Proof

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes indeed, and herein lies the truth of the matter, for what you people are in fact guilty of doing, is representing aberration at a molecular level and stating that it has resulted in transmutation, from one species into another when in fact there are various observable factors which seem to run contrary to these unobserved claims. No one is denyi ...[text shortened]... ed by a failure on the part of atheists and agnostics to differentiate between these two claims.

Firstly, I think you should probably define 'you people' so that I know whether or not I'm one of them.

Secondly, neither you nor I have been around long enough to determine whether or not speciation does occur as a result of evolution. Neither were we present to witness the magical 'creation' of species you choose to believe in so firmly.

Thirdly, a lion is a particular species of feline. There are many other species of feline which are not inter-fertile with lions and yet are clearly very closely related. Do you consider them as having 'evolved' from a common ancestor? You seem happy to accept the different species of Galapagos finch as having so descended. Where - precisely - do you draw the line?

Fourthly, your argument categorizing the theory ascribing speciation to evolution as 'intellectually and scientifically dishonest' is argument by emotive language and does you no credit whatsoever.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well that is for you to decide, it was after all, you that stated, by definition, which of course, would be your definition.

Yes, the definition of "mutation" definitely implies that the result is something new. The question then is whether that something new fits what you meant when you claimed something new could not come about by a mutation. So its back to you, what did you mean?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Firstly, I think you should probably define 'you people' so that I know whether or not I'm one of them.

Secondly, neither you nor I have been around long enough to determine whether or not speciation does occur as a result of evolution. Neither were we present to witness the magical 'creation' of species you choose to believe in so firmly.

Thir tifically dishonest' is argument by emotive language and does you no credit whatsoever.

no way, the discerning theist is better to ask when 'evolution', is mentioned, what it in fact
refers to, are we talking adaptation or are we talking transmutation, to have them
lumped together and stuffed into the same jar is not only unscientific, it reeks to the
high heavens of utter conjecture! If this is sensationalising then so be it, i remain,
unrepentant!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, the definition of "mutation" definitely implies that the result is something new. The question then is whether that something new fits what you meant when you claimed something new could not come about by a mutation. So its back to you, what did you mean?

No you have not answered the question, if something new has been created as you
have asserted, what is it? Is it E Coli or is it something else as you have claimed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no way, the discerning theist is better to ask when 'evolution', is mentioned, what it in fact
refers to, are we talking adaptation or are we talking transmutation, to have them
lumped together and stuffed into the same jar is not only unscientific, it reeks to the
high heavens of utter conjecture! If this is sensationalising then so be it, i remain,
unrepentant!

Look at every mammal on the planet. We all have the same skeleton. ie. skull, spine, rib cage, arms, legs, pelvis, appendages. We all have eyes, mouth, ears, a brain, our cardiovascular system is the same. We give birth to live young and suckle them. All mammals are adaptions of the same structure. But you wouldn't say all mammals have a common ancestor would you? Why not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it makes sense, but i do not dispute this, adaptation occurs, without a doubt.
Transmutation is what i dispute , whether its over quadrillions of zillions of years.

Do you know how speciation occurs? ie, what goes on at the biological level.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you have not answered the question, if something new has been created as you
have asserted, what is it? Is it E Coli or is it something else as you have claimed?

It is what it is. What I choose to call it is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is, it is new, whether I choose to call it E Coli, E Coli B, F Coli, G Coli or even Cat or Golliwog.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no way, the discerning theist is better to ask when 'evolution', is mentioned, what it in fact
refers to, are we talking adaptation or are we talking transmutation, to have them
lumped together and stuffed into the same jar is not only unscientific, it reeks to the
high heavens of utter conjecture! If this is sensationalising then so be it, i remain,
unrepentant!

Yes, I understood your point and, to a degree, even agreed. I don't consider the term 'evolution' to equal the phrase 'speciation by evolution' and anybody who does is, strictly speaking, not using the term correctly. I note, however, your reluctance to engage the question I asked you, so I'll repeat it in bold to draw attention to it:

... a lion is a particular species of feline. There are many other species of feline which are not inter-fertile with lions and yet are clearly very closely related. Do you consider them as having 'evolved' from a common ancestor? You seem happy to accept the different species of Galapagos finch as having so descended. Where - precisely - do you draw the line?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look Meester Hameelton, its like this. You say that evolution causes transmutation, that is something entirely different to adaptation, which is what we see for example in the E Coli and Malaria experiments, this is as far as Darwinism can go, adaptation, not transmutation. Do you understand now? Thus despite your protestations it is entirely relevant!

“...look Meester Hameelton, its like this. You say that evolution causes transmutation, ...”

No, I didn't! Where did you get that from?
Evolution does NOT cause transmutation and I never claimed nor implied that it did.
Evolution may require transmutation but OBVIOUSLY that does not mean that evolution causes transmutation and I never implied the contrary.
The rest of your post doesn't make much sense only partly because of this.

“...that is something entirely different to adaptation, which is what we see for example in the E Coli and Malaria experiments, this is as far as Darwinism can go, adaptation, not transmutation. Do you understand now? ...”

Where did I equate “adaptation,” with “transmutation”? -clearly I didn't and I would OBVIOUSLY say and believe they are two different things so I have no idea what is the point of your 'point' above.

“...Thus despite your protestations it is entirely relevant! ...”

what you say in that post is irrelevant because I never said/implied any of those things.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Look at every mammal on the planet. We all have the same skeleton. ie. skull, spine, rib cage, arms, legs, pelvis, appendages. We all have eyes, mouth, ears, a brain, our cardiovascular system is the same. We give birth to live young and suckle them. All mammals are adaptions of the same structure. But you wouldn't say all mammals have a common ancestor would you? Why not?

Hello?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Hello?!

I am sowwy dear Noobster, i have achieved what I wanted to do, avalanche the putty cat has very honestly commented that adaptation is not the same as transmutation. You yourself when asked about it, provided as evidence, the Lenski experiments, yet you have not stated how these are supposed to support the premise other than to postulate that aberration at a molecular level over time extensive time (unspecified) will produce different species. If for example i am born with six fingers, is it likely that my son will inherit this defect and if so, will his fingers change his hand into something else, for that is, when you get down to the fundamentals of it, what you are saying.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes, I understood your point and, to a degree, even agreed. I don't consider the term 'evolution' to equal the phrase 'speciation by evolution' and anybody who does is, strictly speaking, not using the term correctly. I note, however, your reluctance to engage the question I asked you, so I'll repeat it in bold to draw attention to it:

[b]... a li f Galapagos finch as having so descended. Where - precisely - do you draw the line? [/b]

i draw the line at transmutation, that is one species transmuting into another, for what we actually observe is genus procreating after their specific kinds. Thus i totally reject the Darwinian model, for it is clear to me, that as far as it can go, is to demonstrate variety within a species. Whether these are descended from a common ancestor i cannot say, for I am a creationist and what may be termed adaptation, may in fact be design, so that matter at present, remains unresolved in my mind. I apologise for this lack of clarity, please do not construe it as a lack of honesty.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sowwy dear Noobster, i have achieved what I wanted to do, avalanche the putty cat has very honestly commented that adaptation is not the same as transmutation. You yourself when asked about it, provided as evidence, the Lenski experiments, yet you have not stated how these are supposed to support the premise other than to postulate that aberrat ...[text shortened]... o something else, for that is, when you get down to the fundamentals of it, what you are saying.

I didn't provide the link to the Lenski experiment to demonstrate transmutation. I linked that to show you beneficial mutations do happen.

What about my mammal question. Mammals have the same framework, why can't they all have a common ancestor? What is biologically stopping them from having one?

As for achieving what you wanted, this is what you always do. You enter a debate about evolution repeating the same flawed arguments and when your shown why you are wrong, or in this case i was about to talk you through speciation to find out where your problems lie, you disappear. Only to enter another debate in the not too distant future repeating the same views.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related ...”

He says that the Creationist component is not a necessary component of Christian belief and most Christians agree on that -which I think is probably correct on both accounts.

But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means b ...[text shortened]... ntastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.

Do you understand the above logic?

What about this link:

YouTube&NR=1

Do you have a better example of the evolutionist?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What about this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR77TO0T2S4&NR=1

Do you have a better example of the evolutionist?

“...Do you have a better example of the evolutionist? ...”

the link doesn't particularly give nor explicitly give an example of an evolutionist.
What does the content of the link got to do with “evolutionist” (or, indeed, evolution) ?
It gives some talk about the Big Bang which is relevant to evolution because evolution is NOT a theory on the origin of the universe.
Many theists (including some “non-evolutionists” ) accept that the Big Bang happened and there would even be some atheists (including “evolutionists” ) that disbelieve the Big Bang so the Big Bang has very little to do with “evolutionists” in particular.
(The link also implies that the Big Bang was an explosion -which it wasn't (a common misconception) . The whole conversation is silly and flawed right from the start)