Jump to content


Photo

Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 April 2011 - 04:55 AM

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

View Post


What you speak of is macro evolution. A process that "cannot" be observed. Well then again it can:

CvrmZLGWfFs

But only in the world of imaginative virtual reality.

Ever play a computer game where you are a virtual person in a shoot em up situation? Do you really exist there, and are the people whom you shoot real? No more than the animation of macro-evolution is real.

I am curious as to why you no longer address my responses to you?

#22 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

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

Posted 18 April 2011 - 01:23 PM

I was hoping to get a response for My information post as well, oh well I guess You cant get everything.

#23 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 18 April 2011 - 02:20 PM

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 don't quite know what you mean. What is a partition in the gene pool, and what does that have to do with taxonomy?

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.
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.

View Post

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.)


Yes, most of the results of the coding DNA does is not visible but yet is so essential. Evolution is always happening but if it is not going in any particular direction then it might as well not be happening at all. We have actually observed evolution change an animals visible characteristics.


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.
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 going to repost some of what I said to giblo:
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.
A change in body size is an observable change.





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


That doesn't make much sense. If a mutation is beneficial it seem to me that it by definition increases fitness. The organism does not stay the same because its genetic code is tweaked and yes mutations have the potential to change an organism's appearance.


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.


I am getting some of my information from the pages below.
Talkorigins: Creationist Arguments, Brain Size
Wikipedia: Brain Size
Early Human Evolution: Homo Erectus

I will be discussing adult brains only. The average human brain size is 1350 to 1400 cc. Human brain sizes range from 910 to 1870 cc with 90% fitting in the 1040 to 1595 cc range. Fewer than 1 in 400 have a brain size of 910 to 1050. For comparison 900 cc is that typical brain size for a human child of age 3-4 weighing about 33 Ib.

Homo Erectus are about as tall as modern humans but their brains are much smaller. Adult homo erectus skulls average a 930 cc brain size in a 750 to 1250 cc brain size range. These sizes are much too small to be human and homo erectus is by far a different species.

#24 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 18 April 2011 - 03:07 PM

I don't quite know what you mean.  What is a partition in the gene pool, and what does that have to do with taxonomy?

Sympatric speciation is a partitioning of the gene pool.

Yes, most of the results of the coding DNA does is not visible but yet is so essential.  Evolution is always happening but if it is not going in any particular direction then it might as well not be happening at all.  We have actually observed evolution change an animals visible characteristics.

Sure, there are variations of appearances of animals such as dogs. But you haven't seen anything change from one kind of animal to another. A bird will always be a bird, a dog will always be a dog, etc. A lot of evo proponents get frustrated with this argument because they say "z0mg! It takes millions of years for this to occur!" I submit that it never happens and they will remain using this excuse until they do see it happen, which will be never. :P


[I am going to repost some of what I said to giblo:
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.
A change in body size is an observable change.

This is a rather strange example to use, because we don't know what caused the mutation in the first place. It was more than likely a dormant gene that was activated in generation 31,500.(As far as the Citrate goes.) We see varying sizes in dogs, varying sizes in bacteria is nothing different, it is still bacteria after all, what you are trying to prove is that an organism can change into a different kind and that it means that all organisms have a common ancestor. This seems to be a bait and switch to offer an observation of change in an organism(which Creationists don't dispute by the way.) and then saying that it proves universal common descent.


That doesn't make much sense.  If a mutation is beneficial it seem to me that it by definition increases fitness.  The organism does not stay the same because its genetic code is tweaked and yes mutations have the potential to change an organism's appearance.

Sure! It may increase fitness in a particular environment, but overall fitness is affected negatively a majority of the time.

"Each of these mutant strains has an antagonistic pleiotropy characteristic. An existing system is traded for an altered phenotype that is better suited to survive the specific stressful environment. Regulation is reduced to enable overexpression. DNA repair and DNA polymerase fidelity are reduced to enable increased mutation rates (increasing the probability of a “beneficial” mutation). A gene is inactivated by a process that concurrently activates a silent gene. Such trade-offs provide a temporary benefit to the bacterium, increasing its chances of surviving specific starvation conditions. However, these mutations do not account for the origin of the silenced genes, as their prior existence is essential for the mutation to be beneficial."

Now I'm not saying that mutations are never beneficial overall, but we would expect beneficial mutations in a world that is designed, a beneficial mutation does not prove darwinism anymore than it proves design.

http://www.answersin...ons-in-bacteria


I am getting some of my information from the pages below.
Talkorigins: Creationist Arguments, Brain Size
Wikipedia: Brain Size
Early Human Evolution: Homo Erectus

I will be discussing adult brains only.  The average human brain size is 1350 to 1400 cc.  Human brain sizes range from 910 to 1870 cc with 90% fitting in the 1040 to 1595 cc range.  Fewer than 1 in 400 have a brain size of 910 to 1050.  For comparison 900 cc is that typical brain size for a human child of age 3-4 weighing about 33 Ib. 

Homo Erectus are about as tall as modern humans but their brains are much smaller.  Adult homo erectus skulls average a 930 cc brain size in a 750 to 1250 cc brain size range.  These sizes are much too small to be human and homo erectus is by far a different species.

View Post

I'll read through your sources then I will provide an appropriate response. :) (I will have to give a more detailed response to this claim as I hear this one being thrown around a lot.)

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 April 2011 - 04:38 PM

dan4reason,

I am curious as to why you have to use ready made arguments from anti-creationist sites? We try to be original here, that is why you see stuff being addressed here you won't see anywhere else. Maybe that's why you don't respond to my posts, you cannot find the subject on these sites?

#26 Seth

Seth

    Member

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

Posted 18 April 2011 - 07:32 PM

dan4reason,

I am curious as to why you have to use ready made arguments from anti-creationist sites? We try to be original here, that is why you see stuff being addressed here you won't see anywhere else. Maybe that's why you don't respond to my posts, you cannot find the subject on these sites?

View Post


I was coming to the same conclusion myself Ikester.

I just want to also add. When we are talking about "Beneficial" mutations it's like saying that removing the rubber off the rims of a car is beneficial to a car driving on railroad tracks. But put that same car with only rims on the road and it's deficient NOT improved.

Personally I don't like the term "beneficial" in describing examples like sickle cell and other such examples because in reality they are NOT beneficial within the purpose they were meant and designed for. Cars with rubber on the rims were designed that way for the purpose of driving on surfaces not for driving on railroad tracks. So calling a car without rubber on their rims "beneficial" just makes no sense to me. As a Creationist I just don't follow along that evolutionist line of thinking. I'm not saying it's "wrong" to do so I just don't like giving them ANY wiggle room for their fantasy. :P

#27 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 19 April 2011 - 10:31 AM

I will warn you that this post is rather lengthy but here goes...

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?


Of course we have not directly witnessed evolution using natural selection over millions of years because we have not even been around for millions of years.

While we don't have evidence of a lot of evolution, a good example of evolution in action is the variation we see in dogs. Lets say that you were a scientist who was exploring a new region and came across these two animals.
Posted Image
Would you have classified them as different species?

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


Darwin showed that with an example in which different finches on the Islands of the Galapagos off of South America evolved from finches in South America. They all have different diets, and different beaks. Isolation makes the creation of new species possible by keeping them from interbreeding until they can't interbreed for genetic or sociological reasons because of the divergence that natural selection have caused to each of them in isolation.

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)


As a species, you don't want no mutations because that would mean genetic stagnation of a war for survival, but you also don't want too many. These would cause far more damage than potential benefit working which the very slow force of natural selection. These mutation fixers keep too many mutations from happening but that doesn't mean mutations are always harmful.

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.

View Post


Lets draw a few lines here. There are several basic lines of evidence for evolution.

1. A theoretical framework by which evolution can happen. This includes showing in theory how "irreducably complex" structures could evolve and finding counterexamples in already existing species. Also this includes giving a theorietical framework for how natural selection, genes, population isolation, mutations, switching genes on and off, etc, could have brought on evolution. Notice that there is very little direct evidence for this because we have not been around long enough to see significent evolution in most cases. Knowing that the earth is billions of years old also permits the theoretical possibility that life could have evolved from a common ancestor.

2. Seeing evolution in action with the little time we have backs up some element of this theoretical element and makes the claim of common descent feasable. For example, seeing mutations and natural selection create new information and change an animal's structures, back sup evolution as does observing instances of speciation.

3. Once we have a theoretical framework for how evolution could happen and have observed a little bit of it happening, now we need evidence to strongly confirm common descent. We have evidence in our own genes that we are related to other animals. By looking at the features of modern species (like non-functioning eyes in cave dwellers) we can see evidence for evolution. Most importantly, transitional fossils and the general structure of the fossil record, from simpler animals at the bottom slowly getting more complex as we go higher, prevoe evolution. The best example of evolution is the fossil evidence for human evolution.

This post is rather lengthy but it gives you my general reason for believing in the theory of evolution. i hope you can see that while we do not have direct evidence of a significant amount of evidence using the mechanisms and forces I have outlined, the fossil record provides evidence of this happening.

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:46 AM

1. I will warn you that this post is rather lengthy but here goes...

2. Of course we have not directly witnessed evolution using natural selection over millions of years because we have not even been around for millions of years.

3. While we don't have evidence of a lot of evolution, a good example of evolution in action is the variation we see in dogs.  Lets say that you were a scientist who was exploring a new region and came across these two animals.
Posted Image
Would you have classified them as different species? 

4. Darwin showed that with an example in which different finches on the Islands of the Galapagos off of South America evolved from finches in South America.  They all have different diets, and different beaks.  Isolation makes the creation of new species possible by keeping them from interbreeding until they can't interbreed for genetic or sociological reasons because of the divergence that natural selection have caused to each of them in isolation.

5. As a species, you don't want no mutations because that would mean genetic stagnation of a war for survival, but you also don't want too many.  These would cause far more damage than potential benefit working which the very slow force of natural selection.  These mutation fixers keep too many mutations from happening but that doesn't mean mutations are always harmful.


Lets draw a few lines here.  There are several basic lines of evidence for evolution.

1. A theoretical framework by which evolution can happen.  This includes showing in theory how "irreducably complex" structures could evolve and finding counterexamples in already existing species.  Also this includes giving a theorietical framework for how natural selection, genes, population isolation, mutations, switching genes on and off, etc, could have brought on evolution.  Notice that there is very little direct evidence for this because we have not been around long enough to see significent evolution in most cases.  Knowing that the earth is billions of years old also permits the theoretical possibility that life could have evolved from a common ancestor.

2. Seeing evolution in action with the little time we have backs up some element of this theoretical element and makes the claim of common descent feasable.  For example, seeing mutations and natural selection create new information and change an animal's structures, back sup evolution as does observing instances of speciation.

3.  Once we have a theoretical framework for how evolution could happen and have observed a little bit of it happening, now we need evidence to strongly confirm common descent.  We have evidence in our own genes that we are related to other animals.  By looking at the features of modern species (like non-functioning eyes in cave dwellers) we can see evidence for evolution.  Most importantly, transitional fossils and the general structure of the fossil record, from simpler animals at the bottom slowly getting more complex as we go higher, prevoe evolution.  The best example of evolution is the fossil evidence for human evolution. 

This post is rather lengthy but it gives you my general reason for believing in the theory of evolution.  i hope you can see that while we do not have direct evidence of a significant amount of evidence using the mechanisms and forces I have outlined, the fossil record provides evidence of this happening.

View Post


1. Length is not a problem, quality of content is the deciding factor.

2. Then it is not empirical.. and if it isn't empirical evidence then it isn't proven nor does it pertain to the scientific method, (empirical viability) hence it is not scientific.

3. As has been said by others on here, (as well as myself I believe), variation is not evolution! Do you have evidence of whereby variations over time can lead to the large changes perceived to be the differences between species? If not then you cannot make this claim, as it is based on your own assumptions that variations could add up to a novel inter-dependant system... Lungs for fish?... (Despite logic saying that in order to create such a thing, multiple mutation events must have occurred and (somehow) co-ordinated with each other to bring it about. Which in itself defies the randomness of the "random" mutations of evolution.

If these two dogs were found as fossils, they would probably be considered different species... HOWEVER we know that they are the same species.. This is evidence showing one of the flaws of the classification system.

4. :) How did he show this? Or was Darwin making an assumption himself? You do realise that "darwin's" finches can all inter-breed leading to the conclusion that they are all the ONE species. Furthermore, when beak size % changed during a drought this is used as "evidence" of evolution.. However what is "forgotten" about is the fact that after the drought the beak % reverted back to their original states.... Hence in the end no net change, no net evolution... Just oscillating features


Then again, I see many people with different diets and different "beaks" does that mean there are many different human "species"? :P

5. How is this evidence of evolution? Mutations are real we can observe their effects.. No-one is debating that... However I will continue to ask you to read page 9... I never said all mutations are bad, just the vast majority... (Considering that most will unzip the DNA resulting in death of the cell... I am assuming you agree that this is detrimental to that cell's health)



1. What is this "theoretical" framework? I get told that theories are explainations that have much evidence to support it... However nowdays I see it being used as a term to help support metaphysical / non-empirical claims....

The facts of the matter are that there is no framework of what you speak of... Many of the undeniably complex functions in a cell is barely understood by scientists even now, hence I find it hard to believe that these same scientists can make claims as to how they came to be, despite barely knowing how they work...

ATP synthase is one, the repair protein (forgot its name, there is a great thread on it on here)

All I see is guesses... Guesses are not scientific.

2. Speciation has NEVER been observed... If you are making claims about Lenski bacteria experiments... Firstly he should know better to make such claims...

bacteria = bacteria = bacteria = bacteria = bacteria
Let me know when a frog suddenly appears on his agar plate

Furthermore, due to plasmids and "jumping genes" I personally think it is futile to classify any bacteria within a set bound of "species", since plasmids can transfer different information to other bacteria, (like resistance etc... Plasmids are not mutations remember!! as they are regulated via proteins), the "jumping genes" does just that jumps genes around, may cut and paste them, or copy and paste them around the DNA even with parts of the plasmid....

Such changes would make classification based on genomic sequencing / gene expression impossible... I am just a student, (this is basic microbiology)...

3. Do fossils tell you it was evolution that made them came to be? Do they talk to you?

Fossils are not DIRECT evidence of evolution, evolution is assumed from it.. Since looking at fossils do not tell you the mechanism of how they came to be? The only data you can get from them is that this organism existed and its size.. that it..


(I am skeptical of radiometric dating techniques, considering that there is no initial amount of radioactive substance with which to correlate the current amount and rate of decay to.... This initial amount is assumed, and is one of the reasons why it is not used very often now...

Instead we use the geolithic column.. Where the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils... Circular reasoning much?

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:54 AM

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

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


No apologies necessary, friend. Glad my illustrations did some good.

Best wishes.

#30 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:19 AM

Don't know if this was already brought up or needs to be discussed sepately. Here is a list of standard arguments by Evolutionists.

1 If Humans Came From Apes, Why Aren’t Apes Evolving Into Humans?

Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary “cousins.” We come not from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human that lived millions of years in the past. In fact, during the last seven million years many human-like species have evolved; some examples include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. All of these went extinct at different times, leaving just us to share the planet with a handful of other primates.

2 There Are Too Many Gaps in the Fossil Record for Evolution to Be True

In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils. Archaeopteryx, for example, is one of the earliest known fossil birds with a reptilian skeleton and feathers. There is now evidence that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik is an extinct lobe-finned fish intermediate to amphibians, there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago. Considering the exceptionally low probability that a dead plant or animal will fossilize it is remarkable we have as many fossils as we do. First the dead animal has to escape the jaws of scavengers. Then is has to be buried under the rare circumstances that will cause it to fossilize instead of decay. Then geological forces have to somehow bring the fossil back to the surface to be discovered millions of years later by the handful of paleontologists looking for them

3 If Evolution Happened Gradually Over Millions of Years Why Doesn’t the Fossil Record Show Gradual Change?

Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation. Species are stable over long periods of time and so they leave plenty of fossils in the strata while in their stable state. The change from one species to another, however, happens relatively quickly (on a geological time scale) in a process called punctuated equilibrium. One species can give rise to a new species when a small “founder” group breaks away and becomes isolated from the ancestral group. This new founder group, as long as it remains small and detached, may experience relatively rapid change (large populations are genetically stable). The speciational change happens so rapidly that few fossils are left to record it. But once changed into a new species, the individuals will retain their phenotype for a long time, leaving behind many well-preserved fossils. Millions of years later this process results in a fossil record that records mostly stability. The punctuation is there in between the equilibrium.

4 No One Has Ever Seen Evolution Happen

Evolution is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved. Creationists demand “just one fossil transitional form” that shows evolution. But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (In fact we can see evolution happen—especially among organisms with short reproductive cycles that are subject to extreme environmental pressures. Knowledge of the evolution of viruses and bacteria is vital to medical science.)

5 Science Claims That Evolution Happens by Random Chance

Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 (to the 13th power) number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. any of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms.

6 Only an Intelligent Designer Could Have Made Something as Complex as an Eye

The anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but “intelligently designed.” It is built upside down and backwards, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light sensitive rods and cones that convert the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards? This “design” only makes sense if natural selection built eyes from available materials, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism’s pre-existing organic structures. The eye shows the pathways of evolutionary history, not intelligent design.

7 Evolution is Only A Theory

All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:
• It is guided by natural law.
• It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
• It is testable against the empirical world.
• Its conclusions are tentative.
• It is testable and falsifiable.
If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.

8 Evidence for Human Evolution Has Turned Out to Be Fake, Frauds, or Fanciful

Eager to discredit evolution, creationists ignore hominid fossil discoveries and cherry pick examples of hoaxes and mistakes in the belief that mistakes in science are a sign of weakness. This is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science, which constantly advances by using both its mistakes and the successes. Its ability to build cumulatively on the past is how science progresses. The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man, and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hespero-pithecus, are, in time, corrected. In fact, it wasn’t creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposé of these errors, and then duplicitously claimed them as their own.

9 The Second Law of Thermodynamics Proves That Evolution is Impossible

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sun—it is an open-dissipative system—entropy may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process). Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural law. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner of things in apparent violation of Second Law entropy may continue. But as soon as the sun burns out, entropy will take its course and life on Earth will cease.

10 Evolution Can’t Account For Morality

As a social primate species we evolved a deep sense of right and wrong in order to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation, and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. As well, evolution created the moral emotions that tell us that lying, adultery, and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for property. It would not be possible for a social primate species to survive without some moral sense. On the constitution of human nature is built the constitutions of human societies.

http://www.atheismre...ownloadable-pdf



#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:27 PM

No apologies necessary, friend. Glad my illustrations did some good.

Best wishes.

View Post


Thanks, yeah the thread was a real eye-opener for me since I never knew that modern forms of animals, (like the frog), were found as fossils. This directly defies evolutionist claims... (probably why it hasn't been addressed by Dawkins or anyone else ;) )

#32 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 21 April 2011 - 10:03 AM

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.


No it is not a faith statement because we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true (e.g. human evolution). On the other hand it is a faith statement to say that an imperfect fossil record disproves evolution.

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


Science by its nature is imperfect. A theory is by definition is imperfect. So what are some examples of "real" science?

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


That is incorrect although an understandable mistake. The average human has 50-100 mutations only about 3 of which actually changes a protein. If most of the mutations were had were harmful, the human race would degenerate very quickly.

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?


The transfer of plasmids which is one kind of horizontal gene transfer is one source for bacterial adaptation to antibiotic, however mutations are another major reason bacteria become resistant and this is well documented in detail. Often there are many ways that a specific mutation becomes resistant to a specific drug. In the case of fluoroquinolone resistance, we use quinolones to attack the DNA gyrase of invading bacteria. DNA gyrase aid the bacteria's DNA structure. There are three ways a bacteria can become resistant: Some bacteria can use pumps to pump out this quinolones, and when the ones that cannot pump this out die, the pumping bacteria are the only ones left and dominate. Another way is that adaptations can come from plasmids producing proteins that bind to the DNA gyrase protecting them from the quinolones. The last way is that mutations at the key sites in DNA gyrace can decrease their propensity to bind with quinolones.

This was a very technical example and is one that is a little confusing to me but I think it is necessary to provide of a detailed technical example of good mutations. Here are some sources of my information.
DNA gyrase and quinolones
Bacterial Resistance (under the mechanisms section).
Also googling this information will give you a lot of medical abstracts about these processes.


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

View Post


Do you really exact a group of animals to evolve out of its taxonomical domain in a few decades? A domain is the highest taxonomical group you can get and is a step above a kingdom.
Domain (biology)

The evidence for major evolution comes from the fossil record, analysis of characteristics of modern animals, and keys of evolution in their DNA. The evidence for human evolution is a great example of evolution in action.

#33 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 21 April 2011 - 10:53 AM

No it is not a faith statement because we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true (e.g. human evolution).  On the other hand it is a faith statement to say that an imperfect fossil record disproves evolution.

View Post

I'm not following you, to see an "imperfect" record and to still accept universal common descent does take a degree of faith. I'm not sure why you guys are so insistent that nothing you believe in takes faith.

The fossil record lends more support to Creation than evolution.

#34 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:15 AM

..we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true ...

View Post


Independent evidence ... what on earth is that?!?!?

Untouched by human hands?.. What? ... I don't get it..

Please explain...

#35 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 April 2011 - 07:09 PM

1. No it is not a faith statement because we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true (e.g. human evolution).  On the other hand it is a faith statement to say that an imperfect fossil record disproves evolution.

2. Science by its nature is imperfect.  A theory is by definition is imperfect.  So what are some examples of "real" science?

3. The average human has 50-100 mutations only about 3 of which actually changes a protein.  If most of the mutations were had were harmful, the human race would degenerate very quickly.


4. Often there are many ways that a specific mutation becomes resistant to a specific drug.  In the case of fluoroquinolone resistance, we use quinolones to attack the DNA gyrase of invading bacteria.  DNA gyrase aid the bacteria's DNA structure.  There are three ways a bacteria can become resistant:  Some bacteria can use pumps to pump out this quinolones, and when the ones that cannot pump this out die, the pumping bacteria are the only ones left and dominate.  Another way is that adaptations can come from plasmids producing proteins that bind to the DNA gyrase protecting them from the quinolones.  The last way is that mutations at the key sites in DNA gyrace can decrease their propensity to bind with quinolones.

This was a very technical example and is one that is a little confusing to me but I think it is necessary to provide of a detailed technical example of good mutations.  Here are some sources of my information.
DNA gyrase and quinolones
Bacterial Resistance (under the mechanisms section).
Also googling this information will give you a lot of medical abstracts about these processes.

5. Do you really exact a group of animals to evolve out of its taxonomical domain in a few decades?  A domain is the highest taxonomical group you can get and is a step above a kingdom.
Domain (biology)

The evidence for major evolution comes from the fossil record, analysis of characteristics of modern animals, and keys of evolution in their DNA.  The evidence for human evolution is a great example of evolution in action.

View Post


1. Actually it is faith based, since you have no empirical evidence to substantiate your claim... (if you do then please post it).. Your response here demonstrates that you've failed to critically assess your own response. Something I feel is lacking in modern times.

2. If that is so, then why do evos claim that the theory of evolution is a "fact"? You have just contradicted most of the evo community. REAL science is science that is based on EMPIRICAL evidence, like chemistry- add two reagents, observe a reaction, (colour change fizzing etc) can test to see resultng products.. 100% empirical experiemental and observable... Yet with evolution we have abigious meanings, data that can be succeptable to bias or perception, no defined terms of proof / refutation... In reality evolution is smoke and mirrors.

3. :angry: Where did you get that data? 50 to 100 mutations only!? You do realise that there are BILLIONS of different mutations that can occur. A base change at the 450th base on the right strand. A base change at the 450th base on the left strand, a base pair switch at the 1000457th base...etc etc etc... I'd like to read this data where you got this false information, was it an actual scientific site?

4. 2 of those 3 mechanisms of resistance come from a design perspective!! Yet the other, (junk on binding site), may also be regulated via a protein? If so then it is designed too... You do not know that it is caused via random mutations, hence you cannot make the claim

5. Considering the rate of reproduction of bacteria, (about 30 minutes), I'd have thought it would have been necessary to have "evolution" occuring in a shorter amount of time that is claimed for other organsisms.. Furthermore, the fossil evidence shows that multicellular organisms appeared suddenly, (Cambrian explosion), thus indicating a small window of time for the "evolution" of these organisms from bacteria.

#36 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:50 PM

Homo Erectus are about as tall as modern humans but their brains are much smaller. Adult homo erectus skulls average a 930 cc brain size in a 750 to 1250 cc brain size range. These sizes are much too small to be human and homo erectus is by far a different species.


A single population of neanderthal has been found with a cranial capacity exceeding modern human and as small as H. erectus.

These remains have so much variation within one contemporaneous population that it demonstrates that all that "muddle in the middle," all those European fossil individuals that appeared to be so different, belong to one population-the Neanderthals. For instance, one of the Sima de los Huesos adult skulls is one of the smallest ever recovered from that time period, while another one is one of the largest. The physical variation found in this one assemblage of fossils encompasses all the other European archaic Homo Sapien fossils...

...The Sima de los Huesos fossil assemblage has powerful and profound implications for Creationists. Because of the relative isolation of the various areas of the ancient world and the slow means of transportation, this extreme variation within populations, such as what is seen at Sima de los Huesos, is exactly what one would expect.

Further, thanks to the extreme variation seen in the Sima de los Huesos fossil collection, the distinctions made by evolutionists between Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens, Neandertal, and anatomically modern Homo sapiens now fade into insignificance. (M. Lubenow - Bones of Contention / p.200-201)


So we find that cranial capacity as a species determination is meaningless. When DNA is employed, then we find that Neanderthal is 99.9 - 99.5% identical to modern human. There is no evidence to contradict H. erectus as being Homo Sapiens as well.



Enjoy.

#37 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 22 April 2011 - 12:33 PM

Homo Erectus are about as tall as modern humans but their brains are much smaller. Adult homo erectus skulls average a 930 cc brain size in a 750 to 1250 cc brain size range. These sizes are much too small to be human and homo erectus is by far a different species.


A single population of neanderthal has been found with a cranial capacity exceeding modern human and as small as H. erectus.
So we find that cranial capacity as a species determination is meaningless. When DNA is employed, then we find that Neanderthal is 99.9 - 99.5% identical to modern human. There is no evidence to contradict H. erectus as being Homo Sapiens as well.
Enjoy.

View Post

If man makes a new classification it becomes "empirical" without regards to the idea that humans, including Scientists are wrong on a regular basis. The transitional whale fossils are a perfect example at how horrible our scientists are at guessing about fossils.

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 22 April 2011 - 08:11 PM

Its the same with the "ancient" versions of modern animals. They are given different names despite that they are (according to the fossils) the same.. Take "ancient australia", some of the animals then were the same as they are now except they were much larger. This is the only distinguishing feature between these "ancient ancestors" and their modern equivalents, is size a new feaure? or system?, yet they are classified with a different name etc

THe clssification system already pre-supposes evolution, hence why it can't be used as evidence.

#39 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 10:56 PM

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..


It is not COMPLETELY novel, yes, but it does contain a little novelty. Keep this process going a few million years and the amount of novelty will increase.

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?


I am sure that some models have been made but I just don't have that information available right now. It would be very technical. I will try to provide as much info as I can. In fact we have a system that has 40 parts removed from the flagellum that acts like a motor without the paddly thingy.
Ken Miller on the bacterial flagellum

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


Wrong, we have many fossils which provide evidence for the predictions that evolution makes. One is Homo Erectus which I presented before. This species went extinct just before we started seeing humans, and had a brain size much smaller than ours. They were very much like us from the neck down but had very ape-like features in the face like a protruding eye-ridge.

Many parts of their brains for intelligence were not very well developed, and from artifacts that we have dug up, homo erectus did not have quite as much culture and technology as humans did. We have found dozens of fossils and many many skulls of specimens of all age groups. We have found small groups of hHomo Erectus fossilized together. This is strong evidence of evolution.


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


Very astute observation:D. That was a typo. I meant to say that the fossil record is a record of bones not genes (although we have found neanderthal DNA, and fossilized feathers in the ancestors of birds).

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).


Here is the evolutionary process: Random mutations creates a diversity and natural selection selects for the best characteristics. Over time this usually brings about a lot of change. Mutations in the wrong direction will be struck out by natural selection quickly so these mistakes are not likely to get far.

We do see a variation in transitional fossils; evolution is not a strait path but a wandering tree. Those failed transitions did not have outright bad structures contrary to what you might think but merely had structures that could not compete with others. Does that answer your question?

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


I mean, mutations like down syndrome; you know, bad ones.


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


From what I have read about tetrapod evolution, oxygen levels were indeed low, although I am not sure low levels were necessary for the evolution of the lung. As you can see, I am not an expert on tetrapod evolution but I will try to answer your question the best I can.

Around the devonian era, we were seeing trees which were dropping leaves into the water and that aided the evolution of fish that lived near the shore. Sometimes however, if you were a shore living fish, your lake may temporarily dry up if you live in certain parts of the world and it would be beneficial to be able to hop to another lake using a primitive form of lung. In the lives of fish, they do sometimes come in contact with air just like we humans come in contact with water. My brother had a fish and I noticed that the fish would sometimes come in contact with air often accidentally.

Also, because of low oxygen levels, having a second source of oxygen (from the air) would have been very useful for survival and that "redudancy" would have given you an advantage.

We have some knowledge of the process by which lobe-finned fish evolved into amphibians from the fossil record in the late devonian era. I will list these transitions from most fish-like to most amphibian-like:
Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega.
Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a cross between fish and amphibian.
Ichthyostega is a good example of a very fishy creature with a vertebrate positioned back bone.
Posted Image
Posted Image

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.

View Post


A belief in a theory is somewhat analogous to faith. In science, you see patterns in nature and give an unproven hypothesis and tentatively assume that hypothesis is true(with a lot of skepticism). You try to see if the facts that are later uncovered fit the predictions of the hypothesis.

If these predictions are validated, then we start having more faith in it, and with even more validations our trust may become almost absolute and it may even become a theory. If future discoveried contradict its predictions or there is nothing to fit its predictions, then we lose faith in the theory, and look for something else.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 April 2011 - 01:00 AM

Dan,

Which came in what order?

1) Oxygen.
2) Plants.
3) Rain.

Plants make the oxygen.
You need rain for the plants.
And you need oxygen for the rain.

And how did plants survive if there was not enough oxygen for the ozone layer?

Plants make oxygen.
Oxygen is needed for ozone layer.
Plants cannot survive without ozone layer.

So if you have oxygen first, you have to have a source. If you have plants first, they die before they make enough oxygen (a whole atmosphere worth) for what they need.

Also a newly forming atmosphere is going to have low barometric pressure. Low pressure means that water boiling point is going to be low a well.

Example: Mars barometric pressure is 1/4 - 1/8 that of the earth. That puts the boiling point of water at 50 F. The temps around the equator is about 70 degrees. Which means any water around that area would have boiled and went into the atmosphere. Problem is, the evidence for water evaporating does not exist. The mars atmosphere is over 98% CO2. No hydrogen gas means no water. And what about the ice caps on the poles? Mar's poles get very cold. The high concentration of CO2 freezes and falls like snow. Giving the appearance of ice. There is no water on mars.

You can google this and research it yourself: "Mars atmosphere" and "CO2 freezes mars". Now why would science lie like this? Money to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.

My main question would be: Why did earth end up with so much water and no other planet in the solar system did? Also, how did our barometric pressure get just right for the temps and seasons so water works on this planet in all 3 phases (solid liquid gas)? If these phase transition did not happen, there would be major problems for life. Which brings me back to early earth.

Early earth was hot, the barometric pressure was low because the atmosphere was forming. So with the boiling point of water low, how did water evaporate (turn into gas) and phase back to liquid when the conditions favored it being gas only?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users