For Creationists.

[abaris]

Other than the fact that creatards remain apes...and dumb ones at that...why do you think it has stopped? It has not.

That's the second time I see apes insulted in a discussion here. What have they done to you to deserve that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Intelligent manipulation, that's not evolution it how ever does point toward God.

GC

Sure, if god were a human being in a labcoat playing with beakers (which I suppose isn't all that far from the truth, sans the labcoat and the beakers ofc). It doesn't actually matter what the source of the "manipulation" is, it's the fact that life -can be- manipulated. "Artificial" (as in "artificial selection") does not mean "fake" - artificial refers to artifice. There is no functional difference, to accept the one is to accept the other. Understand?

[Esquilax]

Intelligent manipulation, that's not evolution it how ever does point toward God.

GC

Artificial selection is just as valid an evolutionary process as natural selection. Evolution describes gene change over generations, with no requirement that the source of that be purely natural.

These experiments have been ongoing for how long?
A hundred years maybe?
Trying (by application of intellect -NOT chance) to cross the genetic limits of
"AFTER THEIR KIND" (or within each kind of biological critter) To NO avail.

"Kind" is not a scientific term, and it has no set definition. Additionally, it's not a part of the definition of evolution; objecting to evolution on the basis of kinds is completely irrelevant, akin to objecting to gravity on the basis that gravity does not account for the color pink. If you wish to continue this line of argument honestly, do us the courtesy of doing something no creationist has ever done, and present a concrete definition of "kind" before using the term in your argument, though even if you do that it doesn't suddenly make it relevant or applicable to evolution.

Additionally, "scientists haven't been able to do X, therefore X is impossible naturally" is a category error, and an argument from ignorance. Double fallacy.

[Godscreated]

Intelligent manipulation, that's not evolution it how ever does point toward God.

GC

Artificial selection is just as valid an evolutionary process as natural selection. Evolution describes gene change over generations, with no requirement that the source of that be purely natural.

There's no way you can prove what happens in a lab can be possible in nature. You are always digging at me for proof now it's your turn.
So, you're saying that before science got involved with gene manipulation, there was another intelligence involved in gene manipulation. There is no proof that any plant or animal has become something completely different, there is no proof that new DNA can be added without human interference.

GC

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no way you can prove what happens in a lab can be possible in nature.

I'm sorry, where do you think the lab is? Seems to me, it's a part of nature.

There is no proof that any plant or animal has become something completely different,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raphanobrassica

there is no proof that new DNA can be added without human interference.

Even if this were true, so what? Human interference, the interference provided by the speed of a river current at surface relative to floor. Interference due to more sunlight, less sunlight - the pattern of spots on a coat. Ignoring that "interference" isn't a requirement.....when it's present it hardly matters what the origin is, as you should already be aware of.

[abaris]

There's no way you can prove what happens in a lab can be possible in nature. You are always digging at me for proof now it's your turn.
So, you're saying that before science got involved with gene manipulation, there was another intelligence involved in gene manipulation. There is no proof that any plant or animal has become something completely different, there is no proof that new DNA can be added without human interference.

GC

Not that I expect any of our creationist buddies to read it, but here's what evolution is about. In this case, the common ancestor and the differences between humans and african apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...y_genetics

Just to prevent the all too common, but fundamentally stupid question of why there are still apes.

Quoting myself here, since as expected, you didn't even bother to check one of the provided links.

[Godscreated]

There's no way you can prove what happens in a lab can be possible in nature. You are always digging at me for proof now it's your turn.
So, you're saying that before science got involved with gene manipulation, there was another intelligence involved in gene manipulation. There is no proof that any plant or animal has become something completely different, there is no proof that new DNA can be added without human interference.

GC

Not that I expect any of our creationist buddies to read it, but here's what evolution is about. In this case, the common ancestor and the differences between humans and african apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...y_genetics

Just to prevent the all too common, but fundamentally stupid question of why there are still apes.

Quoting myself here, since as expected, you didn't even bother to check one of the provided links.

It's as simple as this there's no proof that new DNA can be added without human manipulation. You can post all the pages you care to but that want change this one simple fact.

GC

[Esquilax]

There's no way you can prove what happens in a lab can be possible in nature. You are always digging at me for proof now it's your turn.

The method used in the lab is entirely within natural means; all they did was select grouped together cells and observed those. What you'd need is a selection pressure in nature that selects for heavier or grouped together cells, and those are trivial to come by.

So, you're saying that before science got involved with gene manipulation, there was another intelligence involved in gene manipulation. There is no proof that any plant or animal has become something completely different, there is no proof that new DNA can be added without human interference.

GC

It's really fun when you say something that demonstrates you obviously haven't fact checked before opening your mouth. New genetic information is routinely added to organisms via simple natural means; here's eight examples of this. Including skinks evolving the ability to give live birth instead of the usual eggs, and Italian wall lizards evolving entirely new digestive structures in reproductive isolation; since DNA is the means by which physical traits are expressed then these new traits must be the product of new DNA.

Just wrong, GC. Just wrong.

[Exian]

It's as simple as this there's no proof that new DNA can be added without human manipulation. You can post all the pages you care to but that want change this one simple fact.

GC

Here's a video on a point Esq. brought up in his debate with HM.
[youtube]dK3O6KYPmEw[/youtube]

[professor]

Well, this has truly evolved (the kind of evolution I can believe in).

I was asked about "Kinds", the word and concept predates the culture of evolution by several hundred years.
Lately, the naturalists are confused by what it means.

When you go to get an ice cream, you are asked what KIND you want.
You specify vanilla and you do not get chocolate.

Neither do they become one or the other over millions of years.
If you have a dog, you might be asked what KIND of dog you have?
Pretty simple isn't it.
The genetic code is what? Silly putty?