Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

No, that's not why, again you manage to be wrong.

[simplexity]

Well there probably a reason a whale cannot mate with a cow (and it has NOTHING to do with evolution). You're allowing your imagination to run wild my friend. We can observe material added or deleted, yes, but most of it has not affect on the cell's function. Mutations are rare compared to the amount of the genome that is remains unchanged through inheritance. When you factor in the amount of negative mutations compared to positive ones the bad outweighs the good considerably. And most mutations are minor changes such as resistance to disease. You are proposing drastic changes that have NEVER been documented.

Never in my wildest dreams have I ever stated that the change in a genome from one genome to the next would be enough to change from a cow to a whale. Every generation very tiny genetic mutations, additions, and deletions occur. When the change from generation to generation eventually leads to a new species the species is going to look very similar to the ancestral one. There are no limitations on mutation because the limitations themselves are always changing from generation to generation. Therefore because the limitations will always be changing there is infinite variation.

I do concede this argument is over as does the rest of the reasoning people here since you are somehow trying to disprove evolution with a bunch of BS having nothing to do with it whatsoever. Because of this you are and always will be wrong and this argument is over.

[Abishalom]

Never in my wildest dreams have I ever stated that the change in a genome from one genome to the next would be enough to change from a cow to a whale. Every generation very tiny genetic mutations, additions, and deletions occur. When the change from generation to generation eventually leads to a new species the species is going to look very similar to the ancestral one. There are no limitations on mutation because the limitations themselves are always changing from generation to generation. Therefore because the limitations will always be changing there is infinite variation.

Now you're rationalizing. Just repeat what you've written here in your head. You are saying that the observable changes we can document and test lead to unobserved changes (ie. new species) that we have not and cannot document and test. BTW the whole whale to cow things was just an example. Evolution claims a single cell organism led to diverse live we see now through mutations and billions of years. There just is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this claim. You're just repeating your fantasy.

I do concede this argument is over as does the rest of the reasoning people here since you are somehow trying to disprove evolution with a bunch of BS having nothing to do with it whatsoever. Because of this you are and always will be wrong and this argument is over.

I don't have to disprove evolution. There is just no evidence to prove it. Everything I've said are just FACTS that you can look up yourself. I even posted some independent readings documenting these limitations. You (and your atheist friends) keep repeating what I am saying is BS, but you've failed to provide any evidence to back your claim. Let's examine what I am claiming...

We can and have observe variation within species. There are documented limitations on this variation. Where is the actual observation of infinite variation? There are none. Only presumption and lack of evidence. If we examine what we know there is absolutely no evidence to suggest infinite variation, but everything does point to variations leading to different kinds of the original species. I get that you are saying that the changes are small and continuous. But that just isn't the case.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look at you, still making claims, still wrong. You have a real talent.

[simplexity]

Actually, we can test it and we have. It's called computer simulations. Input a genome, methods of genome replication and mutation, and code for how natural selection works. The output is evolution. Here is a very simple simulation I came across.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuWJ1ZiwO2g

[Abishalom]

Actually, we can test it and we have. It's called computer simulations. Input a genome, methods of genome replication and mutation, and code for how natural selection works. The output is evolution. Here is a very simple simulation I came across.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuWJ1ZiwO2g

I'm talking about in real life...you know with real organisms. It's never been observed but always presumed to be true (despite absolutely no evidence). BTW computer simulations require a designer (so I doubt you want to use this as "evidence" for evolution).

[simplexity]

This has nothing to do with whether the laws governing evolution require a designer ie physics, chemistry. That would lead us back to the big bang, and no it doesn't "require" a designer. This is not a discussion of how the universe began or how it never really "began" at all either, so please stop where you are now.

The point I am making is that when you input laws into a system which we know to be true, these being mutation and natural selection, evolution works. Whether the computer simulation is designed is completely irrelevant. The same laws guiding evolution in real life were inputted into a computer system on a fast time scale and it works.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've never seen any evidence that creationists are capable of correcting their mistakes when presented with them. I still assume that it is possible, however unlikely.

As far as whether or not evolution and the "creation" of a new species has ever been observed. You're wrong again.

[popeyespappy]

It's never been observed but always presumed to be true (despite absolutely no evidence).

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ! Are you really ignorant enough to believe there is “absolutely no evidence” for macro evolution? If so what is the explanation for your nescience? Do you not understand what constitutes evidence? Was your education remiss on the basics of evolution? Is it amnesia? WTF is the deal?

[Phil]

It's never been observed but always presumed to be true (despite absolutely no evidence).

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ! Are you really ignorant enough to believe there is “absolutely no evidence” for macro evolution? If so what is the explanation for your nescience? Do you not understand what constitutes evidence? Was your education remiss on the basics of evolution? Is it amnesia? WTF is the deal?

Being born to brother and sister that were born to brother and sister would explain it.