Jump to content


Mutation And Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

Poll: Given the assumptions in this thread, would evolution be possible? (21 member(s) have cast votes)

Given the assumptions in this thread, would evolution be possible?

  1. Yes and I believe evolution is possible (10 votes [47.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.62%

  2. No and I believe evolution is possible (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Yes and I believe evolution is impossible (3 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  4. No and I believe evolution is impossible (8 votes [38.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.10%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 06:28 AM

In this thread I wish to have a debate on a specific issue (whether evolution would be possible given certain assumptions) I would appreciate if those who do not wish to debate that specific issue refrain from debate in this thread, as there are many other threads available.
I fully intend to debate the assumptions OUTSIDE this thread.


Many threads and posters here attempt to seperate Natural Selection, and Mutation, and deal with the subjects seperately.
This approach is useful, but not the full issue. In this thread, I would like to have a civil debate on what happens if Mutations and Natural Selection each do what the ToE claims they do.

1. Mutations: Assume these cause the number of varieties within a group to increase each generation, with the varieties on average being worse adapted than the original group, but some being better. This includes creating varieties with simple features that a previous generation didn't possess, or more complex versions of simple features they did.

2. Natural selection: Assume this causes the number of varieties within a group to decrease each generation, increasing the average and minimum fitness values of the group.

Given these assumptions, would you say that evolution was possible or impossible?

#2 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 15 May 2009 - 07:24 AM

The evolutionary concept of random change (mutation) plus a filter (natural selection) is often used in industry and software to develop best fit products for a given purpose.

For example:

Nasa used this process to develop satellite antenna
Chemists have used this process to develop new molecules with a specific function
One of my favourites demonstrates how evolution IS a blind watchmaker

Evolution as a design tool works and is regularly used.

With regards to life, the basic requirements to permit evolution are certainly in place. I don't think anyone here would dispute that:
--Random mutations happen
--Offspring inherit their parents' features
--Offspring with features better adapted to their environment have a better chance of passing those features on.

The only thing we have to argue about is whether or not you think it can explain the diversity of life on Earth.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 May 2009 - 07:39 AM

Given these assumptions, would you say that evolution was possible or impossible?

View Post

Boy you're really trying to stack the deck here aren't you. ;)

Possible is a funny word...

It's possible that the earth was created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age and our memories implanted in our minds. Would you like to start a poll on that? :lol:

What's the point of this thread? Is this an exercise in how convincing we can make fantasies if we try real hard?

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 May 2009 - 07:45 AM

One of my favourites demonstrates how evolution IS a blind watchmaker

View Post

The humping clocks are funny. :lol: ;)

Evolution as a design tool works and is regularly used.

View Post

Every example you give of supposed evolutionary success has an intelligent mind orchestrating the result and plans to artificially select the product best suited for the preordained task. Even your humping clock simulation has all the components prearranged to make an undesirable outcome impossible or very unlikely.

It's all ad hoc and anecdotal anyway. The assumption that evolution is the creator and not God is a prerequisite for this discussion to even get started. It begs the question; what makes evolution a more likely creator than God and then we get back to questioning the things that kingreaper here wants us to swallow uncritically, like a ham sandwich, to get us to participate in a pointless debate.

#5 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 15 May 2009 - 08:31 AM

Every example you give of supposed evolutionary success has an intelligent mind orchestrating the result and plans to artificially select the product best suited for the preordained task.

Well, that's necessary since there was a purpose in mind for the end product. Each verrsion of the satellite antenna had to be evaluated for its fitness for purpose. The same thing applies to the humping clocks.

The only intelligence being applied is:
1) A definition of the inputs, ie the building blocks of an antenna or clock
2) A definition of what makes a good antenna or a good clock. Random changes and filtering do the rest.

In evo world:
1) Abiogenesis or biogenesis has happened, ie the building blocks are in place.
2) The definition of what makes agood organism is one which survives it's environment long enough to reproduce. Random changes and filtering do the rest.

It's all ad hoc and anecdotal anyway. The assumption that evolution is the creator and not God is a prerequisite for this discussion to even get started. It begs the question; what makes evolution a more likely creator than God and then we get back to questioning the things that kingreaper here wants us to swallow uncritically, like a ham sandwich, to get us to participate in a pointless debate.


As soon as the evolution word is mentioned on these forums, a brick wall goes up. It is denied and rejected as an automatic non-starter.

Kingreaper is trying to find out (correct me if I'm wrong, kingreaper) how commited creationists are to the view that evolution is impossible.

Let me put it another way, from my perspective. I'm an athiest, but I accept God is possible. Unlikely, but possible.


I accept this is possible too:

It's possible that the earth was created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age and our memories implanted in our minds.

More unlikely than God, but still possible.

#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 15 May 2009 - 09:25 AM

As soon as the evolution word is mentioned on these forums, a brick wall goes up. It is denied and rejected as an automatic non-starter.

Kingreaper is trying to find out (correct me if I'm wrong, kingreaper) how commited creationists are to the view that evolution is impossible.


Come on now,falcone.

Evolution is a fact to all Creationists.Common descent and abiogenesis is a leap your taking,but i'm not willing to without evidence of it.And no,i don't mean inconclusive or miniscule evidence.


Thanks.


Edit:In keeping with forum rules it's best that i change the term evolution to variations within species.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 May 2009 - 09:38 AM

Kingreaper is trying to find out (correct me if I'm wrong, kingreaper) how commited creationists are to the view that evolution is impossible.

View Post

Providing all the evidence and arguments, I'm very committed. Add to that my personal relationship with Jesus, by His Spirit and I'm unshakable.

It's kind of like walking into a room full of engineers pondering how to make this structure a reality:

Posted Image


Would I be narrow minded or incorrectly biased to tell all of them that it's impossible?

#8 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 09:42 AM

1. Mutations: Assume these cause the number of varieties within a group to increase each generation, with the varieties on average being worse adapted than the original group, but some being better. This includes creating varieties with simple features that a previous generation didn't possess, or more complex versions of simple features they did.

2. Natural selection: Assume this causes the number of varieties within a group to decrease each generation, increasing the average and minimum fitness values of the group.

I think it is obvious that evolution can (and has) produced the diversity of life on earth.

However, I do think that your 2 steps need to be supplemented by including positive causes for increased diversity. Otherwise, it is perfectly possible to have mutation increasing genetic diversity, then purifying selection removing it all - result = stasis.

One contributing factor favoring survival of the misfits is:-
http://www.scienceda...90512102555.htm
Darwin himself stressed that "Divergence of Character" was important to the progression from simple varieties within a species to fully-formed distinct species. His argument was essentially based on competition between the varieties favoring survival of more diverse individuals and varieties. [about half-way through chapter 4 if you want to see Darwin's explanation]

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 May 2009 - 09:57 AM

All evolutionists ever demonstrate is variations and adaptation. Don't you think we should have additional reasons for believing that grand descent with modification origin tale?

On one hand you are dealing with color and certain traits that can be increased and decreased in size. On the other hand you have the organism itself in all its complexity.

Why should changes in color, size and shape be magical proof for the origin of the animals body plan? That's a huge leap of faith, which I'm sure will be chalked up, through psychobabble, as projection on my part or the problem will simply be ignored and pretend you've proven evolution with examples that only ever demonstrate an animals ability to adapt with a body plan that permits such adaptations.

Show me a bacteria developing into a multi-cellular, multi-organ, multi-function invertebrate and you may cause me to pause, and don't give me flagellate shedding, lumping and colonizing E-coli bateria as proof for this, it's underwhelming.

#10 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 10:40 AM

Boy you're really trying to stack the deck here aren't you. :)

Possible is a funny word...

It's possible that the earth was created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age and our memories implanted in our minds. Would you like to start a poll on that? :D

What's the point of this thread? Is this an exercise in how convincing we can make fantasies if we try real hard?

View Post

By possible I mean: If there were a world with basic life, and where the assumptions set out held, would evolution occur? If it would, then evolution is possible (whether it happened in our world or not) if it wouldn't; then evolution is impossible.


Kingreaper is trying to find out (correct me if I'm wrong, kingreaper) how commited creationists are to the view that evolution is impossible.

You are actually slightly incorrect as to my goals.

My goal is to PINPOINT which bits of my reasoning creationists truly disagree with, and why.

It may be that they disagree that mutations do what I think they do. It may be that they disagree that selection does what I think it does. But it may also be that the disagree that mutation and selection doing what I think they do is enough to make evolution possible.

Come on now,falcone.

Evolution is a fact to all Creationists.Common descent and abiogenesis is a leap your taking,but i'm not willing to without evidence of it.And no,i don't mean inconclusive or miniscule evidence.
Thanks.
Edit:In keeping with forum rules it's best that i change the term evolution to variations within species.

View Post

Do you feel that speciation is an impossible step then?

All evolutionists ever demonstrate is variations and adaptation. Don't you think we should have additional reasons for believing that grand descent with modification origin tale?

Of course, that's why I choose not to argue for historicity, but first to argue for possibility.
Variation+adaptation+variation+adaptation+....changing environment+variation+adaptation+variation+.....changing environment+variation+adaptation..... will eventually produce large changes, as far as I can see. Do you disagree that this scenario could occur?

On one hand you are dealing with color and certain traits that can be increased and decreased in size. On the other hand you have the organism itself in all its complexity.

Why should changes in color, size and shape be magical proof for the origin of the animals body plan?

It's the changes in shape that lead to body plans.
Do you see that as possible, or as impossible?

Show me a bacteria developing into a multi-cellular, multi-organ, multi-function invertebrate and you may cause me to pause, and don't give me flagellate shedding, lumping and colonizing E-coli bateria as proof for this, it's underwhelming.

View Post

You realise that what you're asking for is impossible if current evolutionary theory is true?
For those changes to occur, in the timescale of your life, would be miraculous; and indicate that evolutionary theory was FALSE.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 May 2009 - 01:37 PM

For those changes to occur, in the timescale of your life, would be miraculous; and indicate that evolutionary theory was FALSE.

View Post

Well, you're stuck between the horns of a dilemma aren't you? Evolution is purported as science but any large scale evolution being demonstrated would be miraculous... falsifying evolution. Okay, let's call it the religious pseudoscience of Charles Darwin and focus our hearts and minds on truth instead.

It's the changes in shape that lead to body plans.
Do you see that as possible, or as impossible?

View Post

This is misleading. It's not just simple shapes that we're talking about. What is the common ancestral design base for a land dwelling lung and a bird lung? When did they diverge and why?

Why are caterpillars and butterflies the same organism? What mutations and selective pressure scrunched two totally different body plans into the same organism?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1882

What came first the wood digesting bacteria or the termites that houses them in their stomachs?

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=20949

How many more miraculous examples do you need? There are tons of 'in your face' examples that God gave us to say: "Hello, here I am..."

So now let's go to your question:

If there were a world with basic life, and where the assumptions set out held, would evolution occur? If it would, then evolution is possible (whether it happened in our world or not) if it wouldn't; then evolution is impossible.

View Post

What is basic life? What would it look like and what attributes would it have?

Please show us and demonstrate the law of living systems that allow living systems to design themselves? Having big dogs and little dogs, long haired dogs and short haired dogs is a far cry from bacteria growing arms and legs, guts and circulatory systems, scales and feathers. Don't you agree?

#12 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2009 - 05:33 AM

Well, you're stuck between the horns of a dilemma aren't you? Evolution is purported as science but any large scale evolution being demonstrated would be miraculous... falsifying evolution. Okay, let's call it the religious pseudoscience of Charles Darwin and focus our hearts and minds on truth instead.

Gravity waves are purported as science, but any generation of largescale gravity waves in a lab would be miraculous.

Are gravity waves a religious pseudoscience?


This is misleading. It's not just simple shapes that we're talking about. What is the common ancestral design base for a land dwelling lung and a bird lung? When did they diverge and why?

I don't know enough about Avian Lungs to comment on this one.

Why are caterpillars and butterflies the same organism? What mutations and selective pressure scrunched two totally different body plans into the same organism?


Well, it's common in insects to have a larval stage, and an adult stage, that differ more than such stages do in mammals; the larval stage is never winged that I know of. This likely evolved on the basis that the larval stage don't need to move (as the eggs have been deposited somewhere with food) while the adult stage will need to find it's own sources of food, and a mate; as well as somewhere to lay it's own eggs.

With the caterpillar and butterfly example, the larval stage lives on a foodstuff (leaves etc.) that is continuously available, while the adult stage feeds on nectar, which is only available by moving between distant points.

What came first the wood digesting bacteria or the termites that houses them in their stomachs?

Neither/both would be my guess.

The wood-digesting bacteria probably evolved from some sort of bacteria that lived on rotting trees. The termites ancestors probably ate rotting wood too, getting some nutrients, but not all of them. Some of the bacteria adapted to be able to live in the termite's guts, while the termite's adapted to make use of their abilities.

Hence, a symbiosis.

But this is just an example of one way it COULD have evolved, to the best of my knowledge.

How many more miraculous examples do you need? There are tons of 'in your face' examples that God gave us to say: "Hello, here I am..."

There are tons of examples, which keep getting abandoned because a scientist has a look and finds examples of intermediaries.

What is basic life? What would it look like and what attributes would it have?

Let's say: Single-celled life, some of which got resources from the environment, some of which got resources from other life.

Please show us and demonstrate the law of living systems that allow living systems to design themselves?

Living systems don't design themselves. There is no such law.

Having big dogs and little dogs, long haired dogs and short haired dogs is a far cry from bacteria growing arms and legs, guts and circulatory systems, scales and feathers. Don't you agree?

View Post

Of course, for starters, bacteria growing arms and legs is a silly image, that in no way reflects reality.
What you're probably thinking of is bacteria forming large-scale colonies, then ones with specialised parts, including a specialised reproductive organ, and specialised digestive organ; etc. etc.
Over the course of millions upon millions of mutations.

This does differ from the examples you give, hugely; in that what you describe isn't really change in structure, just in size.

However, the difference between the face of a bulldog, and that of an alsation IS a difference in structure, although a limited one. So mutations can affect structure. They can affect how cells bind to each other; as has been demonstrated (with e. coli I believe)
It's a matter of pinpointing what step in the process is impossible. What step(s) are impossible in your mind?

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 May 2009 - 01:24 PM

Gravity waves are purported as science, but any generation of largescale gravity waves in a lab would be miraculous.

Are gravity waves a religious pseudoscience?

View Post

Trying to hide evolution under the coattails of demonstrable science are you?

I don't know enough about Avian Lungs to comment on this one.

View Post

Here is a good link for you:

http://www.answersin...acies-of-flight

With the caterpillar and butterfly example, the larval stage lives on a foodstuff (leaves etc.) that is continuously available, while the adult stage feeds on nectar, which is only available by moving between distant points.

View Post

Well woop-de-doo. Explain how natural pressure produces a creature like this. Do it without appealing to Lamarck and you could get a gold star.

Neither/both would be my guess.

View Post

Cognitive dissonance is an a-okay explanatory mechanism for ya? :D

The wood-digesting bacteria probably evolved from some sort of bacteria that lived on rotting trees. The termites ancestors probably ate rotting wood too, getting some nutrients, but not all of them. Some of the bacteria adapted to be able to live in the termite's guts, while the termite's adapted to make use of their abilities.

View Post

This is a clever explanation. Do you have the evidence to validate this or just closing your eyes to imagine?

Living systems don't design themselves. There is no such law.

View Post

I agree. So why do people believe that Natural Selection has the strength and power to do just this; blindly design from the bottom up with no purpose in mind? Purpose just sorta happens? :rolleyes:

Of course, for starters, bacteria growing arms and legs is a silly image, that in no way reflects reality.

View Post

Then why are you trying to get us to imagine that it happened?

What you're probably thinking of is bacteria forming large-scale colonies, then ones with specialised parts, including a specialised reproductive organ, and specialised digestive organ; etc. etc.
Over the course of millions upon millions of mutations.

View Post

Take a look at how bacteria fit into phylogenetic trees and you may see the problem if you have your eyes open:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=17219
Posted Image

Isn't funny how bacteria have their own spindly little branch (lighter so it's not so easily noticed ;) ). I wonder why this is? Think, think, think...

Isn't it strange how all the cyanobacteria in the world have been and are and will be cyanobacteria? Wouldn't you expect more plasticity from these little organisms if they were the rudiments of simple life like they are purported? Instead evolutionists do cart wheels when they can get E. Coli to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, when the critter was front end loaded for the task anyway.

This does differ from the examples you give, hugely; in that what you describe isn't really change in structure, just in size.

View Post

You can change structures all day long and maintain a basic design function, even multiple design functions.

#14 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 May 2009 - 03:45 PM

Trying to hide evolution under the coattails of demonstrable science are you?
Here is a good link for you:

View Post

Worse than that. By failing to include the context (your words were a very on-target response) he gives the reader the wrong idea of what you meant.

Compare. No context:

Well, you're stuck between the horns of a dilemma aren't you? Evolution is purported as science but any large scale evolution being demonstrated would be miraculous... falsifying evolution. Okay, let's call it the religious pseudoscience of Charles Darwin and focus our hearts and minds on truth instead.

View Post

With context:


For those changes to occur, in the timescale of your life, would be miraculous; and indicate that evolutionary theory was FALSE.

View Post


Well, you're stuck between the horns of a dilemma aren't you? Evolution is purported as science but any large scale evolution being demonstrated would be miraculous... falsifying evolution. Okay, let's call it the religious pseudoscience of Charles Darwin and focus our hearts and minds on truth instead.

View Post

And if the context is included, his response doesn't work at all. It misses the point entirely.

Gravity waves are purported as science, but any generation of largescale gravity waves in a lab would be miraculous.

Are gravity waves a religious pseudoscience?

View Post



#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 May 2009 - 03:56 PM

Good call CTD, thanks.

#16 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2009 - 04:08 PM

Trying to hide evolution under the coattails of demonstrable science are you?

You say that something makes evolution not science. I point out science with that property.
You make a claim, I defeat it, you then ignore it?
Either acknowledge your previous claim was unsupported, or support it. To change the subject doesn't help my opinion of your argument tactics.

Here is a good link for you:

http://www.answersin...acies-of-flight

I'll have a look at that later, and at another description also.
Then, I may choose to debate that issue.

Well woop-de-doo. Explain how natural pressure produces a creature like this. Do it without appealing to Lamarck and you could get a gold star.

Simple. Once we have a creature with a larval and an adult stage, it makes sense for them to have different, but connected diets. No use eating the food your children would eat; so there's an adaptive pressure toward different diets.
Simple sugary substances (such as nectar) are great foods when you're using lots of energy, but not growing. They're useless for a larval stage, that needs to grow larger.
Hence an adult stage that eats a mix of leaves and nectar will be beaten by an adult stage that just eats nectar; while a larval stage that eats a mix will be beaten by a larval stage that just eats leaves. Result: Different diets for adult stage and larval stage.

A larval stage with little wing development (as it is incapable of flight) is beaten by a larval stage with no wings (wings are a weakness if you can't use them).

What specific part of the differentiation do you contest is impossible?

Cognitive dissonance is an a-okay explanatory mechanism for ya? :D

Nope, but when the question is incorect, the answer needn't make sense. The answer is that it isn't meaningful to say that one came first, as one of the defining features of termites is that they possess those bacteria.

This is a clever explanation. Do you have the evidence to validate this or just closing your eyes to imagine?

You state that something couldn't have evolved. I showed it's POSSIBLE. Not that that's what happened; that's not what I'm trying to do.

I'm saying what COULD HAVE happened. I'm saying evolution is POSSIBLE, not that it's ACTUAL.

I agree. So why do people believe that Natural Selection has the strength and power to do just this; 

Natural Selection DOESN'T DO JUST THAT.
You said

Please show us and demonstrate the law of living systems that allow living systems to design themselves?

Natural Selection isn't a living system designing itself, so your statement is innacurate.
Were you in error about what you had stated?

Natural Selection is a process of the ones that survive, surviving. It's nothing magical or mystical.

blindly design from the bottom up with no purpose in mind? Purpose just sorta happens? :rolleyes:

Let's look at thermodynamics for an example of "purpose just happening"

You put a hot piece of metal next to a cold one: millions of collisions occur, with some increasing the energy of the hot metal, and some decreasing it.

And yet, on the large scale, it's always a case of the hot metal getting colder, and the cold getting hotter.

Then why are you trying to get us to imagine that it happened?
Take a look at how bacteria fit into phylogenetic trees and you may see the problem if you have your eyes open:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=17219
Posted Image

Isn't funny how bacteria have their own spindly little branch (lighter so it's not so easily noticed ;) ). I wonder why this is? Think, think, think...

It's because people aren't interested in the hugely branching genetics of bacteria. Therefore, that tree doesn't draw attention to them. Why do you think that proves anything?

That phylogenic tree ignores the bacteria.
This one does not:
Posted Image


Isn't it strange how all the cyanobacteria in the world have been and are and will be cyanobacteria? Wouldn't you expect more plasticity from these little organisms if they were the rudiments of simple life like they are purported?
Always have been?
How far back is this always?

Modern organisms didn't evolve from modern cyanobacteria. But then, that is obvious, time travel paradoxes are not part of evolutionary theory.

Instead evolutionists do cart wheels when they can get E. Coli to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, when the critter was front end loaded for the task anyway.
You can change structures all day long and maintain a basic design function, even multiple design functions.

View Post

Yes, you can. But in evoluitionary terms there is always only one "design function" continued reproduction. Everything else is selected on the basis of how close it comes to achieving that goal.

What type of change are you saying is impossible?

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 May 2009 - 04:24 PM

Always have been?
How far back is this always?

View Post

As long as there have been cyanobacteria, they have stayed cyanobacteria with no evidence to the contrary. It's one of the few organisms that show up in the pre-Cambrian (using my evo-glasses, of course)

Modern organisms didn't evolve from modern cyanobacteria. But then, that is obvious, time travel paradoxes are not part of evolutionary theory.

View Post

Yes, but they aren't 'evolving' into anything else either.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 May 2009 - 04:35 PM

Hey Kingcahoona,

Tell me what empirical data there is for the areas that I circled:

Posted Image

#19 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2009 - 04:51 PM

That is off the topic of the thread.
If you want to go any further down that tangent; start a new thread to discuss it and I will gladly try and research it. I don't know the evidence for historical evolution, hence why I try to avoid debating it. I know the reasons why evolution is a POSSIBLE explanation. I do not have hugely detailed knowledge of it's historicity; although I always enjoy learning new things.

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 May 2009 - 05:08 PM

Fair enough but this thread is meaningless because we can close our eyes and imagine the possibility of any science fiction we want. What is your desired end result? Tell us the purpose of this thread and where you think it should lead and why.

You said this to falcone about your goals:

My goal is to PINPOINT which bits of my reasoning creationists truly disagree with, and why.

It may be that they disagree that mutations do what I think they do. It may be that they disagree that selection does what I think it does. But it may also be that the disagree that mutation and selection doing what I think they do is enough to make evolution possible.

View Post

It doesn't really make sense if you ask me. The position of trying to consider what is 'possible' seems like a really indirect way of achieving your goal. Why don't you tell us what you believe and why you believe it and then we can argue specifics.

As you can see this thread isn't receiving a lot of hits because the nature of the topic is elusive. Maybe I'll just let someone else take a crack at it if they're interested.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users