abelcainsbrother wrote:trulyenlightened wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:trulyenlightened wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:
Here is a big reason why I reject the Theory of Evolution.Evolution does not have a credibile mechanism for how life evolves.Variation amongst the populations is not even close to being evidence life evolves and yet scientists demonstrate normal variation amongst the populations and they use this evidence to cover everything else about evolution.This shows that scientists are seeing what they want to see because they believe life evolves.
But scientists demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations in the lab is just proving what was already known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years hence corn,different kinds of roses and dogs. You see long before Charles Darwin assumed that this variation we see amongst populations can lead to big changes given enough time normal variation amongst the population was already known and well understood.
And yet scientists who believe life evolves go into a lab trying to prove and demonstrate life evolves but all they prove is what was already known - normal variation amongst the populations. But instead of realizing what they are doing they continue to push the evolution myth piling more and more evidence on top of a theory they are not even close to being able to demonstrate is true.
This is deceptive work being done by scientists because Charles Darwin used variation in the Origin of species to sell the idea life evolves and yet scientists today are using normal variation for evidence life evolves so that no progress at all has been made when it comes to the theory of evolution.
Normal variation amongst the populations is used to cover everything else about evolution and all of the evolution definitions like natural selection,speciation,macro-evolution,etc when they don't even know if life evolves.
So that things like natural selection,speciation,micro-evolution,etc are made up myths that no evidence will demonstrate because they have only proven normal variaton amongst the populations and everything else is assumed to be true based on this weak evidence that is not even close to being evidence that would demonstrate life evolves.
And I do not care how many scientists this offends because they should all be ashamed of themselves for pushing this evolution myth onto society.They need to be called out for their very deceptive nonsense science and they are only destroying the credibility of science by pushing a theory like this onto society. But they have been too stubborn to realize how much damage they have done to science and its credibility.
It is no wonder why people are being easily led to accept a flat earth.Indoctrination of society to accept the theory of evolution as true science will cause extreme skepticism to where people start believing that everything about science we have been led to believe cannot be trusted.
Are you suggesting that all student, researchers, teachers and educators, medical and pharmaceutical industries, horticultural, fishery and food industries, are all in collusion to hide the fact that there is no "credibile mechanism for how life evolves"? Do you really think that they all must be wrong, or simply supporting a myth?. You also choose to dismiss all the supporting evidence and data from all evolution-related scientific disciplines(chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, genetics, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, cell biology, biophysics, and bio-physiology). Either you know something that no one in any of these disciplines know, or you just think you do. Do you believe that microevolution within the population, will lead to macroevolution of the population? Evolution is anything that changes the frequency of the alleles within the gene pool. Anything that does this is Evolution, period.
I suspect going over each of the basic mechanism that allows changes to the allele frequency over time, would be a waste of time. I suppose explaining the functional mechanisms of Genes, Alleles, Mutations, Genetic Drift, Environmental and Climatic Effects, Natural Selection, Evidence for common descent, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Nonrandom reproductions, and of other evolutionary adaptive mechanism would also be a waste of time. Maybe I can start first by explaining why no two organisms are alike, especially after birth.
Let's start with identical twins. Twins are genetic clones of one another. As they live their lives, their genome encounter viruses, which implants its genetic material into their genome. Now the individual genomes are no longer identical. They will then encounter radiation and mutagenic chemicals within their environment, which will further modify their genome differently. Transposons, already in their genome, will modify it even more. Since the process of DNA replication isn't perfect, and the mistakes that arise in this process, will further diverge the genomes. When these twins have children, they will combine their sets of genes with another set of genes, to produce an offspring with a different genome to either of their parents. And so on. This is how variation is introduced into the genome of all species. This is why each generation of the population becomes more diversified than the previous. This should explain the mechanism of how variety can appear in the genome of the individuals within a population. Next I will talk about the mechanism of how variety gives rise to new species. Don
Yes they are all wrong but have been seduced by evolution.We can go over it and the only thing that will be demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.As a matter of fact the latter part of your post is explaining normal variation amongst the population of humans and yet you are trying to claim this is evolution.It is not evolution,not even close to evolution.Yet here you are claiming it is evolution. Charles Darwin sold the idea life evolves based on variation and yet here you are 150 years later using it for evidence life evolves.It cannot be evidence because Charles Darwin used variation to sell the idea that life will eventually evolve. It is why evolution became a scientific theory.And so you must show and demonstrate how variation leads to live evolving over time,not use variation for evidence life evolves.So that you have made no progress at all in science since Charles Darwin when it comes to evolution.
Tell me how what you described about the twins is any different than the many different dog breeds.It is no different at all and yet you're using it for evidennce that life evolves just as I said you would and it will be the same thing if we go forward with this discussion. Every example you can give for evidence will be examples of just normal variation amongst the population with lies thrown in to make it more believable.
If you want to get into speciation? Know that not all dogs can breed and yet you'll claim certian life evolved when it can no longer breed.Yet a German Shepard and a Chi Auh auh cannot breed amongst the population of dogs and yet you cannot claim either one has evolved and the only thing demonstrated is normal variation amongst the population.
This is the case with every example of evidence given for examples and evidence life evolves. This is why I'm pointing it out. You must assume so much when the only thing you're demonstrating is normal variation amongst a population to believe it can eventually lead to one kind of life changing into another kind of life over time. There is no ebvidence that even comes close to demonstrating this because it is just normal variation amongst the populations being used for evidence. This is not a credible mechanism for how life evolves,not even close. You are assuming so much based on this weak evidence,you have alot of faith that life will eventually evolve. The evidence for evolution really proves the bible true when it tells us that God created and made kinds to produce after its kind.This is what normal variation amongst the populations prove,not evolution.
Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,humans produce humans,salamanders produce salamanders,finches produce finches,rats produce rats,fruit flies produce fruit flies,cats produce cats,and on and on and on in evidence for evolution. And yet just because there is variation you think it means it will evolve eventually. It is nonsense thinking. No pun intended.
Darwin did not understand the mechanism by which all things changed over time. We do. It is human intervention that is the source of the different breeds of dogs, not evolution. Although it is the principles of evolution that are being used. The twins were an example of how even individuals with the exact same genome, can acquire variance in their genome through natural processes. Do you know WHY species can only reproduce their own offsprings? Why man cannot produce apes and vise-versa? By understanding the WHY, you would understand more about the importance of genetic variances and DNA replication. This would aso give you deeper insight into the process of natural selection. Also, remember that natural variation is different than artificial variation. I am only talking about natural variances in the population.
Regarding your "not all dogs can breed", ALL dogs can interbreed. The definition of a species, "is a population of animals that can interbreed and produce a viable and fertile offspring". There is only ONE SPECIES OF DOG(Canis lupus). What you are referring to are the different breeds of dogs. But if there was a dog that couldn't breed with another dog, then it would technically not be in the same species, therefore, it would not be a dog. Although there might be some obvious mechanical problems during the mating and gestation period, but there is NO problem with canine conception. Your information is clearly and obviously false. They are called "teacup chihuahua", if you care to see what they look like. Speciation is the mechanism that produces different species, not different breeds within the same species.
Science is not trying to sell anyone anything. It uses the same scientific methods to interpret the data and evidence it receives, so it can best explain some natural phenomenon. If you can provide a more scientific explanation, then good on you. If not, then I can only appreciate your opinion. Don
Nope! Not all dogs can breed.A German Shepard and a Chi auh auh cannot breed and neither one is a new species like you claim.This proves speciation is a lie like I told you about in my former post. This is one lie to make evolution more believable. It is dishonesty and it really hurts their credibility about other things they claim about evolution. Botoom line is It is normal variation amongst the population of dog. See this is what I mean
.And it does not matter if Darwin did not understand the mechanism like you claim.You were supposed to demonstrate that because there is variation amongst the populations it can lead to one kind of life changing into a new and different kind of life over time just like Darwin believed.Once this was not demonstrated evolution should have been falsified and kicked to the curb. But instead they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence today.I mean not even Darwin used it for evidence and yet you do it today 150 years later.
Just because scientists held on and protected evolution while piling more and more evidence and myths up on evolution does not make the lack of a credibile mechanism go away.The problem still exists and looking into DNA like you suggest won't change anything because all you're explaining is normal variation amongst the population when examining the DNA.
I mean because there is normal variation amongst the populations we know the DNA varies in reproduction in order to produce variation but all you're doing is watching the DNA as normal variation amongst the population is being produced then claiming it is evidence life evolves.
You can easily see the results of a german shepherd/chihuahua mix for yourself. This is not what I claim, it is what I can see with my own eyes. Unless all these photos are fake, there is no doubt that both breeds can mate and produce viable offsprings. It is also based on my understanding of what a species is. Breeding is artificial, and has nothing to do with speciation. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ge ... &FORM=IGRE . So if you trip over one, or purchase one, you can keep telling yourself that they just don't exists. But they will still exist.
Darwin had no understanding of how inherited traits were passed down from parents to offsprings. This is not just my claim. This is because at the time, no real genetics existed(Mendel), and the alpha helix hadn't even been discovered yet. Darwin published his Origin of species in 1859. Genetics was discovered by Mendel in the 1890's. The single strand alpha helix was discovered by Pauling in 1948. And the double helix of DNA discovery by Wilkins and Franklin(not Watson and Crick) in the 1950's. So, unless Darwin knew and understood things that were not even discovered yet, my statement stands.
Maybe we should start again. I was getting ready to explain how one species can evolve into another species over time. But I wanted to start with the natural causes that produce variances within the genome of the general population. Now I'm not so certain what you are asking me. You have made three verifiable claims that are blatantly and obviously false. You claim that there are many species of dogs, when there is only one(canis lupus). You claim that certain members within a species can't produce viable offsprings, when all members within the species can by definition, produce viable offsprings. Finally you claim that if members of the same species can no longer reproduce, they are still members of the same species. This simply ignores the taxonomy of how species are classified. All this without one shred of evidence, or rational explanation.
DNA is DNA. This molecule is the same molecule you find in a mosquito, a dog, a plant, or a human. It is only the effects of the variation within the molecule, that determines how the alleles are expressed. It is the pattern of differences and similarities among all life, that indicate that life must have evolved, and not spontaneously appeared.Theses variations are also supported by fossil, chemical, genetic, geological, inductive and deductive evidence. So again, what is it specifically that you want to know. So far, you have only demonstrated what you DON'T want to know. Are you simply stating that you are right, and the millions of scientific researchers in the field and other disciplines are wrong, simply because you say so? If looking at the direct evidence that challenges your claims, are simply dismissed, then it is only confirmation that you are looking for. Not the truth. Don