the evidence to the contrary.

 

[steen]

Then why is it still considered a "theory"?

If it were proven, then it would be the "law" of Evolution. (like the law of gravity)

No, it wouldn't. You seem unaware of the Scientific method and the naming of the steps in the process?

A Scientific Law is simply a constant, mathematical relationship. A Scientific Theory is the explanation that best fits all the evidence. A Scientific Theory does not turn into a Scientific Law or vise versa.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading6

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Yes, it is. Adaptation to the environment over generations, even without specition, is very much evolution.

The definition provided fits evolution just fine even without evolution.

ROFL! Now how did you come up with that little gem? Evolution is evolution even when there is no evolution..LOL..nice one.

even AFTER I provided you with a source that points out the scientific definition of evolution.

Which you cherrypicked and misrepresented.

Well, the old generation dies out and the next one still lives, so what is the problem.

If that were the case then monkeys wouldn't be around because they were the first primates.

Even the Moth in the Welsh minig towns is an example, an example you hopefully learned way back in school.

It's not an example of evolution in and of itself. It's an example of 1 process in a long line of proccess required for evolution.

You didn't read the whole thing, obviously.

You didn't read it at all, obviously. You probably googled a phrase then posted the first link that came up.

YOU ARE LYING. I provided evidence specifically disproving your claim, yet you repeat it.

No, I'm not and you haven't disproven anything.

It merely requires a change in the proportion of gene expressions in the next generation, your lie none withstanding.

You obviously have no grasp on this subject.

More lying 'just because I say so" falsehoods. I provided the evidence to the contrary.

Again..you have no idea what you're talking about. Bacteria "evolve" via latteral gene transfer which requires another organism.

 

[steen]

And we are done. When you can do nothing but spew outright lies and falsehoods, there is no point in further dealing with you.

 

[Saboteur]

Creationism is something that should be reserved for families and church congregations to teach. To put it in a state funded socialist institution like a public school would just make it evil.:2razz:

 

[libertarian_knight]

It must wipe the old variants out in at least 1 generation to be considered evolution..as of yet it hasn't been observed in anything but plants.

Where did you get this nonsense? If a new gene is introduced, generally it's in ONE individual. So, this individual must then reproduce with another NON-gene-having individual, producing offspring (a generation) that may or may not have the new gene, or may not have the new gene expressed.

Old genes do not have to "be wiped out." In fact, there could be numerous varients of the same genes in the population, new ones, old one, etc.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Where did you get this nonsense? If a new gene is introduced, generally it's in ONE individual. So, this individual must then reproduce with another NON-gene-having individual, producing offspring (a generation) that may or may not have the new gene, or may not have the new gene expressed.

In order for it to be considered evolution the new gene(s) must be passed on to the next generation and must eventually wipe out the old ones.

Old genes do not have to "be wiped out." In fact, there could be numerous varients of the same genes in the population, new ones, old one, etc.

Then it is not evolution in and of itself.

 

[libertarian_knight]

In order for it to be considered evolution the new gene(s) must be passed on to the next generation and must eventually wipe out the old ones.



Then it is not evolution in and of itself.

Eventually, yes, you said twice, "in 1 generation." Which is not so. Furthermore, a new gene does not have replace anything, it could simply be a new gene that does not improve or hinder other genes, but rather adds new function.

Also, a new varient gene need not be "functional." and so long as it does not interfere with the organisms ability to survive, it too can be passed on.

An old gene may remain, and a new gene or new varient may alter it's effects later in development or the life of the organism.

A gene may express itself, say in gill-like structures, and a later gene may alter that expression into something else, or "override" the prior gene in a way it's never expressed anymore, though maybe it once was.

One gene can have multiple functions, interact differently, override, alter and expand the functions of other genes, or in fact, the new gene may not hinder the survival in an organism.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Eventually, yes, you said twice, "in 1 generation." Which is not so.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say it had to take place within a time period of 1 generation rather I said that it had to occur in 1 generation..not within any defined time period.