Logic dictates that there is a God!

[KLOBBER]

Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines.

Evolution can occur during several stages of development, including in the creation of gametes, embryonic development, etc.


Per the "E" versus "e". Usually a capitol letter indicates a proper name, in this case the theory of Evolution. It is broadly simply the change of species over time, but in specifics involves a lot more. It is a convention, but not universal.

That said, however you distinguish, there is a theory of Evolution and there is the fact of evolution, both.

If evolution was a fact then they would most certainly stop teaching creation. How many people do you know that teach a flat Earth? Hmmm I wonder why they don't? Aaah that's right! They have proof that it is round!


It's one thing to believe in evolution. If you do, good for you. But I can't stand when people say it is a fact. It is not a fact! If it was you could show me proof of it and this conversation would end. But the FACT is, you CAN'T prove evolution any more than I can "prove" God.

It is a fact. Show me where besides the Bible belt people teach creationism?

Evolution has long been proven. It caused a stir back in Darwin's day, some religious folk are still causing a stir about it. The rest of the world has accepted it and moved on.

No, it has never been "proven." For example, there is no case where any species has been observed producing a member of a different species. Instead, we observe that each respective species ALWAYS produces members of the exact same species, exclusively.

[KLOBBER]

I...Religion was probably born with our ability to think and if you think about the world at that time, while they didn't have any evidence....

Of course there is evidence for all the religions that God has revealed. That is why the vast majority of people have always accepted them, all over the planet.

[KLOBBER]

I'm not aware that "Evolution" and "evolution" are different things. Certainly as a biology student I don't recall any lecture or text book ever making such a distinction.

Yes things change over time - this is an observed fact. Indeed they change every generation. This is an observed fact. ...

Okay, let's just clarify here. You are using the simple definition of the word "evolution" to mean simply "change," right? If so, then yes, "evolution," by that extremely broad definition, may be a "fact." However, the rest of us are using the term in a more honest way: to represent the odd notion that distinct species can somehow produce members of a different species, something that has never been observed, and is an unscientific, unsupported, foolish theory that is in direct opposition to observed reality.

[KLOBBER]

What KLOBER considers a reputable source is anything KLOBBER says, as opposed to anything anyone else says.

No, that is what you consider a reputable source.

[KLOBBER]

...One would either need to have a highly adaptable species to study or have a really long time in which to study, longer than the normal human lifespan can allow, I think.

Whatever reasons you may give as to why it has never been observed, still, it has never been observed. Science requires observation, not lame excuses, and since it has never been observed, it is 100% unscientific nonsense.

[KLOBBER]

...it's actually clearly been observed happening over generations..... explain how populations of lizards on different islands can vary in characteristics over time.

I see! You think that differences developing WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES is an example of "evolution," don't you?

[KLOBBER]

No one has observed KLOBBER, therefore KLOBBER does not exist.

You really believe that nobody has observed me? You also believe that if nobody observes something, that it doesn't exist? You have some very strange beliefs.

[KLOBBER]

...Most of the theory actually IS fact (mutations, natural selection, changes in species over time, species divergeance, geological stratification, etc. all are proven facts)

"Species divergence" (correct spelling) has never been observed, and the rest of those things may have been observed, but none of them has been proven to support the theory of evolution, Rather, the evolutionists began with a conclusion, and then began to gather false "evidence" based on their unscientific and premature conclusion. That practice is highly unscientific, and it alone disqualifies the entire theory. The only thing really supporting it now is "scissor logic."

Also, the opposite of a defunct theory is not another made-up theory, which you seem to want. The opposite of your defunct and untrue theory is the truth, which we certainly do have.

[KLOBBER]

Evolution is not observed, and is not a fact.

Here are the actual facts: No person has ever observed any member or members of one species evolving from any member or members of another species. What is actually observed, every day, every week, every month, every year, every decade, every century, every millennium, is that members of each respective species produce members of their very own, exact same species, exclusively.

This is the way it has always been, this is the way it is in EVERY person's observation, and this is the way it will always be. Nobody has ever observed any divergence from this precise system, exactly as stated above. Darwinist "evolution" is nothing but a bluff with absolutely no evidence, and absolutely no observation backing it. It is a myth, plain and simple.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

That article is pure BS, from a non-reputable source.

I do have to ask: in what conceivable universe that you inhabit is the New Scientist not a reliable source?

This one. A bunch of biased camels and asses getting together and patting each other on the back, proclaiming its own group to be "reputable" is the very essence of nonsense, and that is basically what you cited.

[KLOBBER]

and nobody has observed the earth revolves around the sun, therefore it doesn't

You believe those things? Strange.

[PLAYER57832]

This is getting spun off into a lot of interesting discussions, bu the original thread is still interesting. So, I am going to answer most of the above posts with a new post in a new thread.

[PLAYER57832]

...the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

First of all, evolution is an unproven theory, and has never been observed. It is not a "fact."

Are you trying to pull the crap that a long lizard is necessarily a different species from a shorter one? Body length alone is not a criterion for species determination. My father is also slightly taller than me. Does this make him, in your strange belief system, a different species?

If so, then your belief system is embarrassingly unscientific.

Just to be clear: the lizards you referred to are still the same species, no matter their body lengths, and our fathers are also the same species as we are, no matter any differences in our body lengths.

If you are going to try to challenge Evolution, you will have to do a lot better than that KLOBBER! ( Right now, you don't even sound as if you believe what you post.. you remind me of a young child putting his hands over his ears and pretending he cannot hear.)

No, a long lizard is not necessarily a different species than a long one. It simply shows a change over time, similar to Darwin's original studies of Finches. More important, however was his study of the fossils of sloths and comparisons to modern sloths, where he noted both that they all were remarkably similar in many ways, but also remarkably different.

See, that's the REAL reason you dismiss Evolution... it takes effort to actually study the entire picture, examine the evidence and tie everything together. It's not like someone found a video tape of the processs. We do have a kind of "treasure map".. its called the fossil record, but you have to actually study it, not simply glance at it and say "eh proves nothing". (note .. jay, etc, I do NOT say this of all of you!)

[PLAYER57832]

What KLOBER considers a reputable source is anything KLOBBER says, as opposed to anything anyone else says.

No, that is what you consider a reputable source.

You think I consider you to be a reputable source? Seriously?

You are either dreaming, entirely insane or both.

[StiffMittens]

...Most of the theory actually IS fact (mutations, natural selection, changes in species over time, species divergeance, geological stratification, etc. all are proven facts)

"Species divergence" (correct spelling) has never been observed, and the rest of those things may have been observed, but none of them has been proven to support the theory of evolution, Rather, the evolutionists began with a conclusion, and then began to gather false "evidence" based on their unscientific and premature conclusion. That practice is highly unscientific, and it alone disqualifies the entire theory. The only thing really supporting it now is "scissor logic."

Also, the opposite of a defunct theory is not another made-up theory, which you seem to want. The opposite of your defunct and untrue theory is the truth, which we certainly do have.

You are a complete and utter moron.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

[jonesthecurl]

Well, if all scientists and those who report upon them are camel-brained back-slappers, it's easy to believe just about anything.

[owheelj]

...the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

First of all, evolution is an unproven theory, and has never been observed. It is not a "fact."

Are you trying to pull the crap that a long lizard is necessarily a different species from a shorter one? Body length alone is not a criterion for species determination. My father is also slightly taller than me. Does this make him, in your strange belief system, a different species?

If so, then your belief system is embarrassingly unscientific.

Just to be clear: the lizards you referred to are still the same species, no matter their body lengths, and our fathers are also the same species as we are, no matter any differences in our body lengths.

Just to be clear, evolution and speciation are not the same thing. Evolution is genetic change over time. That has definitely been observed without any doubt what so ever. Speciation only occurs when there is something preventing two populations from breeding with each other (usually some kind of physical separation). In separate populations each population moves in a different direction. This is strongly supported by the genetic analysis of isolated populations of the same species. For example recently at my university some study was done into a particular rare orchid. There are 2 populations of that orchid on the island I live on (Tasmania) and a large number more in Victoria and NSW. The orchid supposdly came to Tasmania through livestock transport from NSW in the 19th Century. This would be unusual because the Victorian populations were geographically closer and the orchid could have spread through conventional means when Tasmania was part of Australia. Genetic analysis were carried out and it was found that the Tasmanian populations were obviously most closely related to each other, but then NSW and furthest away from the Victorian populations. This is a clear example where the size of genetic difference correlates with the length of time apart from each population, which is exactly what evolution is - change in genetic information over time. Given enough time the separate populations get so far apart they can no longer bread. Note that this isn't evolution, it's just the divergence in evolutionary direction of separate populations.

Again Speciation =/= Evolution.

If you're going to express an opinion about this, perhaps you should spend some time learning what you're actually refuting, since you've just demonstrated that you don't know what evolution is. If you don't know what something is, how can you say that it's wrong?

[KLOBBER]

Your attempt at belittling my knowledge has failed, and the fact that you made the attempt, along with your posting of the above nonsense, shows that you know you are wrong about evolution.

[KLOBBER]

Well, if all scientists and those who report upon them are camel-brained back-slappers, it's easy to believe just about anything.

You believe that? Strange.

[KLOBBER]

...Most of the theory actually IS fact (mutations, natural selection, changes in species over time, species divergeance, geological stratification, etc. all are proven facts)

"Species divergence" (correct spelling) has never been observed, and the rest of those things may have been observed, but none of them has been proven to support the theory of evolution, Rather, the evolutionists began with a conclusion, and then began to gather false "evidence" based on their unscientific and premature conclusion. That practice is highly unscientific, and it alone disqualifies the entire theory. The only thing really supporting it now is "scissor logic."

Also, the opposite of a defunct theory is not another made-up theory, which you seem to want. The opposite of your defunct and untrue theory is the truth, which we certainly do have.

You are a complete and utter moron.

Thank you for your opinion, and thank you for skirting the issue as well.

[KLOBBER]

What KLOBER considers a reputable source is anything KLOBBER says, as opposed to anything anyone else says.

No, that is what you consider a reputable source.

You think I consider you to be a reputable source? Seriously?

You are either dreaming, entirely insane or both.

Well, you are the one who said it, not me.

[KLOBBER]

...the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

First of all, evolution is an unproven theory, and has never been observed. It is not a "fact."

Are you trying to pull the crap that a long lizard is necessarily a different species from a shorter one? Body length alone is not a criterion for species determination. My father is also slightly taller than me. Does this make him, in your strange belief system, a different species?

If so, then your belief system is embarrassingly unscientific.

Just to be clear: the lizards you referred to are still the same species, no matter their body lengths, and our fathers are also the same species as we are, no matter any differences in our body lengths.

If you are going to try to challenge Evolution, you will have to do a lot better than that KLOBBER! ( Right now, you don't even sound as if you believe what you post.. you remind me of a young child putting his hands over his ears and pretending he cannot hear.)

No, a long lizard is not necessarily a different species than a long one. It simply shows a change over time, similar to Darwin's original studies of Finches. More important, however was his study of the fossils of sloths and comparisons to modern sloths, where he noted both that they all were remarkably similar in many ways, but also remarkably different.

See, that's the REAL reason you dismiss Evolution... it takes effort to actually study the entire picture, examine the evidence and tie everything together. It's not like someone found a video tape of the processs. We do have a kind of "treasure map".. its called the fossil record, but you have to actually study it, not simply glance at it and say "eh proves nothing". (note .. jay, etc, I do NOT say this of all of you!)

Evolution does not warrant any challenge -- it is still an unproven theory (ie opinion), nothing more.

I am simply stating facts.

[KLOBBER]

Nobody is denying the existence of "change over time." That is nothing but an ineffectual attempt on the part of the darwinists to change the subject.

Your bizarre attempt at extrapolation of change WITHIN SPECIES to change FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER is 100% garbage, is a myth, has never happened, and has never been observed. What is observed, in every single case of reproduction, is that the very same species ALWAYS reproduces the exact same species. It has always been that way, it has always been observed that way, it will always be that way, and it will always be observed that way, with not as much as a single exception, ever.

You think you're good at dodging the real issue, posted above, with cheap semantics, but you're not.

The fact that you refuse to address the real issue says volumes about how well you understand the fact that you are absolutely wrong about evolution theory.

[StiffMittens]

...Most of the theory actually IS fact (mutations, natural selection, changes in species over time, species divergeance, geological stratification, etc. all are proven facts)

"Species divergence" (correct spelling) has never been observed, and the rest of those things may have been observed, but none of them has been proven to support the theory of evolution, Rather, the evolutionists began with a conclusion, and then began to gather false "evidence" based on their unscientific and premature conclusion. That practice is highly unscientific, and it alone disqualifies the entire theory. The only thing really supporting it now is "scissor logic."

Also, the opposite of a defunct theory is not another made-up theory, which you seem to want. The opposite of your defunct and untrue theory is the truth, which we certainly do have.

You are a complete and utter moron.

Thank you for your opinion, and thank you for skirting the issue as well.

Wrong. You ARE the issue. If anything proves that evolution is true, it is those rare, but obvious exceptions where evolution has failed. You, for instance. You are such a deep, dank hole in the landscape of human intelligence that conversing with you is like looking down a well, the walls of which display all those steps in the evolution towards modern thought which you have failed to achieve. You are a one man fossil record - a living, breathing (albeit through the mouth) tar pit. You really should be on display in a museum.

[KLOBBER]

...Most of the theory actually IS fact (mutations, natural selection, changes in species over time, species divergeance, geological stratification, etc. all are proven facts)

"Species divergence" (correct spelling) has never been observed, and the rest of those things may have been observed, but none of them has been proven to support the theory of evolution, Rather, the evolutionists began with a conclusion, and then began to gather false "evidence" based on their unscientific and premature conclusion. That practice is highly unscientific, and it alone disqualifies the entire theory. The only thing really supporting it now is "scissor logic."

Also, the opposite of a defunct theory is not another made-up theory, which you seem to want. The opposite of your defunct and untrue theory is the truth, which we certainly do have.

You are a complete and utter moron.

Thank you for your opinion, and thank you for skirting the issue as well.

Wrong. You ARE the issue. If anything proves that evolution is true, it is those rare, but obvious exceptions where evolution has failed. You, for instance. You are such a deep, dank hole in the landscape of human intelligence that conversing with you is like looking down a well, the walls of which display all those steps in the evolution towards modern thought which you have failed to achieve. You are a one man fossil record - a living, breathing (albeit through the mouth) tar pit. You really should be on display in a museum.

Thank you for that beautiful example of the ad hominem logical fallacy, and thank you for your failure to address the real issue, which all believers in evolution theory always fail to address. Do you think that you hurt my feelings?

Your self-defeat is thorough.

[StiffMittens]

Thank you for that beautiful example of the ad hominem logical fallacy, and thank you for your failure to address the real issue, which all believers in evolution theory always fail to address.

Your defeat is thorough.

Your idiocy is thorough. I addressed the "real issue" when I sent you the link which refuted your assertion that speciation hadn't been observed. You, of course failed to look at it, which is why you failed to offer any sort of rebuttal, which is why you fail.

And BTW we've been through the ad hominem straw man theory ad nauseum in another thread. It still doesn't hold water. There's really no point in explaining it to you again since you wont listen, and even if you did you wouldn't understand. It would be like giving lobster to a starving man. Too rich, you'd only wind up sitting on the toilet for a half hour longer than usual.