Jump to content


Photo

Evidence For Evolutionism


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2007 - 12:58 PM

yes, and I showed why the claim is wrong with an example: gene duplication and subsequent mutation.


Gene duplication does not create new information. Mutating existing information corrupts the existing information.

If you copy a book, there is no more information in the 2nd book than the 1st.

No mutation can do that, and you know it. It is a long list of mutations spanning billions of years. And you also know that this is like asking that I prove I'm Spanish by providing a collection of photos showing every second of my life since I was born till the present.


If no single mutation can do it, then you are only assuming that a chain of mutations can do it.

Isn't it intellectually dishonest to pretend that you need this much evidence in order to accept evolution? Or does your question arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of yours on what exactly the needed evidence is?


You don't have any evidence.... You only have speculation and faith.

The real evidence, e.g. that experiments that show you cannot just jump around in an unlimited space of functional protiens contradicts what you believe in, but when presented with experimental data that you don't like, you just ignore it.

Terry

#82 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 10 September 2007 - 01:03 PM

You can't be serious are you?

Of the 5-50 mutations what percentage is beneficial?

1) But lets say you just so happen to have a beneficial mutation...the mates gene may be used during production of the offspring instead of  the genes with the mutation....the odds go up even more.

2)But lets say that the DNA with the mutation  just so happens to get past step 1 and offspring are born with this mutation.....what  are the chances of it being naturally selected? (not all beneficial mutations will be naturally selected)

3)But lets say...once again for the sake of the argument... it is naturally selected, how long before it is added to the population?  How long for  a beneficial addition to a  trait to emerge into a population  of 6.6 billion organisms?  It won't happen over night.

Now that you understand several more of  the problems that stop evolutionism, tell us how RANDOM mutations have the ability to create a dolphin in 50 MY's.

View Post


Epp..I'm still waiting.

#83 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 September 2007 - 01:07 PM

Epp,

You know those experiments where scientists bombarded fruit flies with radiation and produced monstrosities that had legs growing out of their heads? Or extra sets of non-functioning wings? Even if we disregard the obvious fact that these genetic monsters would be totally incapable of survival in the real world (and hence no help to the evolutionistic model), it needs to be pointed out that at no time were scientists able to "mutate" a feature that did not already exist in the fly's genetic code.

Your examples of mutations are good examples of the kind of changes that lead to what is commonly called micro-evolution. In the thousands, maybe millions, of generations of laboratory experiments with bacteria, algae, etc., there have never been produced any new characteristics that either weren't already residing in the gene pool, or that weren't a subset mutation of the information in that gene pool.

If your point of contention is that these mutations can't accumulate over time, you need to show why.

View Post


Did you just say what I think you said?

You take thousands, maybe millions, of generations of observed experiments where in no case did any new features, characteristics or organs or organisms develop that weren't already present in the gene pool, and make a grandiose statement concluding that that process is the mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution "over time," without the least little bit of scientific proof. And then you ask me to prove why it can't happen?

I'll tell you what, Epp. You show how you can extrapolate backwards a billion years in time, and prove it. Then, we'll have something to work on disproving. I can't even begin to disprove something that has no correlation to the real world and that resides solely in an evolutionist's fanciful imagination.

Again, you need to learn and understand the difference between today's observable operational science, and historical science. Evolutionists have no qualms about crossing the border at will to interpret historical scientific evidence using current operational science observations -- but it aint honest to do that, and it aint good science.

Dave

#84 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 20 September 2007 - 12:48 AM

Epp,

You know those experiments where scientists bombarded fruit flies with radiation and produced monstrosities that had legs growing out of their heads? Or extra sets of non-functioning wings? Even if we disregard the obvious fact that these genetic monsters would be totally incapable of survival in the real world (and hence no help to the evolutionistic model), it needs to be pointed out that at no time were scientists able to "mutate" a feature that did not already exist in the fly's genetic code.

Your examples of mutations are good examples of the kind of changes that lead to what is commonly called micro-evolution. In the thousands, maybe millions, of generations of laboratory experiments with bacteria, algae, etc., there have never been produced any new characteristics that either weren't already residing in the gene pool, or that weren't a subset mutation of the information in that gene pool.
Did you just say what I think you said?

You take thousands, maybe millions, of generations of observed experiments where in no case did any new features, characteristics or organs or organisms develop that weren't already present in the gene pool, and make a grandiose statement concluding that that process is the mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution "over time," without the least little bit of scientific proof. And then you ask me to prove why it can't happen?

I'll tell you what, Epp. You show how you can extrapolate backwards a billion years in time, and prove it. Then, we'll have something to work on disproving. I can't even begin to disprove something that has no correlation to the real world and that resides solely in an evolutionist's fanciful imagination.

Again, you need to learn and understand the difference between today's observable operational science, and historical science. Evolutionists have no qualms about crossing the border at will to interpret historical scientific evidence using current operational science observations -- but it aint honest to do that, and it aint good science.

Dave

View Post


Dave,

I have been reading the posts on this issue and I see a problem that is very common in creation/evolution debates. That is clarification of what theory of evolution is to be debated. This is important since it will prevent misunderstandings as to what is be presented. There are 6 theories of evolution:

1. Cosmic - this covers the Big Bang to the generating of hydrogen gas that came into existence.

2. Chemical - this covers the other gases, increasing molecular and chemical order and their complexity over long a period of time.

3. Star and Planets - this covers gravity, angular momentum, magnetism, radiation, and other forces fusing to form stars and planets.

4. Organic - other wise known as abiogenesis, i.e., life from non-life to replicating of evolved life.

5. Macroevolution - this is the kinds of life splitting off and increasing in complexity through random processes over a long period of time. That is the single-celled life form evolving into a multicellular life form to a marine organism to a fish etc.

6. Microevolution - this covers structured changes within pre-existing kinds of life, such as, heredity and variation.

A majority of creationists accept number 6 microevolution also called adaptive variation (this is what my zoology and ecology professor called it) because it is observable. Example dog breeders use adaptive variation to produce a dog with the desired traits, however, the end result is that you still have a dog as an end product.

Creationists (with the exception of theist evolutionists) do not hold or believe in the other 5 theories because they have not been observed nor can they be tested or falsified.

I would suggest this thread pick the theory it would like to debate and stick to that theory until another one is chosen. This would go a long way in clearing up the confusion I see in this debate thread.

Bob Barclay

#85 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 20 September 2007 - 08:37 AM

Hi Bob,

As you know, debating evolution with evolutionists is like trying to nail jello to the wall. You might start out with one definition, but they quickly shift to something else.

Also, when we creationists speak in terms of evolution, mutations, etc., we often use terms like "millions of years," "evolved," and such, but we do that just to keep it simple and keep the debate flowing. Sometimes we preface it with "supposed," or "alleged," or we qualify it with "according to evolutionistic time," but that gets old after awhile. We know where we are coming from.

Don't worry, we are all on the same page with your examples of the different kinds of evolution. Mostly, we discuss biologic and geologic here, with a smattering of the cosmic. Evolutionists use them interchangeable (when it suits them) and retreat to one of the others when they run out of answers on one.

What's interesting is that the subtitle of this forum is "A place for honest, civil dialogue on origins." But that is the one topic that we can't seem to get any of the evolutionists to address. In my opinion, that is the most important one, the only one. A person's worldview and presuppositions about origins will determine every other interpretation he makes about all the rest of it. That's why I harp so much about worldview and presuppostions.

By the way, it's nice to have you aboard. Hang in there.

Dave

#86 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 September 2007 - 11:13 AM

What's interesting is that the subtitle of this forum is "A place for honest, civil dialogue on origins." But that is the one topic that we can't seem to get any of the evolutionists to address. In my opinion, that is the most important one, the only one. A person's worldview and presuppositions about origins will determine every other interpretation he makes about all the rest of it. That's why I harp so much about worldview and presuppostions.


I would just like to add and agree that it's the evo's worldview that we are debating. In other words the idea (worldview) that ALL things came about naturaly which so happens to include everything on your list besides microevolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users