Jump to content


Photo

Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 April 2011 - 09:27 PM

"This thread seems more about debating the truth of evolution rather than its implications on God and the bible if true.:(

I don't remember being any law of information, and by the way, evolutionists don't say that information is created randomly. It is created with random muations yes, but organized with natural selection."- post 56

"I will respond to your points. The design argument says that immense complexity cannot happen through non-design. The theory of evolution demonstrates the immense complexity of life coming through the very simple forces of natural selection and mutations. The theory of evolution shows that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it. "- post 53



Rather than risk a derailing of the previous thread, here is a thread for the sole purpose of getting off track :)

Firstly I'd like to ask... What is natural selection? There has been much talk about selection, however what is it actually and how is it quantified.. It annoys me that "natural selection", is thrown around like as if it is an answer to everything, (and just by saying it validates that it is somehow true)

I am not asking for the basic explanation; the fittest survives the weak die.. Yes this occurs however how does natural selection CAUSE complexity. Since when thought about logically, selection leads to a LOSS of information.. Hence just saying natural selection is incorrect, as a loss of information is the opposite of gaining complexity.

We have observed mutation as a way of causing variations in a species. However mutations are mostly detrimental, and yet in order for a change in a function, (not just being a variant of a function!!), to occur there needs to be multiple mutations due to the fitness needed for such a thing to be selected for... (Hence there needs to be multiple mutations at the same time, at the same area of the DNA, and work together to bring about the new function..... This goes against the data we have about mutation rates and % of beneficial / detrimental mutations... Hence to believe in the ToE is to go against the data we know.

"The overall stability
(Δg; the free energy difference between the folded,
native state of a protein and its unfolded state) of most
proteins is in the range of 10 kcal per mol (for example,
7.3 kcal per mol for TEM1)12. Thus, even a single destabilizing
mutation can cause a substantial reduction, or
even complete loss, of protein levels owing to misfolding,
aggregation or proteolytic clearance
6"

"The fitness of an evolving protein increases via the accumulation
of mutations that increase the new function
. However, these mutations may also
affect the protein’s existing function and its stability. New–existing function trade-offs
are defined by the fold-increase in the new function (in terms of affinity or catalytic
efficiency) induced by the mutation versus the decrease in the existing function."

http://www.weizmann....wfikNRG2010.pdf

Furthermore, how can mutation happen without DNA to mutate? The initial step of "creating complexity" is the creation of DNA.. Hence how does this occur with just mutation and "natural selection"?

Also, when a function changes it still has the promoter, and signalling sequence for the "old" function.. Hence the new function will not be utilized efficiently as it may be turned on when not needed, and turned off when needed... This goes against what the cell inherently does, the cell is VERY efficient and needs to be in order to use resources accordingly. Such a loss of resources for a function that is not needed at that time will result in a loss of fitness and thus will not be selected for anyway. This is align with what scientists agree with the cell and its system of promoting its functions.. (Hence I am surprised why none of them have thought about this.. I am just a uni student..)

Furthermore, what are the mechanisms of this increase in complexity, or natural selection, can it be quantified into a formula or mathematical equation, or is it a whimsical mystical force like most "scientists" portray? (How is that scientific???)

#2 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 16 April 2011 - 09:56 AM

Firstly I'd like to ask... What is natural selection? There has been much talk about selection, however what is it actually and how is it quantified.. It annoys me that "natural selection", is thrown around like as if it is an answer to everything, (and just by saying it validates that it is somehow true)

I am not asking for the basic explanation; the fittest survives the weak die.. Yes this occurs however how does natural selection CAUSE complexity. Since when thought about logically, selection leads to a LOSS of information.. Hence just saying natural selection is incorrect, as a loss of information is the opposite of gaining complexity.


Natural selection removes genetic and morphological diversity within a population not the complexity of the physical components of each individual member. So natural selection will not remove the liver any time soon, it will simply shrink the quantity of different types of human livers we see, removing those that function poorly.


We have observed mutation as a way of causing variations in a species. However mutations are mostly detrimental, and yet in order for a change in a function, (not just being a variant of a function!!), to occur there needs to be multiple mutations due to the fitness needed for such a thing to be selected for... (Hence there needs to be multiple mutations at the same time, at the same area of the DNA, and work together to bring about the new function..... This goes against the data we have about mutation rates and % of beneficial / detrimental mutations... Hence to believe in the ToE is to go against the data we know.


Actually, most mutations are neutral but out of the ones that have an effect on an organism, most are negative. However, a few are positive and those will be naturally selected, and those with bad mutations will be less likely to pass on their genes.

Sometimes evolution has to happen in leaps and bound. For example, sometimes a combination of two mutations is required to change the body in the way that natural selection will select. Many times it just takes one mutation at a time. Remember that the evolution of any given structure such as the flagellum does not happen in one single generation, but over a long period of time with transitional forms being somewhat beneficial so they are selected.

"The overall stability
(Δg; the free energy difference between the folded,
native state of a protein and its unfolded state) of most
proteins is in the range of 10 kcal per mol (for example,
7.3 kcal per mol for TEM1)12. Thus, even a single destabilizing
mutation can cause a substantial reduction, or
even complete loss, of protein levels owing to misfolding,
aggregation or proteolytic clearance
6"


That can happen yes, but in many cases, mutations can be beneficial. For example, mutations in the aids virus allows it to evolve resistance to our drugs.

"The fitness of an evolving protein increases via the accumulation
of mutations that increase the new function
. However, these mutations may also
affect the protein’s existing function and its stability. New–existing function trade-offs
are defined by the fold-increase in the new function (in terms of affinity or catalytic
efficiency) induced by the mutation versus the decrease in the existing function."

http://www.weizmann....wfikNRG2010.pdf


Obviously, organism did not form structures with bad mutations but with good and neutral mutations.


Furthermore, how can mutation happen without DNA to mutate? The initial step of "creating complexity" is the creation of DNA.. Hence how does this occur with just mutation and "natural selection"?


That is a question I cannot answer. Just because evolution can't explain that doesn't mean this is evidence against the theory. Evolution like all theories has strong predictive and explainitory power but it cannot explain everything. Indeed, the existence of the DNA could have come about through some method other than evolution such as a designer, abiogenesis, paspermia, etc.

Also, when a function changes it still has the promoter, and signalling sequence for the "old" function.. Hence the new function will not be utilized efficiently as it may be turned on when not needed, and turned off when needed... This goes against what the cell inherently does, the cell is VERY efficient and needs to be in order to use resources accordingly. Such a loss of resources for a function that is not needed at that time will result in a loss of fitness and thus will not be selected for anyway. This is align with what scientists agree with the cell and its system of promoting its functions.. (Hence I am surprised why none of them have thought about this.. I am just a uni student..)


The evolution of a structure is not perfect from the getgo. It often takes time and gradual steps for it to be most efficent. Mutations are an element of microevolution or evolution within a species and has been directly observed to positively effect the survival of an organism.

Furthermore, what are the mechanisms of this increase in complexity, or natural selection, can it be quantified into a formula or mathematical equation, or is it a whimsical mystical force like most "scientists" portray? (How is that scientific???)

View Post


There are several. Natural selection, good and neutral mutations, population isolation, use of existing structures to form new structures, creating primitive structures using the before mentioned factors and improving them with gradual steps over long periods of time.

The theory of evolution has tons of evidence and I will be going over them. If evolution is true then we should find ancestors to modern humans who probably have very ape-like characteristics. They should also be older than modern humans but in the same general era. We find a species called homo erectus that has many ape-like characteristics. They have a protruding face, and small brains size, 69% of that of modern humans. Their brain case is elongated compared to that of modern humans and their foreheads were shallow sloping back and their frontal and temporalo lobes were narrower.
Homo Erectus[

#3 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 16 April 2011 - 10:09 AM

I was wrong about the information law, its a theory but what I was thinking about was the universal definition of information.

In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI) and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

1 Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).


2 Meaning (semantics): Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning.

For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.


3 Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.



4 Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies.


There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. So My question still remains, how does the ToE explain meaningful information coming about without an intelligent source?


Here is something to consider:


Fundamental Law 1 (FL1)

A purely material entity, such as physicochemical processes, cannot create a nonmaterial entity. (Something material cannot create something nonmaterial.)


Fundamental Law 2 (FL2)

Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter.


First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)


Second Law of Information (LI2)

Information can only originate from an intelligent sender


Corollary 1

All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.


Corollary 2

Any given chain of information can be traced backward to an intelligent source.


Law of Matter about Machines (LM1)

When information (UDI) is utilized in a material domain, it always requires a machine.


Corollary 1 to LM1

Information is required for the design and construction of machines.


Does the code in all living systems (DNA) exhibit all four attributes of Universal Definition of Information (UDI)? Since all living systems contain DNA and DNA information contains all four attributes, it meets the UDI definition of information. Furthermore, the capacity and density of the information encoded in DNA surpasses anything mankind has accomplished.

Code: The decoded portion of DNA contains 4 letters (ATCG) that make up three-letter words (codon). These codons are arranged linearly in a various sequence (syntax).

Meaning: Each three-letter word represents 1 of the 20 specific amino acids used in life. The sequence (syntax) of the DNA words designates the specific sequence of the amino acids in protein formation.

Expected Action: Cellular proteins are biomachines essential for construction, function, maintenance, and reproduction of the entire organism

Intended Purpose: Existence of life


The information encoded in DNA is billions of times more compact than a modern PC hard drive. How long would it take using naturalistic processes to type out such a code? A billion universes each populated by billions of typing monkeys could not type out a single gene of this genome. But a purposeful, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator could create complex codes in less than a day.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 April 2011 - 01:57 PM

"This thread seems more about debating the truth of evolution rather than its implications on God and the bible if true.:)

I don't remember being any law of information, and by the way, evolutionists don't say that information is created randomly.  It is created with random muations yes, but organized with natural selection."- post 56


Just because one group sees a process then names it and claims it as what supports their beliefs, does not make it so. Claiming that it will "only" support what they believe is conformism. Which is not science.

"I will respond to your points. The design argument says that immense complexity cannot happen through non-design. The theory of evolution demonstrates the immense complexity of life coming through the very simple forces of natural selection and mutations. The theory of evolution shows that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it. "- post 53
Rather than risk a derailing of the previous thread, here is a thread for the sole purpose of getting off track :)


The fossil record contradicts this as unexplainable complexity and this complexity can be found in the lowest layer. And there is no evolution tree to this complexity showing how it got that complex (how it evolved). It's like poof, there it is.

Firstly I'd like to ask... What is natural selection? There has been much talk about selection, however what is it actually and how is it quantified.. It annoys me that "natural selection", is thrown around like as if it is an answer to everything, (and just by saying it validates that it is somehow true)


Like I said before, one group thinks that because they saw it first they can claim it and make it "only" support their views (it's ours because we named it). :(

I am not asking for the basic explanation; the fittest survives the weak die.. Yes this occurs however how does natural selection CAUSE complexity. Since when thought about logically, selection leads to a LOSS of information.. Hence just saying natural selection is incorrect, as a loss of information is the opposite of gaining complexity.


Until macro-evolution becomes empirical, the extent in which it is claimed does not work. Complexity to the degree claimed requires things to evolve into different kinds. Such as a lizard becoming a bird. All we have are dead fossils that a certain group has interpreted as evolving from lower to higher life. No one has actually see anything beyond micro-evolution (a fancy name for a mutation). And if they have, they should produce it, but they don't. They just claim micro to infinity as if that solves the problem of zero observation. One person at this forum even tried to say: observation is no longer needed. Saying stupid stuff like this only proves how desperate evolutionist have become.

They don't realize they caused their own problem by exalting the theory to being a scientific theory, Doing that gave creationists a lot of stuff to challenge the theory with that are requirements of being so provable. Problem is, it has shown that it does not meet the criteria and that is when the evolutionists had to resort to other tactics (Name calling etc...) to protect it. And to add faith because the evidence does not hold up.

We have observed mutation as a way of causing variations in a species. However mutations are mostly detrimental, and yet in order for a change in a function, (not just being a variant of a function!!), to occur there needs to be multiple mutations due to the fitness needed for such a thing to be selected for... (Hence there needs to be multiple mutations at the same time, at the same area of the DNA, and work together to bring about the new function..... This goes against the data we have about mutation rates and % of beneficial / detrimental mutations... Hence to believe in the ToE is to go against the data we know.

View Post


Data does not matter, evolution just happens to the degree they claim just because they say so. Their words are golden and create new realities and change laws. All must conform, or it's not true. You must conform. :)

#5 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 16 April 2011 - 05:25 PM

It is apparent that the designer did the very same thing. Don't worry about micro/macro evolution. I only reject common descent. There is no need for us to talk about those terminologies. We can just call it evolution if you'd like. Micro/macro evolution is a misleading term for both sides. If you have ever seen a creationist and an evolutionist get in a discussion using those terms you'll see that it gets confusing pretty fast.


If you don't mind, lets fuss over the details just a little bit. Macro-evolution is the evolution between species. Do you think this can happen? What are the limits of evolution?

If we are to look at the fossil record for evolution, it is very fragmented. Theoretically we should see gradual changes in animals in the geologic column, changes that would point to common descent, but we don't see that. We see animals appear in one strata, completely disappear for a few stratas, then reappear. That isn't a solid record for common descent. Does it disprove common descent? No, but it is a problem for the advocates of common descent.


That is a very good point and is very unfortunate, however that is exactly what you would expect if evolution was true. Fossilization is rare and happens under very very specific conditions. Our access to this gap-ridden fossil record is itself gap-ridden.


The issue that I have is that evolution via chromosome variation has been debunked. Anyone who believes that we were designed would also expect similarities in organisms, because that is the nature of any creator. This is repeatedly demonstrable. How you interpret similarities in DNA depends on the world view that you are approaching it with.


I agree with you. Chromosome variation is not a major force in evolution and evolution happens in a long seried of small mutations, however we have evidence that part of the composition of our genome is a result of a chromosome fusion. Each chromosome has a centromere on the middle and if two fused we may find two centromeres as in the example below.
Posted Image
This chromosome has two centromeres although one is vestigital.

You can throw as much evidence at me as you'd like. It doesn't bother me. I'm just here to debate. :(


I am repeating a post I made to gilbo.
There are several. Natural selection, good and neutral mutations, population isolation, use of existing structures to form new structures, creating primitive structures using the before mentioned factors and improving them with gradual steps over long periods of time.

The theory of evolution has tons of evidence and I will be going over them. If evolution is true then we should find ancestors to modern humans who probably have very ape-like characteristics. They should also be older than modern humans but in the same general era. We find a species called homo erectus that has many ape-like characteristics. They have a protruding face, and small brains size, 69% of that of modern humans. Their brain case is elongated compared to that of modern humans and their foreheads were shallow sloping back and their frontal and temporalo lobes were narrower.
Homo Erectus




About kinds?
What manner of an example are you looking for?

View Post


Well, about living fossils. I will give you a general reply anyway. In some cases we see near stagnation in evolution and that means a species is fine how it is. In other cases, we see an enormous amount of change. Evolution does not happen on a constant rate. Chimpanzees have evolved far less than humans but that does not contradict evolution. Indeed we have examples of a very fast paced in human evolution.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 April 2011 - 06:46 PM

In some cases we see near stagnation in evolution and that means a species is fine how it is.


Wolves were fine the way they were, too. What forced them into the ocean to evolve into whales? Isn't that Lamarckism? The ecological niche was avaiable, so the wolves filled it?

Perhaps you've never heard of Muller's Ratchet. No organism can escape the accumilation of deleterious mutations, which means they will go extinct if they don't evolve. So, living fossils refute that aspect of evolution.



Enjoy.

#7 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 16 April 2011 - 07:32 PM

In some cases we see near stagnation in evolution and that means a species is fine how it is.


Wolves were fine the way they were, too. What forced them into the ocean to evolve into whales? Isn't that Lamarckism? The ecological niche was avaiable, so the wolves filled it?

Perhaps you've never heard of Muller's Ratchet. No organism can escape the accumilation of deleterious mutations, which means they will go extinct if they don't evolve. So, living fossils refute that aspect of evolution.
Enjoy.

View Post


I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of genetics and the fossil record is not perfect and will gladly accept correction.

With that said, I think your idea of evolution is not entirely accurate. Lamarkism is very simmilar to evolution except the mechanisms are different. Darwins Theory of Evolution happens through mutations of the genetic code and natural selection of the fittest while lamarkism says that the environment affects the characteristics of organisms and these changes are passed on to offspring. Lamarchism was formed well before genetics and is thoroughly refuted by it.

Bad mutations will be weeded out by natural selection and good and neutral mutations will be kept.

The coelanth is a living fossil but that does not mean it underwent no evolution. Every species evolves to a certain extent even if it is in no particular direction. The coelanth was once a very successful species with many genera and species in the Devonian period but today we only know of two species surviving today. That's evolution. Survival of the fittest.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 April 2011 - 07:39 PM

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of genetics and the fossil record is not perfect and will gladly accept correction.


Thanks for being civil and open minded. I was once an atheist and found Christ by accepting the fact that perhaps I don't know it all either.


Bad mutations will be weeded out by natural selection and good and neutral mutations will be kept.


Empirical evidence of that?

Well, here's a list that refutes that and the list is only getting longer.

The coelanth is a living fossil but that does not mean it underwent no evolution.


With no transitional forms, it would be wild speculation to say it did. The primitive lung, once believed to be transitional, turned out to be a fatty swim bladder once a living one was found.


Enjoy.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:56 PM

1. Natural selection removes genetic and morphological diversity within a population not the complexity of the physical components of each individual member.  So natural selection will not remove the liver any time soon, it will simply shrink the quantity of different types of human livers we see, removing those that function poorly.

2. Actually, most mutations are neutral but out of the ones that have an effect on an organism, most are negative.  However, a few are positive and those will be naturally selected, and those with bad mutations will be less likely to pass on their genes. 

3. Sometimes evolution has to happen in leaps and bound.  For example, sometimes a combination of two mutations is required to change the body in the way that natural selection will select.  Many times it just takes one mutation at a time. 

4. Remember that the evolution of any given structure such as the flagellum does not happen in one single generation, but over a long period of time with transitional forms being somewhat beneficial so they are selected.

5. That can happen yes, but in many cases, mutations can be beneficial.  For example, mutations in the aids virus allows it to evolve resistance to our drugs.
Obviously, organism did not form structures with bad mutations but with good and neutral mutations.

6. That is a question I cannot answer.  Just because evolution can't explain that doesn't mean this is evidence against the theory.  Evolution like all theories has strong predictive and explainitory power but it cannot explain everything.  Indeed, the existence of the DNA could have come about through some method other than evolution such as a designer, abiogenesis, paspermia, etc. 

7. The evolution of a structure is not perfect from the getgo.  It often takes time and gradual steps for it to be most efficent. 

8. Mutations are an element of microevolution or evolution within a species and has been directly observed to positively effect the survival of an organism.
There are several.  Natural selection, good and neutral mutations, population isolation, use of existing structures to form new structures, creating primitive structures using the before mentioned factors and improving them with gradual steps over long periods of time.


Homo Erectus[

View Post

I know that some people have already replied, but I'd like to deconstruct and analyse your initial post.

1. Yes natural selection does reduce the genetic variability of a species, (just like domestication and selective breeding), however this doesn't lead to new features... (Just variants of the old ones, like different drug resistances... however such resistances can also be due to an insertion of a plasmid, NOT mutation)..

Can you think of what selection caused a bacteria to become a multicellular organism? Considering that the bacteria is the most successful organism on Earth, why does it need to "evolve"? What natural selection pressures enabled this?

2. From my own studies into biochemistry I would say that most mutations are infact detrimental. Considering that a proteins function is dependant on its shape, hence any change to its make-up will result in a change in shape and thus a change in function... With this change in function the cell doesn't "know" what has occurred and as such when it is signalling for that specific protein to do a specific task, (which it can no longer do), it is a waste of resources and will lead to the death of the cell.. An anology, when you order car tyres online, yet the keep on sending you a steering wheel..

3. Yet from the quotes I have given shows that such mutations are nigh on impossible... (To get a totally new function you would require more than just one or two mutations)

4. In your example of the flagellum.. For EVERY part "evolved" there needs to be a purpose for them all, (due to an increase of fitness needed for selection, as evolution doctrine states)... Do you know the uses of every single protein that is used in the flagellum? There are about 250 proteins, just because they found one, proves nothing.

Furthermore do you have the mechanism that made these proteins intergrate together if they evolved separately, as you claimed.. Or is this another process claimed under the ambigous banner of "natural selection"?

5. Perhaps, however benefitial mutations are rare. Since most times, (without even getting to the protein shape arguement), the DNA will unzip due to a different base being paired with another that doesn't fit with it, (this occurs in single deletions / additions)... Such a mutation will also radically change the DNA's composition and how it is read... This can also lead to end codons not being read properly and thus can continue this change across the entire length of the DNA

ATT CGC ATC ACG

add an A at the start =

AAT TCG CAT CAC G....

6. What does evolution "predict"?

7. If this is so, (and I agree with you), then we should be able to see some of the "failed" attempts in the fossil record. But we don't...(let alone the illusive transitional forms)

8. Yes, but variation ("micro-evolution"), doesn't lead to macro-evolution... The changes required for the supposed "evolution" of fish are one example..

1. How do lungs, "evolve" when the fish are not exposed to air? thus there are no selection pressure pushing for this change in this case, hence it defies evolutions own "predictions".

2. For legs to evolve there needs to be a change in the musclo-skeletal development of the fish.. Not only are new bones, muscles, nerves and brain function required BEFORE the legs are able to create an increase in fitness, (hence this also defies evolutions own nature), the backbone of the fish will need to shift to the top of the back in order for the fish to have balance on land.. However in order to do so, (BEFORE going on land), will detriment the swimming of the fish as the back bone passes through the centre of its body because that is how it swims, (by thrashing from side to side), hence a change before will unbalance the swimming, yet a change after is not possible due to not being able to walk.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2011 - 12:07 AM


Wolves were fine the way they were, too. What forced them into the ocean to evolve into whales? Isn't that Lamarckism? The ecological niche was avaiable, so the wolves filled it?

Perhaps you've never heard of Muller's Ratchet. No organism can escape the accumilation of deleterious mutations, which means they will go extinct if they don't evolve. So, living fossils refute that aspect of evolution.
Enjoy.

View Post



Bad mutations will be weeded out by natural selection and good and neutral mutations will be kept.

The coelanth is a living fossil but that does not mean it underwent no evolution. Every species evolves to a certain extent even if it is in no particular direction. The coelanth was once a very successful species with many genera and species in the Devonian period but today we only know of two species surviving today. That's evolution. Survival of the fittest.

View Post


Yes bad mutations are weeded out, yet this in itself doesn't show how complexity can occur.. When you have systems in nature that ONLY function when you have all the organs / parts / etc it makes for a compelling arguement against the "evolution" of each part "evolving" on their own.. Since the fitness needed for the selection of all these mutations is acquired AFTER the system is complete.

Living fossils show that things haven't evolved much over those "millions" of years... JoshuaJacob I think had a thread of photos of organisms and their ancient "ancestors" and there was no significant change in all those "millions" of years.

The one that stands out for me is the frog. The fossil was exactly the same as a modern day frog..

This is observed evidence against the predictions of evolution.. Since no change is observed.

Edit: ikester7579. Quote box fix.

Whenever you do a double quote box, you have to have as many beginning quotes commands: [quote=dan4reason,Apr 17 2011, 12:02 PM][quote] as ending quote commands: [/quote] [/quote]. What made yours not work is that you only had "one" beginning quote command and two ending quote commands. Forum program does not know what to do so it does nothing. Once I put another beginning quote command next to the first one, your double quote box worked. 

This is what you had: [quote=dan4reason,Apr 17 2011, 12:02 PM]
This is how I fixed it: [quote=dan4reason,Apr 17 2011, 12:02 PM][quote]


Thanks Ikester :(

#11 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:52 AM

...The coelanth is a living fossil but that does not mean it underwent no evolution. 
Every species evolves to a certain extent even if it is in no particular direction. 

What you mean to say is not evolution/evolves (at it is generally used), but change/changes. A coelanth is obviously still a coelanth. So no evolution took place.

The coelanth was once a very successful species with many genera and species in the Devonian period but today we only know of two species surviving today.  That's evolution.  Survival of the fittest.

View Post

That's not Evolution either, it's extinction for whatever reason of some. Survival of the fittest =/= Evolution. Evolutionist just claim that as a mechanism specimens with new genetic information start dominating a population. In reality nonreproduction of specimens, due to genetic reasons just eliminates their genetic information from the population of a species.

#12 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 17 April 2011 - 11:41 AM

If you don't mind, lets fuss over the details just a little bit.  Macro-evolution is the evolution between species.  Do you think this can happen?  What are the limits of evolution?
Macro evolution starts at speciation. The limit of evolution is creating a partition in the gene pool. As for how far up the taxonomy it can go, we don't really know, but I'd like to remind anyone that our taxonomy system and God's taxonomy system are obviously different. I believe that the taxonomy in The Bible relies more on our eyes than DNA. Why would it be? Because God knows that the writers and the people of their day would not understand DNA and would have no point in knowing because they couldn't see it. I'll talk more about this later.

That is a very good point and is very unfortunate, however that is exactly what you would expect if evolution was true.  Fossilization is rare and happens under very very specific conditions.  Our access to this gap-ridden fossil record is itself gap-ridden.
You may think that is exactly what you would find, but that doesn't mean that the fossil record lends a lot of help to evolution as science textbooks in schools and evolution proponents believe. We can try to rationalize the issues in our theories all day long but it doesn't make the problems go away.


I agree with you.  Chromosome variation is not a major force in evolution and evolution happens in a long seried of small mutations, however we have evidence that part of the composition of our genome is a result of a chromosome fusion.  Each chromosome has a centromere on the middle and if two fused we may find two centromeres as in the example below.
Sure, we may of had a chromosome fusion but it may of happened upon creation of men, not from evolving. Fusions happen all the time. But we now know that chromosome fusions, as you agree, are not a driving force in evolution. Now, if you are making the case that our common ancestor had a chromosome fusion and we inherited it, you could look at it two ways. Either we are all related to a common ancestor, or we were designed by the same designer of the ape and of the human. Since DNA is a logical coding, if we were designed I would expect similar DNA as we know that designers tend to stick to what works. Unfortunately both a designer and common descent are unfalsifiable because we have the same evidence and look at it from different perspectives. The issue isn't with the evidence as much as it is the interpretation of the evidence.



This chromosome has two centromeres although one is vestigital.
The chromosome may not be vestigial. We used to have what we called "junk DNA" then we found out that "junk DNA" actually still has its uses. We may one day find out that the chromosome isn't vestigial, if we haven't already.


I am repeating a post I made to gilbo.
There are several. Natural selection, good and neutral mutations, population isolation, use of existing structures to form new structures, creating primitive structures using the before mentioned factors and improving them with gradual steps over long periods of time.
To be fair, a lot of this evidence is assumed. Now, I know that is an argument that drives some evo proponents up the wall, but you have to consider the magnitude of the theory you are trying to prove. I want to make a few points though. Natural selection is part of the creationist model as well and is not exclusive to the evolution model.

Second, we have seen beneficial mutations for certain circumstances but have found that overall that the fitness of the organism decreased.(There may be exceptions, but it is irrelevant to me.) Here is the deal Dan, regardless of whether or not beneficial mutations occur, we observe that the organism remains the same. Yes, the genetic code changes, but the appearance of the organism does not change. We see speciation in birds, but they all have a common ancestor, a bird. :P

The genetic code can drastically change but somehow the organism remains the same to the eye. This correlates quite well with living fossils. Perhaps natural selection limits changes, rather than helping things to evolve from one kind into another.(Though natural selection is basically a concept of cause and effect.)



]The theory of evolution has tons of evidence and I will be going over them.
Keep in mind that how you look at the evidence determines what conclusions you will draw.

If evolution is true then we should find ancestors to modern humans who probably have very ape-like characteristics. They should also be older than modern humans but in the same general era.
That depends on what world view you approach the fossils with.


We find a species called homo erectus that has many ape-like characteristics. They have a protruding face, and small brains size, 69% of that of modern humans. Their brain case is elongated compared to that of modern humans and their foreheads were shallow sloping back and their frontal and temporalo lobes were narrower.
[url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm]Homo Erectus[/url]
I don't see where you are coming from with this premise. There is A LOT of variability in humans even today. I think what is happening is that Scientists are seeing variability and assuming that they predated humans and modern apes rather than considering how much variation can take place via partitioning of the gene pool.

Well, about living fossils.  I will give you a general reply anyway.  In some cases we see near stagnation in evolution and that means a species is fine how it is.  In other cases, we see an enormous amount of change.  Evolution does not happen on a constant rate.  Chimpanzees have evolved far less than humans but that does not contradict evolution.  Indeed we have examples of a very fast paced in human evolution.

You are right about it not happening at a constant rate, but evolution is always occurring on a genetic level. You can have two animals that look the same but the difference in their DNA is rather huge. If we were unable to see DNA, we would not see any evolution happening at all.(Speciation aside.) No matter how many mutations happen on a genetic level, the animal will always appear to be the same to the naked eye. Living fossils is in strong correlation with this and provides a solid argument against universal common descent.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 April 2011 - 05:09 PM

If you don't mind, lets fuss over the details just a little bit.  Macro-evolution is the evolution between species.  Do you think this can happen?  What are the limits of evolution?


No, it's evolution between kinds. Like a bird becoming a lizard. Speciation is changes within a species (kind). Such as a bird becoming a different species of bird (one that can no longer have offspring with the species it cam from). This is micro-evolution.

That is a very good point and is very unfortunate, however that is exactly what you would expect if evolution was true.  Fossilization is rare and happens under very very specific conditions.  Our access to this gap-ridden fossil record is itself gap-ridden.


A actual record has to be more accurate to be a record.

I agree with you.  Chromosome variation is not a major force in evolution and evolution happens in a long seried of small mutations, however we have evidence that part of the composition of our genome is a result of a chromosome fusion.  Each chromosome has a centromere on the middle and if two fused we may find two centromeres as in the example below.
Posted Image
This chromosome has two centromeres although one is vestigital.


And how do you know that it was not already created fused? You see no one saw the actual process, so saying it was apart first, then together is only based on the assumption that evolution is true and proven. And that is making evidence conform to a theory which is not science. How?

Is any other possibility ever considered with this evidence? Nope. That is what conformism is, it only supports this because we say so because we want this to be true. It's ironic because evolutionists claim creationists make their ideas conform to the Bible, yet the very problem they complain about can be found through out evolution.All evidence supports evolution because all evidence must conform to evolution.

Example: What happens to anyone who comes up with an evolution idea that does not conform to Darwinian evolution? Same thing that happens to any creationist that challenges Darwinian evolution. Their credibility is destroyed along with their evidence. Actually all they have to do is attack the person's credibility and the rest takes care of itself. Because how can you rely on evidence of a person who credibility has been destroyed?

And would this have happened if they kept their mouth shut and conformed to the majority view of what truth is? of course not. Rock the boat and you get thrown overboard.

I am repeating a post I made to gilbo.
There are several. Natural selection, good and neutral mutations, population isolation, use of existing structures to form new structures, creating primitive structures using the before mentioned factors and improving them with gradual steps over long periods of time.

The theory of evolution has tons of evidence and I will be going over them. If evolution is true then we should find ancestors to modern humans who probably have very ape-like characteristics. They should also be older than modern humans but in the same general era. We find a species called homo erectus that has many ape-like characteristics. They have a protruding face, and small brains size, 69% of that of modern humans. Their brain case is elongated compared to that of modern humans and their foreheads were shallow sloping back and their frontal and temporalo lobes were narrower.
Homo Erectus
Well, about living fossils.  I will give you a general reply anyway.  In some cases we see near stagnation in evolution and that means a species is fine how it is.  In other cases, we see an enormous amount of change.  Evolution does not happen on a constant rate.  Chimpanzees have evolved far less than humans but that does not contradict evolution.  Indeed we have examples of a very fast paced in human evolution.

View Post


Tons of evidence? LOL, how much of that evidence:

1) Has an observable process? Dead bones don't tell stories about themselves, people do.
2) Can meet the criteria of being empirical?

Also, why is it that all evolutionist ignore the immune system, which by the way, will fight change? It's because science knows that adding the immune system to the equation of evolution would debunk it. And if you don't believe me, then use the research of what is known about the immune system to prove me wrong.

Because if the immune system were weak enough to allow the changes evolution requires, then we would be sick all the time. And hardly anyone would live to child bearing age. And guess what? Animal immune system are stronger than humans, which means their immune system will fight change even harder than ours. Which poses an even bigger problem for evolution.

In fact you can get a good idea of how evolutionist ignore the problem of the immune system. Go search it out on the internet and see if you can find even one evolutionist site that addresses how evolution worked around the immune system. You won't even find one because anyone who knows anything about the immune system knows it would debunk evolution hands down.

Now when you do the search on the immune system and evolution. What you will find are sites that claim they know how the immune system evolved. Not one will tell you how evolution process was able to work around the immune system to allow the changes that were claimed to have happened. And if you find one that attempts this explanation, I'd like to see it. So if you find one leave a link and we will start a new thread discussing it.

#14 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 17 April 2011 - 06:10 PM

With no transitional forms, it would be wild speculation to say it did. The primitive lung, once believed to be transitional, turned out to be a fatty swim bladder once a living one was found.
Enjoy.

View Post


We don't know that there are no transitional forms. We don't know the entire fossil record and not everything get recorded in it. For all we know, we will find some coelacanth in cretacious rock (the period before dinosaurs went extinct. We could have been looking in the wrong places. Science is imperfect and will imperfactly identify characteristists in the fossil record. Anothropology is an imperfect science.

Empirical evidence of that?

Well, here's a list that refutes that and the list is only getting longer.


I think I need to clarify. I did not mean that these bad mutations would completely disappear, they would just be naturally selected against so they would be kept only a minor part of the gene pool. In nature, parents will still produce children with down syndrome because this mutation happens quite a lot, but those with it are far less likely to pass down their genes than those without it.

If some mutations are good and most are neutral, and you believe in natural selection, then we are 100% guaranteed to see natural selection against bad mutations. Do you have a problem with the notion of good mutations? This is an element of microevolution (evolution within species) and has been directly observed. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is an example of a mutation doing something good.

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2011 - 08:00 PM

1. I am repeating a post I made to gilbo.

2. There are several.

3. Natural selection,

4. good and neutral mutations,

5. population isolation,

6. use of existing structures to form new structures,

7. creating primitive structures using the before mentioned factors and improving them with gradual steps over long periods of time.

View Post


1. Which post is this, may I ask?

2. Really?

3. You are invoking natural selection as if it is already correct under your own perceptions. However does this "natural selection" directly show what you believe it does...

Does "natural selection" directly demonstrate the speciation alledgedly occuring over millions of years? How does it directly demonstrate this? Or are you postiting your pre-based assumptions as the evidence for this?

4. As I already demonstrated, (and I wish to make this point clear), good mutations are very rare, the vast majority of mutations are detrimental. (Hence why we have a DNA self-repair protien in every cell, this protein has its own design implications that have been discussed on another thread)

5. How does population and isolation directly show evolution or are you using your assumptions to claim these things as evidence?

6. Where has this been observed? in the case of new structures.....

7. Again where has this been observed, furthermore how do the above go about creating these primitive structures? (I am assuming that you mean the initial primitive structures). Since none of the above can be utilised until an initial structure has been formed.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2011 - 08:10 PM

1. We don't know that there are no transitional forms.  We don't know the entire fossil record and not everything get recorded in it. For all we know, we will find some coelacanth in cretacious rock (the period before dinosaurs went extinct.  We could have been looking in the wrong places.

2. Science is imperfect and will imperfactly identify characteristists in the fossil record.  Anothropology is an imperfect science.

3.I think I need to clarify.  I did not mean that these bad mutations would completely disappear, they would just be naturally selected against so they would be kept only a minor part of the gene pool.  In nature, parents will still produce children with down syndrome because this mutation happens quite a lot, but those with it are far less likely to pass down their genes than those without it.

4. If some mutations are good and most are neutral, and you believe in natural selection, then we are 100% guaranteed to see natural selection against bad mutations. 

5. Do you have a problem with the notion of good mutations?  This is an element of microevolution (evolution within species) and has been directly observed. 

6. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is an example of a mutation doing something good.

View Post


1. You do realise that this is a faith statement? REAL SCIENCE is based on the facts that you gather from observation and experimentation. You do not make conclusions based on assumptions that this may (or may not) occur in the future... What you have claimed here shows that a measure of faith is needed to believe in evolution and as such it is not scientific.

2. No.. Evolutionary "science" is imperfect... REAL science is fine.

3. True. Yet wether this process can bring about NEW functions, (not just variations), remains to be seen

4. If you had bothered to read my post, (post 9), then you would know that most mutations are in fact detrimental, (bad)... Please stop saying that most are neutral

5. There are a possibility for good mutations.. However what they have been observed to do is JUST a variant of the old process... Can you give an example of a TOTALLY NOVEL function arising from just mutations?

6. More often than not the resistance to an antibiotic for a bacteria can come in the form of a plasmid... Furthermore. resistance to antibiotics is NOT an example of macroevolutionary change, if you feel it is then answer this... If resistance were to improve over millions of years what new function would the bacteria evolve? WHat new species would it become?

At the end of the day a resistant bacteria is STILL a bacteria

#17 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 17 April 2011 - 08:49 PM

1. Yes natural selection does reduce the genetic variability of a species, (just like domestication and selective breeding), however this doesn't lead to new features... (Just variants of the old ones, like different drug resistances... however such resistances can also be due to an insertion of a plasmid, NOT mutation)..

3. Yet from the quotes I have given shows that such mutations are nigh on impossible... (To get a totally new function you would require more than just one or two mutations)


Yes, the adaptation of bacteria and viruses can result from plasmids, but they also result from mutations demonstrating that mutation can be positive. We have observed microevolution happening through mutations and that proves that not all mutations are bad.

Actually in the Lenski experiment in which E coli basteria were placed in a solution and fed glucose for about 20 years or 30,000 generation, we observed their body sizes increase by about 50% through a smooth stream of mutations. We also observed them gain the ability of use citrate for food when they are in water with oxygen in it. This only happened when two specific mutations occured.


2. From my own studies into biochemistry I would say that most mutations are infact detrimental. Considering that a proteins function is dependant on its shape, hence any change to its make-up will result in a change in shape and thus a change in function... With this change in function the cell doesn't "know" what has occurred and as such when it is signalling for that specific protein to do a specific task, (which it can no longer do), it is a waste of resources and will lead to the death of the cell.. An anology, when you order car tyres online, yet the keep on  sending you a steering wheel..

5. Perhaps, however benefitial mutations are rare. Since most times, (without even getting to the protein shape arguement), the DNA will unzip due to a different base being paired with another that doesn't fit with it, (this occurs in single deletions / additions)... Such a mutation will also radically change the DNA's composition and how it is read... This can also lead to end codons not being read properly and thus can continue this change across the entire length of the DNA

ATT CGC ATC ACG

add an A at the start =

AAT TCG CAT CAC G....


What you are referring to is a frameshift mutation, however there are many more including point mutations, inversions, insertions, deletions, and DNA expression mutations. The link below provides you with an easy to read basic summar of different kind of mutations and explanations.
Mutations in DNA


4. In your example of the flagellum.. For EVERY part "evolved" there needs to be a purpose for them all, (due to an increase of fitness needed for selection, as evolution doctrine states)... Do you know the uses of every single protein that is used in the flagellum? There are about 250 proteins, just because they found one, proves nothing.

Furthermore do you have the mechanism that made these proteins intergrate together if they evolved separately, as you claimed.. Or is this another process claimed under the ambigous banner of "natural selection"?


I am not an expert in that kind of thing and answering your question completely will take lots of research because it is tough to explain the evolution of a fagellum gene by gene, step by step and show these were individually integrated together. Before we delve into that, i will ask you a question. Are you saying that flagellums lose their function if the parts are changed around? I will be doing research to more fully answer your questions.



6. What does evolution "predict"?


There are many specific predictions of evolution, one being that humans evoved from "lower" organisms. We see this in the fossil record.

7. If this is so, (and I agree with you), then we should be able to see some of the "failed" attempts in the fossil record. But we don't...(let alone the illusive transitional forms)


The fossil record is not a record of bones but of genes so we are not going to find failed genes, but we will see the bones of failed organisms that resulted from these genetic mutations. Indeed we find deformed individuals in the fossil record, and know that 95% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. We also have first-hand evidence of bad mutations which shows failed attempts in evolution.

8. Yes, but variation ("micro-evolution"), doesn't lead to macro-evolution... The changes required for the supposed "evolution"  of fish are one example..

1. How do lungs, "evolve" when the fish are not exposed to air? thus there are no selection pressure pushing for this change in this case, hence it defies evolutions own "predictions".

2. For legs to evolve there needs to be a change in the musclo-skeletal development of the fish.. Not only are new bones, muscles, nerves and brain function required BEFORE the legs are able to create an increase in fitness, (hence this also defies evolutions own nature), the backbone of the fish will need to shift to the top of the back in order for the fish to have balance on land.. However in order to do so, (BEFORE going on land), will detriment the swimming of the fish as the back bone passes through the centre of its body because that is how it swims, (by thrashing from side to side), hence a change before will unbalance the swimming, yet a change after is not possible due to not being able to walk.

View Post


Fish are exposed to air occasionally although they try to stay away from it. Fish that breathed air would have something of an advantage by having two sources of oxygen rather than one.

I don't know if I can answer your question about leg evolution completely in one post without being extremely lengthy but I will give something of a response. Aren't amphibians such as salamanders evidence that you can have a swimming creature that can both in both air and water and crawl rather clumsily and slowly on land?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2011 - 09:21 PM

1. Yes, the adaptation of bacteria and viruses can result from plasmids, but they also result from mutations demonstrating that mutation can be positive. 

2. We have observed microevolution happening through mutations and that proves that not all mutations are bad.

3. Actually in the Lenski experiment in which E coli basteria were placed in a solution and fed glucose for about 20 years or 30,000 generation, we observed their body sizes increase by about 50% through a smooth stream of mutations.

4. We also observed them gain the ability of use citrate for food when they are in water with oxygen in it.  This only happened when two specific mutations occured.
What you are referring to is a frameshift mutation, however there are many more including point mutations, inversions, insertions, deletions, and DNA expression mutations.  The link below provides you with an easy to read basic summar of different kind of mutations and explanations.
Mutations in DNA

5. I am not an expert in that kind of thing and answering your question completely will take lots of research because it is tough to explain the evolution of a fagellum gene by gene, step by step and show these were individually integrated together.  Before we delve into that, i will ask you a question. 

6. Are you saying that flagellums lose their function if the parts are changed around?  I will be doing research to more fully answer your questions.

7. There are many specific predictions of evolution, one being that humans evoved from "lower" organisms.  We see this in the fossil record.

8. The fossil record is not a record of bones but of genes

9. so we are not going to find failed genes, but we will see the bones of failed organisms that resulted from these genetic mutations.  Indeed we find deformed individuals in the fossil record, and know that 95% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. 

10. We also have first-hand evidence of bad mutations which shows failed attempts in evolution.

11. Fish are exposed to air occasionally although they try to stay away from it.  Fish that breathed air would have something of an advantage by having two sources of oxygen rather than one. 

12. I don't know if I can answer your question about leg evolution completely in one post without being extremely lengthy but I will give something of a response.  Aren't amphibians such as salamanders evidence that you can have a swimming creature that can both in both air and water and crawl rather clumsily and slowly on land?
Posted Image
Posted Image

View Post


1. Plasmid insertion is NOT a mutation, since it is a process regulated via proteins inside the bacteria.

2. Never said all were bad.. MOST are, Read post 9

3. Actually in the Lenski experiment, it is shown that bacteria remain bacteria...

4. Yes, but this is a variant of the original function... the ability of the bacteria to process materials.. Hence this is not a novel function, rather a variant of the original function of bacteria. Bacteria are natures recyclers..

5. Yes it will be tough since no scientist I know of has bothered to do what I have asked... Some just invoke, "natural selection", and do not worry about the actual mechanisms that must have occured.

6. Yes the original function of the flagellum will be lost if you remove one of the parts owing to its function... Yes I do know that ONE part may still be used as a transport protein, but where did the other 249 parts evolve?

7. No, you assume we see this in the fossil record.

8. The fossil record IS a record of bones... That is what fossils are!!!!!!!

9. I think you are confused with what I am asking for...

I am asking for the failed designs, since you said,

"The evolution of a structure is not perfect from the getgo. It often takes time and gradual steps for it to be most efficent. "

Hence where are the fossils of multiple designs of legged fish, where are the designs of multiple attempts at getting fish in the first place.... (Let alone the illusive transitional forms, and how a single celled organism "evolved" into a muticellular one).

10. Can you show these? Are they failed design attempts of a design that was implimented or is it just a species that died...

11. Do you think that the air exposure of these fish is sufficient to make such a system neccessary... Considering not all fish come up to the surface, since they have no reason to.

Furthermore, such a system will ONLY ever give an increase in fitness if the oxygen levels in the oceans were low... Are you implying this occured?

Another point is where will this redundant system be housed, since the gill system will be taking up the "prime real estate" for such a system.

12. yes amphibians exist... But that doesn't explain the process that they came about... All I see evolutionists doing is

Fish = mud skipper (half fish) = amphibian (quater fish) = reptile

Such observations are based on assumptions and do not show the process by which they came to be. You must admit that evolutionary science is upheld on faith / assumption based research.

#19 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 17 April 2011 - 09:24 PM

Yes bad mutations are weeded out, yet this in itself doesn't show how complexity can occur.. When you have systems in nature that ONLY function when you have all the organs / parts / etc it makes for a compelling arguement against the "evolution" of each part "evolving" on their own.. Since the fitness needed for the selection of all these mutations is acquired AFTER the system is complete.

Living fossils show that things haven't evolved much over those "millions" of years... JoshuaJacob I think had a thread of photos of organisms and their ancient "ancestors" and there was no significant change in all those "millions" of years.

The one that stands out for me is the frog. The fossil was exactly the same as a modern day frog..

This is observed evidence against the predictions of evolution.. Since no change is observed.


Well, structures only have their CURRENT function in the animals in which they CURRENTLY reside if and only if they have all their parts. In more primitive ancestors the function may have been different and/or not so many of the current contained parts were needed to complete its function (components that the organism no longer has may have aided in the transitional structure).

Actually most organism have either evolved or gone extinct and pointing out a few examples that have not undergone much evolution does not disprove the theory of evolution. Frogs filled an ecological niche and if they were successful and any change was harmful, there would not have been much need for evolution. Evolution in different species occurs at different rates and a single species' evolution changed over time.

A lack of "Junk" DNA may very well be the reason that many species have stagnated as discussed in the link below.
'Junk' DNA assists evolution

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 April 2011 - 09:44 PM

1. Well, structures only have their CURRENT function in the animals in which they CURRENTLY reside if and only if they have all their parts.  In more primitive ancestors the function may have been different and/or not so many of the current contained parts were needed to complete its function (components that the organism no longer has may have aided in the transitional structure). 

2. Actually most organism have either evolved or gone extinct

3. and pointing out a few examples that have not undergone much evolution does not disprove the theory of evolution.  Frogs filled an ecological niche and if they were successful and any change was harmful, there would not have been much need for evolution. 

4. Evolution in different species occurs at different rates and a single species' evolution changed over time.

5. A lack of "Junk" DNA may very well be the reason that many species have stagnated as discussed in the link below.
'Junk' DNA assists evolution

View Post


1. Is this a scientific fact? Or are you just saying "this may have occured"... If it is a "fact" then please state evidence for it.

2. Really? What is your evidence? Evolved into what? Considering the plethora of examples that did not evolve over these millions of years then according to what you said these SHOULD be extinct... But they are not.

3. Actually it does, since they defy evolutionary predictions, thus it is new evidence that argues against evolution.. Saying it does nothing is ignoring the evidence, (A common tactic with evolutionists). REAL science follows the evidence whereever it leads, it has no pre-concieved ideas about the conclusion.

I suggest you check out this thread.. (Apologies to Calypsis as it was he / she who created it)

http://www.evolution...topic=4202&st=0

It isn't just one fossil... Crocodiles, fish, sea-stars, sharks, lizards, dragonflys, crabs, lobsters and the Coelacanth

Its pretty hard to argue against these fossils which defy evolutionary predictions, (and are found across a range of different types of animals)...

4. Really? Can you show your evidence of this... Just saying it will not make it true.

5. It seems this is a re-vamp of punctuated equilibrium.... At least this guy admits that there are problems with the gradualistic evolution approach...

"Dr Greene, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, said current evolutionary theory, which assumed biological lineages evolved by the slow accumulation of adaptive mutations, did not tally with the fossil record. "


Did you know that these TE's require a protein called transposase... How did transposase "evolve"? How did these organisms survive without it initially?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users