disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[one.opinion]

On 7/9/2019 at 11:08 AM, Dennis1209 said:

The preponderance of the proof rests with their theory, not ours. They have none; zero, zilch, nada. The supposedly best scientific minds in the world proposing everything that is, came form something as small and compressed as an atom and exploded. Where did that matter come from in the first place? And what effect caused it to explode? In their wisdom they became fools...

Dennis, are you talking about biological evolution or the Big Bang? The two are very different things. I'm not much of a physicist, but I can assure you that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports biological evolution. To me, the best answer for "how did this all get here" is a Creator whose will is the root of all of physical existence, and I believe the physical evidence that has been uncovered is strongly supports the idea that God used evolution of the life He created to bring about what we can now directly observe.

On 7/9/2019 at 11:08 AM, Dennis1209 said:

Secular idiots claim it take millions and millions and millions of years for pond scum or star dust to evolve into human beings.

There are a sizable number of Christ-following "idiots" like me that accept the evidence for common descent of living organisms, so don't limit your criticism to just the "secular idiots" out there! Of course living organisms produce progeny according to "their kind", it would be truly mind-blowing if a fish laid some eggs that hatched into mammals. There is not a single word in the Bible that states that a "kind" is some invariable classification that could not possibly ever change. The concept of the unchanging kind is entirely a human idea, not based on anything Biblical.

On 7/9/2019 at 11:08 AM, Dennis1209 said:

Scientists and geneticists are busy now experimenting and changing the boundaries the Lord has set with "kinds".

Please be more specific in your broad statement. Can you give an example of an experiment to change the "boundary" of a "kind"?

On 7/9/2019 at 11:08 AM, Dennis1209 said:

Their stated goal is to modify human beings to withstand the radiation and vigors of outer space, extend our longevity to triple digits and produce super soldiers.

Who stated this? Where was it stated? This is sounds quite a bit like some outlandish statements derived through many rounds of hearsay without a single bit of substantiating evidence (except for the large number of people that have reached triple-digit ages without any sort of modification). Be very careful making claims like this that are not supported by fact - it makes the rest of your information suspect.

[Dennis1209]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Dennis, are you talking about biological evolution or the Big Bang? The two are very different things. I'm not much of a physicist, but I can assure you that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports biological evolution. To me, the best answer for "how did this all get here" is a Creator whose will is the root of all of physical existence, and I believe the physical evidence that has been uncovered is strongly supports the idea that God used evolution of the life He created to bring about what we can now directly observe.

There are a sizable number of Christ-following "idiots" like me that accept the evidence for common descent of living organisms, so don't limit your criticism to just the "secular idiots" out there! Of course living organisms produce progeny according to "their kind", it would be truly mind-blowing if a fish laid some eggs that hatched into mammals. There is not a single word in the Bible that states that a "kind" is some invariable classification that could not possibly ever change. The concept of the unchanging kind is entirely a human idea, not based on anything Biblical.

Please be more specific in your broad statement. Can you give an example of an experiment to change the "boundary" of a "kind"?

Who stated this? Where was it stated? This is sounds quite a bit like some outlandish statements derived through many rounds of hearsay without a single bit of substantiating evidence (except for the large number of people that have reached triple-digit ages without any sort of modification). Be very careful making claims like this that are not supported by fact - it makes the rest of your information suspect.

Evidently you don't get around much? It's plastered all over the place; in secular liberal major media, Fox news, Christian publications and even the government admits it now. There's hundreds of places to choose, for brevity I just randomly picked the first article I ran a search on.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1005512/US-military-DARPA-super-soldiers-mysterious-experiments  The proof of all this is overwhelming and not even debatable.

The same admissions and proofs are available for experimentation and modification of humans to biologically change people for the vigor's and dangers of extended space travel. You can do your own research and get the information from creditable sources yourself. 

Kinds can not and will not change on there own, without outside intervention as God created and designed. We don't see canidae changing to elephantidae. Species of kinds can and do change somewhat, it's called adaptation, and we witness it. If I'd respond to all your requests for more proof, specifications and examples; it would be a book. 

What does it mean to be human? If one human is biologically and genetically changed to have the sight of an eagle / owl, or any other genetic modification we were not designed or created with, is it still human? 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Evidently you don't get around much? It's plastered all over the place; in secular liberal major media, Fox news, Christian publications and even the government admits it now.

The DARPA research has never been about altering genetics. There have been several lines of research in developing "exoskeleton" suits to enhance human performance, and there has been significant research into drugs used to enhance performance, but nothing on alteration of genetics. Until very recently, this was only an abstract concept, though scientists now have the tools to specifically alter DNA in embryos. There have even been children born after they were genetically altered as embryos, but there has been NOTHING (yet) to genetic enhancement of super soldiers.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

The same admissions and proofs are available for experimentation and modification of humans to biologically change people for the vigor's and dangers of extended space travel. You can do your own research and get the information from creditable sources yourself. 

Nothing yet has been done at the genetic level.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Kinds can not and will not change on there own

How do we know? There isn't a definition for what a "kind" is, so it is impossible to say whether they will change on their own or not.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Species of kinds can and do change somewhat, it's called adaptation, and we witness it.

Yes, and with enough accumulated changes, the adaptations can extend far beyond the species level.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

If I'd respond to all your requests for more proof, specifications and examples; it would be a book. 

I didn't ask for a book, but perhaps you could at least provide a single example. As I asked earlier, can you give an (one will do for now) example of an experiment to change the "boundary" of a "kind"?

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is not a single word in the Bible that states that a "kind" is some invariable classification that could not possibly ever change. The concept of the unchanging kind is entirely a human idea, not based on anything Biblical.

I didn't see any response to this statement. Can you provide Biblical evidence that states that "kinds" cannot change?

[Hawkins]

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html

 

Evolution is a strong implication on how species today can be evolved from simple or single cell organisms, by a long time process of natural selection. Today's DNA analysis doesn't seem to support this advocate, in a general sense anyway.

Evolution can actually be falsified logically applying a scientific sense. We humans contain Neanderthal genes, we interbred at some point of history. Let's take another example for the sake of argument. Lion and tiger gives liger. After a billion years and tons of micro-evolution in order to survive the changing environment plus many times of back and forth interbreeding with other possible species, now a billion years after when applying our evolution theory what conclusion can we get to. The only conclusion our ToE can get to is "it's evolved from a single cell" (it's at least a strong implication by the theory). This is however a wrong conclusion, the liger itself never evolves, it's just a ton of interbreeding and micro-scale changes in order to adapt the changing environment. 

So if a scientific theory can be demonstrated consistently to get to a wrong conclusion, it is thus falsified!

Edited July 15, 2019 by Hawkins

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Hawkins said:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html

Although I generally wouldn't recommend reading the thoughts of PZ Myers (he's pretty much an anti-creation jerk), he does have a pretty good explanation of how a lot of the popular science about the DNA barcoding story is misleading. You can check it here - https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/06/07/writing-synopses-of-science-articles-is-hard/

9 hours ago, Hawkins said:

Evolution can actually be falsified logically applying a scientific sense. We humans contain Neanderthal genes, we interbred at some point of history. Let's take another example for the sake of argument. Lion and tiger gives liger.

The fact that lions and tigers can interbreed is not evidence against evolution, any more than that fact that cats and dogs CAN'T interbreed is evidence FOR evolution. It simply doesn't work that way. Scientific evidence does strongly suggest that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals (and Denisovans, and a few others) were able to successfully interbreed. This is not evidence against evolution, either. It certainly doesn't disprove evolution. I'm not real clear on why you think so.

[Hawkins]

On 7/15/2019 at 10:37 PM, one.opinion said:

The fact that lions and tigers can interbreed is not evidence against evolution, any more than that fact that cats and dogs CAN'T interbreed is evidence FOR evolution. It simply doesn't work that way. Scientific evidence does strongly suggest that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals (and Denisovans, and a few others) were able to successfully interbreed. This is not evidence against evolution, either. It certainly doesn't disprove evolution. I'm not real clear on why you think so.

This is not even an argument. It's a known fact that humans contain genes of Neanderthal. Liger is used just to trigger a thought experiment.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Hawkins

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

This is not even an argument. It's a known fact that humans contain genes of Neanderthal. Liger is used just to trigger a thought experiment.

That may be, but I still don't understand what you are saying.

[Hawkins]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

That may be, but I still don't understand what you are saying.

 

An easier way to understand is that ToE doesn't have any mechanism in distinguishing breeding from evolution. ToE is more like a theory assuming the absence of interbreeding. This will inevitably lead to the liger scenario I illustrated, and thus will falsify the theory itself logically (as the theory doesn't have the ability to take interbreeding into account). In a nutshell, the change from tiger to liger is a change subject to interbreeding. It's not a change caused by natural selection which the ToE can only come up with!

Edited July 17, 2019 by Hawkins

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

This will inevitably lead to the liger scenario I illustrated

While interbreeding is a possibility, most speciation occurs when two populations are separated, usually by geography. Typically, these populations remain separated while they both accumulate genetic differences that eventually eliminate the possibility of interbreeding. For example, lions and tigers do not share the same territory in nature. Although they can still interbreed in captivity, they don't naturally because they do not have the opportunity. They will eventually lose reproductive compatibility, provided both species survive long enough!

[The Barbarian]

On 7/7/2019 at 8:12 PM, Still Alive said:

Isn't that just mutation? 

No.   Mutation is a change in genes.    Descent with modification is a change in population genome.   Mutation can do that.  So can recombination of alleles.

Descent with modification is the way scientists described things before  they knew about genetics.  Today, it is referred to as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."