leauki posts:

Regarding the highlighted...two populations of life becoming two completely distinct species.....this is the theory---EVOLUTION THEORY---which for over 200 years has not been proven as true. Fact is evolutionists have not produced one scintilla of evidence to prove it.

Fact is there ARE NO TWO POPULATIONS OF LIFE THAT HAVE "EVOLVED" INTO TWO COMPLETELY DISTINCT SPECIES. This goes back to the classic fruit fly experiments and the hoplessness of mutations to produce evolution. After long long experimentation, fruit flies produced only more fruitflies. yes, given, there was freakess variation..stunted wings, lack of wings, yellow eyes, useless eyes, abnormal feet and bodies. They were deformed but never was there the start of a new organ or completely distinct species.

If these deformed fruitflies were able to breed at all, the offspring remained the same fruit fly species.  

Scientific theories are never proven true, as I said before.

The point is that it has never been disproven and hence remains the theory taught.

Can you disprove it?

Gravity has never been proven (but Newton's gravity was ultimately disproven) and General Relativity has never been proven. Scientific theories are never proven. They can't be. There is always at least one imaginable incident that would disprove the theory. That's the difference between science and religion.

After a few days or even years, yes. After several thousand years, who knows?

Unless you can prove that mutation would somehow "stop" at a certain point, there is nothing that disproves that this is how different species come to be.

Anyway, I want to go back to the question I asked you, Lula, and which you never answered.

As you know (I told you) a scientific theory is a statement that can be disproven.

Assuming that Creationism were a "scientific theory", what do you suggest would "disprove" Creationist "theory"?

I gave you several examples of how Darwinism could be disproven. How could Creationism be disproven?

The 'truth' can't be disproven, remember?

They want it to qualify as science, so why not let them bear the reponsibility of making it one?

Creationism is either religion or science.

If it is science, it means it can be disproven, theoretically.

If it can be disproven, even theoretically, it means that G-d is fallible.

There is nothing G-d cannot do or create and hence there is nothing we can observe that could possibly be proof that G-d didn't do or create.

But the main issue in this discussion is really not the Creationists' ultimate dilemma that Creationism as a science would make G-d fallible, but the fact that Creationists simply don't know what evolution is but still talk about it.

They also fear (and thus ignore) challenges.

Pretty much the same thing I said to KFC in comment #31, but they lost in that court so now they take it to your court hoping for a different result.

Points to consider:

1) Nowhere in any text I have read has it ever been suggested that the species Homo Sapiens has existed for 1,000,000 years. They have suggested however, that the Genus Homo differentiated itself from the Genus Pan about a million years ago.

2) The only way that number makes any sense is if humans never died from things like old age, being eaten by predators, child birth (at which point the child would likely die too for the majority of the time the species has been around), bad food, large scale natural disasters, or had low fertility rates.

Speaking of natural disasters, you still have yet to explain how, in the incredibly short span of 150 years, there were enough people spawned from 8 to have built the city of Memphis in Egypt, or would have had a need to build the city of Memphis. Or for that matter how any vegetation survived on land. And then we run into the problem of how, assuming a very conservative 211 inches of rain per hour, 17000 feet of water drained off, and how a group of eight humans as well as the other, more oxygen hungry animals survived at that altitude for the time period listed, as well as the existance of deer and other fauna on the American continent. There is no way you are going to convince me that Noe swam across the Alantic, rounded up 2 of every animal over here, stuffed them in a sack, and swam back.

And now, for a fun fact, I present the full taxonomy of Homo Sapiens:

Biota Cytota Neomura Eukarya Unikonta Opithokonts Holozoa Filozoa Animalia Eumetazoa Bilaeria Deuterstomia Chordata Craniata Vertibrata Gnathostomata Osteichthyes Sarcopterygii Tetrapodamorpha Tetrapoda Amniota Synapsida Therapsida Theriodontia Cynodontia Epicynodontia Eucynodontia Probainognathia Chiniquodontoidea Mamaliamorpha Mammaliaformes Mammalia Theriiformes Holotheria Trechnotheria Cladotheria Zatheria Tribosphenida Theria Eutheria Boreoeutheria Euarchontoglires Euarchonta Primatomorpha Primates Haplorhini Simiiformes Catarrhini Hominoidea Hominidae Homininae Hominini Hominina Homo Sapiens

The answer is "G-d made it happen like that".

What the Creationists don't want to realise is that that very answer disqualifies the story as a science.

I want to rant about how the Bible doesn't actually say that the entire planet was flooded, but we have been through this here a lot. A literal reading of the text only gives us a flooded planet if the word "eretz" is read as "planet earth" despite the fact that it is usually translated as "land", as in "Eretz Yisrael" ("Land of Israel").

lula posts:

The fruit fly experiments disprove evolution as defined by both the biology textbook and the World Book dictionary as cited above.  

"Mutation" was supposed to be the mechinism which proves evolution. Rather mutations disprove evolution.

lula

leauki posts:

Spoken as a true, blue evolutionist...and thus the assertion that change (through mutations) over time...time itself is the proof of evolution. No sale. The fossil record shows no sign whatsoever of "evolutionary" descent.

Mutations do all sorts of things but they never produce a different species from the parent species.  Mutations is a hopeless base to hypothezise upward evolution. Mutations are misfortunes and scientists admit that small changes through genetic mutations do not generate evolution.  

 The bottom line on mutations is that mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Stability in nature is the rule. We have absolutely no proofs of Evolution from mutation research.

 As to what evolution is I've given both the standard biology textbook and dictionary definition.....it is that evolution I'm talking about and strongly object to being taught to students "as fact".

Ignoring your misunderstanding of what biology textbooks actually say, can you tell us HOW exactly the experiment "disproves" evolution?

Based on everything you said here it is clear that you still don't even know what evolution is. I would it most interesting if you could "disprove" evolution based on nothing but that.

I take it you didn't come up with an answer yet for my question about what exactly would stop mutations and why?

No single mutation ever does.

A mutation is neither fortune nor misfortune.  Nature makes no value judgments, only us humans get to do that.  And, boy, do you.

Evolution isn't 'generated', BTW - it just happens.  A species either has the genetic capacity (through accumulated DNA change - whether or not you call that 'mutation') to adapt to environmental stress or it doesn't.

You have quoted a definition. But you haven't shown that you understood evolution.

You still think that evolution means that one species "turns into" another, which is wrong.

You still think that evolution must be "proven" to be a legitimate scientific theory, which is also wrong.

You clearly haven't understood evolution (or science).

Plus you didn't understand the point of the fruit fly experiment.

The experiment shows that two populations develop different traits.

Darwinian theory says that they will continue to develop different traits and eventually become two different species.

This doesn't have to be proven for Darwinian theory to be a scientific theory. That's one part.

The other part is that in order to disprove Darwinian theory, you would have to explain why the mutations would eventually stop. We have no indication that they would.

Plus you still owe us an answer regarding how to disprove Creationism.

Remember, a scientific theory is not something that was proven but something that can be disproven.

Even if somebody managed to disprove Darwin's theory it would still remain a scientific theory and should still be taught in schools.

She clearly doesn't understand that evolution doesn't even have a mechanism to differentiate between "higher" and "lower" genetic information and nor does she understand that species branch rather than turn into.

She knows less than a fifth-grader and it is embarrassing for Creationism that she thinks she can talk about evolution and judge whether it is scientific or not.

(Not that other Creationists are much smarter. I have yet to see a single essay written by a Creationist that shows an author who knows as much about evolution as the average sixth-grader. Einstein disproved Newton's theories but he did understand them.)

And furthermore, it's been around 150 years since Darwin's evolutionary theory has been held as "scientific".  Yet, all the evidence brought forward has only conflicted. contradicted or disproven it.

It's past time for ET to be abandoned, dropped from science textbooks or called what it is....a myth.