Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,640 Year: 4,897/9,624 Month: 245/427 Week: 55/103 Day: 13/11 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 135 of 278 (893998)
04-28-2022 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
04-24-2022 9:27 PM

Re: Questions for candle2
Far more importantly, he needs to present some positive evidence FOR CREATION.
For decades from the beginning of "creation science" and even before that, creationists have proclaimed that they have "mountains of evidence for creation!"
OK, as per the Japanese: SoShoMi! SHOW US SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE!
I've been making that request since the mid-1980's. And no creationist has ever presented any positive evidence for creation. Not even one of the founders of "creation science", Dr. Henry Morris, who explicitly insisted on using "negative evidence against evolution", which just will not cut it.
Creationists never ever present any evidence for creation, but rather only attack their strawman misrepresentations of "evolution". They are relying on their "Two Model Approach", which is a false dichotomy (in a true dichotomy given the only possible mutually exclusive conclusions you can arrive at the correct one by eliminating all the others; in a false dichotomy you leave out most of the possible conclusions including the actual true one).
For that matter, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation. And creationists refuse to address that simple fact.
So even if by some unimaginable miracle creationists were to attack actual evolution, that would still do absolutely nothing to prove creation. And especially not their highly specific form of creation. Instead, the immensely more effective approach to proving creation would be to present actual positive evidence FOR creation!
So candle2 must present that evidence for creation! No creationist has ever done so, nor has ever even attempted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 04-24-2022 9:27 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-28-2022 11:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 141 of 278 (894004)
04-28-2022 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM

We were going to go easy on you because of your eye surgeries, but here you are still pulling the same old crap, so damn your eyes!
Even microevolution isn't true evolution.
OK, So tell us what "true evolution" is! We have asked you before and you have ignored all our requests for enlightenment. So tell us already!
It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you are blathering about. You don't know what evolution is, which you repeatedly make obvious by the abjectly ignorant nonsense that you keep posting despite our repeated efforts to inform you.
Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).
Demonstrably false! Though of course we would need to apply the actual definitions of "evolving" and "species" (and "speciation") instead of your strawman disinformational misdefinitions. Which returns us to the need for you to tell us your definition of "evolution".
From Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations:
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven't interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find.
The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation.
As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes.
Orcas (Orcinus orca), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.
Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years.
Why did the orcas split? The truth is, we don't know. Perhaps it was a side effect of modifications for hunting different prey sources, or perhaps there was some kind of physical barrier between populations that has since disappeared. All we know is that while we were busy painting cave walls, something caused groups of orcas to split, creating multiple species.
There are many different reasons why species diverge. The easiest, and most obvious, is some kind of physical barrier - a phenomenon called Allopatric Speciation. If you look at fish species in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California, you'll find there are a lot of similarities between them. Indeed, some of the species look almost identical. Scientists have looked at their genes, and species on either side of that thin land bridge are more closely related to each other than they are to other species, even ones in their area. What happened is that a long time ago, the continents of North and South America were separated, and the oceans were connected. When the two land masses merged, populations of species were isolated on either side. Over time, these fish have diverged enough to be separate species.
Species can split without such clear boundaries, too. When species diverge like the apple maggot flies - without a complete, physical barrier - it's called Sympatric Speciation. Sympatric speciation can occur for all kinds of reasons. All it takes is something that makes one group have less sex with another.
For one species of Monarch flycatchers (Monarcha castaneiventris), it was all about looks. These little insectivores live on Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern. Some flycatchers are all black, while others have chestnut colored bellies. Even though the two groups are perfectly capable of producing viable offspring, they don't mix in the wild. Researchers found that the birds already see the other group as a different species. The males, which are fiercely territorial, don't react when a differently colored male enters their turf. Like the apple maggot flies, the flycatchers are no longer interbreeding, and have thus taken the first step towards becoming two different species.
These might seem like little changes, but remember, as we learned with dogs, little changes can add up. Because they're not interbreeding, these different groups will accumulate even more differences over time. As they do, they will start to look less and less alike. The resultant animals will be like the species we clearly see today. Perhaps some will adapt to a lifestyle entirely different from their sister species - the orcas, for example, may diverge dramatically as small changes allow them to be better suited to their unique prey types. Others may stay fairly similar, even hard to tell apart, like various species of squirrels are today.
The point is that all kinds of creatures, from the smallest insects to the largest mammals, are undergoing speciation right now. We have watched species split, and we continue to see them diverge. Speciation is occurring all around us. Evolution didn't just happen in the past; it's happening right now, and will continue on long after we stop looking for it.
The article, Observed Instances of Speciation, first discusses species and speciation and then gives a list (which I shall not bother to reformat so that the dBCodes here would match the HTML, because we know full well that you will never bother to even look at it -- follow the link to read it with the original formatting):
5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation
The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.
5.1.1 Plants
(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971). Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926. Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus. Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage. Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology. Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile. Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris. Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas. Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature
5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster
Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.
They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.
They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species
In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.
In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.
Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster
Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.
Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).
Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila
The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.
Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.
Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.
Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.
In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.
A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments
5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies
Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow
Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:
"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)
Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)
Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont
In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.
Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.
For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases
So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria
Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM dwise1 has replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 146 of 278 (894124)
05-02-2022 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."
We keep telling you over and over again that IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
What is WRONG with you that you refuse to ever listen to the truth?
Evolution never has taught of "one kind producing a different kind". Nobody except a BRAIN-DEAD STUPID CREATIONIST would ever say such a stupid thing!
I explained it to you in Message 484. READ IT! And don't you dare whine like a baby that "your phone is too smwall ... waaaaahh!!!!". Pull your head out of your ass and learn the truth of what evolution says.
And stop repeating your stupid creationist lies. Why is it that creationists have no other recourse than to lie about everything? To serve their god through lies and deception, with reveals their (and your) god to be The Lord of Lies, AKA Satan!
I repeated the text of Message 484 in Message 70. Read it!
The new species which form from their parent species are still of the same "kind". That is exactly what evolution says! If they were to have become a different "kind", then that would disprove evolution and almost the whole of biology.
Get a fucking clue, you lying idiot!
We owe you our undying gratitude for proving beyond any shadow of a doubt what a complete and utter shipload of bullshit your miserable false religion is. And your silly little satanic god too.
Now nobody will ever make the mistake of falling into your religion's slimy trap. All thanks to your undying efforts to expose it.
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 148 of 278 (894127)
05-02-2022 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM

candle2 Wants Us to Prove Pixie Dust Makes Airplanes Fly
Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."
Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the complete and utter bullshit that that "simple request" is.
In this hypothetical, you believe that heavier-than-air craft (eg, airliners) cannot possibly fly. Despite the fact that every day we observe them flying.
Your argument that they cannot fly is based on fairy dust. You argue that Tinker Bell cannot possibly produce enough fairy dust to keep domestic carriers and Lufthansa aloft.
Your "simple request" for us would be: "Show me empirical proof that Tinker Bell could produce enough fairy dust for more than a few aircraft."
Would we be able to provide that proof? Of course not! Because that is not how heavier-than-air flight works!
So we explain that to you along with explaining to you how heavier-than-air flight does actually work. Which you never ever bother to even look at, let alone read or attempt to understand. Instead, all you ever do is brainlessly repeat your stupid "simple request" that is completely divorced from reality.
And that is why you nothing but a fucking idiot and a stupid asshole.
From A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966):
Markus Lycus: If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times; do not fan the girls when they're wet! But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.
From Dogma:
Muse: That is why he's the King and you're nothing but a schmuck!
From Homeland episode, Good Night (S3 E10), when a special ops troop wounded while trying to infiltrate Brody into Iran comes to:
"Oh no! I'm that guy! I don't want to be that guy!"

wickless, stop being that guy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 151 of 278 (894131)
05-02-2022 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
05-02-2022 5:32 PM

Is that true, that you keep claiming that evolution holds that one "kind" of animal can produce a different "kind?"
He is indeed echoing that tired old standard creationist lie ignoring our repeated corrections:
Message 43
candle2 writes:
What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always
reproduces the same kind of animal.
For example, a pig's offsprings will, and always
has been pigs. The same is true for humans.
Message 66
candle2 writes:
My empirical evidence is being produced
everyday. I take great pride in the fact
(and it is indeed a fact) that human
mother's produce human babies, and
that oak trees produce oak trees. Etc...
Based on God's word in Genesis, this
is exactly what an intelligent and reasonable
person would expect to see.
In fact, I boldly predict with 100% certainly
that next week; next month; next year; and
next century (if we are still going) that human
mother's will still be producing human babies.
Message 121
candle2 writes:
And, what makes someone thinks that these
fossils were capable of doing what animals
today can't do.
And, that is to have offsprings who are of a
different "kind."
Message 136
candle2 writes:
All finches in the Galapagos are still finches. All the
different breeds of dogs are still just dogs. One can
say that minute changes over eons of time can lead
to the creation of new species/kind, but that belief
is based on faith, not science. Faith is a religion.
And religion has no place in the classroom.
Isolation can lead to speciation, which might lead to
some animals of the same kind no longer being
capable of reproducing, but this is a loss of
information. It is not evolution in any form of the
Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).
Message 143
candle2 writes:
Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."
Not just in this topic, but in others before:
Message 467
candle2 writes:
It is observable science (since recorded history) that
an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The
same goes for humans. Human mothers will always
have human babies.
Professors cannot give an observable example where
one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different
kind of animal.
Message 471
candle2 writes:
Professors who preach that evolution is a fact
should put up or shut up.
Observable science supports creation. Animals and
humans produce their own kind.
Message 475
candle2 writes:
"Kind" of animal reproducing the same "kind"
is observable--again, again, and again.
This is exactly what I expect. After all, God
stated matter-of-fact that kind would produce
the same kind. He was right.
Message 482
candle2 writes:
If I can observe something, such as "kind"
reproducing the same "kind," then I can
accept that.
BUT, if I am being asked to believe that
variations in a "kind" can over long periods
of time turn one "kind" into a totally
different "kind," I won't do it.
Darwin observed finches with different size
beaks, and like an idiot, jumped to the
conclusion that this, in a way, proved
How long do you think I would have to wait
for my 24 speed mountain bike to evolve
into a Harley?
Message 489
candle2 writes:
Bicycles have as much of a chance of reproducing
as a human mother has of giving birth to a crow.
Message 492
candle2 writes:
You still make the assertion that minute changes
over millions of years will create a different "kind"
than the parent "kind."
Message 1328
candle2 writes:
Observation proves that human parents produce human babies;
that puppies come from dogs; that piglets come from pigs; and,
chimps procreate chimps.
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon; or, an ape producing a human.
Never has a pregnant woman asked "I wonder what kind of animal
will I give birth to?
They know for certain that their offsprings will be a human.
Message 1358
candle2 writes:
Kind refers to, in this case, animals that are biologically related; have common ancestors; and, can reproduce.
All humans are of the same kind. We fulfill the criteria. All three.
I group kind into the classification of family.
Donkeys, horses, and zebras are of the same kind because they fit the criteria. However, they are not the same species. Even though some offsprings might have great difficulty reproducing they are still of the same kind.
The same is true for dogs; coyotes; foxes; wolves; etc.... And all species grouped into the same kind.
Two animals of the same kind, but not necessarily the same species, can reproduce. And, as I previously stated not always can the offspring replicate. This is also true of humans. Sometimes "isolation" plays a role in this, but loss of genetic information is not evolution; in fact, it is the opposite.
Kind is the limit to reproduction.
Observation science has shown that kind produce kind, just as Moses stated in Genesis.
Message 17
candle2 writes:
Kind produce kind is easy to understand. My youngest grandson understands it and he is in kindergarten.
In simple laymen terms, it means that humans produce humans as offsprings. And, that canines produce canine offsprings.
As a creationists this is what I would expect to see. And guess what, it is what I see. It is what we observe.
What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.
Message 27
candle2 writes:
Wrong! Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.
Don't take this personally, because it is not meant that way. But, none of the animals in this group (kind) can produce an offspring of a different kind; only a total idiot would suggest otherwise.
Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.
Message 45
candle2 writes:
What we observe is that humans produce humans; dogs produce dogs; dolphins produce dolphins; and, oak trees produce oak trees.
In other words, kind produce same kind. Anything else is just wishful thinkin. And, wishful thinking is exactly what evolutionists base their views on.
And he has mentioned that he doesn't bother to read our replies and just dismisses them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 05-02-2022 5:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 05-02-2022 7:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 155 of 278 (894140)
05-02-2022 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM

What Evolution Really Teaches about "Kinds"
The following is the chain of descent working backwards from humans to eucaryotes. Each line would represent a "kind", if you would.
Each kind gave rise to descendant species who in turn gave rise to more species. Some of those new species formed the basis for a new "kind", and so one. However, every single "new kind" was still of the old kind! Which means that humans are still of each of those kinds listed below!
Therefore, humans are still apes and monkeys and primates and placentals and mammals and synapsids and amniotes and tetrapods and vertebrates and chordates and deuterostomes (two holes, one in and the other out) and bilaterates and animals and eukaryotes, and everything inbetween.
It's not a case of changing from one "kind" to another, but rather of evolving into a new version of the old "kind". The Darwinian model is of a branching tree, not of suddenly jumping from one branch to an entirely different one as your lie would have it.
So forsake your damned Satan-serving lies and learn what evolution actually is.
If after having finally learned what evolution really is you still want to fight it, then at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and destroying your god's reputation with outrageous creationist lies.
Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Tribe: Hominini
Subfamily: Homininae
Family: Hominidae
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Suborder: Haplorhini
Order: Primates
Mirorder: Primatomorpha
Grandorder: Euarchonta
Superorder: Euarchontoglires
Magnorder: Boreoeutheria
Infraclass: Placentalia
Clade: Eutheria
Subclass: Theria
Clade: Tribosphenida
Clade: Zatheria
Clade: Cladotheria
Clade: Trechnotheria
Clade: Theriiformes
Class: Mammalia
Clade: Mammaliaformes
Clade: Mammaliamorpha
Clade: Prozostrodontia
Clade: Probainognathia
Clade: Eucynodontia
Clade: Epicynodontia
Clade: Cynodontia
Clade: Eutheriodontia
Clade: Theriodontia
Clade: Therapsida
Clade: Sphenacodontoidea
Clade: Pantherapsida
Clade: Sphenacodontia
Clade: Eupelycosauria
Clade: Synapsida
Clade: Amniota
Clade: Reptiliomorpha
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Clade: Stegocephalia
Clade: Elpistostegalia
Clade: Eotetrapodiformes
Clade: Tetrapodomorpha
Clade: Rhipidistia
Clade: Sarcopterygii
Clade: Euteleostomi
Clade: Teleostomi
Clade: Eugnathostomata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Clade: Olfactores
Phylum: Chordata
Superphylum: Deuterostomia
Clade: Nephrozoa
Clade: Bilateria
Clade: ParaHoxozoa
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Kingdom: Animalia
(unranked): Filozoa
(unranked): Holozoa
(unranked): Opisthokonta
(unranked): Obazoa
(unranked): Unikonta
Domain: Eukaryota
And now here's A Capella Science performing the Animalia Chorus:
Share and enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 156 of 278 (894143)
05-02-2022 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals
05-02-2022 8:10 PM

Re: You're missing the real message
What you describe was the big problem for Darwin. He knew that new traits would arise and would be inherited, but he did not have a valid model for inheritance. As in your analogy, he envisioned mixing paint and a new trait would be a new tint being added. The problem with that model was that that new tint would get lost in the mix. Darwin pressed on, devising his theory of pangenesis which in some ways resembled a reverting back to Lamarckism.
It took Mendelian genetics to solve the inheritance problem and to obsolesce pangenesis. At the time that Mendel was rediscovered (c. 1900) and the study of genetics took off, geneticists would write that they had disproven Darwin. In reality, they had only disproven Darwin's ideas ideas about inheritance but leaving natural selection and descent with modification intact. Still, the writings of those early geneticists provide veins rich in quote-minig ore for creationists.
Indeed, there is no inherent conflict between God and evolution. Evolution describes how life works and it does work quite well. And any omnipotent god worth his salt should have absolutely no difficulty using natural processes. The only problem comes with hide-bound know-nothing creationists try to impose their will on God and dictate to God what He can and cannot do. Most believers should agree that bossing God around is not a good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-02-2022 8:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 05-02-2022 9:49 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-03-2022 8:37 AM dwise1 has replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 160 of 278 (894156)
05-03-2022 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
05-03-2022 8:37 AM

Re: You're missing the real message
But I think now that candle2 may only be here to post his viewpoint many times, not for discussion.
You've only just now figured that out?
And how does that make him any different from any other creationist? Do you know of any creationists who are not just like candle2?
Do you know of any creationists who are open to discussion and not "only here to post his viewpoint many times"? I cannot think of any, but maybe you can though I doubt that their number would come close to exceeding your right hand's ability to count them.
The Bible tells us that God created all living things according to their kinds, meaning that a kind produces it's own kind. Candle2 also believes that a kind produces its own kind. And in a biological context, we all believe that a species produces its own species. So we all believe the same thing consistent with God and biology.
No, we most definitely do not all believe the same thing. candle2 and his ilk believe quite the opposite, that there is insurmountable conflict between evolution and God that can only be resolved by killing evolution.
In order to support his fiction of insurmountable conflict with evolution, candle2 and his ilk must construct and perpetrate outright lies about evolution and science. Such as the ones that I listed for you in Message 156. Vicious lies to justify whatever actions they may think of to "defend their God from atheistic evolution". Like Putin invading Ukraine in order to fight the "Nazis".
Lies to justify any act. Lies which must be called out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-03-2022 8:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-04-2022 7:44 AM dwise1 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 161 of 278 (894157)
05-03-2022 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."
It is such a simple request, and I am completely
justified in asking for it.
No, you are completely unjustified to ask us to prove your stupid lie! We can only prove what is true, whereas you are demand that we prove your lie!
We cannot provide any proof of a dog giving birth to a cat or the like, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!
We cannot prove how babies are born by plotting the migratory paths of storks BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!
We cannot prove that airlines have elaborate ways (indeed, an international conspiracy!) to work around Tinker Bell's inability to produce enough pixie dust needed to keep all the planes aloft BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!
We cannot prove that thermos bottles need to be highly intelligent in order to know when to keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!
So stop your hypocritical posing with demands that we prove things that are NOT HOW ANYTHING WORKS! You lying piece of shit!
Pull your head out of your ass and wake the fuck up!
In sharp contrast, we are completely justified in asking you to explain what you think evolution is and how you think that it works.
Furthermore, since you YEC creationists believe that the earth is young and that you have "mountains of evidence" to prove it, present some of that "evidences" for a young earth!
I have been studying "creation science" since 1981 and discussing it with creationists since about 1986. In all that time, I have not found even one single creationist claim that has even proven to be true or even valid. Not even one! All I have ever gotten from creationists is a pack of lies.
So, here's your chance. Prove that the earth is young. No other creationist has ever been able to, so you can be the first. And then you can go on to answer the other challenge that creationists cannot run away from fast enough: present positive evidence for creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 162 of 278 (894160)
05-03-2022 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM

Two Commercials candle2 was In
You never told us that you were on TV:
That's not how it works! That's not how any of it works!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2022 7:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 165 of 278 (894180)
05-06-2022 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
05-04-2022 7:44 AM

Re: You're missing the real message
They are not a bunch of clones.
Except that they are when it comes to creationism.
They have been thoroughly indoctrinated with creationist lies. They are incapable of independent or individual thought on this subject. All they are capable of doing is to mindlessly repeat the creationist lies that they have been indoctrinated with without any knowledge of what they're talking about and any understanding of their own claims. And all their claims and "arguments" are identical, often with the exact same wording. Not a single shred of independent individual thought in evidence anywhere.
Ever since circa 1986 I have personally witnessed almost ever single creationist do exactly the same thing. They post long lists of creationist claims -- in many cases I could identify the specific professional creationist that they lifted a claim from since they would used the exact same wording (ie, they just copy-and-pasted everything). I would respond by pointing out what their claims got wrong and try to get them to reply, to engage in a discussion about their own claim. Their reaction would be to avoid discussion by any means possible, such as trying to change the subject in a variety of ways (eg, just throw more creationist claims at us, become very hostile and try to pick a fight (eg, when I asked Kent Hovind about his solar-mass-loss claim, he twice tried to pick a fight with me over my moniker, DWise1) ), completely ignoring my repeated requests for discussion of their own claim, or just plain running away.
Why would almost every single creationist I encountered for decades all do the same thing? I took me a while but I finally realized the reason: because they do not understand anything, especially their own claims. All they have done has been to follow their indoctrination by memorizing the claims and trying to bury all of us in their creationist bullshit. They never learn anything, so when asked to explain or discuss their own claims they are completely incapable of doing so.
None of them have arrived at this level of creationism through anything even remotely resembling individual thought. They all think and say the same things because their indoctrination has indeed turned them into clones. And that same indoctrination has also turned them into mindless drones.
I judge everyone as individuals.
As do I. Until they prove that they are not. candle2 has decisively proven that he is not acting as an individual, but rather as a mindless creationist drone.
Buried somewhere within that drone there is still a human. We need to awaken that human lying dormant within that mindless hulk.
I repeat my question:
DWise1 writes:
Do you know of any creationists who are open to discussion and not "only here to post his viewpoint many times"? I cannot think of any, but maybe you can though I doubt that their number would come close to exceeding your right hand's ability to count them.
Just be sure the lies you're calling out are the one actually expressed. Don't go, "Oh, you're a creationist, therefore your guilty of any creationist lie I happen to choose."
Because of their identical indoctrination, we can readily recognize their lies -- the same as we can readily recognize an anti-democracy MAGAt the moment they utter the dog-whistle "ensuring election integrity".
candle2's repeated claims of "What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always reproduces the same kind of animal." as I listed for your benefit in Message 151 has been firmly established over decades of creationist claims as falsely accusing evolution of requiring the opposite (eg, dogs giving birth to kittens).
We all know what he's saying, because it has been firmly established as fundamental in his indoctrination.
If candle2 were to think that I am misrepresenting his claims in any manner, he is always free to challenge me and to correct me.
Yet he never ever does so. He never ever even attempts to do so. Why not? Obviously because I am spot-on about his claims. He is always free to show otherwise, but he never does.
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-04-2022 7:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 171 of 278 (894191)
05-06-2022 1:12 PM

I need to leave for a medical appointment, but I'll be back.
Polystrate fossil claims are among the worst-documented in all of the creationist literature. I have looked the claim up in many creationist books and I never ever, not even once, seen a single one of those books cite any geological source describing the sites being referred to by creationists. I have also directly demanded that creationists who bring up this claim to provide geological sources (not creationist ones, since they only repeat the lies, though one of their very common lies is to list scientific sources in a bibliography that they have never read because they had stolen that bibliography from other creationists who had stolen theirs unread from yet other creationists).
So provide scientific sources which describe those fossils and the strata in which they are found.
Also, geologist are not even remotely like you creationists. They are not blind brain-dead idiots who never ever bother to go out and look at the evidence (what you call "observational science" and which creationists never practice).
Geologists actually look at the evidence and make actual observations. They can tell whether a layer had been deposited slowly or rapidly -- your lie of layers requiring absolutely uniform slow rate of depositation lasting millions of years is just that, a lie!
And your " ... animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being millions of years old." Are you referring to the whale skeleton found near Lompoc, Calif? So tell us all about it. Tell us your creationist source's story about it. So that we can discuss it.
Gotta leave now.

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 173 of 278 (894211)
05-06-2022 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by candle2
05-06-2022 11:16 AM

Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, but
also animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being
millions of years old.

How a dead tree can stand upright for millions of
years without decaying away is not acceptable to
a sane, rational individual.
The answer is that nobody says that a dead tree must "stand upright for millions of years without decaying away" -- except for a lying creationist!
Layers are deposited at different rates, some rapid and some slow. Everybody in their first introductory geology course learns that. And yet creationists insist that (ie, LIE THAT) geology teaches otherwise, that all depositation is at a single continuous very slow rate such that a few feet of strata would take "millions of years" to form, thousands of years for each millimeter.
Creationist Dr. Steve Austin, PhD Geology, claimed precisely that as "Stuart Nevins" in one of his creationist geology articles that I personally read. The Institute for Creation Research needed an actual PhD Geology on their staff in a desperate bid for respectability, one with credentials from a real geology department in a real university instead of the typical creationist fake "doctorate" from a diploma mill. So they hired graduate student Steve Austin to earn his PhD, which included paying for all his school expenses and supporting him in school. In return, he would join their staff after graduation and, while working on his degree, would write geology articles for them which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He created an anagram of his name to create his pseudonym, "Stuart Nevins", in order to hide his creationist identity from his real university professors.
Bear in mind that when "Stuart Nevins" had written that article, he had already learned far more geology than just the first introduction to geology course. That meant that when he repeated the typical creationist lie of "a formation a hundred feet thick that took millions of years to form did so with each millimeter of rock taking thousands of years to form" (paraphrased slightly, but that was what he claimed) he did so knowing full well that it was a lie. Therefore, Steve Austin deliberately lied!
I bring up Steve Austin's propensity for lying for a couple of reasons, one of which was in response to you repeating that creationist lie, which your entire rant about polystrate fossils depends on.
Back on CompuServe on 29-Mar-90, we were discussing polystrate fossil claims. The creationist (a SDAist whose MO was to copy and post entire pages from creationist books so literally that he always included the numbers linking to footnotes (but never the footnotes themselves)), Paul Ekdahl (simply to identify him since his name appears below), had quoted from something that Dr. Steve Austin had written. Austin had included a reference to his "source": Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869. When I found that article in the university library, I found that Austin had lied about what it said -- why am I not surprised at yet another creationist lie?
I've referred to that a number of times on this forum, the earliest having been in Message 116 on 05-Sep-2007:
DWise1 writes:
Do you believe that evidence of rapid depositation invalidates modern geology? Could you please explain why you would believe that?
I do hope that you will start that thread on polystrate fossils. That claim is so pervasive in the creationist literature and at the same time is one of their most poorly documented claims. I do hope that you will cite specific polystrate fossils along with their references, including scientific sources that also examine those fossils. That way, we will be able to examine the evidence.
BTW, in 20 years I have only seen one creationist offer an actual citation for a polystrate fossil claim. That creationist cited Steve Austin of the ICR who in his Catastrophes in Earth History quotes from this article: Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures, American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.
When I looked that article up in the library, I found that Austin had selectively pulled out that quotation out of contex such that (as I try to remember back about 18 years) it mentioned the geological evidence of rapid depositation but ignored the article's explanation that that rapid depositation was due to local flooding and it furthermore explained how geologists tell the difference between rapid and slow depositation.
Please note that Austin's misrepresentation of the Broadhurst article is the only creationist citation for a polystrate fossil claim that I have ever been able to find. Well, not counting a reference for the whale skeleton found near Lompoc, Calif, but that was nothing more that a two-inch announcement in an industrial chemical journal about the skeleton having been found and containing no other information.
Now here's a more complete treatment, an email to a creationist (CC'd to an interested third party) in which I posted the entire exchange on CompuServe (email addresses removed for privacy):
Subj: A Polystrate Claim
Date: 19-Apr-01 13:06:41 Pacific Daylight Time
From: DWise1
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DWise1
Bill and Mark:
I told you before about the one creationist polystrate fossil claim that I
was able to find that was a specific claim. I had written it up as a library
file for CompuServe, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it and the
CompuServe fora have been reorganized so that I cannot find it there.
However, I have found other messages which cover most of what my library file
said. Creationist Paul Ekdahl's source was Steven Austin, whose source was a
1964 issue of American Journal of Science. Unfortunately, that issue is
missing from the Cal-State Fullerton library, apparently being bound.
The rest of this email consists of Ekdahl's library file and our subsequent
POLYST 29-Mar-90 1965
Press for next or type CHOICES !read
A response to David Wise [72747,3317]... on no.13 (Polystrate fossils)
168. Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of
non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal
measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.
Not infrequently, large fossils of plants and animals are found to
penetrate several strata. Upright fossil trees known as "kettles" or
"polystrate trees" may extend through tens of feet of strata, requiring
that the sedimentation occurred rapidly before the trees could rot and
fall over. Broadhurst describes trees in Lancashire, England: In 1959
Broadhurst and Magraw described a fossilized tree, in position of growth,
from the Coal Measures at Blackrod near Wigan in Lancashire. This tree
was preserved as a cast, and the evidence available suggested that the
cast was at least 38 feet in height. The original tree must have been
surrounded and buried by sediment which was compacted before the bulk of
the tree decomposed, so that the cavity vacated by the trunk could be
occupied by new sediment which formed the cast. This implies a rapid rate
of sedimentation around the original tree... It is clear that trees in
position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller,
1956, reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen
Coal Measures), and presumably in all cases there must have been a rapid
rate of sedimentation. (p.865-866)
Response to no.16
> And could you expound on those "few people" who "have not let outside
scientist examine their date""that ancient wood exists which will permit
this calibration to be extended"?<
David I no longer have my master copy.. so I can not tell you. I good
place to ask would be SOR [bbs]. I saw your name on the board a couple of
weeks ago. If you post it there... someone might be able to help you.
Press !
POLYST 29-Mar-90 1965
29-Mar-90 21:40:08
Sb: #28067-RESPONSE TO 13 AND 17
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727 (X)
It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in
upright position. It's a little startling, but the ground in that area is
subject to subsidence. I'd be surprised if some HADN'T been found in the
BTW, this isn't speculation. I'm from Lancashire.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu
Subject (# msgs)
08-Jun-90 12:40:20
Sb: "Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones 71257,431
> #: 34212 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
> 02-May-90 08:00:59
> Fm: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727
> To: KEIR JONES 71257,431 (X)
> > It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in
> > an upright position.
> I agree situations like that do happen. But, how do you deal with
> polystrate trees that penetrate through millions of years of strata? Do
> remember that this is not uncommon.
> Paul
Earlier in his library file, POLYST, Paul had given a reference for this
claim: Broadhurst's article from American Journal of Science (1964), "Some
Aspects of the Paleoecology of Non-marine Fauas and Rates of Sedimentation in
the Lancashire Coal Measures." When I looked it up in the library last week,
found that not only does Broadhurst NOT say that fossil trees "penetrate
several strata", but he explicitly points out that of the more than fifty
fossilized in position of growth in Lancashire, "[w]here trees occur in the
roof beds of a coal seam the root system is developed in the beds above the
of the coal; in no case has a tree been observed to pass from the roof into
coal itself." He also points out considerable evidence which contradicts
I have just uploaded into Library 15 a file, POLYST.RSP, which includes
entire text of Paul's POLYST and my findings on the matter. So far, I have
found this claim of "poly-strate fossils" to be one of the more common and
worse documented of creationist claims.
I would like to get Paul to justify that "millions of years of strata"
line. So many strawmen, so little time.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu
09-Jun-90 09:37:26
Sb: #41060-#"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X)
That citation matches my own observations (Both grandfathers and several
uncles were Lancashire coal miners) of such trees and the rates of
There is 1 Reply.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
10-Jun-90 09:45:32
Sb: #41177-"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
This "polystrate fossil" claim seems to be trying to discredit modern
geology by first forcing a ridiculous view upon it (i.e. that all sediment
formed at a constant and strictly uniform rate) and then pointing out some of
the many examples of rapid sedimentation. The creationists seems intent on
erecting an effigy (or voodoo doll) of evolution and science, which they call
their "creation model", and then pronouncing evolution dead because they have
destroyed their effigy.
Anyway, I have informed Paul of what his reference actually says and have
again requested a reference for this claim. Who knows, maybe a miracle will
happen and he will start trying to verify his creationists' claims before he
posts them. But I'm not holding my breath.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
10-Jun-90 20:51:00
Sb: #41362-#"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X)
Anyone who thinks sedimentation is uniform has a sedimented brain. One
only has to look anywhere in the world where rainfall comes in heavy storms
with sunny weather between to see that. The layers of mud in Santa Monica Bay
are a readily accessible verification of uneven sedimentation. You can even
read out the months by the type of debris.
It's always amazed me that creationists spend so much time trying to
down evolution. Sort of like trying to prove the superiority of Goodyear
by knocking Firestone. Not a practical argument when the next guy rolls up
a Michelin.
There is 1 Reply.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
11-Jun-90 13:11:29
Sb: #41542-"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
The creationists' dual goal is (1) to kill evolution and (2) to
through creationism. Goal #1 is most readily reached by using their
model" to discredit or at least raise doubts about evolution and any science
that might possibly support it. The "evolution model" is a very rich source
strawmen: misconceptions and distortions of evolutionary ideas and claims
which the general public cannot readily tell from the real thing. This is
big reason why they never take their "findings" to the scientific community;
scientists would see the holes in their arguments immediately. Instead, they
target the public and public officials who are not well-schooled in science.
The supposed dependence of modern geology on uniform and constant rates
sedimentations is just another of their many strawman arguments.
Santa Monica Bay? You live in the LA area? I'm down here in Orange
Press for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu
So the only creationist reference to polystrate fossils that I have ever been able to find just simply lies about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by candle2, posted 05-06-2022 11:16 AM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 175 of 278 (894225)
05-07-2022 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by candle2
05-07-2022 11:29 AM

Re: You're missing the real message
This is why character is of the utmost importance.
We can only attain this character by having His
precious Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Through
His Holy Spirit we can attain fellowship with the
Father and Son. Through His Holy Spirit God
imparts His very nature to us. Little by little we
take on His character.
So why then all the lies? Why do you creationists gorge yourselves on lies, swallowing camel-loads of them whole? Bathing in an ocean of lies? Why?
Is that taking on the character of your god? What does that say about your god?
At the very least, by using Christian Doctrine we can identify your god. The "Lord of Lies", which anybody having any familiarity at all with Christian Doctrine will immediately recognize as Satan. Except of course for those who follow him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 11:29 AM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 183 of 278 (894244)
05-07-2022 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by candle2
05-07-2022 5:48 PM

Re: You're missing the real message
So do you believe that if we find that something happens through natural processes instead of through supernatural actions then that disproves the supernatural? Why?
To be more specific, do you believe that science finding that things happened through natural processes disprove God? Why?
IOW, do you believe that your god is so weak that it could not use the natural processes that you would elsewhere claim that it had itself created? Why?
Nothing that creationists say make any sense at all. And all creationists refuse to explain what they are saying.
Instead, all we keep getting from them is a steady stream of lies.
We have repeatedly asked you to explain what you are saying and you have steadfastly refused to do so. Instead, all you keep getting from you is a steady stream of lies.
Please stop lying to us. Please explain yourself and respond to our questions.
Start with what you think evolution is and how it works. We know quite well what evolution is and how it works, which is why we cannot even begin to identify the bogeyman that you keep attacking. Until you reveal to us what your hallucinations are, we cannot understand your irrational reactions to those hallucinations.
You have tried to challenge us with "show me the evidence for evolution", but have rejected all of our responses. The problem is that all we can show any evidence of is actual evolution, whereas you want us to present evidence of your fake "evolution" caricature which we don't know anything about because you refuse to tell us what the hell you're talking about! You could never recognize evidence for actual evolution because you expect to only see the equivalent of evidence that Tinker Bell can indeed produce enough pixie dust to enable all the aircraft in the world to fly.
If you disagree with that Tinker Bell analogy of what you're asking for, then do please tells us exactly what you would accept as evidence for evolution. Which of course would also require you to finally reveal your big secret: what you think evolution is and how it works.
At the same time, we have asked you to present positive evidence for creation. That is something that all creationists refuse to do, especially professional creationists.
We are still waiting. I have repeatedly heard creationists proclaim that they have "mountains of evidence" for creation and yet they never ever present it. I have told the story of a creationist co-worker, Charles, who attended a major creationist debate (H. Morris & Gish versus Awbrey & Thwaites -- the creators of "creation science" versus the creators of the only real two-model class then in existence (see Message 2058)) with me in 1985. On the way out, he was visibly deeply shaken, nearly in shock. He kept muttering: "But we have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they show any of it? But we have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they show any of it?"
Since you will never ever present any positive evidence for creation --because 1) there is none and 2) that would expose your half-century-old deception -- then at the very least present a creationist claim that you honestly and truthfully (using those terms very loosely since we're dealing with a creationist here) consider to be both valid and true. In nearly half a century of studying "creation science" I have yet to encounter even one truthful creationist claim, but that does not mean it cannot happen. So surprise me. Present one.
I guess your silly "polystrate fossils" claim was such an attempt, based as it is on almost zero evidence being presented by the creationists (oh, yes, they do exist, but creationists keep secret any geological examination of them which must exist) and on the standard creationist lies about geology. Not even a decent attempt. More on that in another reply.
This kind of reasoning doesn't instill much confidence
in the reader.
Funny you should use the "c-word". I trust that you know what a "confidence man" is: a practitioner of confidence tricks:
A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their trust. Confidence tricks exploit victims using their credulity, naïveté, compassion, vanity, confidence, irresponsibility, and greed. Researchers have defined confidence tricks as "a distinctive species of fraudulent conduct [...] intending to further voluntary exchanges that are not mutually beneficial", as they "benefit con operators ('con men') at the expense of their victims (the 'marks')".
Face it, you're nothing but yet another mark being conned by "creation science".
It's kid stuff.
No, science isn't "kid stuff", but rather your fairy tales are.
In order to understand science, you need to be able to learn. Until you have learned that the earth is spherical (somewhat) instead of flat and how and why we know that, you will continue to scoff at "books written by an evolutionist" (whatever that is supposed to mean; yet another creationist dog-whistle lie that no creationist will ever discuss) which tell you that the earth is "round" while you maintain it's flat because that field is flat.
How silly!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 5:48 PM candle2 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024