Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Drich]

Even the 24 hour fruit fly who proved inter species evolution which I am using to claim my theory about the strong survive during periods of climate change) is limited to very minor changes over literal hundreds of thousands of generations.

The reason I mention the 24 hour fruit fly is because we can observe hundreds generational changes in a matter of months., but again these fruit flies even have 100's of billions of observed genetic/inter species generational changes they have NEVER MORPHED into another species. Thus there has NEVER Been An observed example of species evolving or morphing into another. Your attempt to try and push inner species evolution as species evolution is an intellectually dishonest attempt of confusing the topic. or you simply do not understand the macro changes of evolution Darwin purposes against your own dealing with micro changes in a given species.

Here is a question that no creationist that I have asked has been able to answer and allows me to disregard your entire point about the 24 hour fruit fly.

Glob...

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

Nothing you f-ing moron. Small changes on an inner species level can be witnessed with in just a few generations of cross breeding and environmental change. No one has EVER questioned that. But that (and thisis the f-ing moron part you don't seem to get) Inner species evolution is NOT DARWINISM!!! Darwinism speak to extra species evolution. like from a 14 foot reptile to a bird of prey! Not from a hound dog to another type or measure of a hound dog. or a donkey and horse to a mule. a 500ft whale to 300ft land animal to100ft blue whale.. that is darwinism get it? from one species over time to another.

Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works.

No. I am not. I am simply point int out we have studied inner species changes given hard environmental pushes under perfect evolutionary conditions to try and force an species change and at best we just make another type of 24 hour fruit fly. We have been working these thing en mass since 1880 to try and force evolution on a species level. now lets do some math.. 24 hours=1 day 1 year 365.25 days... more or less it has been 137 year times that by 356.25 that is over 50039.25 generations of flies that has been pushed toward evolutionary change on a macro level/extra-species change and not once not one fly has been born anything other than some variation of a 24 hour fruit fly. Not to mention the fact we have only been watch and expermenting on them for 137 or so years, fruit flies in general have been around from what I would argue as the beginning. and still no change.

50,000+ generations (and a new one everyday) and and the end of every generation you still have a fruit fly.

That stupid fly is literally THE BEST evidence evolution has and it has failed over 50K times to produce one example of macro-evolution. what does that tell you? (well for stupid fith based scientists) it says we just need 50K more generations.. for everyone else. we see what you believe as faith based as believing in God. except your way kills god ultimatly allowing you to make your own morals and feel good about doing it.

That is all this is about.

Otherwise you would acknowledge my THEORY makes better use of the available evidence than anything Darwin ever said.

What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Moron... maybe you should do a little more reading before you scold me on what your colleges are doing with said flies.. maybe you should do a nobel prize count in exactly that field of trying to force evolution on these stupid flies before you speak again. Seriously.. one dude made subspecies of white flies and I think another made them blind... I guess any genetic manupliation can be considered evolution when youre that hungry for proof.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

glob.. you don't understand the fundementals of what I am saying do you? I am not argung natural selection (which is different than evolving) natural selection says one species has the ablity to live in a change of enviroment. my theory embraces natural selection. I simply state everything lived here at one in one form or another. and as climates change natural selection had one dominate species die off and another micro evolved into the new dominate species. Are you too lazy to argue the argument presented? can you make you brain work on a different level beside typical christian/atheist evolution argument? it does not seem so. get your crap together and try again.
I am just pointing out there are other explanations to the fossil record that can be supported by science that does not have to embrace evolution.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

no moron all elephants are born without tusks. they don't develop them till adolescence.
before tusks they have 'milk teeth' to hang on to mama while feeding..

Besides that you still do not understand the difference between macro and mirco evolution. again if the latest version of elephant was born with ablative armor that deflected poachers bullets they would still be elephants and that would still be an example of micro evolution. now if the next generation had gills and fish tails to swim away from predators... that would be an example of Darwinism. You also need to know there is a difference between Darwinism and what faith based science calls 'evolution.' Darwin would cry heresy!! if he ever heard what passes as evolution today. as it is NOT true Darwinism.

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span.

here's the problem with that.. the further you push back your time lies.. the less likly you will ever see proof which makes thins whole thing a big leap of faith. "But nut-huh drich how do you explain dinosaur bones" again... we were here all at once and natural selection along with climate change had the top species die off in a series of mass extinctions till a couple thousand years ago we etched our way out of the jungles.

So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to.

Idiot... ever hear of an ice age? what about the metor that killed off the dinosaurs?? Or are you too stupid to extrapolate the theory of natural selection from darwinism and apply it to what I said about the core life forms all occupying the planet at the same time? I am not arguing the events that supposedly made the dinos go away, i am simply pointing out quite a bit more could have survived than what we think.

The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Bwahahah you have yet to intellegently address any points of my theory. you are arguing christian verse atheist, so how in the world can you possible say the time lines are inconsistent?

When again the time lines are the same. I am simple refuting the idea that a species had to develop in a relitivly short time to weather a hard winter from an ice age or the tropical heat of global warming. I am saing those creatures are were already there.


Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

---

[quote='Drich' pid='1635000' dateline='1507645018']

It is backed up by the same body of evidence. it's just I have taken time to connect the dots for everyone.