Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[The Barbarian]

Many true Christians recognized that Darwin's erroneous musings were those of an unregenerate mind in rebellion against God.

Well, that seems like a testable belief. Looking at the copy on my shelf...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1859

You've been badly misled.

[The Barbarian]

As I said, many YE creationists have rejected the founding premise of YE creationism. But few of them are willing to denounce the racism of their founders.

Marke: Sinners who do not believe that God created all humans from the same blood that flowed in Adam's veins thus making them all brethren are in ignorance and rebellion against God.

There have been creationist polygenists, but mostly they take the traditional YE position that blacks became genetically inferior after descending from Adam.

Marke: Dishonestly slandering all Christians by wickedly and unjustly suggesting they are racists is a common trait of ungodly racist democrats.

I don't see anyone here making such a claim. I've repeatedly pointed out that you and many other YE creationists reject the racist foundations of YE creationism. Even in Darwin's time there were creationists such as Samuel Wilberforce, who joined with Darwin in opposing racism.

[marke]

Marke: I totally disagree with what Morris is alleged to have said about blacks.

What you happen to agree with or disagree with is uninteresting and unneeded in debate. Morris still said and did what he did, but moving on...

Marke: I don't approve of blindly condemning wide groups of Christians for what some few believe any more that I believe we should condemn wide groups of blacks because some few falsely and hatefully claim whites are evil and racist.

Marke: The brightest and most vehement evolutionists defended evolution in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial with 'proofs' that have all since been thoroughly debunked.

How quickly you have forgotten that evolution is a fact and is something we observe. No amount of name calling will make this go away, yet here you are on a debate forum no less, throwing insults at long dead people in place of even trying to show that you are correct and evolution doesn't happen.

What really gets me is that you must insert some special rapid form of evolution, a form that would make biologists blush to get from 2 beetles on an ark to the roughly 400,000 species we now have.
It's as if you are saying:
Beetles can't evolve to 400,000 species over millions of years! That can only happen over a few thousand years!
How do you come to terms with this?

Marke: Science has never observed speciation changes of the sort Darwin imagined must have happened for dumb jungle animals to evolve into humans. Evolutionists claim humans and watermelons share a common ancestor, which is ridiculous. Plants reproduce through seeds that carry and preserve the species in a way that disallows the possibility of evolution.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I don't approve of blindly condemning wide groups of Christians for what some few believe any more that I believe we should condemn wide groups of blacks because some few falsely and hatefully claim whites are evil and racist.

Copy/Pate: "Morris still said and did what he did, but moving on..."

Marke: Science has never observed speciation changes of the sort Darwin imagined must have happened for dumb jungle animals to evolve into humans. Evolutionists claim humans and watermelons share a common ancestor, which is ridiculous. Plants reproduce through seeds that carry and preserve the species in a way that disallows the possibility of evolution.

You once again fail to address what is being said.

Copy/Paste: "What really gets me is that you must insert some special rapid form of evolution, a form that would make biologists blush to get from 2 beetles on an ark to the roughly 400,000 species we now have.
It's as if you are saying:
Beetles can't evolve to 400,000 species over millions of years! That can only happen over a few thousand years!
How do you come to terms with this?"

Please do not quote my posts if you are not going to respond to them. We are adults here and you're not fooling anyone.
For example, since beetles trip you up, you should consider amending your position instead of talking about watermelons or pigmies (something that is not being discussed). Did you even have a question about a watermelons or was it really just a distraction?

[The Barbarian]

Marke: I totally disagree with what Morris is alleged to have said about blacks.

What you happen to agree with or disagree with is uninteresting and unneeded in debate. Morris still said and did what he did, but moving on...

Marke: The brightest and most vehement evolutionists defended evolution in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial with 'proofs' that have all since been thoroughly debunked.

How quickly you have forgotten that evolution is a fact and is something we observe. No amount of name calling will make this go away, yet here you are on a debate forum no less, throwing insults at long dead people in place of even trying to show that you are correct and evolution doesn't happen.

What really gets me is that you must insert some special rapid form of evolution, a form that would make biologists blush to get from 2 beetles on an ark to the roughly 400,000 species we now have.
It's as if you are saying:
Beetles can't evolve to 400,000 species over millions of years! That can only happen over a few thousand years!
How do you come to terms with this?

I actually had a conversation once with James Woodmorappe, author of Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study. Not his real name, BTW. He confirmed that any variation of species, genera, and familes had to have evolved by some kind of superhyperevolution in a few thousand years after the Flood. My issue with this, aside from the biology, is that while this was supposedly happening, no one thought it was remarkable that new taxa were popping up monthly.

[marke]

Marke: Science has never observed speciation changes of the sort Darwin imagined must have happened for dumb jungle animals to evolve into humans. Evolutionists claim humans and watermelons share a common ancestor, which is ridiculous. Plants reproduce through seeds that carry and preserve the species in a way that disallows the possibility of evolution.

You once again fail to address what is being said.

Copy/Paste: "What really gets me is that you must insert some special rapid form of evolution, a form that would make biologists blush to get from 2 beetles on an ark to the roughly 400,000 species we now have.
It's as if you are saying:
Beetles can't evolve to 400,000 species over millions of years! That can only happen over a few thousand years!
How do you come to terms with this?"

Marke: Sadly, evolutionists cannot prove macro evolution of the type Darwin theorized since evolution of that type is far too slow to be scientifically observed and recorded. However, evolutionists have run into problems explaining how rapid evolution must have occurred in some areas where slow evolution has always been the norm. There is more unproven speculation and assumptions underlying the efforts to comprehend such anomalies.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... pes-study/

The Y Chromosome Is Rapidly Evolving Faster Than the X Chromosome in Humans
Genetic mutations are reshaping our family tree.

By Darren OrfPublished: Jun 19, 2024 8:00 AM EDT

The 23rd chromosome base pair contains what are known as our sex chromosomes. For most females, this pair contains two X chromosomes, while for most males, it contains one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.
Since 2010, scientists have known that the Y chromosome is rapidly evolving in humans, but a new study shows that the same can be said across all Great Apes—the closest relatives to humans.
Surprisingly, the Y chromosome shows immense variability even between species of the same genus, such as chimpanzees and bonobos.
Most animals belonging to the hominid species known as Homo sapiens have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Barring any specific chromosomal conditions, these pairs are shared similarly among all humans, except for the 23rd base pair. This base pair, known collectively as the sex chromosomes, carries the genes that express biological sex. In most females, sex is expressed as two X chromosomes, and in most males, it’s expressed with one X and one Y.

Since 2010, scientists have known that the human Y chromosome has been rapidly evolving—a surprising finding, considering that evolutionary biologists thought the Y chromosome was stagnant for years. Now, a new study from the Penn State, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and the University of Washington shows that the rapid changes are occurring in not just the human Y chromosome, but also in the Y chromosomes of other Great Ape species, including chimpanzees, bonobos, western lowland gorillas, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutans, and the more distantly related siamang gibbons.


Please do not quote my posts if you are not going to respond to them. We are adults here and you're not fooling anyone.
For example, since beetles trip you up, you should consider amending your position instead of talking about watermelons or pigmies (something that is not being discussed). Did you even have a question about a watermelons or was it really just a distraction?

Marke: When I respond to someone's post I will generally leave their quotes unaltered while I address what I can about part or all of the subject matter posted. I mean nobody any harm and I don't know how I can satisfy everyone's desire to elicit a desired response from me.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about beetles. Adaptations and changes among species are quite normal and I see no problem with recognizing those normal adaptations. I do, however, reject efforts to claim beetles evolved from some other insect or living form that was not of the same genetic design passed down through genetic reproduction.

[Clownboat]

Marke: Sadly, evolutionists cannot prove macro evolution of the type Darwin theorized since evolution of that type is far too slow to be scientifically observed and recorded. However, evolutionists have run into problems explaining how rapid evolution must have occurred in some areas where slow evolution has always been the norm. There is more unproven speculation and assumptions underlying the efforts to comprehend such anomalies.

Like debating a flat earth, to debate these silly, unevidenced and empty assertions would be to give them credit that they don't deserve. You can believe what you must in order to maintain your preconceived religious beliefs and seemingly do, but evolution remains a fact.

Marke: When I respond to someone's post I will generally leave their quotes unaltered while I address what I can about part or all of the subject matter posted.

To the bold, you demonstrate the untruthfulness of these words far too often IMO. I don't know how you can even make this claim.

I mean nobody any harm and I don't know how I can satisfy everyone's desire to elicit a desired response from me.

Just don't quote people and then ignore the questions asked of you in the post. It is that simple. You quote posts far to often and then ignore questions and instead talk about watermelons and pigmies. Things not contained in the posts you quote.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about beetles. Adaptations and changes among species are quite normal and I see no problem with recognizing those normal adaptations.

You have no problem with two beetles evolving into 400,000 species of beetle over the course of some thousands of years. Biologist and those that understand evolution do not accept such a rapid form of evolution that you argue for, but at the same time, you ignore any evidence that suggests it happened over millions of years. Its an illogical position.

I do, however, reject efforts to claim beetles evolved from some other insect or living form that was not of the same genetic design passed down through genetic reproduction.

What you reject matters not and we all know and fully understand why you reject such a thing (it's in order to maintain a specific religious belief). Once you are dead (like those that refused to believe that the sun was at the center of our solar system), we hopefully will have educated the next generation as to why it did happen. I have no issue with you rejecting things. It's your baseless assertions that I take issue with and when I dig into them, you talk about watermelons and pigmies instead.

To Steelman your position (correct me if I'm wrong):
A 'kind' of beetle cannot evolve into the 400,000 species we now have over millions of years, but it can happen if it only took 6,000 - 10,000 years.
I beg you to address this honest question and ask you to avoid slandering biologists or talking about watermelon or pigmies in place of addressing it.

[marke]

Marke: Sadly, evolutionists cannot prove macro evolution of the type Darwin theorized since evolution of that type is far too slow to be scientifically observed and recorded. However, evolutionists have run into problems explaining how rapid evolution must have occurred in some areas where slow evolution has always been the norm. There is more unproven speculation and assumptions underlying the efforts to comprehend such anomalies.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about beetles. Adaptations and changes among species are quite normal and I see no problem with recognizing those normal adaptations.

You have no problem with two beetles evolving into 400,000 species of beetle over the course of some thousands of years. Biologist and those that understand evolution do not accept such a rapid form of evolution that you argue for, but at the same time, you ignore any evidence that suggests it happened over millions of years. Its an illogical position.

I do, however, reject efforts to claim beetles evolved from some other insect or living form that was not of the same genetic design passed down through genetic reproduction.

What you reject matters not and we all know and fully understand why you reject such a thing (it's in order to maintain a specific religious belief). Once you are dead (like those that refused to believe that the sun was at the center of our solar system), we hopefully will have educated the next generation as to why it did happen. I have no issue with you rejecting things. It's your baseless assertions that I take issue with and when I dig into them, you talk about watermelons and pigmies instead.

To Steelman your position (correct me if I'm wrong):
A 'kind' of beetle cannot evolve into the 400,000 species we now have over millions of years, but it can happen if it only took 6,000 - 10,000 years.
I beg you to address this honest question and ask you to avoid slandering biologists or talking about watermelon or pigmies in place of addressing it.

Marke: I see no problem with beetles evolving into different beetles or fruit flies evolving into different fruit flies but to claim humans and cabbages must share a common ancester because of beetle evolution is nonsense.

[Clownboat]

To Steelman your position (correct me if I'm wrong):
A 'kind' of beetle cannot evolve into the 400,000 species we now have over millions of years, but it can happen if it only took 6,000 - 10,000 years.
I beg you to address this honest question and ask you to avoid slandering biologists or talking about watermelon or pigmies in place of addressing it.

Marke: I see no problem with beetles evolving into different beetles or fruit flies evolving into different fruit flies but to claim humans and cabbages must share a common ancester because of beetle evolution is nonsense.

I begged you to address my honest question and to avoid watermelons and pigmies. You did not address my question and instead talked about cabbages. This is not respectable nor honorable in debate if you ask me.

How can you logically argue for what would be considered to be an impossibly rapid form of evolution (1 species of beetle to 400,000 species over 6 - 10k years) while simultaneously rejecting that these different (significantly in many cases) species of beetle evolved over millions of years?

Beetles eat everything from plants, fibers, wood to even live prey. Therefore, some beetles are predators and some are herbivores.
Beetles live in grasslands, forests, bodies of water and even dung.
Some beetles can fly. Others cannot.
Some beetles are fast while others are good at jumping. Some are good diggers and still others are good swimmers.
Some beetles have hard exoskeletons and some produce foul-smelling or irritating substances for defense.

You are asking me to believe that all these evolutionary changes happened over the course of 6 - 10k years (that is crazy fast evolution you believe in) while you reject the possibility that it took millions of years. Please justify this position because holding to the idea that evolution cannot happen if it takes a long time, but can happen if it takes a short time is unjustified and illogical.