ANYONE: If you see no response to some posters below, they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, sometimes false accusations of lying and sometimes worse. Some of them follow me & others around YT with such tactics. If anyone wants to make their same "points" in their own words, I will be happy to respond. However I limit my time to where true debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective.
Cont. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes, birds, bats & moths fly, worms & snakes slither on the ground. So? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. 3) The Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. Yes, there is a superficial match when counting the chromosomes but what is inside the chromosomes is no way the same. And anyway who says we evolved from chimps? No one. So no matter how you look at it, the argument is bogus. As usual with evolution.
Ansondiak - It is also interesting that Miller never corrected the t.v. show host about the primal pond. He never said the truth, i.e. there is zero evidence for any such primal pond or that life can come from inorganic material. This gives the impression that he agrees with the host. He lets the lie hang out there for the public to swallow. Again, this ain't science. This is pseudo science.
"Again, this ain't science. This is pseudo science."
And what the hell would you know about "science", LoricaLady??
You, like so many other ID fanboys, sit on your ass and pretend you have a damn clue, spouting off your ridiculous opinions as if we cant see through your lies.
Just how many times are we going to have to correct idiots like you on these subjects??
Cont. "looks like" "might" & "suggested." Yes, there is a clear relationship between the giant sloth and the smaller sloth. They are both sloths, so big deal. But that extinct animal & the armadillo in the same clip? How do we know that extinct animal ever had any descendants in any way different from itself and isn't just simply extinct? We do not. This is faith presented as science.
Cont. "These guys might have been." Okay, so far we've got "looks like" (to Darwin), "suggested" and "might." These are the the types of conditional buzz words that evolution is based on. They are constantly used in evolutionary literature. Thi is not science. This is armchair theorrizing. Like car mechanics, real science deals with what is observable, repeatable, testable, not
Ansondiak - Ok up to about 4:52 Miller just makes a bunch of statements about evolution w/o providing any backup. The students are just supposed to, and do, assume his statments are unquestioned, unquestionable facts. Fine, I'll let that go while we see what actual "evidence" he finally does show. See 5:39. "These fossils look remarkable like armadillos..It suggested something...: Cont.
11th. "Darwin put this illustration into the book to illustrate how he thought this process would work." Notice the sleight of hand. 1st we hear from Darwin, a man whose only degree was in theology, and his pure speculations presented with 0 evidence. Then Miller goes on from there acting as if the theory is a fact though, like Darwin, he presents no evidence whatsoever. He is teaching these students to accept theories, presented without evidence, as if they are scientific facts.
"There is no evidence for new species being created", especially by magic such as God did it!
Billion of fossils does not mean all possible species!
Could you give me the number of marine strata in Great Canyon? Do you take into account all cephalopodes (such the entire group of ammonite or Nautiloids). Don't mess them up! They are not the same species!
again i hope you are using the layman definition of theory. hes using tons of evidence. millions of different fossils, and the modern medical facts of evolution.
@LoricaLady He presents the evidence of the fossil record and the changes in various atributes shown by the fossil record. He presented the evidence in cranial size and showed how that fit with Darwin's prediction. It's no different than plotting the position of plants and showing how that fits with Kepler's predictions.
10th - There is no evidence for new species being created. Yes, some claim to be seeing it at the cellular level or in so called transitional fossils. But on examination those claims turn out to be unfounded. There are uncounted billions of fossils in the world, billions of just one type of nautilus alone in the Grand Canyon alone. There are 0 showing a scale turning into a feather, a nautilus with an imperfect "emerging" spiral etc. Instead we find fully formed body parts, nothing "emerging".
"There is no evidence for new species being created. Yes, some claim to be seeing it at the cellular level or in so called transitional fossils"
This is a false statement.
University Of Massachusetts, Amherst (2008, April 18). Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 4, 2010, from
9th. Miller states that Darwin knew plants could be changed through selective breeding & cultivation - nott exactly a great, new scientific discovery. Then more bogus science: Miller says "He realized that nature could do exactly the same thing." First of all, thru cultivation no one has ever been able to produce a new, separate species. Bizarre Japanese, & plain pet store gold fish are still goldfish. So what does selective breeding have to do with "Origin of Species"? Exactly nothing.
its really simple some animals in a litter may have slightly thicker hair, if it suddenly gets cold that animal is more likely to survive and pass on that gene.
bacchus - It is not that simple at all. You are talking about the built in ability of an animal to adapt due to genetic variations. There is no evidence whatsoever, in fact simple observation and thousands of years of animal husbandry to the contrary, to lead to the conclusioin that thicker hair, thicker skin, longer feahters, whatever, lead to a new species. Farmers, and people in general always knew you can change the shape of animals, within limits, but cows stay cows, dogs stay dogs.
but to allow genetic drift variation and natural selection is to allow evolution. to stop it you need unalterable DNA or at least segments and that doesnt exist all DNA is equally subject to imperfect replication.
bacchus - Yes, DNA can change. However, the evidence is in that those changes generally cause loss of information, generally damaging the organism, not increases of information. I know there are some evolutionists who point to some virus or other and dispute that. I don't have time to debate everything. Just Miller for now. Sorry, this has to be my last post off topic. I am posting on the comments in this vid. If you want to post about other stuff, sorry, I just can't.
ok im sorry fo rthe off topic but one more because this always confused me.
what do you mean by loss or gain of "information" ? there are only 4 base pairs just combined like the alphabet 26 letters thousands of words. ( thats what i think your talking about but i could be wrong.)
bacchus - Please do not give things to Google. Please use your own words and your own mind. If you have been watching this video (have you really, I wonder?) here we already have what Miller is presenting as "observed instances of speciation." I am debunking those examples. If you think in my debunking his lack of evidence and logic that I am being unfair, unscientific or illogical in doing so, please stick to the vid, quote me, and say how I am wrong.
bacchus - Ok I'll play along for awhile off topic, but only for awhile. Let's use your analogy. You can breed horses to run faster and faster. Up to a point. They will never be as fast as cheetahs. There are limits within nature. The evidence for that is everwhere. I don't accept "speciation" as evoluiton defines it. Darwin's finches not only stayed finches, they were only showing seasonal variations that reversed with time as was their usual pattern. Please stick to Miller & the vid.
Bach - Just because you have been told that whales have legs and chickens are coded for teeth, you believe it. You have faith. I have not resesarched about chicken, only on whales. Whales don't have legs. They have some structures which help them in "hangin' on" when mating. They need them due to their incredibly huge size.
actually Bach would be basing his findings off the basic anatomy of a whale (which clearly shows vestigial legs) and the gene sequencing of the chicken (and subsequent experiments that resulted in the formation of teeth!). ALL PEER REVIEWED TO BOOT.
whilst they are used for that in some whale species, in most they are completly useless. more to the point this is in part how evolution works, finding new uses for old things. now care to explain ambulocetus?
Dolphins are not very big and their sexual intercourse takes on the order of 3 seconds. There is no need for anything to help them hang on. And yet, they still have leg bones, I've seen them and touched them.
"First of all, thru cultivation no one has ever been able to produce a new, separate species.:
This statement is incorrect. New species of fruit flies and mice have been produced.
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
KPG - I have not checked out about any new species of mice being produced tho I don't believe it for a minute. But I know for a fact that all the experiments with fruit flies, where they tried to turn them into a new species using (ahem!) intelligent design & the most modern equipment, produced all the same species, but mostly less viable & non fucntional bugs.
Don't believe everything you read. Do your research. For real.
KPG - Again, I plan to get back to you on the Sabbath/Saturday. At that time I will respond to your Qs re fruit flies & geology, since they are related to comments I made previously in response to Miller. it would help if you could just stick to 1, or 2 at most, topics at a time. Quote snippets giving a hint as to the context would be helpful for posts made over a week or two ago. Most of all, 1 or 2 topics at most at a time, please. How about f. flies & "geologic column" only, for now?
How about the Pod Marcos Lizards since that is an example of natural selection at work instead of human one? I would also like to see seashells from the Cambrian era on top of peaks in the Rocky Mountains.
If you want to do fruit flies, I would like to see evidence that Drosophila paulistorum is less viable than other species. If you do talk about fruit flies, stick to Drosophila paulistorum.
KPG - Those lizards are too far off the topic of this vid. I am trying to stick to the vid or comments I have made already off topic that you respond to, to be fair. However, I do not want to add to the list of peripheral subjects. It seems to me you are using an abrasive tone. "Stick to [the species {I choose}" no "Please", "Or if you don't mind". Comments like "You are unwilling to look at said information" presume omniscience & are kind of insulting. I appreciate politeness, like most.
Why are the lizards too far off topic but the fruit flies are not? Neither are mentioned in the video.
"It seems to me you are using an abrasive tone. "Stick to [the species {I choose}""
Logical fallacy: Ad hominem.
You wish one or two topics, that is ok. However, I would like to limit fruit fly discussion to Drosophila paulistorum to prevent the over 1450 species of fruit fly being in play. Continued:
KPG - As I said, I am trying to be fair by responding to comments I already made that were off topic, before you got on board. Also as I said, it would help if you would include a bit more info, a quote, to help me remember what was said back then. I thought I had mentioned fruit flies as I have done that several times on YT. Maybe not. I did not mention lizards. Give the latin name of your reportedly "new species". If it's not the one from the afore mentioned experiment:: your URL, my URL.
KPG - I don't claiming to be an expert on logical fallacies, but I have seen several, I believe, faulty accusations of them by you, tho I did not want to spend time quibbling over them. Plz study them before you accuse people of them. Ad hominem is attacking the person, generally with an insult, w/the implication that this disqualifies his ar-gu-ment. My saying "It seems to me.." was only an attempt to have more pleasant exchanges. It was not ad hominem but if you want to think so oh well.
"But I know for a fact that ALL the experiments with fruit flies, where they tried to turn them into a new species using (ahem!) intelligent design & the most modern equipment, produced all the same species, but mostly less viable & non fucntional bugs." (caps added by me)
Since you said this, I picked out a very specific one that we can concentrate on it.
KPG - It's you who said they produced a new species of fruit flies. I assumed you were talking about the fruit fly experiment I am familiar with, where a 1000 or more generations of fruit flies were bombarded with radation & came out often deformed, sometimes stillborn, & every last one still a fruit fly. If you are referring to something else, you give me the URL for it & I'll give you one refuting it. Evolutionists often make claims of new species & I don't have time to debunk them all.
This does not make sense; A new species of fruit fly is still a fruit fly, just like a new species of primate is still a primate.
Here is the citation of the study:
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
No radiation was used, merely a maze with enviro. stimuli.
KPG - I stand corrected. I should have said, "And every one was the same species of fruit fly as the originals." I will check out, on the Sabbath, whether the fruit fly experiment I mentioned used radiation or not. If not, then I will say so.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
KPG - A 2nd article on what? Sorry I don't have time to go cutting & pasting & checking out this URL & that URL if it is too peripheral to this video series & its present comments. Again, please give me the latin name of the fruit fly that you say is a new species & I will see if it is related to the fruit fly experiment which I thought I referenced. If it is not, I will give you a URL back. If it's not the experimental flies I spoke of, tho, I will be sorry to have gotten more off topic. :-(
KPG - No I was not aware of that. I usually just say "Google [Name of site with topic]" so have had no problems. Could you do that here, as I'm afraid I have cleaned out my personal comments box & lost your URL. Oops.
KPG - The so-called Geologic Column. I will look over the sites you recommend, however the truth is I have seen defenses of the so-called geologic column before. TalkOrigins, a big evolution defense site, is one place where I examined the argument in detail. In brief, I was way unimpressed. Those who say there is no geologic column. (Yeal, I know, "The earth moved." Convenient, unrproven excuse, mho, which leaves incredibly too much unexplained away.) are included in the next post. Cont.
KPG - Sorry, I am not going to "explain the gradual spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge" nor ask you Qs on my mind, right back about that ridge. It's too peripheral. I want to get thru this series of videos. C'est fini pour moi.
KPG - Yes, I brought up the topic, per-i-pher-ally. I have presented sources regarding that statement, for anyone to look over, if they wish. I am not going to be distracted any more with this topic. What does Wm. Rice etc. have to do with the "geologic column or fruit flies?" It seems to me you are jumping all over the place, and that this has been true from the start. Sorry, but I'm not jumping after you, I'm going ahead in a straight line as much as I reasonably, and fairly, can.
can you please present me the peer reviewed article on the Geologic Column? Thank you.
As for William Rice, the instructions I gave you lead you to two journal articles on the speciation of fruit flies. I thought the articles dealing with fruit flies would be related to fruit flies. I hope I was not wrong in that assumption.
KPG - Oh, "Your peer reviewed article?" is a new & common game evolutionists play. First of all they don't let those who disagree with them, as shown in Expelled for one place, get published. Then they say, "Well! Your article hasn't been peer reviewed, so obviously it has no value!" This assumes the peer reviewers are unbiased & know all - of course no way is that true. It also assumes that people can't hink or make presentations w/o their authority. Bull! Think for yourself. I do.
KPG - Could you please present me with the peer reviewed articles for Charles Darwin's writings? By the way, do you know what his degree was in? Theology.
KPG Have glanced over Rice's article titles & 1 article. I do not see that he is saying he has seen newly evolved species, at all. What he is saying is that it is his opinion (not mine) that this particular habit and that particular environment, etc. etc. have led & will lead to speciation. It is all purely theoretical. There is too much to read, but if he said he saw a fruit fly evolve into a new species, please quote him & where he said that. He's the usual evolutionary armchair theorist.
Instead, reproductive isolation (The definition of two species they can't mate with each other) evolved because of phenotypic changes that evolved in the flies that caused them to assort themselves into different parts of the environment. Thus allopatry was not enforced by an extrinsic barrier to gene flow but instead behavioral and development changed evolved that PRODUCED allopatry and led to reproductive isolation. (again the definition of speciation.)
KPG - Please give me the latin name of the first fruit fly and the one of the "newly evolved" species. Not something he said happened in the past, now, something he has observed himself, or that anyone else has observed & can prove. (If this pastes, great but 2X I have tried to give the "geologic column" references w/no success so far. Will try again tomorrow.)
KPG - I did my own research & you "got me"on the issue of tje f;ly species. I should have known better, too, but it's been a long time since I went over that type of material. Now there is an area where I would be happy to get off topic and debate as to whether or not the flies are examples of evolution or devolution, for example. (For now, I can put down a new post only if you put a new one down. Please ask 1 at a time, Q. re geologic column & Q re Miller/lack of evidence in science. Thnx.)
Testing to see if this post will paste. Just to be on the safe side tho, KPG, I am going to go over to vid 3/9 & reply to you there as I have been having lots of trouble posting here.
LL, I have read through all 212 comments on this post and did not find the evidence you speak of. You mention trilobites and Cambrian seashell and I addressed them in the articles I posted.
KPG - Speciation cont. There is this assumpton that if you can shuffle the genes, & lose some genes, and get a new species of fruit fly, then it must be fairly simple to turn a fruit fly into not a fruit fly. To turn a fruit fly into not a fruit fly, but something else, you need new information through dna. Shuffling genes, losing genes, in no way whatsoever is shown to lead to the creation of what would be such essential, incredibly complex, dna information.
Please search "How Evolution Adds New Information DonExodus2" and "How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information cdk007" they do a pretty good job of explaining it.
KPG - Okay, I think the posting problem has been fixed & it was no fault of djarm's. Onto speciation. Yes, you & Miller are right. New species are being created, in fact all the time all over the world. This does not demonstrate, however, that the theory of evolution leads from single cell to man etc., at all. I will try to explain why it does not. If you can refute what I will say here, about speciation, have fun should be interesting. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic. Cont.
KPG re speciation Cont. Genes are somewhat analogous to a deck of cards. There are various different kinds & various ways you can shuffle them and use them to create different games, from Go Fish to Bridge, or say from kitty to lion.
However, in all this reshuffling, though the resulting game/animal may be different, it is still a card game/cat, not turning into, say checkers/dog kinds. In order for cards to turn into checkers you would have to majorly reengineer those playing pieces. Cont.
KPG - Cont. Just because fruit flies can't reproduce, & create a new species - does that show, if so please give evidence, that they are turning into anything other than just different species of fruit flies? The theory is, Well, if they can change that way, they can just keep on changing & changing until, you get a whole different kind of animal! Where is the actual evidence for that? Only in theories. Cont.
"In order for cards to turn into checkers you would have to majorly reengineer those playing pieces."
Please exactly how much of the gene needs to change in order for it to be considered "something different."
Second, do you accept that new information CAN be added to the genome as demonstrated in DonExodus's and CDK007's videos? (NOT that "one thing turned into another" but that a discrete amount of new information has been added to the genome?)
KPG - I am not any expert on genetics, tho I am certainly quite willing to learn more about it - & would guess the same is true fo ryou. Rather than talking about theoreticals, how about giving me concrete, actual (at least claimed) examples of changes you think are turning one kind of animal, say a bacterium, or a cat, into something else, of not-that-kind? Again, tho, Miller is giving lots of defenses for evoluiton of various kinds & I want to get thru these vids, stick to them.
"Rather than talking about theoreticals, how about giving me concrete, actual (at least claimed) examples of changes you think are turning one kind of animal, say a bacterium, or a cat, into something else, of not-that-kind?"
1) Can you please define "kind" in a scientific way so I know what to look for.
2) Are you asking for actual witnessed (in the history of human civilization) changing from one "kind" to another "kind"?
Great-I just wanted to know when/if LoricaLady actually ever got back to you about the questions on definitions of "kind"?
A few times through all 9 of these videos she tries to play it as if she is the one who never refuses to answer anything.
Seems to me she outright ignores a great deal, if not dismisses the question as invalid with the excuse of it not being asked in the specific way she desires (a cop-out, really).
KPG - I thought I made it very clear that I made an error w/the earlier statement. I have a comment from you in my inbox (don't see it here, tho) re 3 vids to watch re new dna/new info. I have watched 1 of them & part of another. There are so many points made, & therefore needing so many responses, that it will not be simple to respond. As the topic is relevant to this vid series, I will respond as soon as I can. Re other topics to debate, let's table them for now for the sake of time?
KPG - On 2nd thought, re speciation, what do you think of making the topic even more limited to start, say on the subject of nylonaise? Nylonase is not something I have studied much & need to research the issue more. In the mean time, some info 4U on it. GoogleCreationists Where Did Nylon Eating Bacteria Come From, Yahoo Q & A. Also YT The Nylonase Fallacy, & Nylonase Debunked: Nylonase Is Not Evidence of Evolution.
KPG - If you have any evidence that the nylonase have changed from being bactereia, or that there is any evidence they are changing into anything other than bacteria, please let me know about it. Thanks.
"If you have any evidence that the nylonase have changed from being bactereia"
I thought my post was clear, I was not talking about bacteria "becoming something else" I was addressing whether new information can be added to DNA. Do you agree that new information can be added through DNA?
KPG - Please be more specirfic and give me what (I believe will turn out as usual to be) evoutionary propaganda you have been reading and are referring to here.
I thought I was specific. Would you consider the move of an organism from being composed as a single cell to it's offspring being composed of multiple cells as "Something changing into something else."
In addition, what evidence would you accept that would indicate that "something has turned into something else" Please be specific.
KPG - From Wiki. Nylon Eating Bacteria. "The discovery [of nylon eating bacteria] led Susumu Ohno to speculate t[ahem!] that the gene had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation. Ohno suggested [!] that many unique new genes evolved this way. A series of recent studies...in..Japan suggest [!] that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evoluton [which hasn't even been observed, much yet proven - it is just assumed here]...Cont.
KPG - Wiki./Nylonaise Cont. "...in the evolution of the...acid hydrolase." The conclusion for the article states, "There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most proabably [! same ol, same ol, w/theories presented as if they are as good as actual evidence]
developed as a single-step mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution & natural selection..." tho, might I add, "most probably"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I dont see these things: Cont.
You didn't read my reply to your PM, you didn't read any of my posts back to you because you dont like being mocked, and in doing so you ignored every point I've made.
Nice double standard again, kid.
If you want respect, you should try earning it first.
KPG - Wiki/Nylonaise cont. I don't see anyone saying a new strand of dna has developed that will help turn this "bug" into something other than a bacteria, only that it made an adaption thru its genes to eat a new kind of food. We are supposed to make the leap of faith that that evolutionary leap will occur. I see no evidence presented that shows how this "most probably" mutation can lead to problems for descendants down the pike, nor mention of other problems mentioned in sources I gave.
KPG - Re the so called geologic column, YT The Record of the Rocks & Google Answers In Geness Chapter 4 Unlocking the Geologic Record. I do not have time at present to debate the geologic record, which is peripheral to this series. However, the topic of speciation is very salient to this series.
@LoricaLady One other thing that I wish to ask. You fault Miller for not providing evidence for every statement in this "science talk" (you definition). Do you hold all "science talks" to this standard?
KPG - I fault Miller for presenting information as if it has evidence when it does not. I fault him for being a con man and a huckster for the lie of evolution.
Google "Selected Publications: William Rice" Click first link. Use search function with phrase: "The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character"
This is the first article which you can download.
Use search function with "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence"
This is the second article which you can also download.
One final thing, how have we gotten off topic, you said "here is no evidence for new species being created." Presenting evidence to debunk said claim is not off topic.
"Climate changed, we really don't know".... Euh???
Paleoclimate is one of biggest science of earth evolution based on sedimentary element, chemical, paleontologic, stratigraphy and radioisotope...
You want to see evolution fact. Look at the caterpillar turning into butterfly! This is one observation of "functional changes", no wings, no able to fly, other digestive system... But exactly the same animal!!! This is EVOLOUTION PROCESS! if one walking animal can change and fly, all can do!
It is the same with frogs, born in water but able later to breath the air, and able to walk (jump)... This is a change of function, change of organs. this is EVOLUTION PROCESS.
If you want to see something going away of sea (water element) and then suddenly startingt to walk. look at frog life!!!
In case you didn't see it on another video and in your mail box, and in case anyone thinks I am being rude to you or so impressed by your brilliance that I have no response, as I have said before,when the evolutionists start getting insulting, I stop reading their posts and just pray for them and you have gotten yourself on that list.
8th. Miller uses an extinct animal as an example of evolution, i.e. the giant sloth. Evolution typically teaches that something is it's opposite. The exact opposite of "evolution" is extinction. Miller produces no evidence, & of course Darwin did not produce any either, that the giant sloth eventually turned into the
smaller sloth through evolution. It "Looks like it did..." is the usual pseudo science.
Maybe the climate was very different., leading to gigantism. We really don't know.
actually extiction is part of evolution. some species simply are ill adapted to a changing environment so they die off.
actually the last part has some truth. in the age of dinos there was 30%~ oxygen in the atmo allowing plants to grow larger and by extension animals. but there is evidence to show what ancient climates use to be like in more pangean times.
extinction is part of evolution a ill adapted species doesnt survive.
as for gigantism there is a glimmer of truth. millions upon millions of years ago the O2 level was around 30%~ allowing plants and animals to grow much bigger. but one can judge these ancient climates through testing.
@LoricaLady What does evolution predict? That new forms come from previous existing ones which often die out. These observations match the predictions just as experiments with electricity match the predictions made from the theory of the electron.
5th. "The reason armadillos are found today ont he continent where the most armadillo like fossils are found is because these guys might have been the ancestors." The use of the word "like" as a substitute for evidence is typical in evolution. Where is the evidence that the :"look alike" produced anything different from itself? Nowhere.
The use of the word "might" is also characteristic of evolution. "It looks like...so it might...". Science w/o evidence is pseudo science.
what about thier ancestors and then thier ancestors and so on they might start to look radically differnent. ( youll have to ask a paleontologist about any specific species i dont have the name memory to remember long phylogonies(spelling?))
ok so hes aware that he could be wrong, your point? go publish your idea if you can if your right you win a nobel and the awe of the scientific community.
BACH - I see you have left a lot of off topic posts which did not show up in my comments box. I will respond to some of them, then I really want to go back to going thru this series of vids systematically.
BACH - I am not a scientist. There are plenty of scientists who do publish info debunking evolution. You can find some of them favorited on my home page. They require study because we generally aren't proficient in the sciences. As it tells in Expelled though, those wonderful peer reviewers aren't really happy about publishing their findings.
- if it's not peer reviewed then it is simply an opinion piece that is not open to criticism.
- expelled lol i would expect a reference to that from someone such as yourself. the following vid reveals ALL the fallacies in expelled (it's a 3 hour debunktacular):
watch?v=VwhZqNgfRC0
- oh of course there must be some kind of conspiracy, GET REAL.
@LoricaLady It's not that they are unhappy about publishing things that have theological implications, it's that they are unhappy about publishing things that are bad science.
The first person to suggest the hypothesis that later became the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest who was criticized for letting his theology get in the way of his science. He was still able to publish and was eventually vindicated over the eternal universe that was favored at the time.
Bach - My friend, please review what you are doing. You are simply quoting things that evolutionists have said, over and over. Please let's stick to the MIller vids. They are systematic and seem pretty thorough. If I debunk him, you can show me how I am wrong rather than doing a shot gun approach on everything. Sorry, that's all I have time for.
fossils in conjunction with comparative anatomy are used to determine relatedness of animals based on structural changes THROUGH THE LINEAGE
the tech used to identify the relatedness of humans and chimps is the same as used in paternity tests
microevolution is observable, macroevolution is the cumulative effect of micro over time, so the only way micro can occur and macro cant is if there is a mechanism to proven the accumulation of change no such mechanism exits
again, please look up the 40+ examples of observed speciation. Again, evolution predicts that the ancestors should look similar to their descendants with modification. This is what we see. In addition, it explains the fossil stratification we see according to geologic time period. Intelligent design does not explain these observations.
KPG - I will answer the "might" Q, as I think I did criticize the use of it by Miller - who is the topic of these vids. However, I actually already did answer the Q, tho maybe on a later vid. Yes, the word "might" is used in all sciences. However such conditional words, which are part of forumulating theories in science, cannot stand alone and be called science. The examples I gave included "might" with no real evidence. "MIght" etc. w/o evidence is not real science. Cont.
Do you accept that genetic analysis of similarities AND differences is a testable prediction that can disprove evolution?
Do you accept that the stratification of fossils is a testable prediction that can disprove evolution?
Do you agree that the statement that flighted mammals should have solid bones while land bound birds have pneumatic ones is the a prediction that can be used to disprove evolution?
4th Quoting loosely form memory, "Not only has life changed but it has changed according to a pattern. It's very clear the changes are successive." He just had mentioned plants. All plants look exactly the same today as they did in the past. There is no evidence whatsoever for any kind of pattern of change. Further, what are they related to, per evolution? The fish? The bugs? Where is their "origin of species"? Miller conveniently never mentions these problems for evolution.
"All plants look exactly the same today as they did in the past"
Look a science book and find "angiosperme" and "gymniosperme". There are differences! Could you define coral, algae, or sponges as an animal or a vegetal? This is where is your answer!
We can't have a 4.5 billion years of details for life, as you can't have a perfect family tree of 6000 years for human being!
Don't look for answer in the gap of time evidences because about 10% of life has been fossilized sine the beginning.
But with this 10%, we have already a good explanation for the Evolution... Of course for the time t=0, nobody will have an answer!
Life comes from inanimate, comes from dust and from the imagination of old lonely man who decided to create life to destroy it later.
"You are with me or against me". You choose, you are free! "You live or you die in Hell". It does not matter if you are only 2 years old, you have to choose now!
Matt - As I have said before I do not like getting theological as I see it as generally being a form of distraction from the real issues of science. You are aware that there is no evidence that life can come from inanimate objects. through any mechanisms known or observed on the planet earth. How does attacking your version of YHWH and the Scriptures change those facts? It doesn't. You are setting up a straw man.
Oh really! We don't have to take as fact the text written in the scriptures! I though that was your best argument!
You are so limited in time and with a narrow minding that you can't figure out the possibility of life! You just admit what you see in large scale.
For info gymniosperm turned into Angiosperm (Secondary school).
I didn't say there is no need for evidence, because we have enough to prove Evolution. We need now to fill as better as we can the gaps, by finding new fossils.
Mattle System - "You re so limited in time and with narrow minding you can't figure out..." These are insults. I get tired of them, from vrtually all the evolutionists who post to me. I wish you well, I believe you will do well, but you are now on my list of "delete posts without reading and just pray for them."
Sorry if you take this as an insult, but it was not done as purpose, I have a limited knowledge in english expression. But limited in time is not an insult. Narrow minding, is just to explain the fact that you always want to see impossible such as cat turning in dog... You can't and even a evolutionist can't...
Mattle System - I hope you will rise above using your so-called limited english to make an excuse for insulting other people who speak English. This imay not be great French but I'm sure you will get the idea: Je ne vous crois pa. Au revoir.
il faut que je le dise avec mots en français, je vais le dire. Je pense donc que tu ne cesses de tourner en rond autour d'une idée impossible. tu te bloques sur le fait que personne n'a vu de ses yeux un animal changé en un autre. Et je te dis que ton point de vue est trop limité dans le temps (notre vie est trop courte). De plus tu n'élargis pas le sujet à d'autres éléments. Tu ne te restreins à des généralités. Mais il te faut détailler et pas seulement ignorer. Voilà peace!
More I write and more I would to have a real discussion with you, face to face. Because I don't want to pass for a bad guy, especially when i try to explain my point of view in 500 characters... you could show me paper, you could draw me or even experiment to prove god. And I can probably do the same for you. And I am sure that you cannot always put also all your thinking in this kind of posts.
Matt - As I have said before it is a cop out to say, "Well, we just don't have enough fossils." B.S. There are billions upon billions of them. How come we see no scales turning into feathers, no angiosperm turning into a gymnioperm no corals turning into sponges or vice versa, etc.? You are totally theory based. You feel there is no need for evidence. "Its been too long" is your substitute for its lack. I'm sorry but It's been too long" is not a scientific response. Again, its a cop out.
How do you want to prove creation, if you don't see once a new animal appearing in your garden. How do you want to prove creation if you know that giraffe could not live in another conditions as they are in savanna. The climate change, the environment change and life has to be adapted... Your descendant will understand that if electricity, water supplie disappear. The best creation of God will have to "SURVIVE" in Nature and we are for sure not well ADAPTED!.
You say that creation is based on scientific evidence... Well, if the only evidence is that "life is complicated" then I agree. But ignorance of principle of life is not an argument. you have to go into details. Open several books and make your own experience.
Life comes from inanimate is purely fiction created by creationists. But if you take the molecules scale we are all made Carbon, Oxygen, Calcium, Nitrogen, Hydrogen etc...
@LoricaLady Looks up the Pod Marco lizards for an example of changes. Also look up the fossils of different species of elephant to show successive gradual changes.
"All plants look exactly the same today as they did in the past. There is no evidence whatsoever for any kind of pattern of change."
This is a false statement. Miller gave examples of how selective breeding has changed the appearance of plants. Do you deny Brassica oleracea has given rise to a large variety of plants that look very different?
2nd, Google "Colin Patterson famous quote transitional fossils." Dr. Patterson was the head paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, and an evolutionist. In writing to another famous evolutionist, Steven J. Gould, we see them both admitting there is no real evidence for even a single transitional form. 3rd, the geological "periods" that Miller talks about only exist on paper. One can find trilobytes all over Ky. Seashells from the so called Cambrian period are on every mountain.
true but after a certain point there are no trilobytes, just as after a certain depth there are no mammals, then reptiles, etc etc. what they were just magically created every few hundred million years?
Please look at quotes in context. Explain to me the idea of punctuated equilibrium and how those quotes related to it.
No transitional forms?!? Transitional forms from fish to amphibian: Osteolepis, Eustenopteron, Tiktaalic, Paiderichthys, Obruchevichtys, Hyperpeton, acanthostega, ichthyostega, pholidogaster, pteroplax and many more which I cant fit.
Please study geology. You can see the layers in many places. In addition, please explain the effects of rivers, wind, etc on weathering and plate tectonics on mountain building. This will answer your questions on this.
KPG - I cannot possibly answer all of your posts, especially since most of them are strawmen, detracting from what I came here to do, namely debunk what one evolutionist is saying in this vid series- which is pretty much what they all say. Why don't you just pick one quote of mine, add it in part to your comment & tell me why you think it is wrong. That is all I have time for. 1 comment of mine w/your trying to debunk it. I have chased enough strawmen in this series, & you have left a ton.
Can you indicate where I used a strawman argument?
Your quote: "we see them both admitting there is no real evidence for even a single transitional form. " Gould is talking about transitions between species, not larger groups. And we have witnessed 1 species evolve into another.
List of transitions from fish to amphibians: Osteolepis, Eustenopteron, Tiktaalic, Paiderichthys, Obruchevichtys, Hyperpeton, acanthostega, ichthyostega, pholidogaster, pteroplax and many more which I can't fit.
KPG - People are putting up strawmen when they are getting off on this topic & that topic, when it is not directly related to this video. I am trying to debunk MIller. People can respoind to what I am saying about him, about theeeese videos, or they can keep getting off topic & not deal with what I say about him. Obviously I do not have time to debate everything. In some cases I have gotten off topic because I wanted to make a point, but really I prefer to stick with Miller for time's sake..
HPG - There are many people saying this & that about transitional fossils. Givng me a list of these & those supposed transitional fossils is not proving anything but what you believe, & anyway I don't have time to explain why.
Plz refer to whatever I said, please pay attention here...to what Milller....said. I cannot debate everything. Quote what I said that was wrong when debunking Miller, if you can find it unscientific or illogical. I don't have time to get off topic anymore.
"2nd, Google "Colin Patterson famous quote transitional fossils." Dr. Patterson was the head paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, and an evolutionist. In writing to another famous evolutionist, Steven J. Gould, we see them both admitting there is no real evidence for even a single transitional form."
This is wrong, they said there are FEW evidences for transitional forms IN A SPECIES. NOT between species. There are plenty of them between species.
KPG- I have the exact quote, & here is just part of it, from Patterson to Gould: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions [that means any kind] iin my book. If I knew of any [remember he was the head paoleontologist of the British natural history museum] I would certainly have included them...You say that I should 'at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived'. I will lay it on the line." Cont.
Cont. "There is not one such [don't see the word "few" anywhere, hmmm...) fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Patterson & Gould (though Gould started backing down after creationists started quoting him) & plenty of other evolutionists have said plenty more damning things about the so called transitional fossils. I will be back on the Sabbath (for me, Saturday), please stick to Miller. He is trying to defend evolution from many positions, so that seems quite fair to moi.
KPG- I will respond to your posts on the Sabbath, as far as I can tell about my time then. Please be so kind as to not leave very many. I also might have some comments from Bach which I would like to take time to respond to. Thank you.
"Google "Colin Patterson famous quote transitional fossils.""
Logical fallacy, argument from authority.
"the geological "periods" that Miller talks about only exist on paper. One can find trilobytes all over Ky. Seashells from the so called Cambrian period are on every mountain."
Logical fallacy, non sequitur.
In addition the periods are readily apparent. They may not be the same all over due to erosion but they exhibit a high degree of agreement.
KPG - I have a few moments... I most certainly did not quote Patterson out of context. If you care to show in what ways you think that is so, have fun. Give quotes. There is a difference between quoting an authority - which everyone does, including you no doubt - to support a point and to say, you should believe me because that point was made by an authority. I was using the quotes to demonstrate the point that evolutionists do not all agree that there are any transitional fossils.
Wrong, scientific arguments are not based upon quotes from authority, they are based upon evidence. I provided examples of transitional forms, you retreated behind your argument from authority.
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal,
"Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .""
KPG - An interesting quote from Patterson. Plz give webpage & date. Notice I did not accuse you of "appeal to authority" for your also quoting him You no way, prove my quote from him was out of context. If he says a thing 1 time & place & something else in another time & place, it doesn't show rock hard belief. I have noticed a pattern with evolutionists,, sometimes, that when they see creationists are quoting them, embartrassing them, they go party line. More Patterson quotes tomorrow.
ANYONE: If you see no response to some posters below, they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, sometimes false accusations of lying and sometimes worse. Some of them follow me & others around YT with such tactics. If anyone wants to make their same "points" in their own words, I will be happy to respond. However I limit my time to where true debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
Cont. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes, birds, bats & moths fly, worms & snakes slither on the ground. So? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. 3) The Incomplete Comparison Fallacy. Yes, there is a superficial match when counting the chromosomes but what is inside the chromosomes is no way the same. And anyway who says we evolved from chimps? No one. So no matter how you look at it, the argument is bogus. As usual with evolution.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 3 months ago
Ansondiak - It is also interesting that Miller never corrected the t.v. show host about the primal pond. He never said the truth, i.e. there is zero evidence for any such primal pond or that life can come from inorganic material. This gives the impression that he agrees with the host. He lets the lie hang out there for the public to swallow. Again, this ain't science. This is pseudo science.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
"Again, this ain't science. This is pseudo science."
And what the hell would you know about "science", LoricaLady??
You, like so many other ID fanboys, sit on your ass and pretend you have a damn clue, spouting off your ridiculous opinions as if we cant see through your lies.
Just how many times are we going to have to correct idiots like you on these subjects??
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Cont. "looks like" "might" & "suggested." Yes, there is a clear relationship between the giant sloth and the smaller sloth. They are both sloths, so big deal. But that extinct animal & the armadillo in the same clip? How do we know that extinct animal ever had any descendants in any way different from itself and isn't just simply extinct? We do not. This is faith presented as science.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady'' descendants in any way different from itself ''
Remember those finches that will never be anything but finches?
Darwin was using those finches to show Variation in species.
Things are not all the same!
gregrutz 1 year ago
Cont. "These guys might have been." Okay, so far we've got "looks like" (to Darwin), "suggested" and "might." These are the the types of conditional buzz words that evolution is based on. They are constantly used in evolutionary literature. Thi is not science. This is armchair theorrizing. Like car mechanics, real science deals with what is observable, repeatable, testable, not
LoricaLady 1 year ago
"real science deals with what is observable, repeatable, testable"
Review the transcript for the Dover Trail, you ignorant fool.
Your assertions are complete bullshit.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Ansondiak - Ok up to about 4:52 Miller just makes a bunch of statements about evolution w/o providing any backup. The students are just supposed to, and do, assume his statments are unquestioned, unquestionable facts. Fine, I'll let that go while we see what actual "evidence" he finally does show. See 5:39. "These fossils look remarkable like armadillos..It suggested something...: Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
"The students are just supposed to, and do, assume his statments are unquestioned, unquestionable facts."
You filthy liar. Show me where Miller says everyone MUST take everything he says as the unquestioned truth about the world.
You are such a god damned failure at this debate.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 2 years ago
11th. "Darwin put this illustration into the book to illustrate how he thought this process would work." Notice the sleight of hand. 1st we hear from Darwin, a man whose only degree was in theology, and his pure speculations presented with 0 evidence. Then Miller goes on from there acting as if the theory is a fact though, like Darwin, he presents no evidence whatsoever. He is teaching these students to accept theories, presented without evidence, as if they are scientific facts.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"There is no evidence for new species being created", especially by magic such as God did it!
Billion of fossils does not mean all possible species!
Could you give me the number of marine strata in Great Canyon? Do you take into account all cephalopodes (such the entire group of ammonite or Nautiloids). Don't mess them up! They are not the same species!
MattleSystem 2 years ago
again i hope you are using the layman definition of theory. hes using tons of evidence. millions of different fossils, and the modern medical facts of evolution.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
@LoricaLady He presents the evidence of the fossil record and the changes in various atributes shown by the fossil record. He presented the evidence in cranial size and showed how that fit with Darwin's prediction. It's no different than plotting the position of plants and showing how that fits with Kepler's predictions.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
10th - There is no evidence for new species being created. Yes, some claim to be seeing it at the cellular level or in so called transitional fossils. But on examination those claims turn out to be unfounded. There are uncounted billions of fossils in the world, billions of just one type of nautilus alone in the Grand Canyon alone. There are 0 showing a scale turning into a feather, a nautilus with an imperfect "emerging" spiral etc. Instead we find fully formed body parts, nothing "emerging".
LoricaLady 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no evidence for new species being created. Yes, some claim to be seeing it at the cellular level or in so called transitional fossils"
This is a false statement.
University Of Massachusetts, Amherst (2008, April 18). Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 4, 2010, from
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
9th. Miller states that Darwin knew plants could be changed through selective breeding & cultivation - nott exactly a great, new scientific discovery. Then more bogus science: Miller says "He realized that nature could do exactly the same thing." First of all, thru cultivation no one has ever been able to produce a new, separate species. Bizarre Japanese, & plain pet store gold fish are still goldfish. So what does selective breeding have to do with "Origin of Species"? Exactly nothing.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
google "observed instances of speciation"
its really simple some animals in a litter may have slightly thicker hair, if it suddenly gets cold that animal is more likely to survive and pass on that gene.
natural selection.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
bacchus - It is not that simple at all. You are talking about the built in ability of an animal to adapt due to genetic variations. There is no evidence whatsoever, in fact simple observation and thousands of years of animal husbandry to the contrary, to lead to the conclusioin that thicker hair, thicker skin, longer feahters, whatever, lead to a new species. Farmers, and people in general always knew you can change the shape of animals, within limits, but cows stay cows, dogs stay dogs.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
but to allow genetic drift variation and natural selection is to allow evolution. to stop it you need unalterable DNA or at least segments and that doesnt exist all DNA is equally subject to imperfect replication.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
bacchus - Yes, DNA can change. However, the evidence is in that those changes generally cause loss of information, generally damaging the organism, not increases of information. I know there are some evolutionists who point to some virus or other and dispute that. I don't have time to debate everything. Just Miller for now. Sorry, this has to be my last post off topic. I am posting on the comments in this vid. If you want to post about other stuff, sorry, I just can't.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
ok im sorry fo rthe off topic but one more because this always confused me.
what do you mean by loss or gain of "information" ? there are only 4 base pairs just combined like the alphabet 26 letters thousands of words. ( thats what i think your talking about but i could be wrong.)
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
New species have been observed in lizards, fruitflies and mice. Saying it doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
bacchus - Please do not give things to Google. Please use your own words and your own mind. If you have been watching this video (have you really, I wonder?) here we already have what Miller is presenting as "observed instances of speciation." I am debunking those examples. If you think in my debunking his lack of evidence and logic that I am being unfair, unscientific or illogical in doing so, please stick to the vid, quote me, and say how I am wrong.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
but speciation is evolution thats what it is. if you accept speciation and variation thats evolution. if you can walk 1 mile you can walk 10
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
bacchus - Ok I'll play along for awhile off topic, but only for awhile. Let's use your analogy. You can breed horses to run faster and faster. Up to a point. They will never be as fast as cheetahs. There are limits within nature. The evidence for that is everwhere. I don't accept "speciation" as evoluiton defines it. Darwin's finches not only stayed finches, they were only showing seasonal variations that reversed with time as was their usual pattern. Please stick to Miller & the vid.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
why up to a point? Arent horses continually beating previouses horses records often?
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
what do you expect?
as a side how would you explain the fact that whales have legs? or that chickens have the DNA coding for teeth?
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
Bach - Just because you have been told that whales have legs and chickens are coded for teeth, you believe it. You have faith. I have not resesarched about chicken, only on whales. Whales don't have legs. They have some structures which help them in "hangin' on" when mating. They need them due to their incredibly huge size.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
actually Bach would be basing his findings off the basic anatomy of a whale (which clearly shows vestigial legs) and the gene sequencing of the chicken (and subsequent experiments that resulted in the formation of teeth!). ALL PEER REVIEWED TO BOOT.
whilst they are used for that in some whale species, in most they are completly useless. more to the point this is in part how evolution works, finding new uses for old things. now care to explain ambulocetus?
types10000 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
Dolphins are not very big and their sexual intercourse takes on the order of 3 seconds. There is no need for anything to help them hang on. And yet, they still have leg bones, I've seen them and touched them.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
"First of all, thru cultivation no one has ever been able to produce a new, separate species.:
This statement is incorrect. New species of fruit flies and mice have been produced.
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I have not checked out about any new species of mice being produced tho I don't believe it for a minute. But I know for a fact that all the experiments with fruit flies, where they tried to turn them into a new species using (ahem!) intelligent design & the most modern equipment, produced all the same species, but mostly less viable & non fucntional bugs.
Don't believe everything you read. Do your research. For real.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Please present evidence that Drosophila paulistorum is less is less functional and viable.
Do you withdraw your statement ""First of all, thru cultivation no one has ever been able to produce a new, separate species.:"
"where they tried to turn them into a new species using (ahem!) intelligent design"
We were discussing selective breeding, yes? I will give examples of new species being formed in the wild if you wish.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Again, I plan to get back to you on the Sabbath/Saturday. At that time I will respond to your Qs re fruit flies & geology, since they are related to comments I made previously in response to Miller. it would help if you could just stick to 1, or 2 at most, topics at a time. Quote snippets giving a hint as to the context would be helpful for posts made over a week or two ago. Most of all, 1 or 2 topics at most at a time, please. How about f. flies & "geologic column" only, for now?
LoricaLady 2 years ago
How about the Pod Marcos Lizards since that is an example of natural selection at work instead of human one? I would also like to see seashells from the Cambrian era on top of peaks in the Rocky Mountains.
If you want to do fruit flies, I would like to see evidence that Drosophila paulistorum is less viable than other species. If you do talk about fruit flies, stick to Drosophila paulistorum.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Those lizards are too far off the topic of this vid. I am trying to stick to the vid or comments I have made already off topic that you respond to, to be fair. However, I do not want to add to the list of peripheral subjects. It seems to me you are using an abrasive tone. "Stick to [the species {I choose}" no "Please", "Or if you don't mind". Comments like "You are unwilling to look at said information" presume omniscience & are kind of insulting. I appreciate politeness, like most.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Why are the lizards too far off topic but the fruit flies are not? Neither are mentioned in the video.
"It seems to me you are using an abrasive tone. "Stick to [the species {I choose}""
Logical fallacy: Ad hominem.
You wish one or two topics, that is ok. However, I would like to limit fruit fly discussion to Drosophila paulistorum to prevent the over 1450 species of fruit fly being in play. Continued:
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - As I said, I am trying to be fair by responding to comments I already made that were off topic, before you got on board. Also as I said, it would help if you would include a bit more info, a quote, to help me remember what was said back then. I thought I had mentioned fruit flies as I have done that several times on YT. Maybe not. I did not mention lizards. Give the latin name of your reportedly "new species". If it's not the one from the afore mentioned experiment:: your URL, my URL.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - I don't claiming to be an expert on logical fallacies, but I have seen several, I believe, faulty accusations of them by you, tho I did not want to spend time quibbling over them. Plz study them before you accuse people of them. Ad hominem is attacking the person, generally with an insult, w/the implication that this disqualifies his ar-gu-ment. My saying "It seems to me.." was only an attempt to have more pleasant exchanges. It was not ad hominem but if you want to think so oh well.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"But I know for a fact that ALL the experiments with fruit flies, where they tried to turn them into a new species using (ahem!) intelligent design & the most modern equipment, produced all the same species, but mostly less viable & non fucntional bugs." (caps added by me)
Since you said this, I picked out a very specific one that we can concentrate on it.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - It's you who said they produced a new species of fruit flies. I assumed you were talking about the fruit fly experiment I am familiar with, where a 1000 or more generations of fruit flies were bombarded with radation & came out often deformed, sometimes stillborn, & every last one still a fruit fly. If you are referring to something else, you give me the URL for it & I'll give you one refuting it. Evolutionists often make claims of new species & I don't have time to debunk them all.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"& every last one still a fruit fly."
This does not make sense; A new species of fruit fly is still a fruit fly, just like a new species of primate is still a primate.
Here is the citation of the study:
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
No radiation was used, merely a maze with enviro. stimuli.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I stand corrected. I should have said, "And every one was the same species of fruit fly as the originals." I will check out, on the Sabbath, whether the fruit fly experiment I mentioned used radiation or not. If not, then I will say so.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
A second article on it:
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - A 2nd article on what? Sorry I don't have time to go cutting & pasting & checking out this URL & that URL if it is too peripheral to this video series & its present comments. Again, please give me the latin name of the fruit fly that you say is a new species & I will see if it is related to the fruit fly experiment which I thought I referenced. If it is not, I will give you a URL back. If it's not the experimental flies I spoke of, tho, I will be sorry to have gotten more off topic. :-(
LoricaLady 2 years ago
I Sent the URL to you, as you are probably aware, we can not post them in comments.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - No I was not aware of that. I usually just say "Google [Name of site with topic]" so have had no problems. Could you do that here, as I'm afraid I have cleaned out my personal comments box & lost your URL. Oops.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - The so-called Geologic Column. I will look over the sites you recommend, however the truth is I have seen defenses of the so-called geologic column before. TalkOrigins, a big evolution defense site, is one place where I examined the argument in detail. In brief, I was way unimpressed. Those who say there is no geologic column. (Yeal, I know, "The earth moved." Convenient, unrproven excuse, mho, which leaves incredibly too much unexplained away.) are included in the next post. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
"Yeal, I know, "The earth moved." Convenient, unrproven excuse, mho, which leaves incredibly too much unexplained away"
Please explain the recorded gradual spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge if the Earth is not moving.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Sorry, I am not going to "explain the gradual spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge" nor ask you Qs on my mind, right back about that ridge. It's too peripheral. I want to get thru this series of videos. C'est fini pour moi.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady How is it peripheral? You said it didn't happen. I presented evidence that it did. You brought up the topic.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Yes, I brought up the topic, per-i-pher-ally. I have presented sources regarding that statement, for anyone to look over, if they wish. I am not going to be distracted any more with this topic. What does Wm. Rice etc. have to do with the "geologic column or fruit flies?" It seems to me you are jumping all over the place, and that this has been true from the start. Sorry, but I'm not jumping after you, I'm going ahead in a straight line as much as I reasonably, and fairly, can.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
can you please present me the peer reviewed article on the Geologic Column? Thank you.
As for William Rice, the instructions I gave you lead you to two journal articles on the speciation of fruit flies. I thought the articles dealing with fruit flies would be related to fruit flies. I hope I was not wrong in that assumption.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Oh, "Your peer reviewed article?" is a new & common game evolutionists play. First of all they don't let those who disagree with them, as shown in Expelled for one place, get published. Then they say, "Well! Your article hasn't been peer reviewed, so obviously it has no value!" This assumes the peer reviewers are unbiased & know all - of course no way is that true. It also assumes that people can't hink or make presentations w/o their authority. Bull! Think for yourself. I do.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
Fine please present me your source.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I don't know what "present me your source is" but I'm strongly suspecting it's another hop. I'm moving onto fruit flies tomorrow. Til then...
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
You said you had a source about the geologic column. Please present it.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Could you please present me with the peer reviewed articles for Charles Darwin's writings? By the way, do you know what his degree was in? Theology.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
That is true. And he was studying to be an Anglican Priest, which is why I am often confused when people describe him as anti religion.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG Have glanced over Rice's article titles & 1 article. I do not see that he is saying he has seen newly evolved species, at all. What he is saying is that it is his opinion (not mine) that this particular habit and that particular environment, etc. etc. have led & will lead to speciation. It is all purely theoretical. There is too much to read, but if he said he saw a fruit fly evolve into a new species, please quote him & where he said that. He's the usual evolutionary armchair theorist.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Page 13 of first article:
Instead, reproductive isolation (The definition of two species they can't mate with each other) evolved because of phenotypic changes that evolved in the flies that caused them to assort themselves into different parts of the environment. Thus allopatry was not enforced by an extrinsic barrier to gene flow but instead behavioral and development changed evolved that PRODUCED allopatry and led to reproductive isolation. (again the definition of speciation.)
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Please give me the latin name of the first fruit fly and the one of the "newly evolved" species. Not something he said happened in the past, now, something he has observed himself, or that anyone else has observed & can prove. (If this pastes, great but 2X I have tried to give the "geologic column" references w/no success so far. Will try again tomorrow.)
LoricaLady 2 years ago
This IS something that he observed. One group of fruit flies divided into two groups which did not intermate using the apparatus he described.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - What were the latin names of the two groups? I might be able to find it faster on Google with those.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Lorica,
I gave you the articles, why aren't you reading them?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I did my own research & you "got me"on the issue of tje f;ly species. I should have known better, too, but it's been a long time since I went over that type of material. Now there is an area where I would be happy to get off topic and debate as to whether or not the flies are examples of evolution or devolution, for example. (For now, I can put down a new post only if you put a new one down. Please ask 1 at a time, Q. re geologic column & Q re Miller/lack of evidence in science. Thnx.)
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
Well, I'm very curious about this aspect of your argument so I will ask it again:
@LoricaLady
Do you fault everyone who acts like they have evidence of something but does not present it?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Testing to see if this post will paste. Just to be on the safe side tho, KPG, I am going to go over to vid 3/9 & reply to you there as I have been having lots of trouble posting here.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - Found the answer to your q. re requests for evidence just a few posts below where you first asked. See you on vid 3/9.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
LL, I have read through all 212 comments on this post and did not find the evidence you speak of. You mention trilobites and Cambrian seashell and I addressed them in the articles I posted.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Please give brief quotes of what I said that you feel needs further defending.
For now my major interest is in just being able to post as well as you can. Have written to djarm about the problem.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - Speciation cont. There is this assumpton that if you can shuffle the genes, & lose some genes, and get a new species of fruit fly, then it must be fairly simple to turn a fruit fly into not a fruit fly. To turn a fruit fly into not a fruit fly, but something else, you need new information through dna. Shuffling genes, losing genes, in no way whatsoever is shown to lead to the creation of what would be such essential, incredibly complex, dna information.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"you need new information through dna"
Please search "How Evolution Adds New Information DonExodus2" and "How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information cdk007" they do a pretty good job of explaining it.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - Okay, I think the posting problem has been fixed & it was no fault of djarm's. Onto speciation. Yes, you & Miller are right. New species are being created, in fact all the time all over the world. This does not demonstrate, however, that the theory of evolution leads from single cell to man etc., at all. I will try to explain why it does not. If you can refute what I will say here, about speciation, have fun should be interesting. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG re speciation Cont. Genes are somewhat analogous to a deck of cards. There are various different kinds & various ways you can shuffle them and use them to create different games, from Go Fish to Bridge, or say from kitty to lion.
However, in all this reshuffling, though the resulting game/animal may be different, it is still a card game/cat, not turning into, say checkers/dog kinds. In order for cards to turn into checkers you would have to majorly reengineer those playing pieces. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - Cont. Just because fruit flies can't reproduce, & create a new species - does that show, if so please give evidence, that they are turning into anything other than just different species of fruit flies? The theory is, Well, if they can change that way, they can just keep on changing & changing until, you get a whole different kind of animal! Where is the actual evidence for that? Only in theories. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"In order for cards to turn into checkers you would have to majorly reengineer those playing pieces."
Please exactly how much of the gene needs to change in order for it to be considered "something different."
Second, do you accept that new information CAN be added to the genome as demonstrated in DonExodus's and CDK007's videos? (NOT that "one thing turned into another" but that a discrete amount of new information has been added to the genome?)
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I am not any expert on genetics, tho I am certainly quite willing to learn more about it - & would guess the same is true fo ryou. Rather than talking about theoreticals, how about giving me concrete, actual (at least claimed) examples of changes you think are turning one kind of animal, say a bacterium, or a cat, into something else, of not-that-kind? Again, tho, Miller is giving lots of defenses for evoluiton of various kinds & I want to get thru these vids, stick to them.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Rather than talking about theoreticals, how about giving me concrete, actual (at least claimed) examples of changes you think are turning one kind of animal, say a bacterium, or a cat, into something else, of not-that-kind?"
1) Can you please define "kind" in a scientific way so I know what to look for.
2) Are you asking for actual witnessed (in the history of human civilization) changing from one "kind" to another "kind"?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know you are probably busy, but I just wanted to make sure you saw my questions:
1) Can you please define "kind" in a scientific way so I know what to look for.
2) Are you asking for actual witnessed (in the history of human civilization) changing from one "kind" to another "kind"?
Thanks.
KPhysicsGeek 1 year ago
@KPhysicsGeek
Its been a month, but if you are still online, I would love to ask you about LoricaLady if ya still have time.
I'll be continuing to refute her pathetic attempts at an intelligent rebuttal to Miller, especially after the idiotic PM she sent me today.
Great job refuting her comments, too!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Thanks, feel free to ask me a question. Still online though been busy recently.
KPhysicsGeek 1 year ago
@KPhysicsGeek
Great-I just wanted to know when/if LoricaLady actually ever got back to you about the questions on definitions of "kind"?
A few times through all 9 of these videos she tries to play it as if she is the one who never refuses to answer anything.
Seems to me she outright ignores a great deal, if not dismisses the question as invalid with the excuse of it not being asked in the specific way she desires (a cop-out, really).
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"New species are being created, in fact all the time all over the world."
Interesting... earlier you said,
"10th - There is no evidence for new species being created. "
Do you withdraw your earlier statement?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I thought I made it very clear that I made an error w/the earlier statement. I have a comment from you in my inbox (don't see it here, tho) re 3 vids to watch re new dna/new info. I have watched 1 of them & part of another. There are so many points made, & therefore needing so many responses, that it will not be simple to respond. As the topic is relevant to this vid series, I will respond as soon as I can. Re other topics to debate, let's table them for now for the sake of time?
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - On 2nd thought, re speciation, what do you think of making the topic even more limited to start, say on the subject of nylonaise? Nylonase is not something I have studied much & need to research the issue more. In the mean time, some info 4U on it. GoogleCreationists Where Did Nylon Eating Bacteria Come From, Yahoo Q & A. Also YT The Nylonase Fallacy, & Nylonase Debunked: Nylonase Is Not Evidence of Evolution.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - If you have any evidence that the nylonase have changed from being bactereia, or that there is any evidence they are changing into anything other than bacteria, please let me know about it. Thanks.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you have any evidence that the nylonase have changed from being bactereia"
I thought my post was clear, I was not talking about bacteria "becoming something else" I was addressing whether new information can be added to DNA. Do you agree that new information can be added through DNA?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Would you consider the move from single cellular to multicellular life count as "something changing to something else"?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - Please be more specirfic and give me what (I believe will turn out as usual to be) evoutionary propaganda you have been reading and are referring to here.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
I thought I was specific. Would you consider the move of an organism from being composed as a single cell to it's offspring being composed of multiple cells as "Something changing into something else."
In addition, what evidence would you accept that would indicate that "something has turned into something else" Please be specific.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - From Wiki. Nylon Eating Bacteria. "The discovery [of nylon eating bacteria] led Susumu Ohno to speculate t[ahem!] that the gene had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation. Ohno suggested [!] that many unique new genes evolved this way. A series of recent studies...in..Japan suggest [!] that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evoluton [which hasn't even been observed, much yet proven - it is just assumed here]...Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - Wiki./Nylonaise Cont. "...in the evolution of the...acid hydrolase." The conclusion for the article states, "There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most proabably [! same ol, same ol, w/theories presented as if they are as good as actual evidence]
developed as a single-step mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution & natural selection..." tho, might I add, "most probably"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I dont see these things: Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"[! same ol, same ol, w/theories presented as if they are as good as actual evidence]"
.........wow...... really?
That is an epic fail, and really exposes your complete ignorance on the subject.
Miller refutes your silly statement in the first video in this series.
If you are going to speak any more on this subject, I will gladly listen because I'm really looking forward to a good laugh, LoricaLady.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
That1Q - Please see my response to your initial posts at 1/9 of this series.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
"Please see my response to..."
You didn't read my reply to your PM, you didn't read any of my posts back to you because you dont like being mocked, and in doing so you ignored every point I've made.
Nice double standard again, kid.
If you want respect, you should try earning it first.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
KPG - Wiki/Nylonaise cont. I don't see anyone saying a new strand of dna has developed that will help turn this "bug" into something other than a bacteria, only that it made an adaption thru its genes to eat a new kind of food. We are supposed to make the leap of faith that that evolutionary leap will occur. I see no evidence presented that shows how this "most probably" mutation can lead to problems for descendants down the pike, nor mention of other problems mentioned in sources I gave.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
KPG - Re the so called geologic column, YT The Record of the Rocks & Google Answers In Geness Chapter 4 Unlocking the Geologic Record. I do not have time at present to debate the geologic record, which is peripheral to this series. However, the topic of speciation is very salient to this series.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady One other thing that I wish to ask. You fault Miller for not providing evidence for every statement in this "science talk" (you definition). Do you hold all "science talks" to this standard?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I fault Miller for presenting information as if it has evidence when it does not. I fault him for being a con man and a huckster for the lie of evolution.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
Do you fault everyone who acts like they have evidence of something but does not present it?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Google "Selected Publications: William Rice" Click first link. Use search function with phrase: "The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character"
This is the first article which you can download.
Use search function with "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence"
This is the second article which you can also download.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One final thing, how have we gotten off topic, you said "here is no evidence for new species being created." Presenting evidence to debunk said claim is not off topic.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Oh BTW, this experiment observed reproductive isolation in 25 generations, not 1000 or more.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
"Climate changed, we really don't know".... Euh???
Paleoclimate is one of biggest science of earth evolution based on sedimentary element, chemical, paleontologic, stratigraphy and radioisotope...
You want to see evolution fact. Look at the caterpillar turning into butterfly! This is one observation of "functional changes", no wings, no able to fly, other digestive system... But exactly the same animal!!! This is EVOLOUTION PROCESS! if one walking animal can change and fly, all can do!
MattleSystem 2 years ago
It is the same with frogs, born in water but able later to breath the air, and able to walk (jump)... This is a change of function, change of organs. this is EVOLUTION PROCESS.
If you want to see something going away of sea (water element) and then suddenly startingt to walk. look at frog life!!!
MattleSystem 2 years ago
In case you didn't see it on another video and in your mail box, and in case anyone thinks I am being rude to you or so impressed by your brilliance that I have no response, as I have said before,when the evolutionists start getting insulting, I stop reading their posts and just pray for them and you have gotten yourself on that list.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
8th. Miller uses an extinct animal as an example of evolution, i.e. the giant sloth. Evolution typically teaches that something is it's opposite. The exact opposite of "evolution" is extinction. Miller produces no evidence, & of course Darwin did not produce any either, that the giant sloth eventually turned into the
smaller sloth through evolution. It "Looks like it did..." is the usual pseudo science.
Maybe the climate was very different., leading to gigantism. We really don't know.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
actually extiction is part of evolution. some species simply are ill adapted to a changing environment so they die off.
actually the last part has some truth. in the age of dinos there was 30%~ oxygen in the atmo allowing plants to grow larger and by extension animals. but there is evidence to show what ancient climates use to be like in more pangean times.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
extinction is part of evolution a ill adapted species doesnt survive.
as for gigantism there is a glimmer of truth. millions upon millions of years ago the O2 level was around 30%~ allowing plants and animals to grow much bigger. but one can judge these ancient climates through testing.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
@LoricaLady What does evolution predict? That new forms come from previous existing ones which often die out. These observations match the predictions just as experiments with electricity match the predictions made from the theory of the electron.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
"It "Looks like it did..." is the usual pseudo science."
Incorrect, "It looks like it did..." is characteristic of all science. It described observations.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
5th. "The reason armadillos are found today ont he continent where the most armadillo like fossils are found is because these guys might have been the ancestors." The use of the word "like" as a substitute for evidence is typical in evolution. Where is the evidence that the :"look alike" produced anything different from itself? Nowhere.
The use of the word "might" is also characteristic of evolution. "It looks like...so it might...". Science w/o evidence is pseudo science.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
ok so armidillo like ancestors are ok?
what about thier ancestors and then thier ancestors and so on they might start to look radically differnent. ( youll have to ask a paleontologist about any specific species i dont have the name memory to remember long phylogonies(spelling?))
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
ok so hes aware that he could be wrong, your point? go publish your idea if you can if your right you win a nobel and the awe of the scientific community.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
BACH - I see you have left a lot of off topic posts which did not show up in my comments box. I will respond to some of them, then I really want to go back to going thru this series of vids systematically.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
BACH - I am not a scientist. There are plenty of scientists who do publish info debunking evolution. You can find some of them favorited on my home page. They require study because we generally aren't proficient in the sciences. As it tells in Expelled though, those wonderful peer reviewers aren't really happy about publishing their findings.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
- if it's not peer reviewed then it is simply an opinion piece that is not open to criticism.
- expelled lol i would expect a reference to that from someone such as yourself. the following vid reveals ALL the fallacies in expelled (it's a 3 hour debunktacular):
watch?v=VwhZqNgfRC0
- oh of course there must be some kind of conspiracy, GET REAL.
types10000 2 years ago
@LoricaLady It's not that they are unhappy about publishing things that have theological implications, it's that they are unhappy about publishing things that are bad science.
The first person to suggest the hypothesis that later became the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest who was criticized for letting his theology get in the way of his science. He was still able to publish and was eventually vindicated over the eternal universe that was favored at the time.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Bach - My friend, please review what you are doing. You are simply quoting things that evolutionists have said, over and over. Please let's stick to the MIller vids. They are systematic and seem pretty thorough. If I debunk him, you can show me how I am wrong rather than doing a shot gun approach on everything. Sorry, that's all I have time for.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
from this video
fossils in conjunction with comparative anatomy are used to determine relatedness of animals based on structural changes THROUGH THE LINEAGE
the tech used to identify the relatedness of humans and chimps is the same as used in paternity tests
microevolution is observable, macroevolution is the cumulative effect of micro over time, so the only way micro can occur and macro cant is if there is a mechanism to proven the accumulation of change no such mechanism exits
types10000 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
again, please look up the 40+ examples of observed speciation. Again, evolution predicts that the ancestors should look similar to their descendants with modification. This is what we see. In addition, it explains the fossil stratification we see according to geologic time period. Intelligent design does not explain these observations.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
Do you agree that the use of the word "might" is characteristic in all science?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I will answer the "might" Q, as I think I did criticize the use of it by Miller - who is the topic of these vids. However, I actually already did answer the Q, tho maybe on a later vid. Yes, the word "might" is used in all sciences. However such conditional words, which are part of forumulating theories in science, cannot stand alone and be called science. The examples I gave included "might" with no real evidence. "MIght" etc. w/o evidence is not real science. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Do you accept that genetic analysis of similarities AND differences is a testable prediction that can disprove evolution?
Do you accept that the stratification of fossils is a testable prediction that can disprove evolution?
Do you agree that the statement that flighted mammals should have solid bones while land bound birds have pneumatic ones is the a prediction that can be used to disprove evolution?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
4th Quoting loosely form memory, "Not only has life changed but it has changed according to a pattern. It's very clear the changes are successive." He just had mentioned plants. All plants look exactly the same today as they did in the past. There is no evidence whatsoever for any kind of pattern of change. Further, what are they related to, per evolution? The fish? The bugs? Where is their "origin of species"? Miller conveniently never mentions these problems for evolution.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"All plants look exactly the same today as they did in the past"
Look a science book and find "angiosperme" and "gymniosperme". There are differences! Could you define coral, algae, or sponges as an animal or a vegetal? This is where is your answer!
We can't have a 4.5 billion years of details for life, as you can't have a perfect family tree of 6000 years for human being!
Don't look for answer in the gap of time evidences because about 10% of life has been fossilized sine the beginning.
MattleSystem 2 years ago
But with this 10%, we have already a good explanation for the Evolution... Of course for the time t=0, nobody will have an answer!
Life comes from inanimate, comes from dust and from the imagination of old lonely man who decided to create life to destroy it later.
"You are with me or against me". You choose, you are free! "You live or you die in Hell". It does not matter if you are only 2 years old, you have to choose now!
Wrong answer! Amen.
MattleSystem 2 years ago
Matt - As I have said before I do not like getting theological as I see it as generally being a form of distraction from the real issues of science. You are aware that there is no evidence that life can come from inanimate objects. through any mechanisms known or observed on the planet earth. How does attacking your version of YHWH and the Scriptures change those facts? It doesn't. You are setting up a straw man.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Oh really! We don't have to take as fact the text written in the scriptures! I though that was your best argument!
You are so limited in time and with a narrow minding that you can't figure out the possibility of life! You just admit what you see in large scale.
For info gymniosperm turned into Angiosperm (Secondary school).
I didn't say there is no need for evidence, because we have enough to prove Evolution. We need now to fill as better as we can the gaps, by finding new fossils.
MattleSystem 2 years ago
Mattle System - "You re so limited in time and with narrow minding you can't figure out..." These are insults. I get tired of them, from vrtually all the evolutionists who post to me. I wish you well, I believe you will do well, but you are now on my list of "delete posts without reading and just pray for them."
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Sorry if you take this as an insult, but it was not done as purpose, I have a limited knowledge in english expression. But limited in time is not an insult. Narrow minding, is just to explain the fact that you always want to see impossible such as cat turning in dog... You can't and even a evolutionist can't...
But take the butterfly as example of evolution!
MattleSystem 2 years ago
Mattle System - I hope you will rise above using your so-called limited english to make an excuse for insulting other people who speak English. This imay not be great French but I'm sure you will get the idea: Je ne vous crois pa. Au revoir.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
il faut que je le dise avec mots en français, je vais le dire. Je pense donc que tu ne cesses de tourner en rond autour d'une idée impossible. tu te bloques sur le fait que personne n'a vu de ses yeux un animal changé en un autre. Et je te dis que ton point de vue est trop limité dans le temps (notre vie est trop courte). De plus tu n'élargis pas le sujet à d'autres éléments. Tu ne te restreins à des généralités. Mais il te faut détailler et pas seulement ignorer. Voilà peace!
MattleSystem 2 years ago
More I write and more I would to have a real discussion with you, face to face. Because I don't want to pass for a bad guy, especially when i try to explain my point of view in 500 characters... you could show me paper, you could draw me or even experiment to prove god. And I can probably do the same for you. And I am sure that you cannot always put also all your thinking in this kind of posts.
Don't you think?
MattleSystem 2 years ago
Matt - As I have said before it is a cop out to say, "Well, we just don't have enough fossils." B.S. There are billions upon billions of them. How come we see no scales turning into feathers, no angiosperm turning into a gymnioperm no corals turning into sponges or vice versa, etc.? You are totally theory based. You feel there is no need for evidence. "Its been too long" is your substitute for its lack. I'm sorry but It's been too long" is not a scientific response. Again, its a cop out.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
How do you want to prove creation, if you don't see once a new animal appearing in your garden. How do you want to prove creation if you know that giraffe could not live in another conditions as they are in savanna. The climate change, the environment change and life has to be adapted... Your descendant will understand that if electricity, water supplie disappear. The best creation of God will have to "SURVIVE" in Nature and we are for sure not well ADAPTED!.
MattleSystem 2 years ago
You say that creation is based on scientific evidence... Well, if the only evidence is that "life is complicated" then I agree. But ignorance of principle of life is not an argument. you have to go into details. Open several books and make your own experience.
Life comes from inanimate is purely fiction created by creationists. But if you take the molecules scale we are all made Carbon, Oxygen, Calcium, Nitrogen, Hydrogen etc...
MattleSystem 2 years ago
have you seen some fossilized plants? some look very very different to anything around today.
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
Bach - Of course some fossilized plants look very different from some today, because, like animals, many have gone extinct.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady Looks up the Pod Marco lizards for an example of changes. Also look up the fossils of different species of elephant to show successive gradual changes.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
"All plants look exactly the same today as they did in the past. There is no evidence whatsoever for any kind of pattern of change."
This is a false statement. Miller gave examples of how selective breeding has changed the appearance of plants. Do you deny Brassica oleracea has given rise to a large variety of plants that look very different?
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
2nd, Google "Colin Patterson famous quote transitional fossils." Dr. Patterson was the head paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, and an evolutionist. In writing to another famous evolutionist, Steven J. Gould, we see them both admitting there is no real evidence for even a single transitional form. 3rd, the geological "periods" that Miller talks about only exist on paper. One can find trilobytes all over Ky. Seashells from the so called Cambrian period are on every mountain.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
true but after a certain point there are no trilobytes, just as after a certain depth there are no mammals, then reptiles, etc etc. what they were just magically created every few hundred million years?
bacchusreborn 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
Please look at quotes in context. Explain to me the idea of punctuated equilibrium and how those quotes related to it.
No transitional forms?!? Transitional forms from fish to amphibian: Osteolepis, Eustenopteron, Tiktaalic, Paiderichthys, Obruchevichtys, Hyperpeton, acanthostega, ichthyostega, pholidogaster, pteroplax and many more which I cant fit.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
@LoricaLady
Please study geology. You can see the layers in many places. In addition, please explain the effects of rivers, wind, etc on weathering and plate tectonics on mountain building. This will answer your questions on this.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I cannot possibly answer all of your posts, especially since most of them are strawmen, detracting from what I came here to do, namely debunk what one evolutionist is saying in this vid series- which is pretty much what they all say. Why don't you just pick one quote of mine, add it in part to your comment & tell me why you think it is wrong. That is all I have time for. 1 comment of mine w/your trying to debunk it. I have chased enough strawmen in this series, & you have left a ton.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Can you indicate where I used a strawman argument?
Your quote: "we see them both admitting there is no real evidence for even a single transitional form. " Gould is talking about transitions between species, not larger groups. And we have witnessed 1 species evolve into another.
List of transitions from fish to amphibians: Osteolepis, Eustenopteron, Tiktaalic, Paiderichthys, Obruchevichtys, Hyperpeton, acanthostega, ichthyostega, pholidogaster, pteroplax and many more which I can't fit.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - People are putting up strawmen when they are getting off on this topic & that topic, when it is not directly related to this video. I am trying to debunk MIller. People can respoind to what I am saying about him, about theeeese videos, or they can keep getting off topic & not deal with what I say about him. Obviously I do not have time to debate everything. In some cases I have gotten off topic because I wanted to make a point, but really I prefer to stick with Miller for time's sake..
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady Where did I not deal directly from video? You mentioned transitional fossils, I provided transitional fossils.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
HPG - There are many people saying this & that about transitional fossils. Givng me a list of these & those supposed transitional fossils is not proving anything but what you believe, & anyway I don't have time to explain why.
Plz refer to whatever I said, please pay attention here...to what Milller....said. I cannot debate everything. Quote what I said that was wrong when debunking Miller, if you can find it unscientific or illogical. I don't have time to get off topic anymore.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"2nd, Google "Colin Patterson famous quote transitional fossils." Dr. Patterson was the head paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, and an evolutionist. In writing to another famous evolutionist, Steven J. Gould, we see them both admitting there is no real evidence for even a single transitional form."
This is wrong, they said there are FEW evidences for transitional forms IN A SPECIES. NOT between species. There are plenty of them between species.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG- I have the exact quote, & here is just part of it, from Patterson to Gould: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions [that means any kind] iin my book. If I knew of any [remember he was the head paoleontologist of the British natural history museum] I would certainly have included them...You say that I should 'at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived'. I will lay it on the line." Cont.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Cont. "There is not one such [don't see the word "few" anywhere, hmmm...) fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Patterson & Gould (though Gould started backing down after creationists started quoting him) & plenty of other evolutionists have said plenty more damning things about the so called transitional fossils. I will be back on the Sabbath (for me, Saturday), please stick to Miller. He is trying to defend evolution from many positions, so that seems quite fair to moi.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@LoricaLady logical fallacy, quoting out of context. Patterson is talking about transitions within a species. Please look at entire letter.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG- I will respond to your posts on the Sabbath, as far as I can tell about my time then. Please be so kind as to not leave very many. I also might have some comments from Bach which I would like to take time to respond to. Thank you.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
"Google "Colin Patterson famous quote transitional fossils.""
Logical fallacy, argument from authority.
"the geological "periods" that Miller talks about only exist on paper. One can find trilobytes all over Ky. Seashells from the so called Cambrian period are on every mountain."
Logical fallacy, non sequitur.
In addition the periods are readily apparent. They may not be the same all over due to erosion but they exhibit a high degree of agreement.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - I have a few moments... I most certainly did not quote Patterson out of context. If you care to show in what ways you think that is so, have fun. Give quotes. There is a difference between quoting an authority - which everyone does, including you no doubt - to support a point and to say, you should believe me because that point was made by an authority. I was using the quotes to demonstrate the point that evolutionists do not all agree that there are any transitional fossils.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Wrong, scientific arguments are not based upon quotes from authority, they are based upon evidence. I provided examples of transitional forms, you retreated behind your argument from authority.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal,
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
continued:
"Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . .""
David Patterson, Evolution pg 131
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago
KPG - An interesting quote from Patterson. Plz give webpage & date. Notice I did not accuse you of "appeal to authority" for your also quoting him You no way, prove my quote from him was out of context. If he says a thing 1 time & place & something else in another time & place, it doesn't show rock hard belief. I have noticed a pattern with evolutionists,, sometimes, that when they see creationists are quoting them, embartrassing them, they go party line. More Patterson quotes tomorrow.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Ah, but it was an appeal to authority. You were wrong not to call me out on it.
KPhysicsGeek 2 years ago