Bill Nye vs Ken Ham (Evolution vs Creation debate)

[whar]

"However, never surpass the limits of its instructions or DNA program.............

Thus, no new species or "kind"........"

How can one define what surpasses the limits of its instructions?

There is a specie of bacteria that evolved to eat nylon, a man made substance. How do you show that the information was 'there' all along?

 

[bambu]

"However, never surpass the limits of its instructions or DNA program.............

Thus, no new species or "kind"........"

How can one define what surpasses the limits of its instructions?

A new species or kind........

Mutations occur.....However, once the limits of the specie or kind are reached...........

It fails to reproduce, hence failing to "evolve" into a new species or kind...........

I use the word "kind" to represent differences in living creatures............

i.e. a fly is a different kind than a dog............

Or Fusobacteria is a different kind than Spirochaetes............

I do so because the classification system originated by Linnaeus is severely flawed............

As for man, Linnaeus concluded there were four types of Homo sapiens: europaeus, asiaticus, americanus and afer. And that was not including people in "a state of nature" (Homo sapiens ferus) and pathological types (Homo sapiens monstrosus).

Or is it??????

There is a specie of bacteria that evolved to eat nylon, a man made substance. How do you show that the information was 'there' all along?

"a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation.".......

@whar

@vibe

@oceanic

Try again................

 

[whar]

Bambu you need to pay attention to your comment.

Since most speciation is the accumulation of mutation and this is an example of an organism doing something that could not have existed in its DNA prior to the existence of Nylon how can you hold a position regarding the 'limits' of information and DNA. Since this is an over the top obvious example of new information entering the genome of this organism and it is equally obvious that this organism will continue to acquire new adaptions then it is simply a matter of time until it reaches a point when it would need to be called a new species.

For this to be otherwise a process or limit would have to exist that restricted the accumulation of DNA changes in a population over time. There is a limit on the rate this information can be accumulated but not one on the volume of information. Eventually it will reach a point when the population of organisms would be a new species.

As for the soft and squishy word kind ... is a dog and a fox the same kind?

And as I am sure I have linked before the 29 evidences of macro evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Why don't you try explaining all that evidence is wrong.

 

[whar]

The Cambrian explosion occurs over an 80 million year period. While it did see evolutionary changes occur faster than today nothing occuring during it that violated evolution.

 

[beenwize]

"However, never surpass the limits of its instructions or DNA program.............

Thus, no new species or "kind"........"

How can one define what surpasses the limits of its instructions?

There is a specie of bacteria that evolved to eat nylon, a man made substance. How do you show that the information was 'there' all along?

Or why did bible god come down to confuse languages because of what humans 'might' be able to do? He said nothing would be restrained so if he set limits in our dna then wat was he concerned for?

 

[bambu]

Bambu you need to pay attention to your comment.

Since most speciation is the accumulation of mutation and this is an example of an organism doing something that could not have existed in its DNA prior to the existence of Nylon how can you hold a position regarding the 'limits' of information and DNA. Since this is an over the top obvious example of new information entering the genome of this organism and it is equally obvious that this organism will continue to acquire new adaptions then it is simply a matter of time until it reaches a point when it would need to be called a new species.

For this to be otherwise a process or limit would have to exist that restricted the accumulation of DNA changes in a population over time. There is a limit on the rate this information can be accumulated but not one on the volume of information. Eventually it will reach a point when the population of organisms would be a new species.

No new species has been observed..............

The Cambrian explosion occurs over an 80 million year period. While it did see evolutionary changes occur faster than today nothing occuring during it that violated evolution.

Nice diversion.........

The Cambrain explosion breaks the entire thesis of evolution..........

It is a gradual slow process......

However it just so happened to speed up during the Cambrain???????

GTFOH............

“The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.” R. L. Carroll

*The supremacy of our empire is undeniable*

 

[whar]

"However it just so happened to speed up during the Cambrain???????"

Yes evolutionary rates always increase following a mass extinction. This is due to entire ecosystems opening up to new organisms. These organisms change rapidly, compared to other periods, due to the new environment and the decreased competition caused by the extinction. The same is true during the Cambrian except instead of extinction these were among the first animals to inhabit most of the environs. The Cambrian is not an argument against evolution.

"Why don't you address my points and stop plastering this board with prefabricated arguments............."

I do address your points, see the paragraph above. Why don't you read this transtional forms and then explain why it does not show evidence of transitional forms?

Oh and those "prefabricated arguments" are called science and evidence. Hell all your points are old creationist nonsense going back years.

No new information in DNA. New Information in DNA

No observed acts of speciation. Observed acts of speciation

Mischaracterizing poor R.L. Carroll. Quote Mining

Do you think the man that produced all these works by Dr Carroll does not believe evolution is true? Of course he does but you would take a single sentence from a paper he wrote 14 years ago and put forward the idea he believes evolution is false? That is genuinely despicable behavior and does nothing to undermine the actual evidence supporting evolution.

All your arguments are smoke Bambu they have no substance.

 

[Bodhi]

Goddamn!

 

[beenwize]

Damn @whar str8 etherin this fool.

 

[bambu]

"However it just so happened to speed up during the Cambrain???????"

Yes evolutionary rates always increase following a mass extinction. This is due to entire ecosystems opening up to new organisms. These organisms change rapidly, compared to other periods, due to the new environment and the decreased competition caused by the extinction. The same is true during the Cambrian except instead of extinction these were among the first animals to inhabit most of the environs. The Cambrian is not an argument against evolution.

"Why don't you address my points and stop plastering this board with prefabricated arguments............."

I do address your points, see the paragraph above. Why don't you read this transtional forms and then explain why it does not show evidence of transitional forms?

Oh and those "prefabricated arguments" are called science and evidence. Hell all your points are old creationist nonsense going back years.

No new information in DNA. New Information in DNA

No observed acts of speciation. Observed acts of speciation

Mischaracterizing poor R.L. Carroll. Quote Mining

Do you think the man that produced all these works by Dr Carroll does not believe evolution is true? Of course he does but you would take a single sentence from a paper he wrote 14 years ago and put forward the idea he believes evolution is false? That is genuinely despicable behavior and does nothing to undermine the actual evidence supporting evolution.

All your arguments are smoke Bambu they have no substance.

Really????

You might get some cosigns, however, you are the only one whose argument is smoke............

Explain to me again the time frame of the Cambrian explosion...........

Wait.....

I found it......

Ape to humans took 6 million years. We see clear evidence of this in the fossil record but you are not going to see that occur in the lab or even in the wild given we have only been looking for 150 years.

Artificial Selection does give interesting result particularly in agriculture. Cabbage is a simple plant that is a popular crop in Russia and elsewhere. In fact its origins are from that region northern Asia basically. Through selective breeding cabbage has been changed into Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale.

That is a pretty significant set of changes to an organism. It is hard to argue that evolution can not produce large scale changes to an organism when farmers for 1000s of years have been using evolution to do just that.

And your downfall........

This post illustrates your ignorance on the topic of evolution.....

Cabbage did not "evolve" into the other vegetables that you mentioned......

cabbage, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale are genetic modifications of of the same species (Brassica oleracea)......

The plants are selected for desirable characteristics that can be maintained by propagation......

This is no different than the hybridization of cannabis.....

Several genetic variations.....

However, no new species.... let alone "proof" of evolution.....

I don't care if the author supports evolution or not, if he questions the validity of the Cambrain time period it should not be ignored........

So again....

“The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.” R. L. Carroll

And I don't care if you use arguments from talkorigins and such.............

Just be specific.....

If you make an argument, make it..........

Don't post a link and expect it to prove your gobbledygook......

& cosigns from @beenwise only illustrates that your argument is foolish............

We need moderation..........

@young_chitlin.....

What's the score??????

@oceanic.....

 

[beenwize]

"However it just so happened to speed up during the Cambrain???????"

Yes evolutionary rates always increase following a mass extinction. This is due to entire ecosystems opening up to new organisms. These organisms change rapidly, compared to other periods, due to the new environment and the decreased competition caused by the extinction. The same is true during the Cambrian except instead of extinction these were among the first animals to inhabit most of the environs. The Cambrian is not an argument against evolution.

"Why don't you address my points and stop plastering this board with prefabricated arguments............."

I do address your points, see the paragraph above. Why don't you read this transtional forms and then explain why it does not show evidence of transitional forms?

Oh and those "prefabricated arguments" are called science and evidence. Hell all your points are old creationist nonsense going back years.

No new information in DNA. New Information in DNA

No observed acts of speciation. Observed acts of speciation

Mischaracterizing poor R.L. Carroll. Quote Mining

Do you think the man that produced all these works by Dr Carroll does not believe evolution is true? Of course he does but you would take a single sentence from a paper he wrote 14 years ago and put forward the idea he believes evolution is false? That is genuinely despicable behavior and does nothing to undermine the actual evidence supporting evolution.

All your arguments are smoke Bambu they have no substance.

Really????

You might get some cosigns, however, you are the only one whose argument is smoke............

Explain to me again the time frame of the Cambrian explosion...........

Wait.....

I found it......

Ape to humans took 6 million years. We see clear evidence of this in the fossil record but you are not going to see that occur in the lab or even in the wild given we have only been looking for 150 years.

Artificial Selection does give interesting result particularly in agriculture. Cabbage is a simple plant that is a popular crop in Russia and elsewhere. In fact its origins are from that region northern Asia basically. Through selective breeding cabbage has been changed into Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale.

That is a pretty significant set of changes to an organism. It is hard to argue that evolution can not produce large scale changes to an organism when farmers for 1000s of years have been using evolution to do just that.

And your downfall........

This post illustrates your ignorance on the topic of evolution.....

Cabbage did not "evolve" into the other vegetables that you mentioned......

cabbage, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale are genetic modifications of of the same species (Brassica oleracea)......

The plants are selected for desirable characteristics that can be maintained by propagation......

This is no different than the hybridization of cannabis.....

Several genetic variations.....

However, no new species.... let alone "proof" of evolution.....

I don't care if the author supports evolution or not, if he questions the validity of the Cambrain time period it should not be ignored........

So again....

“The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.” R. L. Carroll

And I don't care if you use arguments from talkorigins and such.............

Just be specific.....

If you make an argument, make it..........

Don't post a link and expect it to prove your gobbledygook......

& cosigns from @beenwise only illustrates that your argument is foolish............

We need moderation..........

@young_chitlin.....

What's the score??????

@oceanic.....

 

[Bodhi]

"However it just so happened to speed up during the Cambrain???????"

Yes evolutionary rates always increase following a mass extinction. This is due to entire ecosystems opening up to new organisms. These organisms change rapidly, compared to other periods, due to the new environment and the decreased competition caused by the extinction. The same is true during the Cambrian except instead of extinction these were among the first animals to inhabit most of the environs. The Cambrian is not an argument against evolution.

"Why don't you address my points and stop plastering this board with prefabricated arguments............."

I do address your points, see the paragraph above. Why don't you read this transtional forms and then explain why it does not show evidence of transitional forms?

Oh and those "prefabricated arguments" are called science and evidence. Hell all your points are old creationist nonsense going back years.

No new information in DNA. New Information in DNA

No observed acts of speciation. Observed acts of speciation

Mischaracterizing poor R.L. Carroll. Quote Mining

Do you think the man that produced all these works by Dr Carroll does not believe evolution is true? Of course he does but you would take a single sentence from a paper he wrote 14 years ago and put forward the idea he believes evolution is false? That is genuinely despicable behavior and does nothing to undermine the actual evidence supporting evolution.

All your arguments are smoke Bambu they have no substance.

Really????

You might get some cosigns, however, you are the only one whose argument is smoke............

Explain to me again the time frame of the Cambrian explosion...........

Wait.....

I found it......

Ape to humans took 6 million years. We see clear evidence of this in the fossil record but you are not going to see that occur in the lab or even in the wild given we have only been looking for 150 years.

Artificial Selection does give interesting result particularly in agriculture. Cabbage is a simple plant that is a popular crop in Russia and elsewhere. In fact its origins are from that region northern Asia basically. Through selective breeding cabbage has been changed into Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale.

That is a pretty significant set of changes to an organism. It is hard to argue that evolution can not produce large scale changes to an organism when farmers for 1000s of years have been using evolution to do just that.

And your downfall........

This post illustrates your ignorance on the topic of evolution.....

Cabbage did not "evolve" into the other vegetables that you mentioned......

cabbage, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, and Kale are genetic modifications of of the same species (Brassica oleracea)......

The plants are selected for desirable characteristics that can be maintained by propagation......

This is no different than the hybridization of cannabis.....

Several genetic variations.....

However, no new species.... let alone "proof" of evolution.....

I don't care if the author supports evolution or not, if he questions the validity of the Cambrain time period it should not be ignored........

So again....

“The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.” R. L. Carroll

And I don't care if you use arguments from talkorigins and such.............

Just be specific.....

If you make an argument, make it..........

Don't post a link and expect it to prove your gobbledygook......

& cosigns from @beenwise only illustrates that your argument is foolish............

We need moderation..........

@young_chitlin.....

What's the score??????

@oceanic.....

Didn't watch the video; perhaps you could explain it to me later. I'm having enough fun watching Whar tear your arguments apart.

Nice attempt at a diversion. You should address him for now.

 

[bambu]

@whar..........

You will love this one.....

But the difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory no doubt were somewhere accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very great.

If these most ancient beds had been wholly worn away by denudation, or obliterated by metamorphic action, we ought to find only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these ought to be very generally ina metamorphosed condition.

But the descriptions which we now possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view.......

Didn't watch the video; perhaps you could explain it to me later. I'm having enough fun watching Whar tear your arguments apart.

Nice attempt at a diversion. You should address him for now.

It was a response to this......

Goddamn!

It is a video about dick riding.......

Which is a reference to what you are doing with @whar.........

Perhaps you should STFU unless you want to join the debate..........

@sion.....

We can go..........

My challenge to @oceanic and his band of misfits remains open..........

 

[Bodhi]

Losers are usually the most upset. You are hilariously pitiful.

 

[jono]

LOL entertaining. Y'all need to get that debate jumping off cuz all this back and forth has gone on too long.

 

[bambu]

LOL entertaining. Y'all need to get that debate jumping off cuz all this back and forth has gone on too long.

I'm ready to go..........

This nigga scared!!!!!!!

 

[whar]

I am now convinced Bambu is a troll. I bet he has a PhD in biology and just posts here when he is baked to see what kind of nonsense he can get away with.

I mean in his most recent response to my post he simply abandons reason. He links my post then comments about me explaining the length of the Cambrian explosions. Next he links a post from a second thread, ostensibly my explanation of the Cambrian period, where I posted exactly fuck-all about the Cambrian explosion. Then he shuts me down by showing that weed proves me wrong.

 

[bambu]

@Whar......

I was illustrating your ignorance on this topic..........

We have been through this before............

You contradict your own "pseudo-evolutionary" time frame......

All you have posted are links and Ad hominem attacks thus far........

If you want to debate this topic how about addressing this post..........

Minus the Ad hominem & grandiose claims of "proof" hidden within several links..........

My degrees are in History & Anthropology.........

What evidence is there, besides the bible, that can disprove evolution and make the creation story true?

How can you ignore the geological/fossil layers, that in order, fossils are found to prove evolution?

None of the fossils then are the same as now, many evolved over time, this is recorded in the fossils and proved w side by side comparisons.

Can creationists explain this?

1. The Bible is not necessary to argue against & defeat the theory of evolution..............

Every living thing has "programmed" or coded DNA instructions........

It has been observed to mutate..........

However, never surpass the limits of its instructions or DNA program.............

Thus, no new species or "kind"........

2. It is not about ignoring fossils and geological evidence..........

The Cambrian explosion is but one example of the theory of evolution breaking its own "laws" in order to remain a half-assed theory.............

The theory has been forced on evidence that does not fit...........

3.

Looks can be deceiving..........

Human embryo's look like fish embryo's ......

That does not "prove" common descent............

4. Just did it..........

 

[beenwize]

http://www.essene.com/TheEsseneHumaneGospel/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_2.html

Yeshua Tells Of The Origin Of The World

And one of Yeshua' disciples asked him, saying, "Lord and Master of all wisdom from above, tell us, please, the origin of the world, is it as the philosophers say it is?"

And Yeshua said unto him and all the others who had open ears, "Truly I say unto ye all this day, things are not always as they appear to the one beholding, for one says the world came into being by itself, without a god and without a creator, and another says the world came into being by fate, and still another says by providence, but I tell ye, all three speak not the word of truth, as not one speaks of the true origin of the world, for no man knoweth of the origin, lest the Son of Man revealeth the mystery."

And Yeshua revealed the mystery only unto his disciples in secret, and when they heard the mystery, they were astonished. And Yeshua said unto them, "Speak not this mystery to any man, lest he seeketh the all-truth and be of the children of light, for such is not for the unwise of the world to behold."

 

[bambu]

http://www.essene.com/TheEsseneHumaneGospel/The_Essene_Humane_Gospel_Of_Christ_Part_2.html

Yeshua Tells Of The Origin Of The World

for one says the world came into being by itself, without a god and without a creator, and another says the world came into being by fate, and still another says by providence, but I tell ye, all three speak not the word of truth, as not one speaks of the true origin of the world, for no man knoweth of the origin, lest the Son of Man revealeth the mystery."

Cannot believe it............

But I halfway agree with your post........

However I am not claiming to have the truth....................

Just that these Evolutionists/Darwinists are in fact wrong.............

In fact.....

They are the only ones claiming that their position of evolution is indeed FACTUAL..........

I simply illustrate the errors in their "scientific analysis"...........

Disproving both fate and the lack of a creator........

Now as far as "providence"..........

How other than God conceived as the power sustaining the origins of the world.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.