Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no drug resistance is an example of adaptation, not transmutation.

EVOLUTION IS ADAPTATION YOU [EXPLETIVE].


Argue against actual evolution and not your dim witted lying straw man you base intellectual coward.


Learn what evolution actually is or shut up.

Originally posted by OdBod
Come on Robbie you did ask for an example of evolution in action!

This not an example, its typical of what the materialist passes off for evolution. Darwinian evolution teaches that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals (now in dispute). In order for this to take place, transmutation from one species (genus) to another must take place, what googlefudge has described is not transmutation, its adaptation, the bacteria does not transform itself into another 'kind', of life form, it simply adapts. I asked for a single example of transmutation, not of adaptation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
EVOLUTION IS ADAPTATION YOU [EXPLETIVE].


Argue against actual evolution and not your dim witted lying straw man you base intellectual coward.


Learn what evolution actually is or shut up.

yawn, please go away and learn the difference between adaptation and transmutation, you may learn something in the process.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It can be interpreted to support creationism, the fact that vertebrates appear without precedent, that there is an explosion of life at the beginning of the Cambrian period, etc etc.

Do you think that this might not have something to do with the mass extinction that proceeded it? I thought creationism did not recognise the time scales in which Cambrian period is embedded?

Originally posted by OdBod
Do you think that this might not have something to do with the mass extinction that proceeded it? I thought creationism did not recognise the time scales in which Cambrian period is embedded?

It depends on what type of creationist you are referring to, they are not all one and the same. the fact is,

'Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.' - A view of life

🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
don't know without researching it.

Ok, how about the fact that no in-situ dinosaur fossils have ever been found in rock strata containing contemporary mammalian fossils? Doesn't this strike you as a bit odd if they were all created at the same time?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Ok, how about the fact that no dinosaur fossils have ever been found in rock strata containing contemporary mammalian fossils? Doesn't this strike you as a bit odd if they were all created at the same time?

who says that they were all created at the same time, certainly not the creation account. You may be pursuing straw here cat dude.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This not an example, its typical of what the materialist passes off for evolution. Darwinian evolution teaches that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals (now in dispute). In order for this to take place, transmutation from one species (genus) to another must take place, what googlefudge has ...[text shortened]... ife form, it simply adapts. I asked for a single example of transmutation, not of adaptation.

Lying hypocritical irrational coward.

Evolution by natural selection is, and always has been, the process by which changes in gene
frequencies in a population cause members of that population to have greater or lesser chances
of passing on their genes to the next generation.

This causes beneficial genes to increase in frequency and harmful genes to decrease in frequency.
The random mutation of genes due to copying errors supplies varying genes for evolution to work on.

When the environment changes or new opportunities open up then members of the species more
suited to the new environment or best placed to take advantage of the new opportunity gain an
advantage and stand more chance of passing on their genes than those members of the species
less suited to the environment.

Those with beneficial genes thus increase in number and those without reduce.

And the species shifts.


THAT IS EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION.

Period.


It RESULTS in new species forming as changes mount up over generations such that eventually the
differences are so great that the new species couldn't interbreed with the old one.

We observe all of this going on today.
We see the genetic evidence all around us.
We see the fossil record matching this exactly.
We see only creatures that could be formed by evolution and not those that couldn't.

AND YOU KNOW ALL THIS ALREADY.

You are lying about what science says evolution is to make a straw man argument because you are to
cowardly to face the truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
who says that they were all created at the same time, certainly not the creation account. You may be pursuing straw here cat dude.

That appears to be a straw you're clutching at. Of the two conflicting versions of creation given in genesis, both have all the animals created at the same point, either before or after the creation of man, depending on which version you prefer.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Lying hypocritical irrational coward.

Evolution by natural selection is, and always has been, the process by which changes in gene
frequencies in a population cause members of that population to have greater or lesser chances
of passing on their genes to the next generation.

This causes beneficial genes to increase in frequency and harmful gen ays evolution is to make a straw man argument because you are to
cowardly to face the truth.

A strong lion may overcome weaker lions, it doesn't mean that he will change into a zebra in the process. Can you provide a single example of observable transmutation, thank you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This not an example, its typical of what the materialist passes off for evolution. Darwinian evolution teaches that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals (now in dispute). In order for this to take place, transmutation from one species (genus) to another must take place, what googlefudge has ...[text shortened]... ife form, it simply adapts. I asked for a single example of transmutation, not of adaptation.

DNA determines the structure of an organism, if you change the DNA enough you will get a very different organism . When drug resistance in bacteria comes about this is due to a change in its DNA.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That appears to be a straw you're clutching at. Of the two conflicting versions of creation given in genesis, both have all the animals created at the same point, either before or after the creation of man, depending on which version you prefer.

First of all I don't hold that they are either two nor conflicting accounts, the genesis account does not give specific time periods, although it does state that marine creatures were created and then the 'great sea monsters',literally great reptiles which we understand to include dinosaurs were created later.

And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.
And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.

clearly there is a distinction in time between the creation of some kinds and those of other kinds.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A strong lion may overcome weaker lions, it doesn't mean that he will change into a zebra in the process. Can you provide a single example of observable transmutation, thank you.

NO BECAUSE EVOLUTION PROHIBITS WHAT YOU CALL TRANSMUTATION IT DOESN'T PREDICT IT.

You are too much of a coward to consider what evolution actually says and thus make up straw man
arguments against what we explicitly tell you evolution isn't.

This makes you pathetic, and a liar... But then we already knew that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
NO BECAUSE EVOLUTION PROHIBITS WHAT YOU CALL TRANSMUTATION IT DOESN'T PREDICT IT.

You are too much of a coward to consider what evolution actually says and thus make up straw man
arguments against what we explicitly tell you evolution isn't.

This makes you pathetic, and a liar... But then we already knew that.

so you cannot provide a single example of transmutation, yet you believe that it occurred, does the term 'observed phenomena', have any meaning to you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you cannot provide a single example of transmutation, yet you believe that it occurred, does the term 'observed phenomena', have any meaning to you?

No.

I can't provide any examples of transmutation and DON'T believe it occurred you lying coward.

How many times do I have to tell you that you are arguing against what I DON'T BELIEVE before
you stop?

How much of a coward are you?