@Adstar So you accept change at the phenotypic level, but reject change at the genotypic level.

To me, that sounds like species immutability

@newjaninev2
A wolf given enough generations can end up becoming a chihuahua..

A bull shark given enough generations can become a whale shark..

A Zebra given enough generations can end up being a pony..

Whether it be by environmental change or human selective breeding intervention..

@Adstar When talking about the concept of species, the first problem that seems to pop up is Essentialism. This is a hangover from Plato, who thought that every triangle (for example) was but an imperfect shadow of some essential triangle that existed in some or other conceptual space.

Ernst Mayr pointed out that this same thinking seems to appear when people think about species… as if there’s some quintessential rabbit, against which it can be assessed whether or not any given organism is, or is not, a rabbit.

In fact, a species should never be seen as representing some gigantic and sudden leap from something to something else. There is no magical point in time where biological differences allow separate species classifications. If you don’t understand this, then you’ll be be unable to understand evolution.

Every organism is linked to every other organism, say rabbit to leopard, by a chain of intermediates, each so similar to the next that every link could in principle mate with its neighbours in the chain and produce fertile offspring.

You can’t violate immutability more comprehensively than that.

This is not some vague thought-experiment confined to the imagination. The genetic evidence shows us that there really is a series of intermediate animals connecting a rabbit to a leopard, every one of whom lived and breathed, every one of whom would have been placed in exactly the same species as its immediate neighbours on either side in the long, sliding continuum. Indeed, every one of the series was the child of its neighbour on one side and the parent of its neighbour on the other. Yet the whole series constitutes a continuous bridge from rabbit to leopard… although there never was a ‘rabbipard’. There are similar bridges from rabbit to wombat, from leopard to lobster, from every animal or plant to every other.

@SW-User It's not our place to seek out evidence to support your claims, that's for you to do. Thus far you've been unable to.

@NewBecky But that ignores the expansion of the singularity (and there’s no order of any sort in a singularity)... so it’s with the Big Bang that entropy begins

@NewBecky
You are arguing against the best known law in the universe, which is that energy is not destroyed. But you're not even doing that honestly. You're hiding behind words like dissipate, pretending not to know that in a closed system such as our universe, energy doesn't actually go anywhere. It just travels around, and eventually comes back to the same place. Entropy as you understand it would indicate that the universe is somehow losing energy. But it can't.

@NewBecky

Harmony? Lol... things are bumping into eachother out there all the time.


"It must have been" .... Because your brain just can't conceive a world where this magical clockmaker that delivered a system full of chaos that you just label "harmonious" so it feels better to you. We can't explain this, thus God ... is one of the olderst and most ridiculous fallacies out there. We aren't smart enough to explain lightning, so God must have done it. We can't explain a Tsunami, so pray to God. We cant explain a volcano, thus God. We can't really explain why life just ends, thus God must have plans for us. We can't ... thus God is the most ridiculous narrative that people have thaught themselves so they can feel better with their insecurities about their reality. Gold solves all because it's a catch all answer for every bit of ignorance that our species still has. And why do religious people stay ignorant, 'cause God.

@Sharon Because what you wrote is based on a premise... and not much of a theory. Debunked for the most part.

@SW-User What are you referring to? You claimed @Kwek00's premise is a theory - I asked how a premise can be a theory.

Nothing @Kwek00 said has been dunked. What @NewBecky claims has been though. There is no evidence to support what she and you claim. You tell us to "look at the evidence" but you need to present it first, we can't look at a evidence that doesn't exist.

@SW-User You got any proof for that? You were the person that said:



And today you go



But then you end with:


BUT


so "faith" not knowledge by evidence that he's not going to give us...
Of course, when people like you embraced the concept before there is evidence, which you clearly do because there is no evidence even though you claim that there is. Then you can pretend to see God everywhere. Which is something people of faith are extremely good at.

This "analytic" and "evidence" nonsense that you push into the discourse to feel better about your baseless stance is only there to make you feel good about yourself. However, I don't want to feel good, I just want to know what is true, and delusional people that believe stuff without evidence aren't going to help me out.

@Adstar you are seriously confused. You may not like the indisputable truth of evolution of all life but no serious geneticist claims to know the origin of life nor would they assert their specialty does explain it.

I’m open to any citation you can provide where one does.

@newjaninev2
The you and your friend here should step in and intervene when ever a evolutionist claims that evolution disproves creation.... Hint you will be getting a LOT of opportunities to do so..

@Adstar I have absolutely no interest in trying to disprove something that is unfalsifiable... which is also why science has no interest in creationist claims that ‘goddidit’. Such a claim explains nothing (not even itself) because it tries to merely explain everything away.

@Carazaa Sorry I can't listen to you, because of

@Allelse I am not asking you to listen to anyone at all. Don't listen to me! Read your Bible and listen to only God! 🤗

@Carazaa Yeah I can't do that because of

@redredred Funny thing is I never mentioned the Bible until you did. Hmmm. And then you only showed me that you don't understand it. So your ignorance is not my problem but very common among rocks like you.

@redredred Care to elaborate about the two versions of Eve you seem to think exist?

@Amberrose Shame he can't create you a profile picture!! 🤔

@Amberrose
His Word.

@Reverend Valhalla is one of the places the dead can go, according to the teachings of the Norse religion. That teaching is no less valid than what christianity claims.

@Reverend Dr. Barney Maddox is a urologist, not THE leading geneticist.

@redredred I think he's taking the piss. ;)

@Emosaur And you expect me to believe where it would be so simple to show me the facts. I asked you to do a simple math problem and you couldn't. It was pretty harmless question involving simple math. Someone in grade five could have done it in their head. You can't do it in your head or by using a calculator or using a spread sheet. Too Funny!!!!

@NewBecky Nice to see you too! A breath of fresh air 🙂

@SW-User In order to do some the claims in the bible, you have to be magical because it defies certain laws.

@SatanBurger The Bible does claim that God created everything, of course. This gave order and energy to what we see. Without the Biblical explanation we are without cause for the energy and order that we see. To me, the greatest question for the atheist or the gnostic is What (or Who) gave the energy? Something or someone much greater than all of us started it all. I do not have enough faith to be an Atheist because they cannot give an answer to the continual winding down and loss of energy... the constant degradation of the universe. With the scientific process we observe the entropy that humanism cannot explain yet the Bible can and does.

@NewBecky So? Why should there be a cause? Why can't the laws of physics be eternal?

@Bushranger He is talking about Baraminology. A YEC concept.

@NewBecky You're ignoring the fact that lots of small changes result in a large change.

@SW-User It's not a straw man... and it points to what the evidence actually shows. If you don't agree... or haven't looked into it, you're not as informed as you think you are on actual evidence.

@Carazaa It has been a joy! Pulling back the veil...

@Carazaa You haven’t been able to produce a single piece of counter-evidence, and despite your masters, you show every indication of not understanding the basic fundamentals of how science works.

@QuixoticSoul The existence of the universe could just as well be taken as evidence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

@hippyjoe1955 Damn, you were almost capable of human interaction there, and then you degenerated into ad hominem like you usually do.

You're a theist, so you're automatically going to jump to the conclusion you want regardless of the evidence. So your opinion here can be dismissed on the grounds of begging the question.

Can you provide any of that "evidence?" Scholarly research papers, please, not some blowhard in a YouTube video.

@LeopoldBloom When what one claims and what one says are at odds obviously there is a lie at the heart of the proclamation. Liberals are the only creatures on the planet that believe you can hold two directly contradictory views and hold them both to be true.

@hippyjoe1955 Which is what you're doing. On one hand, you say that God is "supernatural" and therefore exempt from scientific inquiry, and then you turn around and make a vague and baseless claim that "scientists" are in fact studying him without providing any evidence of that.

You decided a long time ago that your God exists, so everything after that point must fit into that paradigm. That's the opposite of science, where a hypothesis can be disproven. Nothing could disprove God's existence in your eyes, so by definition, it's outside of science. That's fine, many religious philosophers would define "faith" as belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven, but you should at least have the honesty to admit that instead of wanting it both ways.

This is why I have more respect for presuppositionalists like Cornelius van Til, than evidentialists like William Lane Craig. A presuppositionalist takes as his initial axiom that the Bible is absolute truth, and goes from there. An evidentialist also believes that, but they won't admit it, instead pretending to reach that conclusion from observation and logic. So presuppositionalists are at least being honest.

@NewBecky

Here's some more reading on chromosome 2 then

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/

It's a study, not an article.

As for the article on ERVs well it says nothing more than god did this for reasons...which is what the answer always is. Various non-specific reasons.
While evolution consistently explains it by common descent.
Even the article acknowledges that these markers are established by infection. That is to say, even in this article there is no coherent explanation for why this foreign genetic material would be included in a special creation scenario, much less why it would be included at the same points in apparently closely related species.

Why would god make different animals with the appearance of having been infected sometime over their history by a virus which is then passed on in their genetic code? Mysterious ways.
Or
Why would these sites line up so perfectly between certain species? Same answer as always: common descent.

@Pikachu
So many assumptions! So which ancestry is that if we have common descent? Surely you know that none of this DNA research have ever been invalid at all right! Because we all know that only creationists research is invalid! The evolutionists surely would never corrupt research studies, that would never happen! So tell us which ancestor did we have in common and exactly what happened?

@Carazaa

I don't know which ancestor it was. We'll probably never know. How could we?

But you may find the same fingerprints at several crime scenes without knowing to whom those fingerprints belong.
Or you can assert that the fingerprints were planted there for reasons.
I know which one i'd find a more logical conclusion🤷🏻

@Pikachu
So?

@GodSpeed63 Do you read and follow every word of the bible?

The fossil record disagrees with Darwin. Don’t believe every piece of propaganda @OggggO

@RandomForest No... I accept adaptation within kinds... not leaps of 1 kind to another... with any amount of time.

@NewBecky How do you contend with a fossil record that has neanderthals existing on Earth at the same time as homo sapiens? Did they not pray enough? 😂

@NewBecky Thats right! Adaptation sure! but inbreeding crazy fantasies like that to make it make sense is an assumption and a flying leep out of the water. If man inbred with a Neanderthal how did a fish become a monkey and how did the monkey become a Neanderthal! They had to add 50 million years to make that happen to try to discredit the Bible some more! And non science experts believe this because the “ experts” say their research is valid!

And they think it’s a jump to believe that God created the universe because it was really a bang that did! Yeah...

God tells us he created it in 5 days and man in one and he came to visit us in the flesh and walks with people who cry to him for help, and he helps them to restore their lives miraculously! And he is preparing a place in heaven for us until the last person is saved and then he will come to take us home! And he will destroy this world, with all people who rejected him!

@Budwick I have had people tell me over and over again about how "God's existence" is obvious.

Except, that it's never been obvious to me. People ascribe things to gods as a convenient excuse to absolve themselves of accountability and responsibility. In my life, I have found that the most immoral people are the ones who talk most vociferously about gods. The Judeo-Christian god, in particular is used to divide and hate. This god is used to put man against man. What is written about Jesus' re-interpretation of the Old Testament is not consistently practiced by people who claim to be Christian. I have witnessed more atheists and agnostics live lives that are more in line with Jesus' philosophies than Christians.

I did not decide to look away. I am looking at the same evidence that you promote and I have concluded something different than you. There are others in world history that have done the same.

@JoeyFoxx Joey - for starters I would take man out of your assessment of God. Men - all men [and women] are flawed. It's really inexplicable that you would consider making a judgement of God, based on mans behavior.



Pretty much the same thing.

@Budwick All humans are flawed...

Would not this include the humans that transcribed the so-called word of God?

@GodSpeed63 Trying to convince a person born blind that rainbows exist is pretty pointless. Even if you convince theme that rainbows do exist they have no idea what they look like or the joy one gets when you see one after a rainstorm.

@shuhak No one ever claimed they did.

@ninalanyon I'm wondering. Does he dispute that dogs and wolves share a common ancestor?

@LeopoldBloom All things are possible with God! Things happen quickly in nature not millions of years at all 🙂

@Carazaa yes God can speed things up, He's a supernatural God so like you say all things are possible!

@TheWildEcho You bet ya 🙂

@redredred I have no idea who is and I suspect you don't either. So you don't know a thing about him beyond wikipedia. but you are expert. Eye roll.

@redredred Wrong! He has not rejected intelligent design! He is a creationist, because he sees God in science.

@SW-User Ready to continue..?

@MamaButterfly People.

@LordShadowfire How were people created?

@MamaButterfly We evolved from a previous species of ape, Wichita falls from a previously existing species of ape, all the way back to the first mammal that crawled out of its cave after the dinosaurs died. It's all very well documented.

@BlueGreenGrey Nice try but no sale. Yes most 'gods' are human creations but there is One Triune God who created the universe and everything in it. Sadly it appears that you don't know that-but that can be fixed.

@BlueGreenGrey We are imperfect, not Jesus, who came to save us! 🤗

@JBird
Prove it.

@GodSpeed63 Can't you read this? 👆 Are you stupid or acting stupid in order to avoid confrontations? Your God can't help people when needed.

@JBird That’s how he ‘debates’-ignores the factual portion of your replies so he can engage in this ‘chasing the tail‘ avoidance of reality.