Creation vs. Evolution

[Mark SeaSigh]

Nope, that's wrong. In it's simplest formulation evolution is genetic variation acted upon by reproductive advantage. We have evidence for genetic variation and reproductive advantage. What evidence do you have for your model of the origin of species?

The Fact that mutation only causes Genetic Disorders, and that When observing DNA material, you can see the Effects of Mutation, and that it does not Lead to New Creatures, or Variations of Species, but instead leads to Animals with Genetic Disorders, which are less likely to be able to Reproduce.

The Evidence for my Model of the Origin of Species is proved, Given DNA Information is working into Disorder, and not New Order that is a working system of Code in DNA. That means that Every Species, or Family of animal, was Originally Created in Full form, with Potent DNA, and that the Modern animals that We share the World with, are actually Packed with Genetic Disorders due to Mutation, instead of Mutation that could ever lead to Speciation.

In fact, Speciation of Animals has never been observed.

Since the Wolf and Common Dog, have been Split by their Environment, they should have begun to Speciate. However, no speciation has taken Place. Which is why they are changing the Textbooks to say that Wolves and Dogs are the Same Species.

See Here;

https://www.google.com/search?q=are...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This link proves that Evolutionists were wrong about the Dogs being a Separate Species. Kind of like how they Lied about the Piltdown man. They see things that are unbelievable, and instead of Questioning it Immediately and testing it, before they Place the Information in the Papers, they accept it as truth, given their Preconceived Bias leads them to Accept any evidence, given the lack of Evidence for Evolution.

=M=

But Yeah, do you have any Evidence, that Speciation, a Major Necessity for the Function of the Evolutionary Process, Ever Happened at All?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

What you are talking about here is the origin of life, not the origin of species.


We do have evidence that current life forms utilize non living material around them and incorporate that into their bodies. What evidence do you have for your model that life came from nothing?

Also, not all organic matter is living, or ever was the direct result of life.

Really, what do you consider Living?

Listen Cinderella;

Actually, I'm addressing Both Simultaneously.
I don't believe that Either Process Would Allow Speciation to Happen in Reality.

Nor is there any Evidence that Speciation has Ever Occurred through the Natural Processes that Evolutionists have Mentioned.

=M=

 

[noguru]

The Fact that mutation only causes Genetic Disorders,...continued convoluted nonsense by Markishigh....

Again, we have evidence of genetic variation coupled with reproductive advantage in regard to the naturalistic model of the origin of species. What evidence do you have for your model of the origin of species where things are "poofed into existence from nothing"?

 

[noguru]

Really, what do you consider Living?

Listen Cinderella;

Actually, I'm addressing Both Simultaneously.
I don't believe that Either Process has Any Proof that it can Happen in Reality.

Nor is there any Evidence that Either Process has Ever Occurred through the Natural Processes that Evolutionists have Mentioned, and believe that these instances Can Occur.

=M=

In regard to the origin of life we know that life is made up of components that are not alive themselves. We know that life uses non living components around it and incorporates those things into the bodies of life forms. What evidence do you have that life can be "be poofed into existence from nothing"?

In regard to the origin of species we know that genetic variation occurs, we also know how reproductive advantage acts upon that. What evidence do you have for your model that "life forms simply poof into existence from nothing"?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Nope, that's wrong. In it's simplest formulation evolution is genetic variation acted upon by reproductive advantage. We have evidence for genetic variation and reproductive advantage. What evidence do you have for your model of the origin of species?

That's what I'm Saying, Mutation, Genetic Variation, and Reproduction advantage is not an Explanation of how Animals would ever be able to Speciate.

How can A New Form of Animal Result from other forms Dying?
Do the Creatures that Survive Speciate, through some Unnamed mechanism of the Theoretical Process of Evolution?

=M=

 

[noguru]

That's what I'm Saying, Mutation, Genetic Variation, and Reproduction advantage is not an Explanation of how Animals would ever be able to Speciate.

=M=

What explanation along with evidence do you propose to replace genetic variation and reproductive advantage?

 

[The Barbarian]

The Fact that mutation only causes Genetic Disorders

You already learned about a number of favorable mutations that make organisms more fit. Do you think people didn't notice you're backtracking?

That means that Every Species, or Family of animal, was Originally Created in Full form,

Even most of your fellow creationists don't agree with you on that one. You're pretty much out on a limb by yourself.

Since the Wolf and Common Dog, have been Split by their Environment, they should have begun to Speciate.

So they are now subspecies. But tell me, do you think you could get a viable cross between a wolf and a chihuahua?

However, no speciation has taken Place. Which is why they are changing the Textbooks to say that Wolves and Dogs are the Same Species.

When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, textbooks said that they were subspecies. Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, could trip you up?

It just did.

Kind of like how they Lied about the Piltdown man.

We don't know who faked Piltdown Man, but we know he couldn't have been very smart about evolution, since the prediction was that an upright stance would have preceded a large brain. Piltdown had it the other way. So, it was with considerable relief among scientists, that an "evolutionist" showed it to be a fake. It was a much greater embarrassment when it was still not known to be a face, than after it was debunked by scientists.

It's one of the major differences between science and creationism. Science changes when the evidence indicates. For creationists, the evidence has to be changed to fit their doctrines.

 

[Stuu]

What explanation along with evidence do you propose to replace genetic variation and reproductive advantage?

Just to check: you aren't holding your breath now, are you.

That would be a recipe for going very blue indeed.

And some other colours afterwards.

Stuart

 

[noguru]

Just to check: you aren't holding your breath now, are you.

That would be a recipe for going very blue indeed.

And some other colours afterwards.

Stuart

You got that right. I am definitely not holding my breath.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

What explanation along with evidence do you propose to replace genetic variation and reproductive advantage?

The Evidence Was Already Presented, that Animals were all Created in Fully Functional Adult Form, Given that Mutation and Reproduction advantage only leads to Less Species of Animals.
Since no New Species of Animals can Develop, only the Explanation that they have always Looked the Same way is Reasonable.

If animals only appear, in Certain forms, and no new forms Develop, because Speciation is Impossible; the Explanation I'm Proposing is that they Were Created in Full Form.

The order in DNA becoming Disordered through Reproduction, proves that Animals always contained that Order, and are working to Less Ordered DNA Structure. Genetic Disorders do not lead to a New Type of animal, it only leads to Extinct Species, and Other Health Problems.

Evolution states that a Single Celled organism changed into a Walking talking Human. For this to happen, someone that is Capable of Reordering the DNA Information is Required to Create new Species, from an Older Species; Which means that Speciation, and New Forms of Animals could never come about through the Natural Processes that Evolution has Proposed causes Speciation.

=M=

Speciation doesn't rely on Reproduction advantage. If a Woman isn't Good Looking, I may not want to Mate with her, which could be considered a Reproduction Disadvantage. Whether the Woman contained features that promoted Reproduction advantage, and if I Decide to mate with her, does not Cause New Species to arise, whether Blessed with Advantage or Disadvantage, We will always be the Same Species, and so Will our Offspring, for All the Generations to Come. True Speciation does not Happen, and will never be observed in Nature.

 

[noguru]

The Evidence Was Already Presented, .

Nope, you got that wrong. I see you messing up evidence for the mechanisms of the natural explanation, but not offering any evidence of your own for mechanisms that would allow "poofing of new species from nothing".

So will you provide that evidence or not?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Nope, you got that wrong. I see you messing up evidence for the mechanisms of the natural explanation, but not offering any evidence of your own for mechanisms that would allow "poofing of new species from nothing".

So will you provide that evidence or not?

If you think Reproduction advantage, Mutation, and Stronger animals Killing Weaker ones, Leads to New Forms of Animals.

Please, feel free to Explain How.

=M=

If you know that Mutation only leads to disorders in the Human Genome, why would think Evolution has any basis in reality?

If you believe that Mutation works in Positive Ways, and that the Reason there are many Forms of Animals, is because of Mutation, Please give an Example of Mutation leading to a New anatomical Feature. Which is what Mutation would have to do, to change Animals into different Forms that contain Different anatomical Features.

I believe in mutation, I even believe that Animals being Split up over time, will end up appearing Different; After all, no animal from any given species looks exactly Alike, which is Why when a man Has a Son, he looks Different. However, no amount of Mutation will lead to a New Species appearing from an Old Form of animal. In fact Evidence in nature Proves it doesn't happen. Given animals that have been split for a very long Time, are still capable of Interbreeding. For instance, the Wolf and Dog.
True Speciation has Never been observed, in the Fossil Record, or in Modern Nature.

Shouldn't there be just one animal, that has Speciated, if the Theoretical Process of Evolution is True?

 

[noguru]

If you think Reproduction advantage, Mutation, and Stronger animals Killing Weaker ones, Leads to New Forms of Animals.

Please, feel free to Explain How.

=M=

If you know that Mutation only leads to disorders in the Human Genome, why would think Evolution has any basis in reality?

If you believe that Mutation works in Positive Ways, and that the Reason there are many Forms of Animals, is because of Mutation, Please give an Example of Mutation leading to a New anatomical Feature. Which is what Mutation would have to do, to change Animals into different Forms that contain Different anatomical Features.

Nope, that's wrong. In it's simplest formulation evolution is genetic variation acted upon by reproductive advantage. We have evidence for genetic variation and reproductive advantage. What evidence do you have for your model of the origin of species?

True Speciation has Never been observed, in the Fossil Record, or in Modern Nature.

Shouldn't there be just one animal, that has Speciated, if the Theoretical Process of Evolution is True?

The following links could help get you on your way to understanding this, if you really want to.

population genetics

breeding populations

minimum viable population

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

So they are now subspecies. But tell me, do you think you could get a viable cross between a wolf and a chihuahua?

Yes. They are Genetically Similar Enough to Reproduce. Granted they will most likely need to be artificially Inseminated. Since they can technically still interbreed, and have like Characteristics, they should be considered the Same Species.


When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, textbooks said that they were subspecies. Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, could trip you up?

Yeah, Like I said, Your science is Old, you should update it. They are now considered the Same Exact Species.


We don't know who faked Piltdown Man, but we know he couldn't have been very smart about evolution, since the prediction was that an upright stance would have preceded a large brain. Piltdown had it the other way. So, it was with considerable relief among scientists, that an "evolutionist" showed it to be a fake. It was a much greater embarrassment when it was still not known to be a face, than after it was debunked by scientists.

It's one of the major differences between science and creationism. Science changes when the evidence indicates. For creationists, the evidence has to be changed to fit their doctrines.

Yes that's Right Barbie!!!! : D
Piltdown Man was Faked;

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

The Fact is, Evolutionists Believed a Lie, that was Fully Unbelievable for Over 40 Years, the Fact they didn't even care who Discovered the Find, and that they Used it as Evidence for Evolution for over 40 years, just proves Evolutionists will believe anything that they are told, given the Lack of Evidence for the Theoretical Process of Evolution. Which makes me Think that If you Believed that Crazy lie about a Pig's Tooth, why should I believe anything Evols Say?


Thanks for helping me Clarify my Point, I didn't know they never Cared to Check who Claimed the Find.

That just shows how Incompetent Evols are at Recognizing Truth.

=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Nope, that's wrong. In it's simplest formulation evolution is genetic variation acted upon by reproductive advantage. We have evidence for genetic variation and reproductive advantage. What evidence do you have for your model of the origin of species?



The following links could help get you on your way to understanding this, if you really want to.

population genetics

breeding populations

minimum viable population

So, Basically What you are telling Me is; There are not any Examples of Animals Truly Speciating.

If that is True, Why should I Believe that Unfounded Theory?

=M=

I have Just One More Question for You JD, not that you have Fully answered any of the Previous ones;

Do you believe that An Asexual Animal is Capable of Speciation?

 

[Stuu]

Nothing yet noguru. The fossil evidence has been completely ignored, and all we are getting is the incredulity of what mutations (don't) do, and repeats of Piltdown.

I guess creationism is a fail.

Well, I don't guess that, it is a fact.

Stuart

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Nothing yet noguru. The fossil evidence has been completely ignored, and all we are getting is the incredulity of what mutations (don't) do, and repeats of Piltdown.

I guess creationism is a fail.

Well, I don't guess that, it is a fact.

Stuart

Wow, you know what is interesting, The fossil Record doesn't show Any Evidence of Speciation. Instead it shows that Animals Have Remained the Same Form, the Entire time they have Existed!!!!

Now, Stop Your Crying...

WAKE UP SUE and LIVE!!!!

=M=

==================================

Wake Up - The Arcade Fire

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

Great post and video. Now, what came first, the chicken or the egg?? We Christians know of course, it was the chicken. God didn't create an egg, He created a chicken. He also created roosters. Just like He created man and woman. He did not create children, He created them older than say, 14 years old, at the least. Back then, men and women lived til great ages. Inside them, they had the sperm and the egg. Same with the plant life and creatures. The herb grew having the seed inside themselves. Same for the animals and fowl. So now, when someone asks you which came first, you will know.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

If you think Reproduction advantage, Mutation, and Stronger animals Killing Weaker ones, Leads to New Forms of Animals.

Please, feel free to Explain How.

=M=

If you know that Mutation only leads to disorders in the Human Genome, why would think Evolution has any basis in reality?

I wouldn't think that Evolution has any basis in reality, if you want to know!!

Michael

 

[Stuu]

what came first, the chicken or the egg??

There were eggs hundreds of millions of years before there were chickens.

Stuart