Jump to content


Photo

Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 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 25 April 2011 - 12:36 PM

If stars produced oxygen, then why is there no oxygen in space? Obviously, the burning furnace would consume and burn all of the oxygen it produced. So the effect would be neutral.

#62 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:39 AM

If stars produced oxygen, then why is there no oxygen in space? Obviously, the burning furnace would consume and burn all of the oxygen it produced. So the effect would be neutral.

View Post

Is there no oxygen in space? Oxygen would catalyze the burning of other materials in a furnace.

#63 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:02 AM

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. ;)


Yes, we have only been doing real research into evolution for 150 years, not nearly long enough to see the kinds of evolution you seem to be asking for. I will now try to further show how the fossil record can provide some more major examples of evolution. Darwin himself came across some fossils of the giant sloth, that looks peculiarly like normal sloths, but was just larger.

Posted Image

Darwin came up with this idea: Just like with pigeons, finches, and dogs, we see two sloths that are anatomically very simmilar. Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth. Instead of being independently created, was if these two groups of animals were actually related and had evolved? What do you think?

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.


I don't see any evidence to say that it is more likely that this evolution happened by gene switching (which is an accepted element of evolution) rather than point mutations. Indeed, we had 12 populations of bacteria that came from the same ancestor that could only have evolved through mutations (which could have also turned genes on and off) and natural selection, because these bacteria did not undergoe any horizontal gene transfer(which is also a force of evolution).

In this experiment, Lenski froze bacterial samples so he would have a frozen fossil record that was easily available. One only population evolved this ability and Lenski tried to evolve past generations of this population again to see if they would again develope this beneficial mutation. He found that this would not happen with any sample before generation 20,000 and did happen with generations after 20,000. The most reasonable inference is that population 20,000 evolved a genetic trait that allowed the bacteria to evolve its ability to eat citrate at generation 31,500. It is most reasonable to conclude that this ability took two mutations, and any one of them would not have been naturally selected for.
Wikipedia: Lenski ExperimentLenski's Summary of his Experiment


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


Your point about resistance and fitness is a very good one.

Beneficial mutations simply provide a data point that supports the predictions evolution makes i.e. there is a mechanism by which a lot of evolution can happen. Beneficial mutations doesn't support or attack any creationist predictions to my knowledge.

In many cases, resistant bacteria would not do so well in their original environment with their new resistance adaptations. However in some cases resistance does not result in any loss of fitness in the original environment or another mutations can restore fitness.
Are Mutations Harmful?

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.)

View Post


There is another source that compares the range of brain sizes of humans, homo erectus and neanderthals.
Neanderthals

The Chimpanzee range is from 300-500 cc, the homo erectus range is 750-1250 cc with a 930 cc average, neanderthals range from 1200-1750 cc with 1450 cc average, and humans range from 900 to 1880 cc with 1375 cc average. Realize that all human brain sizes are not evenly distributed within the human range range, rather it tends to be clumped around the average and levels off around the extreme zones. It is very much like a bell curve. Here is an example of a bell curve.
Posted Image

#64 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 11:38 AM

Yes, we have only been doing real research into evolution for 150 years, not nearly long enough to see the kinds of evolution you seem to be asking for.  I will now try to further show how the fossil record can provide some more major examples of evolution.  Darwin himself came across some fossils of the giant sloth, that looks peculiarly like normal sloths, but was just larger.

Evolution can actually happen very quickly and it appears that based on some of what I have seen, such as the 6 legged deer video that Gilbo posted, changes are not always gradual. I believe that the reason that we don't see one kind of animal changing into another is just because it doesn't happen. As I stated before, living fossils correlate with this assertion.

Darwin came up with this idea:  Just like with pigeons, finches, and dogs, we see two sloths that are anatomically very simmilar.  Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth.  Instead of being independently created, was if these two groups of animals were actually related and had evolved?  What do you think?

This seems to be something for cryptozoology to me. I love cryptozoology. :) I don't know very much about sloths but I don't doubt that they can grow. Lizards never stop growing. If they were allowed to live long enough they could look like a dinosaur. In the times of The Bible, where humans such as Adam lived to be 900 years old. It would be possible for a lizard to big as big as a dinosaur. We have had human fossils found that were 13 feet tall. In The Bible Goliath was a giant. Dinosaurs are also mentioned in The Bible as "dragons." Other societies also have vivid illustrations of dragons including skin patterns that were in coherence with fossilized dinosaur skin that has been found. There are also reports of 8 foot tall spiders throughout the world. I don't doubt that some animals can get larger than what we normally see, but this isn't evidence of us coming from a rock. ;)

I don't see any evidence to say that it is more likely that this evolution happened by gene switching (which is an accepted element of evolution) rather than point mutations.  Indeed, we had 12 populations of bacteria that came from the same ancestor that could only have evolved through mutations (which could have also turned genes on and off) and natural selection, because these bacteria did not undergoe any horizontal gene transfer(which is also a force of evolution). 

In this experiment, Lenski froze bacterial samples so he would have a frozen fossil record that was easily available.  One only population evolved this ability and Lenski tried to evolve past generations of this population again to see if they would again develope this beneficial mutation.  He found that this would not happen with any sample before generation 20,000 and did happen with generations after 20,000.  The most reasonable inference is that population 20,000 evolved a genetic trait that allowed the bacteria to evolve its ability to eat citrate at generation 31,500.  It is most reasonable to conclude that this ability took two mutations, and any one of them would not have been naturally selected for. 
Wikipedia: Lenski ExperimentLenski's Summary of his Experiment

Despite what wikipedia says, Scientists are not sure what caused the mutation or what actually happened in the dna to facilitate the mutation.

Your point about resistance and fitness is a very good one.

Beneficial mutations simply provide a data point that supports the predictions evolution makes i.e. there is a mechanism by which a lot of evolution can happen.  Beneficial mutations doesn't support or attack any creationist predictions to my knowledge.

If beneficial mutations are a prediction of evolution, then that would mean that evolution has a direction, does it not? Talkorigins and many other atheists claim that evolution doesn't have a direction, but it doesn't seem to be in coherence with what secular scientists think.


E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions. Therefore, seeing that e coli can feed off of citrate isn't very surprising. There is nothing in this experiment that falsifies the Creation model. The Creation model does not say that organisms can't change, it says that organisms can't change from one kind into another. A protozoa will never be able to slowly develop into a fish, mammal, bird, etc. in billions of years. I don't understand the hype of this experiment, and the fact that evolutionists get so excited over a finding this minor shows that there really is a lack of evidence for evolution on the scale that they are presenting.


In many cases, resistant bacteria would not do so well in their original environment with their new resistance adaptations.  However in some cases resistance does not result in any loss of fitness in the original environment or another mutations can restore fitness.
Are Mutations Harmful?

There is another source that compares the range of brain sizes of humans, homo erectus and neanderthals.
Neanderthals

You are right, mutations aren't always completely harmful, but it does't mean that we came from a rock. If evolution has no direction, then any mutation period would be evidence of universal common descent, even harmful ones, would it not? So why the hype over only beneficial mutations if evolution has no direction?

The Chimpanzee range is from 300-500 cc, the homo erectus range is 750-1250 cc with a 930 cc average, neanderthals range from 1200-1750 cc with 1450 cc average, and humans range from 900 to 1880 cc with 1375 cc average.  Realize that all human brain sizes are not evenly distributed within the human range range, rather it tends to be clumped around the average and levels off around the extreme zones.  It is very much like a bell curve.  Here is an example of a bell curve. The Chimpanzee range is from 300-500 cc, the homo erectus range is 750-1250 cc with a 930 cc average, neanderthals range from 1200-1750 cc with 1450 cc average, and humans range from 900 to 1880 cc with 1375 cc average.  Realize that all human brain sizes are not evenly distributed within the human range range, rather it tends to be clumped around the average and levels off around the extreme zones.  It is very much like a bell curve.  Here is an example of a bell curve.

I don't trust talkorigins as a source due to their heavy bias in the Creation vs Evolution debate. They also have a tendency to "quote mine" out of scientific literature, proposing hypothesis that are presented by Scientists without acknowledging the problems with their hypothesis that scientists mention in the very same literature that they reference.(Nucleosynthesis at the Big Bang is a great example.)

I believe that Jason777 gave an interesting response to this point, have you responded to it yet? I don't recall. My speciality is more or less in astronomy, I don't spend a lot of time studying human fossils. However, I do recollect that human brain size and "homo erectus" brain sizes have been found to overlap, if this is so then it supports mere human variation, rather than common descent.

#65 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 04:24 PM

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.


I am trying to wrap up this discussion because of some troubles I am having with moderators (no offense to them).
Have you ever considered that there might be a problem classifying these two animals as of the same species? They probably don't reproduce much anyway. You would need a small young female great dane and a large male chihuahua, and then maybe we would see come cross breeding!

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"?  ;)


Good point. Micro-evolution doesn't prove macro-evolution. But it does make a discussion of macro-evolution possible.

#66 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 04:39 PM

3.  ;)  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?


I will let you have the last word in this discussion.
Just remember. Just because a lot of mutations can occur doesn't mean that they will. For example, there are a few trillion ways you can die. That doesn't mean you are going to die a few trillion ways. Here is my source.
Are Mutations all bad?

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.

The Cambrian explosion took a few million years (which is a very short time for whole kingdoms to form). If bacteria turn into fish, fungi, or whatever else in 150 years, I will pay you $1,000,000. While bacteria evolve quickly 150 years is like an instant in geological time and their evolutionary history.

#67 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:01 PM

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


Because of some issues I am having on this thread, I will have to cut it short unfortunately. So you will have the last word. I will read your response.

The Chimpanzee range is from 300-500 cc, the homo erectus range is 750-1250 cc with a 930 cc average, neanderthals range from 1200-1750 cc with 1450 cc average, and humans range from 900 to 1880 cc with 1375 cc average. Yes, many neanderthals have brain sizes that are larger than that of most humans, and that is because the average neanderthal brain size is larger than the average human size. Yes, a few of the largest brained homo erectus have slightly larger brains than the very smallest brain size neanderthals.

However, what is important here is the mean. The average homo erectus brain size is well under the low neanderthal brain sizes, and is right on the border of human brain sizes. We have many adult homo erectus with brain sizes of 750-850 which is ridiculously small. And not to mention that most are older than any humans found or that they have extreme ape-like features.

I got my brain size info from this source. It mainly talks about neanderthals but also comments on brain sizes of hominids.
Neanderthals

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:09 PM

I am trying to wrap up this discussion because of some troubles I am having with moderators (no offense to them).

View Post


You'll never have a problem here if you adhere to the forum rules.

#69 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:13 PM

You'll never have a problem here if you adhere to the forum rules.

View Post


Thanks. However, I do want to avoid talking about the entire theory of evolution in one thread because my sources and research will be very sparse.

#70 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:24 PM

1. Just remember.  Just because a lot of mutations can occur doesn't mean that they will.  For example, there are a few trillion ways you can die.  That doesn't mean you are going to die a few trillion ways.  Here is my source.
Are Mutations all bad?

2. The Cambrian explosion took a few million years (which is a very short time for whole kingdoms to form).  If bacteria turn into fish, fungi, or whatever else in 150 years, I will pay you $1,000,000.  While bacteria evolve quickly 150 years is like an instant in geological time and their evolutionary history.

View Post


1. Your source is incorrect, Firstly it doesn't deal with the actual biology of a mutation, (like I have attempted to explain), and assumes that "junk DNA" has no purpose and thus can claim that most mutations are neutral...

2. You do not know the time it took for the Cambrian explosion for all you know it was 150 years. I prefer to base my beliefs on fact, or if I do not know I will state it as such.

#71 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:42 PM

I am trying to wrap up this discussion because of some troubles I am having with moderators (no offense to them).
Have you ever considered that there might be a problem classifying these two animals as of the same species?  They probably don't reproduce much anyway.  You would need a small young female great dane and a large male chihuahua, and then maybe we would see come cross breeding!
Good point.  Micro-evolution doesn't prove macro-evolution.  But it does make a discussion of macro-evolution possible.

View Post


Not a problem ;)

There are no problems observed when considering the two classification systems used to classify species, as said by my lecturers... (when one fails the other is used)

A- That they look relatively the same, (same basic body plan)... Failings- species where the female / male is larger than the other... However this doesn't affect the basic body plan.. Perhaps my lecturers were wrong in this respect?

B- That they can create a fertile offspring... Failings- genetic diseases like wolbachea in insects.

Artificial insemination can be used to check if these two dogs can create a fertile offspring, ( I am sure height will not be a factor in this :) )

Yes a discussion can be made but it must be clear what is fact and what is fiction. In that it must be taken into account that macro-evolution is based on assumption, not factual data.

#72 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 April 2011 - 02:52 AM


.... I will now try to further show how the fossil record can provide some more major examples of evolution.  Darwin himself came across some fossils of the giant sloth, that looks peculiarly like normal sloths, but was just larger.

Posted Image
Darwin came up with this idea:  Just like with pigeons, finches, and dogs, we see two sloths that are anatomically very simmilar.  Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth.  Instead of being independently created, was if these two groups of animals were actually related and had evolved?  What do you think?

I don't see any evidence to say that it is more likely that this evolution happened by gene switching (which is an accepted element of evolution) rather than point mutations....

View Post



...This seems to be something for cryptozoology to me. I love cryptozoology. :) I don't know very much about sloths but I don't doubt that they can grow. Lizards never stop growing. If they were allowed to live long enough they could look like a dinosaur. In the times of The Bible, where humans such as Adam lived to be 900 years old. It would be possible for a lizard to big as big as a dinosaur. We have had human fossils found that were 13 feet tall. In The Bible Goliath was a giant. Dinosaurs are also mentioned in The Bible as "dragons." Other societies also have vivid illustrations of dragons including skin patterns that were in coherence with fossilized dinosaur skin that has been found. There are also reports of 8 foot tall spiders throughout the world. I don't doubt that some animals can get larger than what we normally see, but this isn't evidence of us coming from a rock. ;)....

View Post

Dan writes:"Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth." I think it is just a big version of common sloth. It's not even another species. The difference could be due to food abundance or genetic. I won't say that this is certain. In case of the first it surely isn't proof of evolution, but rather a proof for changing habitat.
In case of the later the giant sloth is likely just a genetic variety of the giant one. One that died out (was "naturally selected against") once the food supply shrinked. Again no proof of evolution.

#73 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 27 April 2011 - 05:04 AM

If stars produced oxygen, then why is there no oxygen in space? Obviously, the burning furnace would consume and burn all of the oxygen it produced. So the effect would be neutral.

View Post


They claim that oxygen is one of the most common elements in space. They forget a vacuum of nothing is more common in space than anything else.

#74 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:25 AM

Dan writes:"Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth." I think it is just a big version of common sloth. It's not even another species. The difference could be due to food abundance or genetic. I won't say that this is certain. In case of the first it surely isn't proof of evolution, but rather a proof for changing habitat.
In case of the later the giant sloth is likely just a genetic variety of the giant one. One that died out (was "naturally selected against") once the food supply shrinked. Again no proof of evolution.

View Post


.... evolutionists will then call the giant sloth a different species, give it a fancy new latin name and claim that they "evolved" to be smaller




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users