Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[bambu]

@Gold_Certificate & @Vibe.....

You're not in a position to be calling niggas out round these parts.......

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

What claim did I make that requires support?

They have.

Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment observed that isolation of fruit flies and the changing their food resulted in reproductive isolation after 35 generations; which demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation.

The ongoing "E. coli long-term evolution" experiment has tracked genetic changes in over 50,000 generations of 12 initially-identical populations of E. Coli; some of which were larger cells in all groups, defects in 4 groups' DNA repair, the ability to metabolize citrate in one group, and an average of 10-20 fixated beneficial mutations per population.

So, plenty have observed bacteria and fruit flies macroevolve; not to mention the easily-observable microevolution.

This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

I did not claim this. It is a quote you posted, and it refers to the expectations of whoever wrote it.

The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

LOL...Really???

These claims are false....As I have already shown, no new species has been observed in any research....

Your evolutionary terminology describes change over time/biological mutation, which is universally accepted and not in question here....

Today's topic is the origins of species.....

So for your experiments to observe macro-evolution, the scientists would have begun with Drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) and ended with a new or evolved species......

Allopatric speciation is speciation that occurs due to a physical barrier that arises between populations of the same species. There was a physical barrier in the fruit fly experiment. Allopatric speciation has occurred if, as a result of generations of separation, the populations are reproductively-isolated and no longer reproduce together. The maltose and starch fruit fly populations no longer reproduced together at the end of the experiment.

I said this "demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation"; which it does.

If you are able to refute it, go ahead.

If not, there is no need for you to respond, since you already acknowledge that biological evolution occurs.

@Gold_Certificate....

I acknowledged biological change over time.......

You said...

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Today's topic is the origins of species.....

So for your experiments to observe macro-evolution, the scientists would have begun with Drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) and ended with a new or evolved species......

There is no need for you to respond until you decide to join the debate on the origins of species.....

 

[bambu]

Creationist - 18

Anti-Creationist - 0

Where you at Jaded???

@Vibe.... call in some fresh meat......

These niggas out here like Larry Holmes......

Flabby & Sick....

 

[Bodhi]

Idk I have nothing new to say and I'm kind of losing interest in the thread because I'm tired of going back and forth on the same subject. I still stand in the same position. I don't want to repeat myself. I was hoping you would answer my question so I could get a better idea of the side you're arguing for.

 

[Bodhi]

Look at @waterproof's weak ass, doing the exact same thing he accused me of doing. What a joke.

 

[bambu]

He detailed the "evolution" of the races concerning AIDS, and "proved" that the European was more evolved, while the African was more closely related to the chimpanzee......

They only thing he mentioned is the presence of genes that help resist the HIV. He mentioned that chimps have a similar virus and similar genes. He then observed that Europeans have 3 resistant genes on average, Africans 6, and chimps 9.

Exactly.....

 

[bambu]

Idk I have nothing new to say and I'm kind of losing interest in the thread because I'm tired of going back and forth on the same subject. I still stand in the same position. I don't want to repeat myself. I was hoping you would answer my question so I could get a better idea of the side you're arguing for.

Cool....

Don't reveal your sources and run away from the argument.....

Lauce.....

 

[Bodhi]

He detailed the "evolution" of the races concerning AIDS, and "proved" that the European was more evolved, while the African was more closely related to the chimpanzee......

They only thing he mentioned is the presence of genes that help resist the HIV. He mentioned that chimps have a similar virus and similar genes. He then observed that Europeans have 3 resistant genes on average, Africans 6, and chimps 9.

Exactly.....

Different races are more or less suceptible to different diseases and viruses.

 

[Bodhi]

Idk I have nothing new to say and I'm kind of losing interest in the thread because I'm tired of going back and forth on the same subject. I still stand in the same position. I don't want to repeat myself. I was hoping you would answer my question so I could get a better idea of the side you're arguing for.

Cool....

Don't reveal your sources and run away from the argument.....

Lauce.....

I didn't run away from the argument. I asked you a question and you didn't want to answer it, turned around and asked me more questions of your own and if I don't answer, you claim I'm running. gtfoh.. if you're afraid of having your beliefs criticized, I'm guessing in the back of your mind, you know they're not true or at least not as observable as evolution.

Rushton's scientific methods have been shown to be bogus. There is no ground for you to claim that racial hierarchy exists. Evolution has been proven, and you admit to it. The only thing left to talk about, with you at least, is your take on creationism, and I'd like to hear it if you'd stop being scared.

 

[bambu]

The question you asked me does not pertain to this topic.....

I acknowledged biological change over time, not the evolution or origins of species.......

This is clearly observable...."Fat titties turn to teardrops and fat ass turns to flab"........

However, a species changing into a new species has and will not be observed....

If Rushton has been shown to be bogus then Jones and the rest of your scientists have also been shown to be bogus.....

Simply putting off the evolutionary evidence surrounding the races and the AIDS virus as....

"Different races are more or less suceptible to different diseases and viruses."

Is disingenuous.....

This is indeed grounds to claim that a racial hierarchy exists....

 

[Gold_Certificate]

@Gold_Certificate & @Vibe.....

You're not in a position to be calling niggas out round these parts.......

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

What claim did I make that requires support?

They have.

Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment observed that isolation of fruit flies and the changing their food resulted in reproductive isolation after 35 generations; which demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation.

The ongoing "E. coli long-term evolution" experiment has tracked genetic changes in over 50,000 generations of 12 initially-identical populations of E. Coli; some of which were larger cells in all groups, defects in 4 groups' DNA repair, the ability to metabolize citrate in one group, and an average of 10-20 fixated beneficial mutations per population.

So, plenty have observed bacteria and fruit flies macroevolve; not to mention the easily-observable microevolution.

This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

I did not claim this. It is a quote you posted, and it refers to the expectations of whoever wrote it.

The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

LOL...Really???

These claims are false....As I have already shown, no new species has been observed in any research....

Your evolutionary terminology describes change over time/biological mutation, which is universally accepted and not in question here....

Today's topic is the origins of species.....

So for your experiments to observe macro-evolution, the scientists would have begun with Drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) and ended with a new or evolved species......

Allopatric speciation is speciation that occurs due to a physical barrier that arises between populations of the same species. There was a physical barrier in the fruit fly experiment. Allopatric speciation has occurred if, as a result of generations of separation, the populations are reproductively-isolated and no longer reproduce together. The maltose and starch fruit fly populations no longer reproduced together at the end of the experiment.

I said this "demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation"; which it does.

If you are able to refute it, go ahead.

If not, there is no need for you to respond, since you already acknowledge that biological evolution occurs.

@Gold_Certificate....

I acknowledged biological change over time.......

You said...

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Today's topic is the origins of species.....

So for your experiments to observe macro-evolution, the scientists would have begun with Drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) and ended with a new or evolved species......

There is no need for you to respond until you decide to join the debate on the origins of species.....

At the beginning of the experiment there was one population of fruit flies; which would reproduce with each other. At the end of the experiment, there were two populations of fruit fly that would not reproduce with each other.

The "new" species here are the reproductively-isolated populations of maltose-fed and starch-fed fruit flies.

The word "new" is written in quotes to indicate that the resulting organism differs from the original.

So this indeed "demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation".

I'm only responding because you initially addressed me.

 

[bambu]

@Gold_Certificate & @Vibe....

You are responding in an attempt to save face.....

At the end of the experiment there were two populations of fruit fly that were the same species.......

A genetically modified fruit fly.......

Drosophila melanogaster nonetheless.....

 

[Gold_Certificate]

@Gold_Certificate....

You are responding in an attempt to save face.....

At the end of the experiment there were two populations of fruit fly that were the same species.......

A genetically modified fruit fly.......

Drosophila melanogaster nonetheless.....

Since what occurred in the experiment fits the definition of "allopatric speciation"; the resulting populations were differing species.

If you can prove that there were no physical barriers or that there was no reproductive isolation, go ahead.

If not, there is nothing to support your claim other than you stating they "were the same species".

Additionally, since they didn't artificially introduce any new DNA to the fruit flies, it would not have been a "genetically modified fruit fly".

 

[Bodhi]

The question you asked me does not pertain to this topic.....

I acknowledged biological change over time, not the evolution or origins of species.......

This is clearly observable...."Fat titties turn to teardrops and fat ass turns to flab"........

However, a species changing into a new species has and will not be observed....

If Rushton has been shown to be bogus then Jones and the rest of your scientists have also been shown to be bogus.....

Simply putting off the evolutionary evidence surrounding the races and the AIDS virus as....

"Different races are more or less suceptible to different diseases and viruses."

Is disingenuous.....

This is indeed grounds to claim that a racial hierarchy exists....

I disagree. I've already discussed why I believe evolution to be true (if you don't want to believe it because you refuse to give up a belief system you can't even defend, that's cool) and I've already told you I do not fully agree with Jones. The only thing I agree with was strictly laid down in the article I posted a link to (NatGeo) and was only in terms of explaining why I think evolution will not significantly affect races, especially differently for one and not another. You're just grabbing at whatever string you have.

 

[bambu]

@Gold_Certificate......

You made the claim that....

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Please provide the name of the new species resulting from these experiments....

"In an attempt to gain insight into the process of the development of reproductive isolation, eight populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura were studied. These were first used by Powell and Andjelkovic (1983)"

"All eight D. pseudoobscura populations were derived from a single population collected at Bryce Canyon, Utah (see Powell and Andjelkovic [1983] for details on the media and the generation of the populations)"

Reproductive Isolation as a Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura

Diane M. B. Dodd

Evolution , Vol. 43, No. 6 (Sep., 1989), pp. 1308-1311

Dr. Dodd was left with Drosophila pseudoobscura at the conclusion......No new species.....

 

[bambu]

@Gold_Certificate......

POPULATION GENETICS OF DROSOPHILA AMYLASE. V. GENETIC BACKGROUND AND SELECTION ON DIFFERENT CARBOHYDRATES

JEFFREY R. POWELL AND GEORGE D. AMATO

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 0651 1

Manuscript received September 20, 1983

Accepted December 16, 1983

"THAT natural selection molds adaptations in populations is nearly universally accepted. However, the specific nature of the genetic variants contributing to adaptations is less well understood."

The Results...

"There is no pattern of Amy allele changes

evident. Even after more than 2 yr all four cages have very similar gene

frequencies, which are not significantly different from the original frequencies.

Thus, there is no evidence for selection on these alleles. We might also note that

these results give no evidence for drift being sufficient."

 

[bambu]

I disagree. I've already discussed why I believe evolution to be true (if you don't want to believe it because you refuse to give up a belief system you can't even defend, that's cool) and I've already told you I do not fully agree with Jones. The only thing I agree with was strictly laid down in the article I posted a link to (NatGeo) and was only in terms of explaining why I think evolution will not significantly affect races, especially differently for one and not another. You're just grabbing at whatever string you have.

My belief system has less to do with my argument than you think.......

My argument is more scientific than religious......

Therefore, I am not really arguing the belief in a specific "creator", but rather the work or intelligence that was created.....

The reason I asked about the video is because it is the primary source from which you agree with the Nat Geo. article.....

Dr. Jones is also responsible for much of the research that goes into biology textbooks.....

So you just gonna throw everybody under the same umbrella?????

You just want to make up your own shit as you go.....are you gonna reveal that article???

 

[waterproof]

Look at @waterproof's weak ass, doing the exact same thing he accused me of doing. What a joke.

APE MAN why do you interrupt my studies, here i am getting this free lesson from Brother @Babu and you have to talk that talk.

you should humble yourself and be grateful of the schooling @bambu is giving you, some people charge money for that shit

 

[judahxulu]

LOL@ Bambu fighting facts.

You know 93% of biologist know that Evolution is a fact, right?

It fails no tests and it's been going for over 150 years.

Like you creationist with your creationist science are hilarious.

LOL at you niggas thinking fucking with a fruit fly to produce a slightly different fruit fly proves that dinosaurs turned to birds and apes to men and shit... a nigga does not need a doctorate in anthropology to see that aint the same fucking thing lol

 

[judahxulu]

assholes hiding behind the scientific method. there is no scientific method to a conclusion drawn if there is NO OBSERVATION. and thats the shit marks is faking at. muthafuckas gotta talk all long to describe the buck naked emperors clothes made outta magic fabric that "laymen" cant see....GTFOH

 

[judahxulu]

The theory of evolution is the Ray Finkle of racist pseudo-science and the Lois Einhorn of legitmate knowledge...