God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding evolved lizards:

Just evolved to adapt to their new environment.   Adaptations include stronger jaws, a new digestive organ, and behavioral changes (no longer territorial, because there's no need for it in herbivores).  That's what evolution is.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If they are still lizards they did not evolve.  That is not what e4volution is.  

Yes, that's what evolution is.   Remember, it's a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."   Which is what we see here.   The evolution of a new digestive organ in such a short time is remarkable.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If you use and incorrect definition it isn't real biology.  It became necessary for evolution to invent a new definition because he real one didn't work for them.

The old one is "descent with modification" (Darwin's term).   It's still right,but after the rediscovery of genetics, the current scientific definition is more specific.   Even creationist organizations admit that species change and new ones appear.  

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Some may, most do not. 

I notice that the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, the two largest creationist organizations, admit the fact of speciation.   No point in denying it,since it's directly observed.

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. 

Answers in Genesis

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Of course a species will change because of  dominant genes, but they only changes traits.  It does not change the species.

As you now realize, your fellow creationists disagree with you.   They admit the fact of speciation.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Take your own advice and try and post some evidence to support you lack of knowledge.  For example the one I ask and said you will not answer---What causes a change in an allele frequency. 

You have been repeatedly reminded what does that.   Mutation, recombination by sexual reproduction, and natural selection are major causes of changes in allele frequencies.

 

.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You have to go back to Gen 1:21,although that verse may be  limited to  water creatures and birds.  However since there was no cattle, beast or creeping things, the had to be created ex nihilo.

As you learned, God rejects the YE creationist belief of life ex nihilo, telling you that life was brought forth by the Earth.   No point in denying His word.

 

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

They are the same---THEY ARE STILL  LIZARDS

Yes. And you are the only one here claiming that this isn't evolution. Let me help define evolution for you. Since you do not trust my qualified opinion,

 

I am going to copy definitions from several different sources so you can see that I'm not making up an inaccurate definition.

Quote

In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution

Quote

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Quote

Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/biological-evolution

Quote

evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evolution.htm

Quote

Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

https://www.thoughtco.com/biological-evolution-373416

To put it simply, the actual definition of evolution does not require a change in species. Now, virtually all biologists agree that evolution commonly leads to the development of new species, but this is not a requirement.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Yes, interbreeding can lead to sterility effects. It does not, however, lead to speciation.

Speciaetion   DOES NOT change the species.  Therefore it does not support evolution.

Again, since you won't take my word for it, let me try to use someone else's words to try to make the point clear to you.

 

Quote

 

Defining speciation

Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species.

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/biological-evolution-373416

Speciation does indeed make new species. The two (or more) new species may look the same, but they are indeed new species.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I provided evidence for evolution in the lizards. Salamanders and gulls do not have anything to do with the example that clearly shows verifiable evidence.

Unless you can understand that to suppoort evolution, the species must change, you will never understand evolution.  You need to get out of the box Darwin and his evangelist have put you in.

I provided verifiable evidence for evolution when you claimed there was none. This has nothing to do with salamanders, gulls, boxes, or evangelists. I gave you facts. You don't seem interested in facts.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

We can observe it during the process before two distinct species are formed.

Not only can you not, you can't give me an example of a species EVOLVING into 2 distinct species

I gave you examples. You didn't look at them. I cannot control what you read and don't read. Insisting that I can't give you examples when I absolutely gave you examples is reminiscent of a 4 year-old child that closes his eyes and covers his ears when confronted with something he doesn't want to admit.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

"After their kind" does no such thing. Progeny are always the same kind as their parents, even if they differ slightly in their traits.

Yes that is true and it refutes evolution.  If the progeny is ALWAYS  thee same species, and it is, as you just stated,  evolution has not happened.

As changes accumulate over time, then it is possible for speciation to occur. A portion of a population can accumulate changes to the point that the particular portion can become an entirely new species. I have given you examples of this and you won't look at them.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You have repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic science. I don't think you are a fair judge of what definition is used by the scientific community.

I know you have demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge  of genetics. 

You are funny, I'll give you that.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You have been indoctrinated with false definition and the strange idea that evolution can be  supported by the species remaining the same.  That is contradictory.

You are missing the obvious because you won't stop and think a little bit. Small, incremental changes in portions of a population can lead to the development of a new species that is slightly different from the rest of the population.

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Pot, meet Kettle.

Show me one I  have not supported or said I couldn't.  Of course there will be some I assumed you understood, mutations for example, but you don't.

love, peace, joy

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Show me one I  have not supported or said I couldn't. 

Show me one of your assertions that you HAVE supported with evidence. That would be manageable. The list of things you can't or won't support isn't manageable.

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian regarding evolved lizards:

Just evolved to adapt to their new environment.   Adaptations include stronger jaws, a new digestive organ, and behavioral changes (no longer territorial, because there's no need for it in herbivores).  That's what evolution is.

You don;t know if it was adaption.  It could have been caused by a mutation.

Yes, that's what evolution is.   Remember, it's a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."   Which is what we see here.   The evolution of a new digestive organ in such a short time is remarkable.

The fact that the digestive system changes in such a short time also indicates a mutation.  I said you would not explain how an allele frequency can change, and I was right.  Want to give it a shot or would you rather I keep reminding you of something you can't do?

The old one is "descent with modification" (Darwin's term).   It's still right,but after the rediscovery of genetics, the current scientific definition is more specific.   Even creationist organizations admit that species change and new ones appear.  

If  it was specific, you would have so fact supporting  it.  you don't have any.   I challenge you to poss where a creationists organization has said species change.  Another thing you can't do.

I notice that the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, the two largest creationist organizations, admit the fact of speciation.   No point in denying it,since it's directly observed.

Speciation does happen in accordance with evolution's man-made definition, but it does not =change the species. 

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. 

You have been repeatedly reminded what does that.   Mutation, recombination by sexual reproduction, and natural selection are major causes of changes in allele frequencies.

Your usual MO, talk and no evidence.  Thanks for verifying something I already knew You don't understand mutations., and you can't prove natural selection.  You have accepted a false statmenet by faith alone.

Love, peace, joy

 

.

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

As you learned, God rejects the YE creationist belief of life ex nihilo, telling you that life was brought forth by the Earth.   No point in denying His word.

How can He reject YE when He doesn't even mention the age  for the earth?  He doesn't.  You just don't like the idea,so you make up something not covered in God's inspired and inerrant word.  Tell me what does "created" means in Hebrew?  If there is no universe one minute and there is one the next minute., and there was nothing to created it from, what is that called?

No point in reading God's word if you aren't going to study it.

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Yes. And you are the only one here claiming that this isn't evolution. Let me help define evolution for you. Since you do not trust my qualified opinion,

 

I am going to copy definitions from several different sources so you can see that I'm not making up an inaccurate definition.

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/biological-evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/evolution.htm

https://www.thoughtco.com/biological-evolution-373416

To put it simply, the actual definition of evolution does not require a change in species. Now, virtually all biologists agree that evolution commonly leads to the development of new species, but this is not a requirement.

Again, since you won't take my word for it, let me try to use someone else's words to try to make the point clear to you.

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/biological-evolution-373416

Speciation does indeed make new species. The two (or more) new species may look the same, but they are indeed new species.

I provided verifiable evidence for evolution when you claimed there was none. This has nothing to do with salamanders, gulls, boxes, or evangelists. I gave you facts. You don't seem interested in facts.

I gave you examples. You didn't look at them. I cannot control what you read and don't read. Insisting that I can't give you examples when I absolutely gave you examples is reminiscent of a 4 year-old child that closes his eyes and covers his ears when confronted with something he doesn't want to admit.

As changes accumulate over time, then it is possible for speciation to occur. A portion of a population can accumulate changes to the point that the particular portion can become an entirely new species. I have given you examples of this and you won't look at them.

You are funny, I'll give you that.

You are missing the obvious because you won't stop and think a little bit. Small, incremental changes in portions of a population can lead to the development of a new species that is slightly different from the rest of the population.

Making up definition is easy.  Proving them is a different matter.  That you can't do.  Let me give you something to think about a lot:  All offspring are slightly different based on the dominant and recessive gene pool of the parents, but they NEVER result in a change of the species of their parents and they will only produce offspring of the same, exact species as they are, their parents are and their grand  parents are all the way back to Adam and Eve.  To get a new species the gene pool  of the parents would have to acquire at least one gene it did not have and probably several it did not have.  There  is no way that can happen.

love, peace joy

[omega2xx]

52 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Show me one of your assertions that you HAVE supported with evidence. That would be manageable. The list of things you can't or won't support isn't manageable.

Then it should be easy for you to pose 1 or 2.

 

[one.opinion]

36 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

All offspring are slightly different based on the dominant and recessive gene pool of the parents, but they NEVER result in a change of the species of their parents and they will only produce offspring of the same, exact species as they are

Allele frequencies can change, sure. New mutations can also occur. New combinations of alleles can also enter the picture due to recombination from mitosis. New genes can be introduced by horizontal gene transfer. New genes can actually form from non-coding DNA. Genomes change over time due to a wide variety of different causes.

But... as you have been shown, sometimes those changes do lead to different species. The change usually takes many generations and the resulting new species is different in small ways from a previous species. You have also been shown evidence of errors in gamete generation that can lead to a completely new species in the next generation.

I understand that it is difficult to reconsider what you assume to be true, but it is even harder when you won't even look at the evidence.