KellyJay and his dinosaurs

Originally posted by KellyJay
The process to pull this off is described as being driven by a blind,
goalless, random mutation, one without intent. You are now telling
me in a very short amount of time, it can overcome a very specific
poison that was never introduced before, so it had to manufacture
a resistance that previously didn't exist. I do not call the small amount
of generat ...[text shortened]... d not credit natural selection or any other part of that theory
credit for such an act.
Kelly

….The PROCESS to pull this off is described as being driven by a blind,
goalless, random mutation, one without intent. You are now telling
me in a very short amount of time, it can overcome a very specific
poison that was never introduced before, so it had to manufacture
a resistance that previously didn't exist...…(my emphasis)

The “PROCESS” in the above you speak of is evolution. So now you are denying here that evolution occurs?
-so you are saying here that life does NOT EVOLVE?
-you have shifted you position yet again!
Reminder of your comment to FabianFnas:

….I believe in life EVOLVING,..… (my emphasis)

so you are saying here that life DOES EVOLVE?

-do you notice the shift in your position here?

I think FabianFnas was spot-on when he said you might be shifting your position without even noticing it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not call the small amount
of generations that have been presented significant enough to
accomplish such a task unless there was sometime directing the
process along asking for and getting the right mutations to cause
the strain of resistance to be built.

How many times must I repeat this before you will hear it: You simply do not have the information available to you to make that judgment. In order for you to tell me whether or not the number of generations presented is significant enough to accomplish such a task you must know:
1. The total world population that has come into contact with DDT.
2. The number of possible genes that can provide protection against DDT.
3. The range of genes currently in existence.
4. The frequency of gene mutations.
5. The probability of a gene currently in existence mutating into a gene that provides protection against DDT.

You do not know the answer to any of those questions so your conclusion must be based on your own personal desire to make the conclusion you did, or simple incredulity based on ignorance.
Are you now willing to admit that you simply do not know whether or not it is likely for such genes to arise in the time period in question? If you are not willing to then can you provide the figures in 1 to 5 above (even rough estimates would be sufficient.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many times must I repeat this before you will hear it: You simply do not have the information available to you to make that judgment. In order for you to tell me whether or not the number of generations presented is significant enough to accomplish such a task you must know:
1. The total world population that has come into contact with DDT.
2. The n ...[text shortened]... to then can you provide the figures in 1 to 5 above (even rough estimates would be sufficient.)

I guess when I have to stop repeating myself we will both feel like our
answers are heard, SHOW ME THE CHANGE! I've asked to see what was
changed by someone else who claims evolution did this, what did it
look like before and after. We have data on that or not, if not you are
barking up the wrong tree here, because you are just assuming what
you believe happened did. I've given my views on this, spelled out why
I think what your suggesting didn't occur, and gave you two different
reasons that could have happened instead, and walked you through
both proecesses. If you have the data you claim I need, share it that
is all I ask, stop complaining I don't know if all you have are
assumptions too.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many times must I repeat this before you will hear it: You simply do not have the information available to you to make that judgment. In order for you to tell me whether or not the number of generations presented is significant enough to accomplish such a task you must know:
1. The total world population that has come into contact with DDT.
2. The n ...[text shortened]... to then can you provide the figures in 1 to 5 above (even rough estimates would be sufficient.)

You have a belief I suggest you prove it instead of asking me make
a case against it. I'm not going to do your home work for you. I told
you what I thought and why.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess when I have to stop repeating myself we will both feel like our
answers are heard, SHOW ME THE CHANGE! I've asked to see what was
changed by someone else who claims evolution did this, what did it
look like before and after. We have data on that or not, if not you are
barking up the wrong tree here, because you are just assuming what
you believ at
is all I ask, stop complaining I don't know if all you have are
assumptions too.
Kelly

….what did it look like before and after.
..…

I already gave you the answer to this question in a previous post;

“Before the mosquitoes were not DDT resistant and after mosquitoes were DDT resistant. ”

Do you have a problem with those facts?

….We have data on that or not, ..…

Of course we have the data; it is in the form of historical records of observations in the mosquito effected areas.
Do you have a problem with the existence of such observations and historical records?



( I think KellyJay is just choosing to selectively ignore the evidence and the known facts )



….I don't know if all you have are assumptions too...…

I answer this for you; the answer is “no”.
we reason using the known evidence/facts (which are NOT just “assumptions” ) and draw whatever conclusions that known evidence/facts points to.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess when I have to stop repeating myself we will both feel like our
answers are heard, SHOW ME THE CHANGE! I've asked to see what was
changed by someone else who claims evolution did this, what did it
look like before and after. We have data on that or not, if not you are
barking up the wrong tree here, because you are just assuming what
you believe happened did.

Now you are simply trying to avoid admitting your error. I don't claim that there was a change. I am merely pointing out that you are making a conclusion about something for which you do not have enough data to be making conclusions about.

I've given my views on this, spelled out why I think what your suggesting didn't occur,
And I am pointing out that since your reason simply amounts to incredulity based on a lack of information on your part, it is not a reasonable reason. Am I wrong that it is based solely on incredulity? If I am wrong can you repeat your argument please?

and gave you two different reasons that could have happened instead, and walked you through
both proecesses.
And both your alternatives are reasonable possibilities. But your conclusion that they are more likely is what I am challenging.

If you have the data you claim I need, share it that
is all I ask, stop complaining I don't know if all you have are
assumptions too.
Kelly
No I do not have the data as I have already stated. I am not making any assumptions that I am aware of, if I am, can you point them out?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have a belief I suggest you prove it instead of asking me make
a case against it. I'm not going to do your home work for you. I told
you what I thought and why.
Kelly

I do not have a belief. If I do, then what is it?
Yes you told me what you thought and why and the post you are replying to is my explanation as to why the reason you are giving for what you think is invalid. You simply do not have the information available to you to make the conclusion you did.

When I see this debate I cannot avoid to see that one part is demanding rigid evidence and when these evidence is given they are ignored as beliefs, and the other part has opinions and when the evidence are sought for none is given, even included with rude answering and disrespect.