Both of these examples by Neoignis are from either mutagens or manipulation and are not new species. Yes I understand them to be classified as such by evolutionists. Also, these are not naturalistic explanations. They are chemical and human manipulations. Not at all a missing link for your evolutionary theory.
This is genetic modification and does not occur in naturalistic genetic recombination. In essence man has designed any change. This is called Recombinant DNA. Recombinant DNA is a form of DNA that does not exist naturally, which is CREATED by combining DNA sequences that would not normally occur together.
In terms of genetic modification, recombinant DNA is introduced through the addition of relevant DNA into an existing organismal DNA, such as the plasmids of bacteria, to code for or alter different traits for a specific purpose, such as antibiotic resistance. It differs from genetic recombination, in that it does not occur through processes within the cell, but is engineered.
So, no hybridization can account for new kingdoms of kinds, since we know alleles become a blocking mechanism and keeps interrelational mating from occurring. Then every new kind is not from variation but actually from mutation according to Neoignis.
Every kingdom would have had to have had one of these mutations and caused every kingdom of kinds to exist. We can study mutation and we should be able to look at every kind and see this mutation having occurred and we dont see this within different species of kinds or kingdoms.
The statistical possibility of these mutations to have occurred to every kingdom of kinds when we have only supposedly seen this through the creation of man through recombinant DNA, would be a miracle far more incomprehensible than say that of all kingdoms of kinds fitting on an ark.
No. HeLa cells are not factually proven to be a new microbial species. Ok we are now going to move to mutation. Theory 4 or 5 or 6, I lost count. So as far as variation is concerned we have concluded that species stay within their kind. Although mutation is a gene variant it must be noted that it is not a beneficial gene variant and thus should be categorized different from variation in hybridization. And it is.
Recombination (variation) and mutation are completely different categories and can be studied as such.
What have we seen scientifically so far, as you have conceded is that species stay in their kind. If we were to just stay with that evidence alone we would now see that the science does seem to hold to the science of interdependency and constancy which fits Intelligent Design. The only thing we have proven so far is that we stay in our kind. Period.
The evolutionist attempts to convolute speciation. Such as in Tragopogon there are said to be 43 species. Now if you look at the plant you can obviously see it is all the same kind. There are 43 different colors and slight variations.
So if the evolutionist can convince you that these are different species and if theses different species are slight variations then they now have set you up and now they just have to say, well come on now just take it a little farther and now imagine if that variation one day had a mutation and now we have a new kingdom. Notice the verbage now. Kingdom even sounds religious.
Evolution is dogmatic and this is no more than evolutionary proselytization in a faith based argument. We see how evolution has all of the dogma of the greatest religions. It has even a greater leap of faith than most religions. You can see how Neoignis is proselytizing evolution to me. No thank you. You have no empirical evidence. You are entering the supernatural and science fiction. Neoignis said for BROADER species, quote, we would not expect to see it in historical time. This is FAITH!
You have not proven my speciation answers not to be true. You are now speaking of mutation. Cancer is mutation and is never a beneficial gene variant. Unless of course you think that cancer is beneficial. Mutation causes decrease in useful information or an increase in harmful information.
Mutations are copying errors. And they are changes from outside or external mutagens. And mutations are deleterious or injurious. Also it must be pointed out that these gene variants are usually not passed on. It is within the design of an organism that it has this ability to fix mutations and does not pass it on to the next generation. Beneficial gene variants do get passed on. We should be able to go to someone else in Mrs. Lacks family and get some more HeLa.
This mutagen gene variant is not evidence as it at least attempted to be fixed by DNA repair. It is not passed to the next generation. These should be passed to the next kingdom and it does not. The offspring may have a greater potential of having this mutation but if it had created a new kind it would be passed to all such as in blood types.
All HeLa cells descended from the same tumor cells removed from Ms. Lacks. Since these cells were stolen from Mrs. Lacks we can conclude that this research can possibly be duplicated but there may not be enough research done in the exact environmental situation yet. It is logical to assume that exact harmful gene variant could be replicated again under the same conditions. All this proves is a horizontal gene transfer or HGT. Thus we have not really found the evidence Neoignis hoped for.
These mutations influenced by external damages are no proof of speciation of new kinds, families, kingdoms, as they can be explained otherwise. These cells are very possibly a result of survival mechanisms that are within ones kind already and are dormant or formed when the external environmental damage is introduced.
This is a horizontal variation not a vertical one. What we have now is the survival of the misfit, not proof of Darwinian evolution. You are making me a prophet as I accurately predicted so far every argument in advance that you will bring to me. I will not join you and Darwin in reducing myself to a little more than a monkey. No you will not make a monkey out of me. You insult my intelligence.
I have been very patient with you as I have allowed you to proselytize your religion freely and you have not given me enough scientific evidence to bring me to your side. Nor will you because I have already researched it. It is you my friend that has posted one strawman theory after another. You may want to reconsider.
If I were to argue that there is a God but you cant see Him, but there is evidence of Him all around as Neoignis basically did with evolution. Neoignis would laugh at me. But then thats exactly what he has said about the proof for evolution.
The word kind in Hebrew is miyn. It means family of species. It is used scientifically in the Bible in Genesis chapter 1 by a man who was the price of Egypt turned into the prophet of God name Moses and he wrote for God, in Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25, that everything populates after their kind. This still holds to be scientifically fact. Never has anyone seen species cross kingdoms.
Please make a closing argument as you came here saying you got the facts but now have been proven to believe in anecdotal evidence that you dont expect us to ever see. You have proven nothing but you also believe by faith.
Let me bring this down even farther so you can understand. This is a defense mechanism so that the species may survive. This is merely reshuffling or recombination of characteristics already implicitly present. And it certainly does not create anything new in an evolutionary sense. Recombination does not generate something new, certainly not something of a higher order of complexity.
In effect it is merely another name for variation. This is always a survival mechanism of a species and has not actually created a new kind. This is merely hybridization of the same kind as a survival mechanism that would have already been part of their genetic encodation.
This argument is explained and shows DNA gene variants. But these gene variant are only beneficial within their kind (you figure it out). This is seen in species that can through radical environmental change or purposeful manipulation can become asexual for example. This allows for the preservation of their species not for new families or kinds.
We will see that you will make variations of the same argument for speciation. This argument is just a variation of your fruit fly argument.
You are merely concocting theories by morphing scientific disciplines without factual evidence to take the radical faith based jump you will need to go to get your plant to become anything other than a plant or your fly being anything other than a fly.
Yea I am familiar with your website it mentions kinds in it. Not as a definition but in its language. You should actually read something other than the same old thing to be a true scientist.
Recap. So we have proven that evolution is theory and now Neogenis wants to put together a BODY of strawman arguments to prove this theory. That if I were to do the same he would cry foul as he would say that I have no empirical evidence.
Thank you we are again at your faith based argument on anecdotal evidence that if you theorize outside of the data you can concoct a theory known as evolution. You have a fly experiment, then a bunch of speculation, you ignore cosmology, thermodynamics, interdependency and you speculate against all these for a guess on the study of origins and that in any rational thinkers mind would be on the scale of Biblical proportions.
The only laboratory science you have presented is a fruit fly experiment and beneficial gene variants within ones own kind. And yes I do understand that there is more to microbiology than that. Recapitulation Theory, seen that on Shark Boy and Lava Girl. Morphology, seen it on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Punctual Equilibrium, seen it on X Men.
Morphological data may appear, morphologically speaking, to be two distinct species, but in fact be shown by DNA analysis to be a single species. There is no gene variant that has through DNA analysis been proven to be anything other than a hybrid.
The truth is we are now entering into science fiction. I do understand your side can tell great tales of fantasy as you merely turn on the TV and see one science channel after another weaving these fascinating theories between the evidence. This is intellectual dishonesty.
You piggy back theories and call them fact as we have scientifically proven. Just read back through this thread and you will learn that Neogenis came on stating that anything other than what he believes is laughable, and he has the facts on where man comes from. He then is proven to use anecdotal evidence or theory time after time and stating this as fact but actually is logical fallacy.
He is going to go on to take me down a fairy tale like story of romantic interrelational guesses outside of the biological sciences which would be considered bestiality if we did this outside of our own family of kinds. These fairy tales will have no more evidence than a Disney character kissing a frog and becoming a prince. Or then he will offer a radical jump in species in a non proven speculation called punctual equilibrium which is entirely faith based, anecdotal and unscientific.
Actually I embarrassed to reduce myself to this mockery. But when you view Neogenis youtube channel you learn that it survives on mocking Christianiity and ID or creation science of any kind. As a Christian I am offended and I am sure God will not be mocked. This is just a little reciprocity after viewing a couple of Neoignis videos. Sorry.
Yeah, the color argument, you will want to change that to features in an attempt to distance yourself from Darwin even though Darwin concluded is that features show how he thought black people have similar features to chimpanzee.
Although you will try to avoid this it is the logical conclusion of where you are headed here.
So you are going to leave the data for speculation. Are you sure you want to go here? The EVOLUTION of this argument you are trying to set up will have to eventually take a leap of FAITH. So why not just concede now that we are at THEORY number three in our debate.
No I do not accept this definition of evolution. Evolution encompasses many disciplines. Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Cosmology, Evolutionary Sociobiology, Evolution of Biological Individuals, Evolution of Ontology, Evolutionary Anthropology, ect.
And it also must be taken into account that because of the laws of constancy, interdependency, and entropy, that there is the possibility of a Metaphysical Precondition. And it logically follows that any metaphysical precondition would effect how we study Biology.
The evolution of your argument is since alleles allow for change of a species at all, then you argue it is logical that it follows that this adaptation would lead to new families of species. No. This only proves adaptation within species.
The only adaptation we have been able to study scientifically demonstrates that alleles become a blocking mechanism called mortality that seems to hinder evolutionary theory not prove it. Adaptation does not prove mutation or punctual equilibrium or the evolution from lets say Chimpanzee to Lucy to me (I know thats a broad brush). So you are merely theorizing without empirical evidence.
You are demonstrating what is called anecdotal evidence. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. Anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. You are the only one in this debate that has said you have factual empirical evidence. It would have to empirical in order to prove it in a controlled environment to be a fact.
So now you must admit we are in fact at your second theoretical argument sinced you used Biology as your factual proof, as you said, the fact that you think Biology proves your side empirically.
ARE YOU VEGAN? This question is very important now.
Sorry. I became a theist and the result of evolutionary science and its intellectual dishonesty, such as claiming species changing families through mutation, interrelational theory or punctual equilibrium or any natural selection which has never been seen in a controlled environment.
Kinds, Branches, Families. The truth is that you have not seen these families in a controlled environment change kinds therefore they are all just hybrids and you are merely THEORIZING that one family can change into another. The fact is that every family has alleless that cause a mortality mechanism to be the factor that that bars interrelational THEORY.
You must now admit that we are at theory number 2 on your side since we began our discussion and it is intellectually dishonest to say you have shown the facts as you asserted at the beginning of our friendship.
Fascinating THEORY. All stemming from speculation and one fruit fly observation of adaptation and no scientific empirical evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.
You see if the evolutionist can convince you by convoluting terms, that you are evolving from your parents and then piggy back speciation of different kinds evolving from that strawman argument they know some just may believe that species can change kinds.
Mechanical postmating isolating mechanisms, such as in Drosophila, does not prove any new species as they are factually a hybrid of the same kind. Sterility of hybrids can act as an isolating mechanism.
But it does not prove the radical jump in evolution of a new kind as postulated by the evolutionist and my friend Neogins.
In fact the mortality we see occur when kinds interrelate is proof that no new species or kinds have developed or, adaptation into new kinds, but it in fact proves that you must stay in your kind.
The fact that Drosophila cannot reproduce when its environment has been radically changed is actually proves my side as mortality will not advance a species into new kinds.
Also if the shark observation of man and mortality is Neogins proof of species change then people must be different species as we observe mortality in our own hominoid species because of alleles. For example it is alleles that cause humans to have blood types that again introduce mortality. I guess Neogins does in fact believe humans of different blood types are different species then because of his fruit fly argument using alleles.
Until you can prove in an controlled environment that a fly can be changed into a bird or anything other than its own kind you are merely a part of a theoretical family of thought. THEORY.
Do you hold to punctual equilibrium? THEORY. Is that next?
You cannot discuss evolution without looking at first cause. The whole argument is based on knowing from regress to first cause. You want to cite scientific experiments from the 60s 70s 80s. So your point is to look back and study data. Well you must look back as far as we can go which is first cause. You said it does not matter. Of course it does. You want to avoid first cause because you dont have one. So you must agree that you are theorizing about evolution in part at least.
Does not scientifically looking at evolution in the discussion contain a valid question, how did it start? Would you try to fix your car without ever understanding where it came from? Can you prove science of how to light a candle without discussing the match that lit it? The match or whatever it is that lit the candle is a valid scientific question.
So you must concede that you cannot prove first cause scientifically before we move on. You may have a theory but you keep saying fact. So what we have learned from the sciences of liberal arts or communication is that you have a problem saying you dont know. You dont know! You are theorizing! We will shoot holes through your facts one at a time.
So first thing to establish in our discussion can you factually explain first cause?!
Then we can discuss my favorite color or whatever you want.
It is relevant because if your definition of evolution is true then Darwin has a valid point. If you are looking around as you are with the mind that all other species are more primitive as we regress, (as Darwin called them savages) then, though you will deny it and in false humility claim you do not believe it, yet you have joined Darwins theory.
So what came first the white man or the person of color? By all of the arguments you have made so far the one that came first is the more primitive transition. No? Even I am evolving from my parents, right? So if chimpanzee is an ancestor and less primitive then the proper order of things is that the farther regressed in evolution are more primitive. No?
There is no evolutionist I have ever talked to that dont believe that chimpanzees then those they think look like chimpanzees (color people) on Africa or Aborigines and then, oh, um, Europeans, (whites) are the proper order of things. Isnt that where you are Europe? Are you going to be the first one to deny this and then give me a list of descending transitional fossils to prove me wrong?
With all do respect. You know what I believe. I am the moderator of this channel. Please deal with the last comments as I do not want to visit them again. I have never debated an evolutionist who is not constantly changing the subject. I am a simple man. Please deal with my response. Then it will by my turn, then yours and so and so on.
Yes your first cause admission and your comment about doing a creation experiment is an admission that you cannot prove evolution with empirical evidence but instead you postulate a strawman which is that you cant prove yours so I dont have to prove mine. Which is really an admission on your part that your side is merely theory as well. Then you state again you are the factual science.
For you to be taken serious you cannot say Neogins is fact GraceBibleFN is theory when neither can be proven in a controlled environment. This makes your side look bad. It would be logical for us to continue on the basis that both are theories and we must now look at data beyond first cause.
But it must be said that since you cannot prove first cause through naturalism that the possibility exists since you dont have all knowledge that there could be a metaphysical precondition in the study of the origins of man.
I got it from a Google search. So if it is wrong then I will fix it. I will research further. I had these writings a long time ago but dont have it in my library right now.
Yes I have read Darwin I was an atheist before.
Also. If you feel this video is just to rant because you dont like theism I will block you. Control yourself and post concise arguments with respect. I will come back to try to reply to the many fallacies you posted here. Or perhaps one at a time.
This post is from Charles Darwin quotes from the Decent Of Man, Page - 162,163
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,
....as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla
First. Let me explain simply so you can understand. You have already conceded that you cannot prove evolution scientifically because you have conceded that you cannot explain first cause scientifically. This logically follows that since you cannot prove first cause scientifically that any other argument that follows is not scientific fact as you have falsely asserted but merely speculation.
Second. You go on to argue that my parents are a different species than I am proving my video to be true. The only way these variations could prove evolution is if you define me as a different species than my parents. Any difference between my parent and myself does not prove speciation but it shows that we can vary within our own kind thus you have been proven to be unscientific again.
Unless of course you can recreate a new species from these variations or you can show without any doubt that a species has manifested by this process. Since you cannot then you again have falsely argued that evolution is fact.
What discipline are you going to recreate in a controlled environment that will prove evolution? You cannot so you have been proven to be in error in that you have claimed evolution is a fact. I will fly to wherever you are located to watch these scientific facts take place as you will be the first to ever see them. Thus what we learn is that Darwinian Evolution is faith based as there is no empirical evidence that they can recreate.
To argue that race is not relevant is ridiculous as eugenics takes a large place in Darwinian evolution.
To say that biogenesis, recapitulation theory, the denial of constancy, interational theory, genetics, ect. Prove evolution scientifically is laughable. Merely bad theory. Driven by motive.
You have no scientific empirical evidence for first cause so quit reasoning circularly with strawmen.
Thanks for your comment. Is the series on youtube?
I have a playlist you can see on my channel that shows how the evolutionist teach this racism. The playlist is called Evolution is Racist, and you can see how they transition from monkey to people of color to whites. Their comments on the videos are actually arguing this racism as proof of evolution. As a person myself who is mostly white I think it is disgusting.
When ever you take God out of a society, the value of human life decreases. Just look at Peter Singer. Also the level of ignorance increases as we see with Atheist trying to prove evolution.
Both of these examples by Neoignis are from either mutagens or manipulation and are not new species. Yes I understand them to be classified as such by evolutionists. Also, these are not naturalistic explanations. They are chemical and human manipulations. Not at all a missing link for your evolutionary theory.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
This is genetic modification and does not occur in naturalistic genetic recombination. In essence man has designed any change. This is called Recombinant DNA. Recombinant DNA is a form of DNA that does not exist naturally, which is CREATED by combining DNA sequences that would not normally occur together.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
In terms of genetic modification, recombinant DNA is introduced through the addition of relevant DNA into an existing organismal DNA, such as the plasmids of bacteria, to code for or alter different traits for a specific purpose, such as antibiotic resistance. It differs from genetic recombination, in that it does not occur through processes within the cell, but is engineered.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
So, no hybridization can account for new kingdoms of kinds, since we know alleles become a blocking mechanism and keeps interrelational mating from occurring. Then every new kind is not from variation but actually from mutation according to Neoignis.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Every kingdom would have had to have had one of these mutations and caused every kingdom of kinds to exist. We can study mutation and we should be able to look at every kind and see this mutation having occurred and we dont see this within different species of kinds or kingdoms.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The statistical possibility of these mutations to have occurred to every kingdom of kinds when we have only supposedly seen this through the creation of man through recombinant DNA, would be a miracle far more incomprehensible than say that of all kingdoms of kinds fitting on an ark.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
No. HeLa cells are not factually proven to be a new microbial species. Ok we are now going to move to mutation. Theory 4 or 5 or 6, I lost count. So as far as variation is concerned we have concluded that species stay within their kind. Although mutation is a gene variant it must be noted that it is not a beneficial gene variant and thus should be categorized different from variation in hybridization. And it is.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Recombination (variation) and mutation are completely different categories and can be studied as such.
What have we seen scientifically so far, as you have conceded is that species stay in their kind. If we were to just stay with that evidence alone we would now see that the science does seem to hold to the science of interdependency and constancy which fits Intelligent Design. The only thing we have proven so far is that we stay in our kind. Period.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The evolutionist attempts to convolute speciation. Such as in Tragopogon there are said to be 43 species. Now if you look at the plant you can obviously see it is all the same kind. There are 43 different colors and slight variations.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
So if the evolutionist can convince you that these are different species and if theses different species are slight variations then they now have set you up and now they just have to say, well come on now just take it a little farther and now imagine if that variation one day had a mutation and now we have a new kingdom. Notice the verbage now. Kingdom even sounds religious.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Evolution is dogmatic and this is no more than evolutionary proselytization in a faith based argument. We see how evolution has all of the dogma of the greatest religions. It has even a greater leap of faith than most religions. You can see how Neoignis is proselytizing evolution to me. No thank you. You have no empirical evidence. You are entering the supernatural and science fiction. Neoignis said for BROADER species, quote, we would not expect to see it in historical time. This is FAITH!
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
You have not proven my speciation answers not to be true. You are now speaking of mutation. Cancer is mutation and is never a beneficial gene variant. Unless of course you think that cancer is beneficial. Mutation causes decrease in useful information or an increase in harmful information.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Mutations are copying errors. And they are changes from outside or external mutagens. And mutations are deleterious or injurious. Also it must be pointed out that these gene variants are usually not passed on. It is within the design of an organism that it has this ability to fix mutations and does not pass it on to the next generation. Beneficial gene variants do get passed on. We should be able to go to someone else in Mrs. Lacks family and get some more HeLa.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
This mutagen gene variant is not evidence as it at least attempted to be fixed by DNA repair. It is not passed to the next generation. These should be passed to the next kingdom and it does not. The offspring may have a greater potential of having this mutation but if it had created a new kind it would be passed to all such as in blood types.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
All HeLa cells descended from the same tumor cells removed from Ms. Lacks. Since these cells were stolen from Mrs. Lacks we can conclude that this research can possibly be duplicated but there may not be enough research done in the exact environmental situation yet. It is logical to assume that exact harmful gene variant could be replicated again under the same conditions. All this proves is a horizontal gene transfer or HGT. Thus we have not really found the evidence Neoignis hoped for.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
These mutations influenced by external damages are no proof of speciation of new kinds, families, kingdoms, as they can be explained otherwise. These cells are very possibly a result of survival mechanisms that are within ones kind already and are dormant or formed when the external environmental damage is introduced.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
This is a horizontal variation not a vertical one. What we have now is the survival of the misfit, not proof of Darwinian evolution. You are making me a prophet as I accurately predicted so far every argument in advance that you will bring to me. I will not join you and Darwin in reducing myself to a little more than a monkey. No you will not make a monkey out of me. You insult my intelligence.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
I have been very patient with you as I have allowed you to proselytize your religion freely and you have not given me enough scientific evidence to bring me to your side. Nor will you because I have already researched it. It is you my friend that has posted one strawman theory after another. You may want to reconsider.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
If I were to argue that there is a God but you cant see Him, but there is evidence of Him all around as Neoignis basically did with evolution. Neoignis would laugh at me. But then thats exactly what he has said about the proof for evolution.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The word kind in Hebrew is miyn. It means family of species. It is used scientifically in the Bible in Genesis chapter 1 by a man who was the price of Egypt turned into the prophet of God name Moses and he wrote for God, in Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25, that everything populates after their kind. This still holds to be scientifically fact. Never has anyone seen species cross kingdoms.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Please make a closing argument as you came here saying you got the facts but now have been proven to believe in anecdotal evidence that you dont expect us to ever see. You have proven nothing but you also believe by faith.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Let me bring this down even farther so you can understand. This is a defense mechanism so that the species may survive. This is merely reshuffling or recombination of characteristics already implicitly present. And it certainly does not create anything new in an evolutionary sense. Recombination does not generate something new, certainly not something of a higher order of complexity.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
In effect it is merely another name for variation. This is always a survival mechanism of a species and has not actually created a new kind. This is merely hybridization of the same kind as a survival mechanism that would have already been part of their genetic encodation.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
This argument is explained and shows DNA gene variants. But these gene variant are only beneficial within their kind (you figure it out). This is seen in species that can through radical environmental change or purposeful manipulation can become asexual for example. This allows for the preservation of their species not for new families or kinds.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
We will see that you will make variations of the same argument for speciation. This argument is just a variation of your fruit fly argument.
You are merely concocting theories by morphing scientific disciplines without factual evidence to take the radical faith based jump you will need to go to get your plant to become anything other than a plant or your fly being anything other than a fly.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Yea I am familiar with your website it mentions kinds in it. Not as a definition but in its language. You should actually read something other than the same old thing to be a true scientist.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Recap. So we have proven that evolution is theory and now Neogenis wants to put together a BODY of strawman arguments to prove this theory. That if I were to do the same he would cry foul as he would say that I have no empirical evidence.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Thank you we are again at your faith based argument on anecdotal evidence that if you theorize outside of the data you can concoct a theory known as evolution. You have a fly experiment, then a bunch of speculation, you ignore cosmology, thermodynamics, interdependency and you speculate against all these for a guess on the study of origins and that in any rational thinkers mind would be on the scale of Biblical proportions.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The only laboratory science you have presented is a fruit fly experiment and beneficial gene variants within ones own kind. And yes I do understand that there is more to microbiology than that. Recapitulation Theory, seen that on Shark Boy and Lava Girl. Morphology, seen it on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Punctual Equilibrium, seen it on X Men.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Morphological data may appear, morphologically speaking, to be two distinct species, but in fact be shown by DNA analysis to be a single species. There is no gene variant that has through DNA analysis been proven to be anything other than a hybrid.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The truth is we are now entering into science fiction. I do understand your side can tell great tales of fantasy as you merely turn on the TV and see one science channel after another weaving these fascinating theories between the evidence. This is intellectual dishonesty.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
You piggy back theories and call them fact as we have scientifically proven. Just read back through this thread and you will learn that Neogenis came on stating that anything other than what he believes is laughable, and he has the facts on where man comes from. He then is proven to use anecdotal evidence or theory time after time and stating this as fact but actually is logical fallacy.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
He is going to go on to take me down a fairy tale like story of romantic interrelational guesses outside of the biological sciences which would be considered bestiality if we did this outside of our own family of kinds. These fairy tales will have no more evidence than a Disney character kissing a frog and becoming a prince. Or then he will offer a radical jump in species in a non proven speculation called punctual equilibrium which is entirely faith based, anecdotal and unscientific.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Actually I embarrassed to reduce myself to this mockery. But when you view Neogenis youtube channel you learn that it survives on mocking Christianiity and ID or creation science of any kind. As a Christian I am offended and I am sure God will not be mocked. This is just a little reciprocity after viewing a couple of Neoignis videos. Sorry.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Yeah, the color argument, you will want to change that to features in an attempt to distance yourself from Darwin even though Darwin concluded is that features show how he thought black people have similar features to chimpanzee.
Although you will try to avoid this it is the logical conclusion of where you are headed here.
Are you Vegan?
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
So you are going to leave the data for speculation. Are you sure you want to go here? The EVOLUTION of this argument you are trying to set up will have to eventually take a leap of FAITH. So why not just concede now that we are at THEORY number three in our debate.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
You said:
The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact
So you cannot then tell me that other parts of evolutionary thought are irrelevant.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
It is not my position. It is a factual analysis of the data. Are you going to speculate outside of the data?
Unless of course it is your position that homosapiens of different colors are different species.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
No I do not accept this definition of evolution. Evolution encompasses many disciplines. Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Cosmology, Evolutionary Sociobiology, Evolution of Biological Individuals, Evolution of Ontology, Evolutionary Anthropology, ect.
Oh and cosmetology. JUST KIDDING!
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
And it also must be taken into account that because of the laws of constancy, interdependency, and entropy, that there is the possibility of a Metaphysical Precondition. And it logically follows that any metaphysical precondition would effect how we study Biology.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The evolution of your argument is since alleles allow for change of a species at all, then you argue it is logical that it follows that this adaptation would lead to new families of species. No. This only proves adaptation within species.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The only adaptation we have been able to study scientifically demonstrates that alleles become a blocking mechanism called mortality that seems to hinder evolutionary theory not prove it. Adaptation does not prove mutation or punctual equilibrium or the evolution from lets say Chimpanzee to Lucy to me (I know thats a broad brush). So you are merely theorizing without empirical evidence.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
You are demonstrating what is called anecdotal evidence. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. Anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. You are the only one in this debate that has said you have factual empirical evidence. It would have to empirical in order to prove it in a controlled environment to be a fact.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
The use of anecdotal evidence is called faith.
So now you must admit we are in fact at your second theoretical argument sinced you used Biology as your factual proof, as you said, the fact that you think Biology proves your side empirically.
ARE YOU VEGAN? This question is very important now.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Sorry. I became a theist and the result of evolutionary science and its intellectual dishonesty, such as claiming species changing families through mutation, interrelational theory or punctual equilibrium or any natural selection which has never been seen in a controlled environment.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Kinds, Branches, Families. The truth is that you have not seen these families in a controlled environment change kinds therefore they are all just hybrids and you are merely THEORIZING that one family can change into another. The fact is that every family has alleless that cause a mortality mechanism to be the factor that that bars interrelational THEORY.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
You must now admit that we are at theory number 2 on your side since we began our discussion and it is intellectually dishonest to say you have shown the facts as you asserted at the beginning of our friendship.
Side question. Are you Vegan?
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Fascinating THEORY. All stemming from speculation and one fruit fly observation of adaptation and no scientific empirical evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.
You see if the evolutionist can convince you by convoluting terms, that you are evolving from your parents and then piggy back speciation of different kinds evolving from that strawman argument they know some just may believe that species can change kinds.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
They cannot prove that kinds have ever changed into another in a controlled environment so the THEORIZE what is not yet been proven.
Until they can make a fly into something else without theorizing and by only using empirical evidence they have proven nothing.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Mechanical postmating isolating mechanisms, such as in Drosophila, does not prove any new species as they are factually a hybrid of the same kind. Sterility of hybrids can act as an isolating mechanism.
But it does not prove the radical jump in evolution of a new kind as postulated by the evolutionist and my friend Neogins.
A Fruit Fly is a Fruit Fly is a Fruit Fly.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
In fact the mortality we see occur when kinds interrelate is proof that no new species or kinds have developed or, adaptation into new kinds, but it in fact proves that you must stay in your kind.
The fact that Drosophila cannot reproduce when its environment has been radically changed is actually proves my side as mortality will not advance a species into new kinds.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
All kinds produce alleles that bar interelational matings, thus this mortality mechanism keep species from populating outside of their kind.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Also if the shark observation of man and mortality is Neogins proof of species change then people must be different species as we observe mortality in our own hominoid species because of alleles. For example it is alleles that cause humans to have blood types that again introduce mortality. I guess Neogins does in fact believe humans of different blood types are different species then because of his fruit fly argument using alleles.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Until you can prove in an controlled environment that a fly can be changed into a bird or anything other than its own kind you are merely a part of a theoretical family of thought. THEORY.
Do you hold to punctual equilibrium? THEORY. Is that next?
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Causality has everything to with evolution.
To assert that it does not is like an Ostrich with his head in the ground.
Your arguments on speciation are not valid until you deal with the cosmological question I posed.
In avoiding the causality question you are admitting that there is much you do not know. So you have proven nothing.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
You cannot discuss evolution without looking at first cause. The whole argument is based on knowing from regress to first cause. You want to cite scientific experiments from the 60s 70s 80s. So your point is to look back and study data. Well you must look back as far as we can go which is first cause. You said it does not matter. Of course it does. You want to avoid first cause because you dont have one. So you must agree that you are theorizing about evolution in part at least.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Does not scientifically looking at evolution in the discussion contain a valid question, how did it start? Would you try to fix your car without ever understanding where it came from? Can you prove science of how to light a candle without discussing the match that lit it? The match or whatever it is that lit the candle is a valid scientific question.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
So you must concede that you cannot prove first cause scientifically before we move on. You may have a theory but you keep saying fact. So what we have learned from the sciences of liberal arts or communication is that you have a problem saying you dont know. You dont know! You are theorizing! We will shoot holes through your facts one at a time.
So first thing to establish in our discussion can you factually explain first cause?!
Then we can discuss my favorite color or whatever you want.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
It is relevant because if your definition of evolution is true then Darwin has a valid point. If you are looking around as you are with the mind that all other species are more primitive as we regress, (as Darwin called them savages) then, though you will deny it and in false humility claim you do not believe it, yet you have joined Darwins theory.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
So what came first the white man or the person of color? By all of the arguments you have made so far the one that came first is the more primitive transition. No? Even I am evolving from my parents, right? So if chimpanzee is an ancestor and less primitive then the proper order of things is that the farther regressed in evolution are more primitive. No?
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
There is no evolutionist I have ever talked to that dont believe that chimpanzees then those they think look like chimpanzees (color people) on Africa or Aborigines and then, oh, um, Europeans, (whites) are the proper order of things. Isnt that where you are Europe? Are you going to be the first one to deny this and then give me a list of descending transitional fossils to prove me wrong?
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
With all do respect. You know what I believe. I am the moderator of this channel. Please deal with the last comments as I do not want to visit them again. I have never debated an evolutionist who is not constantly changing the subject. I am a simple man. Please deal with my response. Then it will by my turn, then yours and so and so on.
Please post this reply at the top. Thank you.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Neogins
Yes your first cause admission and your comment about doing a creation experiment is an admission that you cannot prove evolution with empirical evidence but instead you postulate a strawman which is that you cant prove yours so I dont have to prove mine. Which is really an admission on your part that your side is merely theory as well. Then you state again you are the factual science.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
For you to be taken serious you cannot say Neogins is fact GraceBibleFN is theory when neither can be proven in a controlled environment. This makes your side look bad. It would be logical for us to continue on the basis that both are theories and we must now look at data beyond first cause.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
But it must be said that since you cannot prove first cause through naturalism that the possibility exists since you dont have all knowledge that there could be a metaphysical precondition in the study of the origins of man.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
So to argue mine is fact as you have stated is not logical in higher thinking. Mine is right because I say so does not prove right.
So as far as I can tell that is one topic. Deal with it.
So Neogins , reply to this comment only and be concise or you will be blocked because my argument is FITTER and you deserve to not SURVIVE here.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
I got it from a Google search. So if it is wrong then I will fix it. I will research further. I had these writings a long time ago but dont have it in my library right now.
Yes I have read Darwin I was an atheist before.
Also. If you feel this video is just to rant because you dont like theism I will block you. Control yourself and post concise arguments with respect. I will come back to try to reply to the many fallacies you posted here. Or perhaps one at a time.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
This post is from Charles Darwin quotes from the Decent Of Man, Page - 162,163
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Darwins book continues:
....as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Posted from the top.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Neoignis
First. Let me explain simply so you can understand. You have already conceded that you cannot prove evolution scientifically because you have conceded that you cannot explain first cause scientifically. This logically follows that since you cannot prove first cause scientifically that any other argument that follows is not scientific fact as you have falsely asserted but merely speculation.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Second. You go on to argue that my parents are a different species than I am proving my video to be true. The only way these variations could prove evolution is if you define me as a different species than my parents. Any difference between my parent and myself does not prove speciation but it shows that we can vary within our own kind thus you have been proven to be unscientific again.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Unless of course you can recreate a new species from these variations or you can show without any doubt that a species has manifested by this process. Since you cannot then you again have falsely argued that evolution is fact.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
What discipline are you going to recreate in a controlled environment that will prove evolution? You cannot so you have been proven to be in error in that you have claimed evolution is a fact. I will fly to wherever you are located to watch these scientific facts take place as you will be the first to ever see them. Thus what we learn is that Darwinian Evolution is faith based as there is no empirical evidence that they can recreate.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Since you have stated that evolution is fact prove it now with empirical evidence or move on for making nonsensical arguments you cannot prove.
Dont have time for it.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
To argue that race is not relevant is ridiculous as eugenics takes a large place in Darwinian evolution.
To say that biogenesis, recapitulation theory, the denial of constancy, interational theory, genetics, ect. Prove evolution scientifically is laughable. Merely bad theory. Driven by motive.
You have no scientific empirical evidence for first cause so quit reasoning circularly with strawmen.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Gravity as theory has been proven by science.
Evolution as theory has not been proven at all scientifically it is still theory.
Creation science although disagreed about is just as valid as any evolutionary argument. ID is a valid theory for first cause.
Unless my white friend you do hold that people of color are transitional forms as Darwin believed and so does modern Darwinian theory.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
By the way, GBFNorwalk is GraceBibleFN. I have two channels.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Blavatsky should be considered on the level of fiction.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago
Any person who is not a solid white male should be totaly offended by the THEORY of evolution. Evolution is a Religion to the highest degree.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Thanks for your comment. Is the series on youtube?
I have a playlist you can see on my channel that shows how the evolutionist teach this racism. The playlist is called Evolution is Racist, and you can see how they transition from monkey to people of color to whites. Their comments on the videos are actually arguing this racism as proof of evolution. As a person myself who is mostly white I think it is disgusting.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Thank you friend.
GraceBibleFN 2 years ago
Thank you for uploading this excellent video, Brother Steve.
God speed!
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
When ever you take God out of a society, the value of human life decreases. Just look at Peter Singer. Also the level of ignorance increases as we see with Atheist trying to prove evolution.
kg6120 2 years ago
Thanks Bro, this one is not goin to be very popular I think.
GBFNorwalk 2 years ago