• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
You mean like the data the demonsrtates conclusively that hyracotherium, one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey, three distinct species?

Can you show me some peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate that conclusive evidence outlining the specific mutations?
 
Can you show me some peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate that conclusive evidence outlining the specific mutations?

Can you type "google.com"? I'm not describing some abstract bit of arcania, here, I'm putting up textbook stuff, easily accessible on the 'net, and not subject to debate. You could at least learn the basics of the science before charging out to challenge it, right?

So, no, I'm not going to post links to hyracotherium, once called eo hippus. Nor am I going to post links to known horse atavisms that demonstrate it's earlier heritages as a multi-toed horse, I'm merely going to state that the occasional horse has more than one toe on a foot, and you can find that, too.
 
Yup. Mistakes don't happen on this end. Evoltion is sound science and observed fact.

I notice the people denying evolution aren't telling us what they believe did happen.

I didn't deny evolution. I was disagreeing with your version of evolution. :doh

Now do you see why I asked you to restate?
 
I didn't deny evolution. I was disagreeing with your version of evolution. :doh

Now do you see why I asked you to restate?

No.

Fix your version.

My version works fine.

Over thousands of years, the forest turned to savannah. Over those thousands of years, the forerunners of humans and chimps either lived in forest regions that didn't change, and thus there was little selective pressure driving change in those animals, or they lived in areas drying up, so that sequential generations of faced increasingly stronger pressures that selected for traits that enhanced survival, and in those animals, the traits were first bipedalism so the little bastards could run from tree to tree faster, could raise their eyes above the grass to see farther, and to provide a minimal surface area for heating by solar radiation and a maximimal area for re-radiating bodily heat and convection, not to mention the gradual loss of hair and increase in the number of sweat glands.

And that's because the environment changed first. The monkey didn't start shedding hair, getting taller, and running to the savannah where it could do marathons, no. The changed environment forced the selection of a new species.

It was a gradual process, but so was the environmental change. Unless you're fond of Velikovsky, there's no reason to assume the environment changed rapidly.
 
We evolved from a common ancestor to apes. We share 98% similarities in DNA, there is one pair of Chromosomes that separate us and a successful blood transfusion can be performed using ape blood.

If creationist nonsense is snuck into public education what is next? Flat earth theory, stork theory of reproduction? Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence and a fossil record, intelligent design is not, and therefore cannot be taught alongside an actual scientific theory.
 
Last edited:
Can you type "google.com"? I'm not describing some abstract bit of arcania, here, I'm putting up textbook stuff, easily accessible on the 'net, and not subject to debate. You could at least learn the basics of the science before charging out to challenge it, right?

So, no, I'm not going to post links to hyracotherium, once called eo hippus. Nor am I going to post links to known horse atavisms that demonstrate it's earlier heritages as a multi-toed horse, I'm merely going to state that the occasional horse has more than one toe on a foot, and you can find that, too.

LOL. You think I don't know what it is. How cute. I didn't ask for a description of hyracotherium, which is all I'll get from google. I asked you to support your claim regarding this magical conclusive evidence.

It wasn't because I am unaware of hyracotherium.

In fact, I did this precisely because I know about hyracotherium.

Your claim for conclusive evidence that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey" is pretty asinine for one reason and one reason only:

Hyracotherium went extinct, oh, about 40 million years before those animals even came into existence.

That kind of makes it impossible of that one species to have "mutated" into those three species, doesn't it. Unless they lasted in 40 million year long suspended animation.

SOOOOO, that would probably make "conclusive" evidence of your claim a bit impossible for me to find, since what you described is literally impossible.

Anyways, I think you should probably take a refresher course on your "basics".
 
LOL. You think I don't know what it is. How cute. I didn't ask for a description of hyracotherium, which is all I'll get from google. I asked you to support your claim regarding this magical conclusive evidence.

A) They're called "fossils". You can find them at your local museum, in your backyard, and you can find photos of them on the internet.

B) Since hyracotherium DNA does not exist, it's doubtful you'll be able to find substantive reasearch on specimens thereof.

Your claim for conclusive evidence that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey" is pretty asinine for one reason and one reason only:

Hyracotherium went extinct, oh, about 40 million years before those animals even came into existence.

That kind of makes it impossible of that one species to have "mutated" into those three species, doesn't it. Unless they lasted in 40 million year long suspended animation.

This is what you use instead of logic?

Clearly then, you're claiming homo sapiens couldn't possibly have mutated from common parent stock with chimpanzees because the common parent species no longer exists, right? You're also claiming that no one could possibly have great-to-the-12th grandparents because those alleged people are all dead too, right?

Like I said, do go and learn something about evolution before you start spewing how it doesn't work.
 
Good Lord. The species in question can produce successfully with one parent IN A LAB.
What species can? What Lord?

As each generation gets corssed it gets more and more compatable, like genetic blending, until the Senecio eboracensis becomes exactly like Senecio vulgaris.

Exactly, - the process can go backwards. In evolution it does not. But anyway, how do you know it the Senecio eboracensis does become exactly like Senecio vulgaris, I guess it is a guess again?

However in nature due to the natural distributation of the two species (S. eboracensis is more clumped and therefore more likely to mate with others of its kind), S. eborcensis and S.vulgaris reproduce at different seasons and other factors means that they only have a 1% chance of reproducing in the wild, not a good precentage for eborcensis to blend in with its parent, in fact at these low odds the two species will genetically gradually seperate.

Science does not know ‘’only’’, “good’’. S. eborcensis and its parent S.vulgaris DO reproduce and it is not established that S.vulgaris is a parent.
They do reproduce. Contrarily to the impression your link and you try to make. In spite of the obvious barriers.
They are cheating? Give me evidence to back up your claims. And how do they no produce positive results? Because you say so? Because you have a hunch? Because you don't like what it says?
If a footballer is fined for cheating, there has to be EVIDENCE for the cheating.

The evidence of you cheating is given to the audience. When you say ”only”, ‘’good’’ in application to counting it is just an example of cheating. When you say that they are parents when no positive identification was made and experiments did not confirm it is another example. Let the audience decide.
Again ALL YOU HAVE is your own opinion. Its like me saying scientists think differently, but I think the moon is made out of cheese.

The sample clearly does not represent all possibilities available and it assumes the static environment of the wild.
If lab conditions count justone, we have already observed lots of new species. They don't,
I did not limit my question to nature only. They may count, may not.

all the speciation lab work with fruit flies only shows that speciation is possible, not that it happens. We have to look to nature for answers.

It either happens or it does not. And, yes, we all look for the same kind of speciation as it is has been attempted to achieve with flies during 150 years of experiments.


What do you call a group of individuals in the natural world who cannot mate with anyone else but themselves. They cannot share genetic information with anyone else and sustain a population with them. That is a species. That is Senecio eborensis.
Senecio eborensis can mate, it is out of question. But let’s say it cannot and I assume there should be many examples of such cases with other hybrids. Our ancestors were experimenting with hybridization for thousands of years. Lysenko and Mychurin, did too. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko]Trofim Lysenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] And in spite of the propaganda one shouldn’t deny that they all achieved impressive results. In all of all Lysenko was a pretty good scientist.

Species used in evolutionary “’theory”’ have to have evolutionary meaning. That is such and so that I wouldn’t have an opinion. If evolution, then an emerging specie has to have a new amount of (DNA) information not available in his parents and in order not to observe devolution it has to gain more information than his parents have, or to be more complex. As far as evolution is concerned all Senecios are the same specie, - with all different forms of it and all possible hybrids which are known to be a dead end. So speaking evolution we rather have different forms of the same specie and hybrids when the latter are not more but rather less complex and have a lesser content of information (which is absolutely obvious). It is obvious, that asking the question I and everyone else were looking for speciation in evolutionary meaning but not for all possible meanings, not for a plant and manipulation with the definition of speciation. In microbiology they call it strains, you can use forms or something.



If you accuse us of cheating, then show me evidence that we are wrong. Proper It is not the first specation event we have, thats why there is not mention of it being the first one.
It is the first one as wiki hints used as an example of evolution. You have ignored a whole list of more important facts. It is not the 1st one occurring as I stated and state. You are cheating again.
Not in nature. Funny species you have if they cannot mate sucessfully in nature

Quoting 1. and 2. you reply to 2. only and ignore 1. It is cheating. You are using nature frivolously. You should say in the wild.

‘’Crosses were made between individuals of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus’’ I guess you mean artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus’’?

What would make one suggest that if they can reproduce in lab they cannot reproduce in the wild I don’t know. What is the meaning of the experiment where I wouldn’t know
The plants were artificially synthesized and forced from the start. Following your logic I have to say that it is also an undeniable proof that S. squalidus’’and S. vulgaris are not parents in the wild, but only in the lab when forced.
’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, - [I guess they have searched ALL the wild I want to see how] - and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.

’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low ‘’ BUT RECORDED!!!

No they are not. WTF??? Another Plants don't count whine? Plants evolve too.

Even if they did it does not mean that they are life and life evolves. They may be food for life and thus consist of amino acids etc familiar to life digestion system, but it does not mean that life and plants turn not each other, there is no such an observation made. (As well it does not mean that ALL 3 bacteria are life as there no observation of bacteria turning into life).


Mathematics has hardly anything to say in biology. Biology is too chaotic to be mathematical.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory]Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Mathematics deals with chaos from the day one. Actually it is the main goal of mathematics since the day one - to deal with chaos.


Fantasies? Suppose all those transitional fossils are just in our imaginations huh? Suppose our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination?

You are living in a dream world of your own making justone.

The Supposition that our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination of a creationist. You can think that God made our 2nd chromosome of 2 ape chromosomes, but I want to see it occurring.


all those transitional fossils are Fantasies.





A fact without evidence is like a limp dick...usless.

I would never know what evolutionists mean as evidence? A fact is not an evidence for them… it counts.
 
Last edited:
I didn't deny evolution. I was disagreeing with your version of evolution. :doh

Now do you see why I asked you to restate?

I have demonstrated many times that each evolutionist has his own version of evolution. Only this fact is sufficient to prove that evolution is a religion, a personal phylosophy.
 
A) They're called "fossils". You can find them at your local museum, in your backyard, and you can find photos of them on the internet.

B) Since hyracotherium DNA does not exist, it's doubtful you'll be able to find substantive reasearch on specimens thereof.

So you admit that your claims of "conclusive evidence" are basically just lies you made up.

Here I thought you would actually try to defend the comments, but instead you just admit that your claims of conclusive proof MUST be lies because

A. It is WELL known the fossil record is incomplete.

B. Without DNA evidence, or a complete fossil record, there can be nothing that is "conclusive" evidence of ANY mutations. Could easily be hybridization or polyploidy. You don't know. No one knows.






Clearly then, you're claiming homo sapiens couldn't possibly have mutated from common parent stock with chimpanzees because the common parent species no longer exists, right? You're also claiming that no one could possibly have great-to-the-12th grandparents because those alleged people are all dead too, right?

Clearly, then, you fail reading comprehension 101. I never said anything remotely close to a statement that conclusive.

I said that there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of what you claimed.

But even still. The gap is 40 million years. You didn't claim that "Teh fiossil record would suggest that hyracotherium is most believed to be the common ancestor of X Y & Z animals." Had you actually said that, you would have A. been correct that this is the common belief. B. Not had any point with regards to my post.

But instead, you claimed that "one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey"

Let me show you again, REAL big this time:

one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey

One species "mutating" into three is what your claim is. Conclusive evidence of this no less.

Show me that a mutation changed hyracotherium directly into a donkey, another that turned hyracotherium directly into a horse and a third mutation turned directly hyracotherium into a zebra because your claim is not common ANCESTRY, it's common PARENTAGE.

Because for ONE species to become all three, it must have been a direct jump. Meaning three "mutations" on one species to create three separate species, but NOTHING MORE. No steps along the way.

But it didn't go that way, did it?

No. All evolutionists will AGREE that this is not a direct line relationship. It's convoluted pathway with multiple branches. Branches that include animals like the rhino.

what you can't tell me that the mutations were random or natural selction. That's just guesswork. Educated guesswork, but still just guesswork.

You can't possibly tell me that hypridization or polyploidy were not the cause of this speciation. You can't tell me it was not some heretofore unconceived method. Nobody can.

What you have primarily failed to comprehend, even though it's been stated repeatedly, is that I don't deny evolution. I believe some form of evolution occurred. Since I'm an atheist, I am not trying to promote "god" induced from of evolution like intelligent design either.

I'm interested in promoting good science. Where the data is taken in and looked at reasonably and without bias. Where preconceived notions get kicked to teh curb if the data suggests that it should.

I'm something you've never encountered before. I'm not trying to disprove evolution's existence, I'm trying to improve evolutionary theory. Right now it is flawed. mostly because people who don't understand what they are talking about promote it as set in stone fact that all things evolve through random mutations and random selection. We've already got evidence in this thread that not all things evolve this way.

So far, we have no definitive evidence that anything evolves that way.

What we have is a logical induction based on many different pieces of data collected. But no direct observations of random mutations or natural selection.

But remember, we DO have direct observations of a DIFFERENT mechanism at work. Right there. Before our very eyes.

Why deny that which we KNOW exist for that which we THINK exists?



Like I said, do go and learn something about evolution before you start spewing how it doesn't work.

The next post of mine you actually understand the point will be the first. Think about that before you run your mouth.
 
If your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, i want to hear your opinions on Evolution. Did it occur? If so, are we the biologically enhanced version of Apes, changed over thousands of years of evolution? Or did it not happen at all. Does it have any scientific basis? Or did a being from a greater source place us here?

Whats your opinions?
Personally I don't believe in anything but God made us BUT according to the way some here act i'm starting to wonder that they may have come from 'MONKEYS'.:lol:
 
I have demonstrated many times that each evolutionist has his own version of evolution. Only this fact is sufficient to prove that evolution is a religion, a personal phylosophy.

This statement alone shows that you don't really know what evolution is.

Just because there are competing theories, doesn't make it false. My version and his version still follows the concepts within evolution itself.
 
And that's because the environment changed first. The monkey didn't start shedding hair, getting taller, and running to the savannah where it could do marathons, no. The changed environment forced the selection of a new species.

I think the bolded is where we are having the misunderstanding.

The way I see it, if the environment changes, the level of competition between species also changes. The competition itself is the catalyst for change/adaptation. The environment is auxiliary, though a factor nonetheless.


As a side note, let's not play the "I am smarter than you in Evolution" game. Arrogance is unneeded.
 
To be fair, I was only pointing out that the 96% number is often cited but the more accurate number for genetic similarity is actually closer to 70%, which would include ERV DNA in it.

If species were seperate from each other they would have a completely different ERV DNA sequence since ERV's infuse their DNA randomly at about 1 trillion different available places. This is not we find.

Here is a nice video about ERV's and its got some nice scientific references after.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA"]YouTube - Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs[/ame]

96%-70%. Science is a self-correcting mechanism. It is possible that it is not either that number. If you show me a hedgehog has got more similiar DNA to us than a chimpanzee, that would grab my attention.

My argument was that there is often an over-portrayal, or flawed portrayal of the significance of certain data, not that the theory is false, per se.

Saying 96% shared DNA between humans and chimps is disingenuous because those numbers don't really mean anything regarding the gene variance, which is based more on genetic alignment than the code as a whole.
Out of interest can you link me a paper with this ~70% similarity between humans and chimps? I tried, but just found creationist sites.
I also was saying that the conclusions that are reached are extrapolated from these data in such a way that it doesn't necessarily follow with the data as it exists.

For example, your examples from hybridization and such don't fit with the concept of random mutation and natural selection.

Natural Selection is only a part of Evolution, a big part, but not the whole.
All they really show is that 1. Our definition of species requires revising because fertile offspring can come to exist with inter-species mating. 2. That new species can come into existence under certain conditions that do NOT include classical natural selection. These new species come to exist suddenly without any real environmental or competitive cause. It's not "selection" at all. They are produced because the parents have the capabilities to produce such a creature when placed together. That means they are not entirely random. These species can only come into existence under certain conditions that are very far from random.

1. No, speciation can occur from allopolyploidy, autopolyploid and hybrdisation, especially in plants, this has been documents for decades.

2. Yes, not all speciation needs natural selection, sexual selection also plays apart and the above processes in number 1.

Again Natural selection is only a part of Evolution.
Also, the idea that a single species can mutate over time into two or more different species is not supported by the data. In fact, in the hybridization case, we can clearly see that two species have come together to make a third species. If we assume that the parent species came from a common ancestor, the evolutionary "branch" is actually a loop where two branches split off and then rejoin! Fascinating stuff, but it doesn't support random selection at all.

I agree it doesn't support any selection process, it supports speciation through hybridization.

Most people when they think of evolution, think of animals, leaving out plants all together. Granted this type of speciation is extremely rare in animals, but not in plants. This hybrid is fertile and cannot mate with its parents sucessfully in the wild. A species is a group of indivuals that can only mate with each other to produce fertile and viable offsrping. Senecio Eborensis fits this description.
It actually gives evidence that speciation is not simply due to random selection or beneficial mutations.

Yes, not always.
The reason why I have issue with that is that observable data is showing us that the common beliefs may indeed be flawed. Random selection may not be the driving force behind evolution.

Natural selection is not random. Very little selection in nature is random, it is usuall a response to an event.
The evidence you've cited should, at the very least, give pause. Speciation is not happening as the theory predicted it would. This means that there is at some point along the line, a flaw in the theory.

No speciation through hybridisation as been incorporated into the Theory of Evolution for some time.
What we know for sure is that there are striking similarities in Human and Chimpanzee DNA. We also know that speciation can occur under certain not-entirely-random, but not exclusively non-random, circumstances.

What we don't know is what any of this means exactly. All we have is conjecture until more data can be collected. We must be willing to say that our conjectures are flat out wrong when the data fails to support them.

Of course, the more data the better. Like I said if you found that a hedgehog is more genetically related to us than a chimpanzee, it would turn the theory of evolution on its head.
That's the main point in my philosophy vs. science debate. Evolutionary theory is more philosophical than scientific because it seeks to explain something based on logic, not pure, raw evidence being supported over and over again through experimentation.

Most scientific theories are more philosophy than science. Science is the data collection and experimentation phase, while philosophy is the "thinking" phase.

Is Germ theory philosophical? Gravity? Atoms? A round earth? Are these all "philosophical?
 
We evolved from a common ancestor to apes. We share 98% similarities in DNA, there is one pair of Chromosomes that separate us and a successful blood transfusion can be performed using ape blood.

If creationist nonsense is snuck into public education what is next? Flat earth theory, stork theory of reproduction? Evolution is backed up by empirical evidence and a fossil record, intelligent design is not, and therefore cannot be taught alongside an actual scientific theory.
You're talking a lot of **** for a guy who believes in maximum liberty. :confused:
 
Speaking English they look similar to your eye. I established long time ago that evolution exists only in the eye of the beholder.

Oh did you? And you are the authority of such matters justone?
Proposed is not established or observed. I quoted the proposition. However the experiment/experiment did not result in establishment of the status of the Yorker as the son of the proposed parents.
How so? Come on justone explain your rejections. Or are you authority of such matters lol? Whatt you say is 100% correct and we should take it faith you are?



Do you understand what does preliminary mean? This the end of the question. But, but, just for you OK let’s say it is not prelimenary. It does not mean that they do not contain a significant portion of the genomes of any other Senecios, when it is clear that ALL Senecios must have proportions of genomes of Senecios. It does not mean that the authors make a positive statement that they do not.

They do genetic tests of maternal and paternal relationships. The same method they use in the court of law.
RAPD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This makes the method popular for comparing the DNA of biological systems that have not had the attention of the scientific community, or in a system in which relatively few DNA sequences are compared (it is not suitable for forming a DNA databank).
Its resolving power is much lower than targeted, species specific DNA comparison methods, such as short tandem repeats. In recent years, RAPD has been used to characterize, and trace, the phylogeny of diverse plant and animal species.
Limitations of RAPD
• Nearly all RAPD markers are dominant, i.e. it is not possible to distinguish whether a DNA segment is amplified from a locus that is heterozygous (1 copy) or homozygous (2 copies). Co-dominant RAPD markers, observed as different-sized DNA segments amplified from the same locus, are detected only rarely.
• PCR is an enzymatic reaction, therefore the quality and concentration of template DNA, concentrations of PCR components, and the PCR cycling conditions may greatly influence the outcome.
• Mismatches between the primer and the template may result in the total absence of PCR product as well as in a merely decreased amount of the product. Thus, the RAPD results can be difficult to interpret.


In short RAPD is good for prelimanary estimates. It provides an indication that A1 and A2 either both or one may be be parents of A0, it provides no positive conclusion.

The bottom line is – the experiment. The experiment did not allow to observe that they were the parents and the son does not cross with them. Experiment is the key word of science.

Really well you better get all the convicted murderers and rapists out the prision then. As well as the finanicial relief for fathers. This is the test they use in the court of law.

And even with these limitations RAPD is still pretty damn accurate.

And I noticed you conviently didn't mention ISSR.


Evolutionists cannot understand a simple question – is it a likely consequence or it is the consequence?

No scientist on a paper will ever say 100% definitely A is related to B, that is because science doesn't prove anything, just gathers evidence in favour of a theory. Proof is a mathematical term, not a scientific one.

’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, [ I guess they have searched ALL the wild] and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.

Search all the wild? It only occurs around York. 0.13%? Oh yeah that sucess rate could pull S. erborensis back towards its parent. Rememeber your mule stat? Except in this case S. erborensis is fertile with itself. It is a species.


Common. Please.18.3 % is recorded. In science it does not mean that S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris do not cross. In science it means that they do cross. 1.46% does not mean that they do not cross, it means that they do cross. It is either recorded as I have been stating from the beginning or it is not as you keep on trying… I don’t know what you are trying…

‘’It was concluded that strong breeding barriers exist between the new hybrid species and its two parents.’’

Sure they do exist, I pointed to them.

Can 1.46% blend S. eborensis back together with its parent S. vulgaris? Meanwhile the 98.34% are mating which other and getting more genetically distant from its parent. Simple, it is a new species.
is lying
One can see how evolutionists always cheat. I asked do you have a proof of the parents? And – what? you were waiting for for 2 days? So far you keep on submitting the same numbers, the same observations. I detaily answered all of them, and gave all possible contingences for a case if I am wrong in any of the 7 objections.

Any you were wrong in all 7 of them, congrats.

And you have yet to say are why we cheat and lie!! You strangely keep avoiding that question, I wonder why? Oh yeah your a conspiracy theorist. The whole scientific community is lying to the whole world for reasons justone refuses to tell or can't.


I DO WANT Ikari TO HEAR THAT!!!!. There is no measurable in evolution. This is what a biologist says.

Biology exercised by Christian Creationists scientists has plenty of math in it starting from the papers of the Christian Creationists scientist Gregor Mendel, a trained mathematician and physicist. I am not surprised that Darwin couldn’t comprehend the text of Mendel. I am not surprised that you have no clue about abilities of mathematics. I am not surprised that you do not realize that your statement Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time is a mathematical expression (written wrong, it should be Macroevolution = Microevolution *Time.) I am not surprised that you have no clue that random events are a subject of mathematics.

Oh yeah from Christain creationists I'm sure do lots of math in biology. About odds isn't it? Of course they have to assume evolution is random, which its not. If mathematics can predict biology lol, then it should have no problem predicting the weather 50-100 years into the future. Creationists are the most dishonest people, even churches and their fellow christains turn their back on them.


I quoted YOUR authors. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality. How many more times you are going to come with the same stuff? You posted the link. I pointed to a number of problems, false statements. You keep on bringing Exactly the same problems the same false statements over and over again. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality.

Evidence is right there, a new species was created in the wild that cannot breed sucessfully in the wild with its parents. There is no genetic information exchanged between them, therefore they cannot be the same species and they are destined to drift from each other genetically until they won't be able to breed in the lab.

And still you won't say why we are lying. You are a dishonest creationist justone with an agenda of your own.

You persist in waving good scientific data away with a wave of the wrist.
You don't give a facts to back up your claims, you have only rhetoric.
You don't have any empirical evidence.
You won't even try to repeat these experiments to disprove them.
You are say scientists lie, yet you give no proof, yet you give no reason why we do so! You are a slanderer justone.

Its like trying to convince a 9/11 truther than Islamic terrorists did it.
 
Last edited:
What species can? What Lord?

S. eborensis. The lord of common sense lol.

Exactly, - the process can go backwards. In evolution it does not. But anyway, how do you know it the Senecio eboracensis does become exactly like Senecio vulgaris, I guess it is a guess again?

Yes it can go backwards. S. eborensis could undergo a mutation of a dominat allele which will make it reproduce at the same time of year as its parent S. vulgaris and they blend back together.

It is more likely due to very low crossover rate in the wild between the two ~1% that they will "go their own ways" genetically.

Once again it evolution is not a mathematic model, life is so unpredictable like the weather that is hard to make prediction of sorts.


But we do know that in the here and now, S. erorensis is a species in itself due to massive reproductive barriers between it and its parents.


Science does not know ‘’only’’, “good’’. S. eborcensis and its parent S.vulgaris DO reproduce and it is not established that S.vulgaris is a parent.
They do reproduce. Contrarily to the impression your link and you try to make. In spite of the obvious barriers.

I have provided sufficent genetic evidence that they are related. If you want to challenge that, I suggest you get down to your local lab and get experimenting.

Thats how you challenge a theory. Through experimentation. Until then its just hot air your giving me.

You will probably say to be "your experiments are not proper science", but then you will turn the theory of evolution on its head so much more easily right?


The evidence of you cheating is given to the audience. When you say ”only”, ‘’good’’ in application to counting it is just an example of cheating. When you say that they are parents when no positive identification was made and experiments did not confirm it is another example. Let the audience decide.

You imply that words mean I'm cheating. Surely the only cheating can be done in the experiments. The genetic evidence is there for everyone to see, yes let them decide.


Senecio eborensis can mate, it is out of question. But let’s say it cannot and I assume there should be many examples of such cases with other hybrids.

Most hybrids created are sterile and therefore not species.

Our ancestors were experimenting with hybridization for thousands of years. Lysenko and Mychurin, did too. Trofim Lysenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And in spite of the propaganda one shouldn’t deny that they all achieved impressive results. In all of all Lysenko was a pretty good scientist.

Yes, I have heard of Lysenko. And I read the blurbs of the books you linked too. And I will say, yes, scientists have made mistakes, and have seen things in the results that were not there. But a few instances of this, does not discredit a whole theory has yet to have evidence to be put against it by other scientists, and now creationists.

Species used in evolutionary “’theory”’ have to have evolutionary meaning. That is such and so that I wouldn’t have an opinion. If evolution, then an emerging specie has to have a new amount of (DNA) information not available in his parents and in order not to observe devolution it has to gain more information than his parents have, or to be more complex.

No it doesn't have to gain DNA just a change of it. The organism with the most DNA is the Ameoba which has 10 times the genome of a human. Hardly the most complex creature ever.
259px-


As far as evolution is concerned all Senecios are the same specie, - with all different forms of it and all possible hybrids which are known to be a dead end.

No Senecios are a genus, not a species. If you above statement is correct, then all cats in the world are the same species, all bears are the same species, etc.

So speaking evolution we rather have different forms of the same specie and hybrids when the latter are not more but rather less complex and have a lesser content of information (which is absolutely obvious). It is obvious, that asking the question I and everyone else were looking for speciation in evolutionary meaning but not for all possible meanings, not for a plant and manipulation with the definition of speciation. In microbiology they call it strains, you can use forms or something.

It is not a manipulation of the def of speciation, allopolyploidy, autopolyploidy and hyrbidisation can be legimate speciation events. In fact wheat was created this way.


It is the first one as wiki hints used as an example of evolution. You have ignored a whole list of more important facts. It is not the 1st one occurring as I stated and state. You are cheating again.

Oh sorry, I actually misunderstood you. I have ignored nothing.


Quoting 1. and 2. you reply to 2. only and ignore 1. It is cheating. You are using nature frivolously. You should say in the wild.

No I wasn't. S. eborensis and S. vulgaris cannot mate sucessfully in the wild because they cannot sustain a population or genetic drift towards the parent species.



What would make one suggest that if they can reproduce in lab they cannot reproduce in the wild I don’t know. What is the meaning of the experiment where I wouldn’t know
The plants were artificially synthesized and forced from the start. Following your logic I have to say that it is also an undeniable proof that S. squalidus’’and S. vulgaris are not parents in the wild, but only in the lab when forced.

Speciation can only happen in the wild. We can artifically breed them but thats not part of evolution or nature, thats us making **** happen.

Again genetic tests of RAPD and ISSR confirm the parents are those two, I can't believe you won't accept a scientific method that is used by the court of law today.

’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, - [I guess they have searched ALL the wild I want to see how] - and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

Random sampling is the best one we have got. If a big batch of S. eborensis X S. squalis comes up the science will be self-corrected if the data suggests it should. Science is self-correcting after all. Until that S. eborensis (though the lab results of S. eborensis X S. squalis show very little probabiltiy of that happening due to very very low sucessful corssovers in a lab) is a new species.


’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low ‘’ BUT RECORDED!!!

Yes again I say, the crossover in the wild between S. eborensis and s. vulagris is so low it cannot maintain a genetic drift back towards the parents species. They are destined to drift away from each other if anything. Therefore it can only be classed as a seperate species.



Even if they did it does not mean that they are life and life evolves. They may be food for life and thus consist of amino acids etc familiar to life digestion system, but it does not mean that life and plants turn not each other, there is no such an observation made. (As well it does not mean that ALL 3 bacteria are life as there no observation of bacteria turning into life).

All this sample shows is that species change and it doing so could possibly leaving it sexually isolated, which it turn will make it genetically drift from its parent species.

You said speciation did not occur, I have showed otherwise.



Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics deals with chaos from the day one. Actually it is the main goal of mathematics since the day one - to deal with chaos.

Until it can predict the weather, I will take interest in mathematics predicting evolutionary theory.




The Supposition that our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination of a creationist. You can think that God made our 2nd chromosome of 2 ape chromosomes, but I want to see it occurring.

If were not once apes how can we have two ape chromosomes fused together. In fact if we are made in the image of God, why does God have two ape chromosomes fused together? And why would he put two ape chromosomes fused together in the first place in a human? Does he have a sense of humour

I want to see your version of creation occuring. But I don't see it do I?

You berate evolution for that hardly having any observational evidence, yet you subscribe to an idea with NO observational evidence at all. lol lol. Wow, just wow.


all those transitional fossils are Fantasies.

Yeah of course they are, the half reptile - half bird fossil is a fantasy, the fish with limbs fossil is a fantasy as well I take it? And you have the nerve to call scientists dishonest?
 
Last edited:
If species were seperate from each other they would have a completely different ERV DNA sequence since ERV's infuse their DNA randomly at about 1 trillion different available places. This is not we find.

I'm not arguing that the species didn't separate at some point along the historical timeline or that chimps and humans are "separate". I'm pointing out that there is a disconnect on the information that is being given, and what it means exactly.

ERV DNA is strong support for evolution, IMO. But it isn't necessarily "proof" of the current theories of evolution.



Out of interest can you link me a paper with this ~70% similarity between humans and chimps? I tried, but just found creationist sites.

Technically "similarity" is the wrong word.

If you look at the genome as a whole, it is 96% similar. But if you look at genetic alignment, the way the genes separate and such, the variation is closer to 76%

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project]Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not aligned with the human genome. "

Here's the full article: Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

My point is that even though there is a 96% similarity in the actual genome when viewed in it's entirety, there is only a 76% similarity in genetic alignment.

We aren't fully aware of what this means exactly. I am not arguing that humans and chimps did not split from a common ancestor at some point. To me that is the most reasonable explanation of these data.

I'm not arguing against that.

BUT, and this is the crux of my point, the way that science is supposed to work is that we perform the studies, make the comparisons, and then our conclusions should not be subjective. They should simply state the data. We can then speculate as to what it means. That's what evolution is. A speculation. It's not a conclusion. The scientific conclusion sis that humans and chimps have a 96% similarity across the genome with a 76% similarity in gene alignment.

The way that such a study should be performed is that you start with a hypothesis based on a theory. i.e. Humans and chimps will have a strong genetic similarity.

Then the observational experiment will be performed.

Then the data will be analyzed.

Then the hypothesis is confirmed or denied by the data.

That's it. Nothing more. After the hypothesis is confirmed or denied, then it delves into the realm of philosophy where speculations are made as to why this similarity exists, what triggered the similarities is untestable, thus unscientific.

That doesn't negate the theory that triggered the hypothesis. It can support it in an inductive way. It can make it the most logical conclusion based on the data, but logic is not science, it's philosophy. Albeit, a scientific philosophy, vs. teh many other variations of philosophy that exist.

And that's the main point I'm trying to make.

Natural Selection is only a part of Evolution, a big part, but not the whole.

What I find interesting is that there is evidence that the authors put this into their paper:

"There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans"

I'm not convinced natural selection is a big a factor as has been stated. They aren't arguing against evolution. They are doing what should be done. The data doesn't jibe with the speculations, so we adjust the speculations.

I haven't seen conclusive evidence that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. That could be because I'm limited in what I have read, but it could also be because ti isn't the driving force behind evolution.

We should not be married to a speculation simply becaus ewe think it is the most logical speculation.

1. No, speciation can occur from allopolyploidy, autopolyploid and hybrdisation, especially in plants, this has been documents for decades.

I wasn't implying that this didn't happen. These are the speciations we are fully aware of, but they follow certain mechanisms.


2. Yes, not all speciation needs natural selection, sexual selection also plays apart and the above processes in number 1.

Agreed. Although, I'm not convinced that ANY speciation needs natural selection. I think most of the data that I have seen, from scientific journals, suggests that it isn't involved in speciation so much as it is a factor in variance across a single species.

That being said, logically, it makes sense to me that it is a part of speciation. I don't actually doubt it as a factor in it. I just cannot bring myself to call it a definitive factor until I see strong evidence to suggest that it is. So far, all I've seen is evidence that suggests it possibly, or even probably, is a factor.


Most people when they think of evolution, think of animals, leaving out plants all together. Granted this type of speciation is extremely rare in animals, but not in plants. This hybrid is fertile and cannot mate with its parents sucessfully in the wild. A species is a group of indivuals that can only mate with each other to produce fertile and viable offsrping. Senecio Eborensis fits this description.


I agree. Although I must add the definition of species is tossed on it's ear by the very existence of a fertile hybrid like Senecio eborensis. It's definiteive proof that two separate species mated to produce fertile and viable offspring. That kills the "only mate with each other" aspect of the definition.


Natural selection is not random. Very little selection in nature is random, it is usuall a response to an event.

Good point. The variation must exist before the event in order for selection to occur. That means that the mutation itself is not what triggers speciation. It would have to be repeated variations and multiple events.


No speciation through hybridisation as been incorporated into the Theory of Evolution for some time.

But why isn't this triggering more quetioning of the older views?


Of course, the more data the better. Like I said if you found that a hedgehog is more genetically related to us than a chimpanzee, it would turn the theory of evolution on its head.

I'm not talking about evolution so much as the mechanisms hypothesised as the methods of how it happens. I believe in evolution. I'm not interested in disproving evolution. I'm interested in challenging the **** out of commonly held views that are not supported by the data.

That's something that gets lost in the whole debate. Since there is a certain segment that wants to disprove evolution altogether, anyone who is willing to challenge the current thoughts around evolution is assumed to be an opponent to evolution.

To me, evolution is in it's ptolemeic state. It is still using epicycles to describe the evidence, instead of changing it's perspective, throwing away the old way of thinking and relooking at the new data with freesh eyes.

Is Germ theory philosophical? Gravity? Atoms? A round earth? Are these all "philosophical?

When they were first thought up? Of course, most were philosophy.

Democritus, the greek philosopher, thought up the atom way back in 250 BC.

When the first person thought of a round Earth, they did so out of pure speculation.

Just because something is thought up using philosophy does not mean it will not eventually be supported science and proven empirically to be true.
 
This statement alone shows that you don't really know what evolution is.



This statement alone shows that you don't really know what evolution is.

Just because there are competing theories, doesn't make it false.

I don’t claim that it makes it false, do I? To the extend of your logic and evidence known or believed by you to exist It may be false, it may be true. In either case it proves it not be science.

My version and his version still follows the concepts within evolution itself.

The quite universal version “Evolution= Microevolution*Time’’ has been disproved. As to other competing versions they do not constitute a consistent theory a body one would be checking out, - there is no meaning in checking out all the versions existed, existing and coming to existence, as there are no rules for them which would prevent them from coming and adding more and more to the pile of the existing garbage. Scientists are not garbage men, evolutionists are.
 
Out of interest can you link me a paper with this ~70% similarity between humans and chimps? I tried, but just found creationist sites.


Says the guy who then posts an explicit propagandist video made by evolutionists and previously rebuked as garbage on DP.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...falsehoods-creationism-17.html#post1057924374

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...al-falsehoods-creationism.html#post1057877166

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...al-falsehoods-creationism.html#post1057878226

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...falsehoods-creationism-17.html#post1057924508

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...falsehoods-creationism-20.html#post1057928654


And then he tries to say that he is not cheating.
 
Oh did you? And you are the authority of such matters justone?

A typical argument of an evolutionist – and who are you?
- Who are you to tell me?
- And who are you to tell me?

As I told many times, I do not have to be an authority to establish the obvious fact that evolutionists use morphology as a measurement. It is what you do, I just point to the fact that you do.


How so? Come on justone explain your rejections. Or are you authority of such matters lol? Whatt you say is 100% correct and we should take it faith you are?

I stated ‘’Proposed is not established or observed’’. I do not need to explain that this statement is true to anybody except evolutionists, and it is evident to anybody except evolutionists that nothing can be explained to evolutionists if they ask for explanation of such a simple truth.

They do genetic tests of maternal and paternal relationships. The same method they use in the court of law.

Really well you better get all the convicted murderers and rapists out the prision then. As well as the finanicial relief for fathers. This is the test they use in the court of law.

As I told many times, Neither your link, nor my investigation ever shows that your statement is true, but only the opposite can be deducted.



And I noticed you conviently didn't mention ISSR.

I do not have time or intention to go through all BS you wish to post. I did not have to because I quoted the results of ISSR and as it was evident from the quote they did NOT establish parenthood, but ->

And even with these limitations RAPD is still pretty damn accurate.
-> were still pretty damn accurate, as I told many times,

No scientist on a paper will ever say 100% definitely A is related to B, that is because science doesn't prove anything, just gathers evidence in favour of a theory. Proof is a mathematical term, not a scientific one.
Then what are DNA tests for courts for?

As I told many times, It all starts from the fact I have demonstrated so many times, - evolutionists do not know, do not understand, do not follow rules of science from the very start, starting from Darwin. They bring confusion to most simple things as they have no ability to understand most simple things. Indeed science by its nature does not make true statements, it does not establish any truth. When you read on your calendar that the Sun will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am it is not a 100% definite and true statement. There is no logical proof for the statement that if it was raining/shining for the last n days then it will rain/shine/rise tomorrow to be true. It is a proposition - on the base of observations of the sun in the past it is proposed that it will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am as the proposition is 100% proven by mathematical calculations coming to the number 4.53 and there are no observations of the past or mathematical proofs related to this or that observation that would result in a different number, a different proposition. Science does not gather evidence, it is not an evidence related activity, it is an empirical EXPERIMENTAL activity, it starts from gathering observations of a phenomena (occurrences of the sun rising) and finishes with occurrences of phenomena.

As I told many times, This is the core difference between science using the inductive method to make propositions, and evolution or philosophy using the deductive method to establish the truth.


Search all the wild? It only occurs around York.
?????????
0.13%? Oh yeah that sucess rate could pull S. erborensis back towards its parent. Rememeber your mule stat? Except in this case S. erborensis is fertile with itself. It is a species.

Mule stats is noticeably different. As I told many times, you have not established the number dividing successful from unsuccessful. You change order and float the point 0.1 to 0.000001 at will just to fit your beliefs.


Can 1.46% blend S. eborensis back together with its parent S. vulgaris? Meanwhile the 98.34% are mating which other and getting more genetically distant from its parent.
How the same plant duplicating the same genetic information is getting more distant from the same plant? And whatever is the answer, - as I asked so many times, -what observation does confirm such a suggestion?



One can see how evolutionists always cheat. I asked do you have a proof of the parents? And – what? you were waiting for for 2 days? So far you keep on submitting the same numbers, the same observations. I detaily answered all of them, and gave all possible contingences for a case if I am wrong in any of the 7 objections.

Any you were wrong in all 7 of them, congrats. .

Another cheating, - it takes consideration of all the 7 AS THEY ARE submitted before making congrats. You did not do a single one out of 7 yet

And you have yet to say are why we cheat and lie!! You strangely keep avoiding that question, I wonder why? Oh yeah your a conspiracy theorist. The whole scientific community is lying to the whole world for reasons justone refuses to tell or can't.
You are pulling the same worn out ad hom a strawmen fallacies and again and again and again and again. You are –reusing the same condom again and again and again. How many more times?

Oh yeah from Christain creationists I'm sure do lots of math in biology. About odds isn't it? Of course they have to assume evolution is random, which its not. If mathematics can predict biology lol, then it should have no problem predicting the weather 50-100 years into the future. Creationists are the most dishonest people, even churches and their fellow christains turn their back on them.

I gave you a concrete reference to them doing math. You have not made a word related to the reference and the facts but went into you usual violent assault on religion of other people. As well you have completely ignored my reply to your statement about evolution and mathematics. For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice that, then nobody notices that. I wonder how much Ikari is blinded by his hatred and if he can see what I wanted to demonstrate to him. Ikari, where are you?

Now let’s go to meaningless insults and insinuations evolutionists always use as the main argument:
You persist in waving good scientific data away with a wave of the wrist.

With a wave of the wrist? For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice detailed arguments, quotes and facts I have been submitting, then nobody notices?



You don't give a facts to back up your claims, you have only rhetoric.


You don't have any empirical evidence.

I have been considering mostly YOUR evidence.

You won't even try to repeat these experiments to disprove them.

I have assumed that the quoted sources of yours report their experiments as they should, and I have no evidence telling me that I should think otherwise and not to trust them.

You are a hack.

Because I trust your sources?

Its like trying to convince a 9/11 truther than Islamic terrorists did it.

As I asked many times, how many times have you already used this line?
 
Last edited:
Yes it can go backwards. S. eborensis could undergo a mutation of a dominat allele which will make it reproduce at the same time of year as its parent S. vulgaris and they blend back together.

It is more likely due to very low crossover rate in the wild between the two ~1% that they will "go their own ways" genetically.

Once again it evolution is not a mathematic model, life is so unpredictable like the weather that is hard to make prediction of sorts.

So your prediction is as good as mine? I think your prediction would be 99% better than mine if self priming hybrids were observed to branch into different species.
If evolution is so unpredictable, then it does not have any logic, any laws in it, it is no law, no theory of nature, no science, because science itself is based on the belief that we can sort out happenings of nature. BTW weather is highly predictable. For instance it is easy to predict that winter temperatures will follow autumn temperatures for quite a long period of time.

But we do know that in the here and now, S. erorensis is a species in itself due to massive reproductive barriers between it and its parents.

You have been missing or ignoring points again and again and again. I had established the barriers with an example of pregnant women from the start. I pointed that considerations of possible dynamic of the barriers were avoided/ignored in the consideration of the experiment. I pointed that you cannot say they do not mate with parents when parents were guessed out and when they did mate with guessed out parents. I pointed that the experiments were – since I had no contrary facts – scientific and were reported in scientific way, while the conclusions made were bogus and contradicting to the findings of the experiments and were partially based on no experiments needed to make them. I pointed that however frivolously you want and I allow you to call the Yorker a new specie it is not a speciation related or leading or suggesting evolution, but it is rather a dead end which has been proven to be such by all natural and lab experiments observed by humans and scientists. I pointed that it was NOT an observation of speciation in the evolutionary meaning as I, of course, was asking for, that you cheated again. Even some evolutionists saw it was not.


I have provided sufficent genetic evidence that they are related. If you want to challenge that, I suggest you get down to your local lab and get experimenting.


Did I challenge? I addressed your genetic evidence, - did I challenge that it was true?

Thats how you challenge a theory. Through experimentation. Until then its just hot air your giving me.

You will probably say to be "your experiments are not proper science", but then you will turn the theory of evolution on its head so much more easily right?

How many times I have to repeat?
I pointed and assumed that the experiments were – since I had no contrary facts – scientific and were reported in a scientific way, while the conclusions were bogus and contradicting to the findings of the experiments and were partially based on no experiments needed to make them, and were frivolous and bias; that however frivolously you want and I allow you to call the Yorker a new specie it is not a speciation related or leading or suggesting evolution, but it is rather a dead end which has been proven to be such by all natural and lab experiments observed by humans and scientists.
You imply that words mean I'm cheating. Surely the only cheating can be done in the experiments. The genetic evidence is there for everyone to see, yes let them decide.
Most hybrids created are sterile and therefore not species.

Try to understand, you have to reply to my statements as they are submitted. You never do. I said: 1. Senecio eborensis can mate, it is out of question. 2. “I assume there should be many examples of such cases with other hybrids.”
You answer: ‘’2. Most hybrids created are sterile and 1. therefore not species.’’

You have not refuted but confirmed my statement and you have contradicting your own idea of species

No it doesn't have to gain DNA just a change of it. The organism with the most DNA is the Ameoba which has 10 times the genome of a human. Hardly the most complex creature ever.
You don’t understand. Complex or more information is not what DNA is longer. How many times did Tucker try to explain such a simple thing to you?
You type a long sentence which is not only all meaningless and disconnected from reality, but also you repeat yourself, reuse the same condom again and again. The more times you repeat your self, the less info your sentence provides. I on other side type a short sentence which is not only related to greater facts and includes them, but also makes TC and IC think and spur to action, as it is loaded with info and of a greater complexity or greater potential or enthalpy or inner energy, or ability to do work than yours.

It is obvious that any plant or animal capable of mating with other plants or animal has more info and more complex than a plant or animal which sterile or highly sterile or self reproducing, as it is absolutely obvious that Adam and Eve couple has a LOT more info, complexity, enthalpy, inner energy, ability to do work than Adam and John or Eve and Mary couples.


No Senecios are a genus, not a species. If you above statement is correct, then all cats in the world are the same species, all bears are the same species, etc.
It is not a manipulation of the def of speciation, allopolyploidy, autopolyploidy and hyrbidisation can be legimate speciation events. In fact wheat was created this way.

As I stated many times you make it legitimate at will, even if it makes no sense and has no measurable. And as it has no objective measurable it allows all kinds of manipulation. Ask Ikari if you don’t believe me.
No I wasn't. S. eborensis and S. vulgaris cannot mate sucessfully in the wild because they cannot sustain a population or genetic drift towards the parent species.

Speciation can only happen in the wild. We can artifically breed them but thats not part of evolution or nature, thats us making **** happen.

It either happens or does not, the cause is of a secondary importance. If you create evolution in a lab, it is still evolution.

Again genetic tests of RAPD and ISSR confirm the parents are those two, I can't believe you won't accept a scientific method that is used by the court of law today.

Let me repeat the 5th time, - if the same method was used in the court of law I would believe. I quoted that it was not, I quoted the results of your authors – it was clear they couldn’t submit such conclusions in the court for a positive identification.
Random sampling is the best one we have got. If a big batch of S. eborensis X S. squalis comes up the science will be self-corrected if the data suggests it should. Science is self-correcting after all. Until that S. eborensis (though the lab results of S. eborensis X S. squalis show very little probabiltiy of that happening due to very very low sucessful corssovers in a lab) is a new species.

I did not question random sampling. I did not question the result of the tests. I questioned many other things including – very little, very low, but not random sampling.

Yes again I say, the crossover in the wild between S. eborensis and s. vulagris is so low it cannot maintain a genetic drift back towards the parents species. They are destined to drift away from each other if anything. Therefore it can only be classed as a seperate species.

All this sample shows is that species change and it doing so could possibly leaving it sexually isolated, which it turn will make it genetically drift from its parent species.

You said speciation did not occur, I have showed otherwise.

And you have proved by making logical conclusion: ‘’All this sample shows is that species change and it doing so could possibly leaving it sexually isolated, which it turn will make it genetically drift from its parent species’’ that I still have to wait until your possibility turns into reality. I am not questioning what is more possible or what is less possible and what is “highly”’ improbable. I am asking – what is?
And I see what is – I see no observation of speciation in evolutionary meaning.
 
Last edited:
Until it can predict the weather, I will take interest in mathematics predicting evolutionary theory.

Mathematics does not predict, it describes. Since as you admit there is no math in evolution it is no more valid guess than a prediction of weather for the next year in my town. I never questioned how much valid it is I just pointed that it is a baseless and meaningless guess. I also pointed that it does not have measurable required even by such a distant from science and die hard evolutionist as Ikari.



If were not once apes how can we have two ape chromosomes fused together. In fact if we are made in the image of God, why does God have two ape chromosomes fused together? And why would he put two ape chromosomes fused together in the first place in a human? Does he have a sense of humour

God by definition has the most perfect sense of humor. You are a God’s creature and a living proof.

I want to see your version of creation occuring. But I don't see it do I?

Creation is not science. I form no hypothesis when I follow rules of science. In science however logical is the conclusion that gods move the sun and however many people agree with it and however nobody has a better explanation, I have to see gods moving at least a stone, before I even consider a possibility of them moving the sun.

And knowing that I am a Christian creationist you should be aware of my version, it is the same as for all Christian Creationists – Newton or Mendel or the priest/pastor of your nearest Christian church.


You berate evolution for that hardly having any observational evidence, yet you subscribe to an idea with NO observational evidence at all. lol lol. Wow, just wow.
Wow, just wow. I have not been questioning evolution as hardly having any evidence, moreover I respect people who believe in evolution and I know that they base their beliefs on empirical evidence and logic. But when you are attacking my beliefs based on evidence and my logic, I have to demonstrate that your logic fails miserably. I have to demonstrate that you’re a blind fanatic forcing your system of beliefs on others in most dishonest and indecent ways.


Yeah of course they are, the half reptile - half bird fossil is a fantasy, the fish with limbs fossil is a fantasy as well I take it? And you have the nerve to call scientists dishonest?

I don’t call anybody dishonest, I prove. In all of all now you ignore most of my points, and dance in circles repeating and reciting and derailing to fossils.

It is all derailed and going in circles. I listed reasons why your link is not an observation of speciation in evolutionary meaning , you went in circles as usual.
 
I think the bolded is where we are having the misunderstanding.

The way I see it, if the environment changes, the level of competition between species also changes. The competition itself is the catalyst for change/adaptation. The environment is auxiliary, though a factor nonetheless.

Actually, it was the environment. Ain't no chimps living on the savannah. They went extinct in those areas. So it wasn't interspecies competition, it was merely environmental pressures culling out those least fit to survive.

Arrogance is unneeded.

It's always needed.
 
So you admit that your claims of "conclusive evidence" are basically just lies you made up.

Nope. Try reading what was written, stop putting words in people's mouths. Just in case no one's told you, they notice.

Here I thought you would actually try to defend the comments, but instead you just admit that your claims of conclusive proof MUST be lies because

No. Facts do not require defense. You need to show they're not facts.

A. It is WELL known the fossil record is incomplete.

It is well known the fossil record is complete enough to link the horse, the ass, and the zebra to hyracotherium.

B. Without DNA evidence, or a complete fossil record, there can be nothing that is "conclusive" evidence of ANY mutations. Could easily be hybridization or polyploidy. You don't know. No one knows.

Guess what? Evolution is defined as the change in genome of a line of organisms over time. doesn't say how those changes have to occur.

Since I'm not going to waste any more time reading your post, tell me, have you stated your theory of where species come from since you reject the proven science and facts of evolution by natural selection?

Are you going to state your understanding of what "really" happened, or not?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom