Jump to content


Photo

A World Without Evolution: The Repercussions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

#21 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:34 AM

This is not only incorrect, but also a violation of forum rules.

"We wouldn't have Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.""Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]" Wikipedia. The only way to avoid evolution is to have no "change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." Life would just die out.

Definition from the National Association of Biology Teachers: "The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."


Forum rules: The following are disallowed:
Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Forum FAQ: What is evolution? – When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution. By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life). By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species from a common ancestor (all life from a single cell). We do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists, which sometimes includes speciation), on this forum since both sides agree it occurs. It is also disingenuous to claim macro-evolution proves evolution since this term now encapsulates speciation, which itself is a loose categorization where organisms can be reclassified as different species merely because of geographic isolation and change in mating habits (see bullet item below on What is Species/Speciation). It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, or that speciation occurs, then large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even my college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1]). An example that occurred on this forum was the fallacious claim that "Domesticated animals are a perfectly valid example of evolution at work." Anyone who continues to use such equivocal arguments for evolution after being referred to this FAQ will be banned from the forum. For more on this equivocation, see my article The Evolution Definition Shell Game.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:27 PM

"We wouldn't have Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.""Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]" Wikipedia. The only way to avoid evolution is to have no "change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." Life would just die out.



Actually what you have said is only half true- Evolution in its strictest sense is the named process for common descent.Variation WITHIN the same species is merely variation.

This is evident in Darwin's Book title- "The Origin of the Species"... Meaning that change after species is not covered by him... Yet over the years evolutionists have attempted to blur the lines between the two- some call variation "evidence" of evolution... Yet to claim that we have many breeds of a particular species of fish and extrapolate that to be "evidence" for fish becoming amphibians then that is not logical nor is it sane.


Further bacteria reproduce via CLONING- meaning they have little variation, (they do have the potential to with extra DNA inserts) however the heritable characteristics are the same... Meaning techincally by your standards and claims bacteria should "just die out"... Yet they are the most successful form of organism on the planet.

#23 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 10 March 2012 - 06:05 PM

What I find ironic about this is that evolutionists think that without evolution we would not have made the strives we have in medical science. Problem with that reasoning is that it does not take a whole theory to understand one mechanism or process.

1) Evolution is not required to understand Natural selection.
2) Evolution is not required to understand what a mutation is.

The only thing evolution is required for understanding of is for atheists to justify their disbelief in God. Because if you actually weight the percentage of how it's being used here or there what use do you think would dominate all others? It's continued use and following to claim that there is no God.

#24 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 11 March 2012 - 03:27 PM

This is why atheists spend so much time defending evolutionism; it is the very foundation of their faith. Rationally, if naturalistic origins of life and biodiversity are demonstrably impossible, then there has to be a supernatural cause.

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 11 March 2012 - 10:11 PM

Also to add to that.

From what I have seen evolutionists, make reference to "Evolution" in many fields of study however this doesn't mean that such studies are based on evolution itself, (no matter how hard the evolutionist wishes it so)... The only thing that comes from evolution is the belief in common descent. Variation was already known by Mendel before Evolution was put on its pedestal. Mutations are observed in Medical science as the cause to almost all genetic diseases and also cancer. Natural selection is merely an idea borne from the logic that the fittest will survive the best when the weak fail.

#26 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:01 AM

Actually what you have said is only half true- Evolution in its strictest sense is the named process for common descent.Variation WITHIN the same species is merely variation.

Well, you see, the modern synthesis of evolution also includes the changes in allele frequency within a population and between populations of the same species.

This is evident in Darwin's Book title- "The Origin of the Species"... Meaning that change after species is not covered by him... Yet over the years evolutionists have attempted to blur the lines between the two- some call variation "evidence" of evolution... Yet to claim that we have many breeds of a particular species of fish and extrapolate that to be "evidence" for fish becoming amphibians then that is not logical nor is it sane.

Well, you see, a species does not become another species as in a dog becomes a cat. What is meant by that is that Species A and B will evolve independantly and change into their successive species, where species A will evolve into species A1, then A2, then A3, and at that point a speciation event might happen where species A3 seperates into A3 and A3*. All the while the species B evolves into B1, then into B2, etc. Changes might be as simpe as a change in skin/fur colour, different feeding habits, changing habitats, none of which mark the successive generation as being dramatically different from its ancestors.

Also, I agree that many species of fish being evidence for fish to amphibian evolution is a non-sequitur. I know of no-one who would say such a thing, so either she/he does not know what she/he is talking about, or perhaps you misunderstood what she/he meant.


Further bacteria reproduce via CLONING- meaning they have little variation, (they do have the potential to with extra DNA inserts) however the heritable characteristics are the same... Meaning techincally by your standards and claims bacteria should "just die out"... Yet they are the most successful form of organism on the planet.

Well, even though bacteria have a proportionally lower mutation rate compared to ours, their generation time is also much shorter. That means that even if a population of a billion bacteria is wiped out by an antibiotic, if even one bacteria survives, the population can grow back to its former size easily enough. That, and out of a billion, there might be a bacteria or two who have a mutation enabling them to survive the antibiotic. Thus, when they clone themselves, every other clone will also carry out that mutation making them immune to that specific antibiotic. Most of suh mutations happen on plasmids, as I understand it, and plasmids can even be shared between living bacteria, and recovered by living bacteria from dead bacteria. All this gives them specific advantages we cannot match. That is one of the reasons doctors are so afraid that superbugs might evolve.


What I find ironic about this is that evolutionists think that without evolution we would not have made the strives we have in medical science. Problem with that reasoning is that it does not take a whole theory to understand one mechanism or process.

1) Evolution is not required to understand Natural selection.
2) Evolution is not required to understand what a mutation is.

The only thing evolution is required for understanding of is for atheists to justify their disbelief in God. Because if you actually weight the percentage of how it's being used here or there what use do you think would dominate all others? It's continued use and following to claim that there is no God.

You are right, you do not need the ToE to understand mutations and natural selection. You do need the ToE however to tie those concepts together to understand how mutations might be acted upon by natural selection to create changes in a populations genepool under certain conditions. You don't need the ToE to understand it, but you do need it to make predictions that will concern both of those mechanisms.

Notice also that nowhere in the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution are the words God, Allah, Brahma, religion, etc mentionned. Not even once. Religion is outside the scope of the sientific method, and thus science doesn't concern itself with untestable unfalsifiable gods. People will believe and disbelieve in deities whether or not the ToE exists. I only formally learned about evolution when I was 15 or so, and yet despite being raised in a catholic family, going to church, and going from 1st grade to 12th grade in a catholic school system, I have been an atheist all my life.

And finally, if you do measure properly how the theory of evolution is used, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the time it is used by scientists to make scientific discoveries. People who use evolution against religion are not using it for its intended purpose. That would be like me saying hammers are bad because people use them to bash each other's brains out. Well, yes, it does happen, but the majority of the time, a hammer is used to actually build stuff. Same thing with evolution.


This is why atheists spend so much time defending evolutionism; it is the very foundation of their faith. Rationally, if naturalistic origins of life and biodiversity are demonstrably impossible, then there has to be a supernatural cause.


I know of no atheists who openly tout their belief in evolution as a religious system. I myself acept the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as the theory that allows us to best explain the diversity of species we see today. I will chuck evolution out the window without any regrets. The only thing you need to do to make me do that is come up with a better theory which will be able to explain more than what the theory of evolution is capable of. I think you will also recieve a Nobel Prize for the elaboration of such a theory, so I strongly encourage you to go for it! Scientists around the world will be overjoyed to have something that works better than evolution.


Also to add to that.

From what I have seen evolutionists, make reference to "Evolution" in many fields of study however this doesn't mean that such studies are based on evolution itself, (no matter how hard the evolutionist wishes it so)... The only thing that comes from evolution is the belief in common descent. Variation was already known by Mendel before Evolution was put on its pedestal. Mutations are observed in Medical science as the cause to almost all genetic diseases and also cancer. Natural selection is merely an idea borne from the logic that the fittest will survive the best when the weak fail.

The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is essentially what connects every other field of study in the biological sciences.

What also comes from evolution is a theory tying up mutations and natural selection as a mechanism which can explain the variation of allele frequencies in a population's gene pool, and the variation of the gene pools of various populations due to migration, the founder effect, inbreeding, and genetic drift. You might call it 'micro'evolution, but it is evolution nonetheless. Also remember that there is no clear definite line between what is 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, and to the rest of the world, they are one and the same.

As for mutations, might I point out that the cases we hear most strongly about is when mutations go wrong? You don't hear about the mutation which allows a family to, say, eat meat to their hearts content without having high cholesterol, well, because they won't ever have a cholesterol problem. There are beneficial mutations, such as the mutation in some europeans which make them immune to AIDS, or the mutation on the LPR5 gene which gives a person near unbreakable bones.


What I find ironic about this is that evolutionists think that without evolution we would not have made the strives we have in medical science. Problem with that reasoning is that it does not take a whole theory to understand one mechanism or process.

1) Evolution is not required to understand Natural selection.
2) Evolution is not required to understand what a mutation is.

The only thing evolution is required for understanding of is for atheists to justify their disbelief in God. Because if you actually weight the percentage of how it's being used here or there what use do you think would dominate all others? It's continued use and following to claim that there is no God.


No, you are right, we don't need the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution in order to know what natural selection is, or what mutations are, or even what effect those mutations will have. However, evolution ties those concepts together to allow us to make predictions on how mutations will be acted upon by natural selection to drive viruses and bacteria to evolve (through 'micro' evolution of course).

You'll also notice that the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution makes absolutely no predictions or statements regarding God, Allah, Brahma, and thousands of other gods. Science is not concerned with religion because deities are outside the scope of the scientific method. Some people will believe or disbelieve in gods no matter what. I never learned of the theory of evolution formally until I was about 15, and yet I had been an atheist all my life without knowing it. Evolution has no impact on my disbelief in God, because even if ToE didn't exist, I would still doubt the creation account in genesis.

If you also weight the percentage of how it's being used when it is used for its primary purpose, you'll see the overwhelming majority of the time it is used by scientists to make scientific discoveries. Many people may not fully understand what evolution is and use it against religion, but that's like saying that except for use in construction, hammers are used to knock people's brains out. Well, yes, it does happen, but that's now what the hammer is made for, and it's not how it's used the majority of the time.

#27 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:28 AM

Must we go over this again and again?
Definition from the National Association of Biology Teachers: "The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means is intellectually dishonest. Micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) in no way proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Creationists do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists, which sometimes includes speciation) since both sides agree it occurs. It is also disingenuous to claim macro-evolution proves evolution since this term now encapsulates speciation, which itself is a loose categorization where organisms can be reclassified as different species merely because of geographic isolation and change in mating habits. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, or that speciation occurs, then large-scale, one cell-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even a college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1])

[1] - Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, Biology 5th Edition, 1999, p. 432 [2] - See Wikipedia article on Species



The types of changes observed today, though they can be accommodated within an evolutionary framework, are precisely and demonstrably the opposite of the ones which evolutionists really need in order to give some semblance of credibility to their belief system. Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.

The Theory of Evolution teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no lungs—lungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere. We don't see that happening when species adapt today. We see codes sorted, switched on and off or being deleted, but we don't see new codes. I am looking for proof that the mutations you are speaking of are not a turning on or off of existing codes, or a deletion of existing code but are in fact new code.

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:01 PM

1. Well, you see, the modern synthesis of evolution also includes the changes in allele frequency within a population and between populations of the same species.


2. Well, you see, a species does not become another species as in a dog becomes a cat. What is meant by that is that Species A and B will evolve independantly and change into their successive species, where species A will evolve into species A1, then A2, then A3, and at that point a speciation event might happen where species A3 seperates into A3 and A3*. All the while the species B evolves into B1, then into B2, etc. Changes might be as simpe as a change in skin/fur colour, different feeding habits, changing habitats, none of which mark the successive generation as being dramatically different from its ancestors.

3. Also, I agree that many species of fish being evidence for fish to amphibian evolution is a non-sequitur. I know of no-one who would say such a thing, so either she/he does not know what she/he is talking about, or perhaps you misunderstood what she/he meant.



4. Well, even though bacteria have a proportionally lower mutation rate compared to ours, their generation time is also much shorter. That means that even if a population of a billion bacteria is wiped out by an antibiotic, if even one bacteria survives, the population can grow back to its former size easily enough.

5. That, and out of a billion, there might be a bacteria or two who have a mutation enabling them to survive the antibiotic. Thus, when they clone themselves, every other clone will also carry out that mutation making them immune to that specific antibiotic. Most of suh mutations happen on plasmids, as I understand it, and plasmids can even be shared between living bacteria, and recovered by living bacteria from dead bacteria. All this gives them specific advantages we cannot match. That is one of the reasons doctors are so afraid that superbugs might evolve.



6. You do need the ToE however to tie those concepts together to understand how mutations might be acted upon by natural selection to create changes in a populations genepool under certain conditions.

7. You don't need the ToE to understand it, but you do need it to make predictions that will concern both of those mechanisms.

8. Notice also that nowhere in the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution are the words God, Allah, Brahma, religion, etc mentionned. Not even once. Religion is outside the scope of the sientific method, and thus science doesn't concern itself with untestable unfalsifiable gods. People will believe and disbelieve in deities whether or not the ToE exists. I only formally learned about evolution when I was 15 or so, and yet despite being raised in a catholic family, going to church, and going from 1st grade to 12th grade in a catholic school system, I have been an atheist all my life.

9. And finally, if you do measure properly how the theory of evolution is used, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of the time it is used by scientists to make scientific discoveries. People who use evolution against religion are not using it for its intended purpose. That would be like me saying hammers are bad because people use them to bash each other's brains out. Well, yes, it does happen, but the majority of the time, a hammer is used to actually build stuff. Same thing with evolution.


10. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is essentially what connects every other field of study in the biological sciences.

11. What also comes from evolution is a theory tying up mutations and natural selection as a mechanism which can explain the variation of allele frequencies in a population's gene pool, and the variation of the gene pools of various populations due to migration, the founder effect, inbreeding, and genetic drift.

12. You might call it 'micro'evolution,

13. but it is evolution nonetheless. Also remember that there is no clear definite line between what is 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, and to the rest of the world, they are one and the same.

14. As for mutations, might I point out that the cases we hear most strongly about is when mutations go wrong? You don't hear about the mutation which allows a family to, say, eat meat to their hearts content without having high cholesterol, well, because they won't ever have a cholesterol problem. There are beneficial mutations, such as the mutation in some europeans which make them immune to AIDS, or the mutation on the LPR5 gene which gives a person near unbreakable bones.





1. Well you see, I'll direct you to Mama El's post... Yes the modern syntheisis of evolution incorporates allele frequency however allele frequency actually has NOTHING to do with evolution as defined by Darwin....

I can add the "evolution" of horses to my theory of unicorns but that doesn't make unicorns a "fact" nor even probable as horses have nothing to do with unicorns.

In other words just because some person decided to combine the concepts makes no absolutes in authority of that position. If you wish to continue this claim you will need to demonstrate how changing allele frequency can lead to NEW structures or systems, (not variants of previous ones)


2. and your point? I didn't classify things as A and B... For all you know my claim also fits within your A, A1, A2 etc... Therefore your entire paragraph has no point.

3. You claimed it just then with changes to "allele frequency" ... changes to allele frequency can lead to new breeds- (like in dogs)... Yet you just claimed such a thing is evolution. Thus having the potential for lots of different breeds is somehow evidence of evolution... Therefore you just claimed what you said you've never heard anyone claim... oops.

4. And?

5. Oops.. You do realise that its long been proven that antibotic resistance predates antibiotics... Therefore they are NOT formed via mutants being resistant.. Rather the resistance was already there and antibiotic use has just shifted the % of resistance... I suggest you do some research.

6. So you need the ToE to understand it...

7. Oh so you don't need the ToE to understand it?... Which is it?

8. And? It is a worldview, and a worldview defended strongly enough is a Religion.

9. ....... So what discoveries has been done via evolution alone? There was tiktaalik but that one was bogus.

10. Really... So how does it connect Virology to Medicine? (And please don't just state that viruses "evolved" to do what they do)

11. No that is variation, (aka microevolution)

12. Yes I do say it is variation because that is what it is

13. Why? Because you say so? Because microevolution has the word evolution in it... (hence why I use the proper term Variation). Evolution is dealing with macro-changes outside of the species itself... So the creation of lungs within a fish etc.... However such a thing is unrealistic which is why the ToE becomes a parasite to Variation within species.

14. What is the name of this mutation?

Further would such a mutation lead to a new species or is it merely a variant of the same species... (thus variation)...

#29 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:07 PM

Must we go over this again and again?
Definition from the National Association of Biology Teachers: "The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means is intellectually dishonest. Micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) in no way proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Creationists do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists, which sometimes includes speciation) since both sides agree it occurs. It is also disingenuous to claim macro-evolution proves evolution since this term now encapsulates speciation, which itself is a loose categorization where organisms can be reclassified as different species merely because of geographic isolation and change in mating habits. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, or that speciation occurs, then large-scale, one cell-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even a college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1])

[1] - Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, Biology 5th Edition, 1999, p. 432 [2] - See Wikipedia article on Species

I wish to say I didn't intend to mean that evolution was restricted to change in allele frequency, nor was this the sole factor determining evolution, and if this is how it came across I apologize. I merely wished to say that leaving allele frequencies out of evolution would be an error.


The types of changes observed today, though they can be accommodated within an evolutionary framework, are precisely and demonstrably the opposite of the ones which evolutionists really need in order to give some semblance of credibility to their belief system.

Can you please expand more on this, I don't understand where the conflict lies.

Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite.

And I completely and openly agree with your statement. Natural selection does not create information, it merely separates useful information from the noise of random mutations. I see it this way: mutations are the drive to change, and the changes mutations brings pushes the species in all dirrections. Natural selection is removing the mutations pushing a species in a direction it does not want to go (ie removing lethal mutations and disadvantageous mutations).

As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.

That is true, so long as you assume that there is no new information being added, or if the capacity to add new information is diminished. However, mutations do arise to create new alleles every day. Entire sections of the genome can be duplicated, and mutations can then wreck havoc on that section without harming the organism's ability to survive. Quite by accident, it is possible for a positive mutation to come out of it and be selected for.
However, mutations are not what influences the most the genotype of an individual within the spaces of a few generations. In a shorter time span, recombination of genes and crossover between chromosomes provides the main source of variety. It is only in the long run that mutations become a driving factor.
It is also a balanced system. The faster a certain phenotype is selected for, the faster traits are weeded out, the faster diversity is lost. The faster diversity is lost, the less fit a population becomes, which can lead to extinction. This effect is directly afected by the size of a population being placed under selective pressure. The smaller a population, the slower the selection must be to not destroy diversity and the population size. The bigger a population is, the faster selection can act upon it, because there is more variety, and more individuals can be sacrificed without harming the chances of survival of the group too much. The positive effects of the selection will mean that some individuals are more apt to survive and produce offspring, in turn producing a larger population. However, if selection is too harsh then stopped, we have the bottleneck effect, where a population's size puts it out of the danger zone, but all individuals of that population are too genetically similar. In that case, selection must relax to allow mutations to create variety.

The Theory of Evolution teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no lungs—lungs had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for lung manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere. We don't see that happening when species adapt today. We see codes sorted, switched on and off or being deleted, but we don't see new codes. I am looking for proof that the mutations you are speaking of are not a turning on or off of existing codes, or a deletion of existing code but are in fact new code.

I am unfamiliar with information theory and thus hesitant to argue for/against it. What I will say however is that you will not find such new codes. You will not look at an individual's genome and say "Look at this! This is an entirely new sequence that never existed before!", because if that were to happen, it would be proof against the theory of evolution. What you would see would be a duplicated copy of a gene that was slightly modified, either better fulfilling its purpose, or refitted to serve a completely different purpose elsewhere. An example of this is found in what we suppose is the earliest evolutionary instance of a two-chambered heart evolving from a single chambered heart.
http://www.scienceda...60930094021.htm
This is not even a new gene, not even a duplication, merely a rearrangement of the sequence of how an organism develops. And yet, an incredible new structure that never existed before has been produced.

#30 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:08 PM

1. Well you see, I'll direct you to Mama El's post... Yes the modern syntheisis of evolution incorporates allele frequency however allele frequency actually has NOTHING to do with evolution as defined by Darwin....

I agre, I merely wanted to point out that leaving changes in allele frequency out of evolution would be an error.

I can add the "evolution" of horses to my theory of unicorns but that doesn't make unicorns a "fact" nor even probable as horses have nothing to do with unicorns.

In other words just because some person decided to combine the concepts makes no absolutes in authority of that position. If you wish to continue this claim you will need to demonstrate how changing allele frequency can lead to NEW structures or systems, (not variants of previous ones)

Well, if you have a species of dogs that can be red, black and/or blue, and through random genetic drift you end up with a population of nothing but blue dogs, would we agree there is at least some degree of microevolution going on here? Moreover, if genes associated with the red and black genes can produce helpful proteins, but the blue species lost it, then there is some loss. Similarly, if the blue gene might be the precursor to a newer mutation, which is useful or bad, even though the fact a dog is blue has no impact on it, if the population is made up of only blue dogs then it is more likely that that mutation will happen.


2. and your point? I didn't classify things as A and B... For all you know my claim also fits within your A, A1, A2 etc... Therefore your entire paragraph has no point.

If that is the case I'm sorry. I do not know anyone on this forum, and I have been reading on here for only a couple of weeks.

3. You claimed it just then with changes to "allele frequency" ... changes to allele frequency can lead to new breeds- (like in dogs)... Yet you just claimed such a thing is evolution. Thus having the potential for lots of different breeds is somehow evidence of evolution... Therefore you just claimed what you said you've never heard anyone claim... oops.

Ah, my bad, I thought you meant that since there are many species of fish, regardless of whether or how they evolved, then that is evidence for fish to amphibian evolution.

4. And?

The founder effect and genetic drift indicates that selection has a greatly increased impact on smaller populations. Therefore a small surviving population of bacteria will be strongly affected.

5. Oops.. You do realise that its long been proven that antibotic resistance predates antibiotics... Therefore they are NOT formed via mutants being resistant.. Rather the resistance was already there and antibiotic use has just shifted the % of resistance... I suggest you do some research.

I have, and I agree. Antibiotics exploit weaknesses in bacteria's genome, proteome, biological synthesis pathways, whatever. We cannot assume that just because we create a new medicine, that bacteria strain will never have encountered anything like it. However, antibiotics resistance is also an indicator of 'micro'evolution, and if the result of such 'micro'evolution is a superbug immune to practically all known antibiotics, something that has never happened in our history, would you agree to define it as an entirely new species?

6. So you need the ToE to understand it...

7. Oh so you don't need the ToE to understand it?... Which is it?

Well, not the processes individually, but how those processes together will affect populations of organisms, then yes.

8. And? It is a worldview, and a worldview defended strongly enough is a Religion.

Would you then agree to the statement that if one is adamant enough about how to collect stamps, it becomes a religion? If one is adamant enough about how to build planes, it becomes a religion? If one is adamant enough in how to win the Tour de France, it becomes a religion? I'd think not. There is something else, something missing, for it to properly qualify as a religion. Buddhism isn't a religion either, despite them haveing a very specific code of life, instructions, morals, etc. What is missing is the belief in a deity. So idolizing the theory of evolution might be a belief system, but it will never be a religion, unless one believes that God controls it.

9. ....... So what discoveries has been done via evolution alone? There was tiktaalik but that one was bogus.

I'm not sure I quite understand why that was bogus. Allow me to explain. Regardless of the fact of whether Tiktaalik was indeed the first, the last, or even at all an intermediate form of life between aquatic and amphibious species, the fact they have indeed found something is testament to the theory of evolution. Based on the evidence of the time, they determined at about which time such an intermediate must have existed. Before that time period, no amphibians, and after, some amphibians. Then, using plate tectonics, they determines what region of the globe today corresponded to a warm temperate marshy environment where it would have been advantageous and not too hard for a fish-tetrapod ancestor to slowly evolve into a proper amphibian. That place at that time can now be found in the Canadian arctic in our modern time. So an expedition is prepared, and geologists are sent to the excavation area to dig for fossils. For nearly 5 years, the only thing the team dug up was fish fossils. Then, they eventually dug out Tiktaalik in exactly the area they had predicted, in the rock strata that was exactly of the correct age. Had evolution, geology and radiometric dating not been consistent with one another, Tiktaalik could not have been found at all in such a deliberate and planned manner.
Also, please note I knew this before I searched for it, and I came up with this nifty website, which tells just that. Enjoy the reading!
http://tiktaalik.uch...rching4Tik.html

10. Really... So how does it connect Virology to Medicine? (And please don't just state that viruses "evolved" to do what they do)

Have you heard of endogenous retro-virii? They are a kind of virus that retranscribe their RNA 'code' into your genome, where your cell converts that RNA to DNA, and starts producing virus code on its own. The cells can block such attacks by deactivating the DNA area responsible for producing virus 'particles' if you will. Well, since those inactivated virus particles are part of your genome, your children will also inherit them. And since viruses are picky about what kind of host they can infect (eg most diseases have a hard time being transmitted between different species) they can act as an efficient marker to show when two species have diverged. We have more ERV sequences in common with the rest of the primates than we do with say cats and dogs, meaning our most recent common ancestor with primates is younger than the most recent common ancestor with cats and dogs.
On another hand, we can model population genetics interacting with viruses and how the viruses will evolve to come back again to haunt us. If you look at how the Spanish flu and the Black Plague pandemics work, you can see than initially, a small population is infected with a new strain of the virus. That new strain then propagates itself everywhere, because human immune systems could not combat that new threat. After a while, the pandemic dies out for a bit, because people have either survived the disease, are immune to it, or are dead. But then the virus changes again, because it has infected so much and spread so far there is a higher change of there being a mutation somewhere in the viruses code that will help it. A different strain thus washes through the population again, and again. Waves of infection like that can be explained using evolution in conjecture with medicine.

11. No that is variation, (aka microevolution)

Ah, yes, I'm sorry. I forgot you draw a line between macro and micro evolution.

13. Why? Because you say so? Because microevolution has the word evolution in it... (hence why I use the proper term Variation). Evolution is dealing with macro-changes outside of the species itself... So the creation of lungs within a fish etc.... However such a thing is unrealistic which is why the ToE becomes a parasite to Variation within species.

No, because the entire debate between 'micro' vs 'macro' and evolution vs creationism sprang up almost entirely in the most fundamentally religous areas of the south of the States, and because evolution is accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community, by the rest of the world at large, and even by the Papacy in the Vatican.
The problem with the way you define micro versus macro evolution is that it would require a dramatic change, or a change from one species into another, yes? Unfortunately, evidence of that happening (as in a species of fish without lungs suddenly develops large and fully functional lungs) would go against the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution. What I seem to be able to find is that lings and float bladders originally came from modifications of the intestines. Fish caught in ponds of stagnant water due to droughts would be able to gulp air from the surface because there would be no air left in the water. When you think about it, intestines do absorb nutrients through the tube in a similar manner to blood absorbing oxygen through the lungs, no? These sacs then developed over time to seperate themselves from the gastrointestinal tract, and then to become independent organs. However, you could dissect fish all day long for a few million years, and you would only see progressive differences between fish of one generation and the next, you would only notice small genetic changes from one to the other, which, over a lot of time, translate into a lot of change.
Now I understand you believe there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I honestly don't know where it lies, so could you point out in the above paragraph specifically where that limit lies?

14. What is the name of this mutation?

For aids or for bone density? In either case I have read this evowiki page on it, and checked (and read the abstract of ) their source material to be correct.
http://evolutionwiki...ons_are_harmful

Further would such a mutation lead to a new species or is it merely a variant of the same species... (thus variation)...

That would depend on the definition of species. If we agree that different species are species that are incapable of reproducing, through pre- and post-zygotic mechanisms, then no. Such mutations would not create a new species on their own. However, if humans suddenly had to start jumping off cliffs to survive, or face infection (and subsequent death) by HIV ( think zombie scenario), then yes, such conditions that would put a lot of positive selection pressure for either of those traits might create different species. By the above definition of species, chihuahuas and great danes would also be separate species. If we were to restrict our definition to post-zygotic mechanisms, then in the above scenario, perhaps of having the original human population wiped out and replaced by two subspecies, one of which is immune to HIV and the other has stong bones, then we might end up with the original human population to be wiped out and the 'HIV' and 'bone' sub-species of humans to intermingle, producing a new HIV resistant sub-species of human with high bone density. Would this new 'future' human be the same species as the poor gits who weren't immune and couldn't jump off cliffs? If yes, then it is evolution from one species to another. If not, then it is variation within a species, but that also means that over time, even though there are no great genetic differences between the 'new' and 'old' variants of the same species, they might still end up so different we can't really call them the same anymore.

Do you have any more questions?

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:41 PM

1. I agre, I merely wanted to point out that leaving changes in allele frequency out of evolution would be an error.


2. Well, if you have a species of dogs that can be red, black and/or blue, and through random genetic drift you end up with a population of nothing but blue dogs, would we agree there is at least some degree of microevolution going on here? Moreover, if genes associated with the red and black genes can produce helpful proteins, but the blue species lost it, then there is some loss. Similarly, if the blue gene might be the precursor to a newer mutation, which is useful or bad, even though the fact a dog is blue has no impact on it, if the population is made up of only blue dogs then it is more likely that that mutation will happen.



If that is the case I'm sorry. I do not know anyone on this forum, and I have been reading on here for only a couple of weeks.


3. Ah, my bad, I thought you meant that since there are many species of fish, regardless of whether or how they evolved, then that is evidence for fish to amphibian evolution.


4. The founder effect and genetic drift indicates that selection has a greatly increased impact on smaller populations. Therefore a small surviving population of bacteria will be strongly affected.


5. I have, and I agree. Antibiotics exploit weaknesses in bacteria's genome, proteome, biological synthesis pathways, whatever. We cannot assume that just because we create a new medicine, that bacteria strain will never have encountered anything like it. However, antibiotics resistance is also an indicator of 'micro'evolution, and if the result of such 'micro'evolution is a superbug immune to practically all known antibiotics, something that has never happened in our history, would you agree to define it as an entirely new species?

6. Well, not the processes individually, but how those processes together will affect populations of organisms, then yes.


7. Would you then agree to the statement that if one is adamant enough about how to collect stamps, it becomes a religion? If one is adamant enough about how to build planes, it becomes a religion? If one is adamant enough in how to win the Tour de France, it becomes a religion? I'd think not. There is something else, something missing, for it to properly qualify as a religion. Buddhism isn't a religion either, despite them haveing a very specific code of life, instructions, morals, etc. What is missing is the belief in a deity.

8. So idolizing the theory of evolution might be a belief system, but it will never be a religion, unless one believes that God controls it.

9. I'm not sure I quite understand why that was bogus. Allow me to explain. Regardless of the fact of whether Tiktaalik was indeed the first, the last, or even at all an intermediate form of life between aquatic and amphibious species, the fact they have indeed found something is testament to the theory of evolution. Based on the evidence of the time, they determined at about which time such an intermediate must have existed. Before that time period, no amphibians, and after, some amphibians. Then, using plate tectonics, they determines what region of the globe today corresponded to a warm temperate marshy environment where it would have been advantageous and not too hard for a fish-tetrapod ancestor to slowly evolve into a proper amphibian. That place at that time can now be found in the Canadian arctic in our modern time. So an expedition is prepared, and geologists are sent to the excavation area to dig for fossils. For nearly 5 years, the only thing the team dug up was fish fossils. Then, they eventually dug out Tiktaalik in exactly the area they had predicted, in the rock strata that was exactly of the correct age. Had evolution, geology and radiometric dating not been consistent with one another, Tiktaalik could not have been found at all in such a deliberate and planned manner.
Also, please note I knew this before I searched for it, and I came up with this nifty website, which tells just that. Enjoy the reading!
http://tiktaalik.uch...rching4Tik.html


10. Have you heard of endogenous retro-virii? They are a kind of virus that retranscribe their RNA 'code' into your genome, where your cell converts that RNA to DNA, and starts producing virus code on its own. The cells can block such attacks by deactivating the DNA area responsible for producing virus 'particles' if you will. Well, since those inactivated virus particles are part of your genome, your children will also inherit them. And since viruses are picky about what kind of host they can infect (eg most diseases have a hard time being transmitted between different species) they can act as an efficient marker to show when two species have diverged. We have more ERV sequences in common with the rest of the primates than we do with say cats and dogs, meaning our most recent common ancestor with primates is younger than the most recent common ancestor with cats and dogs.
On another hand, we can model population genetics interacting with viruses and how the viruses will evolve to come back again to haunt us. If you look at how the Spanish flu and the Black Plague pandemics work, you can see than initially, a small population is infected with a new strain of the virus. That new strain then propagates itself everywhere, because human immune systems could not combat that new threat. After a while, the pandemic dies out for a bit, because people have either survived the disease, are immune to it, or are dead. But then the virus changes again, because it has infected so much and spread so far there is a higher change of there being a mutation somewhere in the viruses code that will help it. A different strain thus washes through the population again, and again. Waves of infection like that can be explained using evolution in conjecture with medicine.


11. Ah, yes, I'm sorry. I forgot you draw a line between macro and micro evolution.


12. No, because the entire debate between 'micro' vs 'macro' and evolution vs creationism sprang up almost entirely in the most fundamentally religous areas of the south of the States, and because evolution is accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community, by the rest of the world at large, and even by the Papacy in the Vatican.
The problem with the way you define micro versus macro evolution is that it would require a dramatic change, or a change from one species into another, yes? Unfortunately, evidence of that happening (as in a species of fish without lungs suddenly develops large and fully functional lungs) would go against the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution. What I seem to be able to find is that lings and float bladders originally came from modifications of the intestines. Fish caught in ponds of stagnant water due to droughts would be able to gulp air from the surface because there would be no air left in the water. When you think about it, intestines do absorb nutrients through the tube in a similar manner to blood absorbing oxygen through the lungs, no? These sacs then developed over time to seperate themselves from the gastrointestinal tract, and then to become independent organs. However, you could dissect fish all day long for a few million years, and you would only see progressive differences between fish of one generation and the next, you would only notice small genetic changes from one to the other, which, over a lot of time, translate into a lot of change.
Now I understand you believe there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I honestly don't know where it lies, so could you point out in the above paragraph specifically where that limit lies?

13. For aids or for bone density? In either case I have read this evowiki page on it, and checked (and read the abstract of ) their source material to be correct.
http://evolutionwiki...ons_are_harmful


14. That would depend on the definition of species. If we agree that different species are species that are incapable of reproducing, through pre- and post-zygotic mechanisms, then no. Such mutations would not create a new species on their own. However, if humans suddenly had to start jumping off cliffs to survive, or face infection (and subsequent death) by HIV ( think zombie scenario), then yes, such conditions that would put a lot of positive selection pressure for either of those traits might create different species. By the above definition of species, chihuahuas and great danes would also be separate species. If we were to restrict our definition to post-zygotic mechanisms, then in the above scenario, perhaps of having the original human population wiped out and replaced by two subspecies, one of which is immune to HIV and the other has stong bones, then we might end up with the original human population to be wiped out and the 'HIV' and 'bone' sub-species of humans to intermingle, producing a new HIV resistant sub-species of human with high bone density. Would this new 'future' human be the same species as the poor gits who weren't immune and couldn't jump off cliffs? If yes, then it is evolution from one species to another. If not, then it is variation within a species, but that also means that over time, even though there are no great genetic differences between the 'new' and 'old' variants of the same species, they might still end up so different we can't really call them the same anymore.

Do you have any more questions?


1. How so? If you agree then you wouldn't claim it as an error. If you agree that allele frequency has nothing to do with macro evolution, (common descent), then why is it such an error to leave it out.... It contributes nothing, (as you agreed to) so why keep something that is useless?

2. And your point? I already know that change does occur. What I am opposed to is that those blue dogs will somehow become blue birds or whatever... You've invoked that somehow a "mutation" will miraculously create a new system or organ.... You do realise that such a thing requires many many many mutations, all in concert of each other, and due to the tenets of selection, all must provide a benefit at each step in the process, (an impossible thing for irreducibly complex systems or organs).

3. No probs.

4. Drift also has an increased effect on smaller populations leading to loss of genetic information.

5. You claimed resistance was from mutation... I have shown it is not. The only thing that changes with antibiotic use is the frequency of resistance... (much like the frequency of alleles). Nope, a "superbug" has only picked up extra resistances... If you had resistance to malaria would we class you as a new species?

6. Good :) so we don't need evolution to explain selection, mutation etc... (which is self evident anyway). The general overview you speak of is the thing that is taken on faith since it has never been empirically demonstrable... ie- dogs to cats or whatever etc.

7. Yes I agree with that. People turn sport into their own religion, or fashion into their religion etc etc..

8. I have just agreed so idolizing evolution to the point of blind faith is making it a Religion.

9. Foot prints in Poland are dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik meaning that it is not a transition of fish to land amphibians since there were already land dwellers when it existed.... This also pushes back all the other intermediates, meaning there is no creditable fish to amphibian link anymore

10. Variation in a strain of disease is not indicative of evolution.. New strains are the same as new breeds of species...

11. That I do, since macro has no empirical evidence. If there is I'd be the first to accept it.

12. I live in Australia... So how does that fit with your paragraph here? Furthermore, you do accept that evolution- common descent does require the generation of new organs and systems- lungs in fish etc.

13. Will do

14. Lol If you got eggs from a great dane and sperm from a Chihuahua they would definately have offspring. Don't confuse mechanical "infertility" with actual infertility.

Your zombie claim is not indicative of reality... (why is it that evolutionists have to resort to fanciful stories?)

#32 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 18 March 2012 - 07:20 PM

10. Variation in a strain of disease is not indicative of evolution.. New strains are the same as new breeds of species...


Antibiotic resistance predates the medical use of antibodies and clearly shows stasis for millions of generations, since bacteria reproduce so quickly compared to humans.

"Research findings published August 31 in the science journal Nature show antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern clinical antibiotic use. Principal investigators for the study are Gerry Wright, scientific director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research and Hendrik Poinar, McMaster evolutionary geneticist."

"We identified that these genes were present in the permafrost at depths consistent with the age of the other DNAs, such as the mammoth. Brian Golding of McMaster's Department of Biology showed that these were not contemporary, but formed part of the same family tree. We then recreated the gene product in the lab, purified its protein and showed that it had the same activity and structure then as it does now."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155334.htm

#33 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 19 March 2012 - 02:14 AM

What I find ironic about this is that evolutionists think that without evolution we would not have made the strives we have in medical science. Problem with that reasoning is that it does not take a whole theory to understand one mechanism or process.


The second problem is that it's anti-history.

Dr Markus Schichtel looks at the lives and work of three famous scientists whose discoveries transformed medical practice. Joseph Lister with antiseptic techniques, James Clerk Maxwell with electrical instruments and James Young Simson an obstetrician and pioneer in the field of anaesthetics.





Enjoy.

#34 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:06 PM

1. How so? If you agree then you wouldn't claim it as an error. If you agree that allele frequency has nothing to do with macro evolution, (common descent), then why is it such an error to leave it out.... It contributes nothing, (as you agreed to) so why keep something that is useless?

Allele frequency had nothing to do with evolution as defined by Darwin, because Darwin had no idea what an allele was. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution can explain that changes in allele frequency leads to change in populations over time.

2. And your point? I already know that change does occur. What I am opposed to is that those blue dogs will somehow become blue birds or whatever... You've invoked that somehow a "mutation" will miraculously create a new system or organ.... You do realise that such a thing requires many many many mutations, all in concert of each other, and due to the tenets of selection, all must provide a benefit at each step in the process, (an impossible thing for irreducibly complex systems or organs).

And that is precisely why I wish to show you how evolution truly works. Dogs will never become birds, evolution does not say that. If a modern species were to transform into another modern species (and by modern I mean any species alive today) that would falsify evolution. What evolution does say is that the descendant of the bird or the dog will become different over time in response to different selective pressures, and will over time become another species, descendants from their ancestors but distinct from them. A mutation will never create a new organ or system, that would also falsify evolution. However, the slight change in function of organs may lead to increased specialization and separation of one organ into two or more.

4. Drift also has an increased effect on smaller populations leading to loss of genetic information.

Yes, that is also true. That's why smaller populations tend to change faster, but are more susceptible to extinction.

5. You claimed resistance was from mutation... I have shown it is not. The only thing that changes with antibiotic use is the frequency of resistance... (much like the frequency of alleles). Nope, a "superbug" has only picked up extra resistances... If you had resistance to malaria would we class you as a new species?

And some resistances do arise from mutations, as a virus loses sensitivity to a drug or a bacteria loses sensitivity to an antibiotic.
As for the superbug example, if you became immune to every single disease on the planet, it was impossible for you to get sick, would you still be human? Or would you be more than human? Similarly, that's why I'm saying it would be a superbug if it acquired resistance to every antibiotic.

6. Good :) so we don't need evolution to explain selection, mutation etc... (which is self evident anyway). The general overview you speak of is the thing that is taken on faith since it has never been empirically demonstrable... ie- dogs to cats or whatever etc.

Nope, indeed. You don't need the theory of gravity to understand that stuff falls, and that all things fall at the same speed. You DO need it however, if you want to get to the moon. Similarly, you need the theory of evolution if you want to tie mutations and natural selection into something you can actually use.

7. Yes I agree with that. People turn sport into their own religion, or fashion into their religion etc etc..

Well then, I'm sorry, but you have a flawed definition of religion. Perhaps a dictionary would be of assistance here.
Religion: the belief in and the worship of a superhuman controlling power, a system of faith and worship.

8. I have just agreed so idolizing evolution to the point of blind faith is making it a Religion.

I would agree that blindly accepting evolution without understanding isn't good, but lumping those who do believe like that with those who actually understand evolution and use it in labs would be a fallacy, just like it would be for me to associate you with Harry Potter book-burners and religious extremists. Also, by your definition, practically everything in the world can become a religion, including cooking and eating pasta. As I said, your definition needs revising.

9. Foot prints in Poland are dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik meaning that it is not a transition of fish to land amphibians since there were already land dwellers when it existed.... This also pushes back all the other intermediates, meaning there is no creditable fish to amphibian link anymore

Ok, then for the sake of this argument, let's forget Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil. Everything else does stand however. Tiktaalik is not a fish. It has a flat head with eyes on top and a neck. Fish have neither. Amphibians have both. But even if Tiktaalik as a species ended up as a dead end a few million years later anyways, it proves it is possible to have transitional forms between well-defined classes of animals.
Let's also not forget exactly how scientists used the theory of evolution with geologic knowledge of the earth crust as dated by physicists using radiometric dating to FIND the fossil. It would simply not have been possible if any one of those aspects (evolution, geology, radiometric dating) was flawed.

10. Variation in a strain of disease is not indicative of evolution.. New strains are the same as new breeds of species...

Evolution is not sudden and immediate change between a parent species and its 'daughter' species. It is the gradual transition from one into the other without any specific point in time where you can say 'okay, it's a new species from now on'. It's a gradient, much like you can't tell in a gradient from black to white where exactly black ends and white starts.
Put in enough variation, regardless of what that variation is, and eventually you have something so different from the beginning you cannot call it the same species.

11. That I do, since macro has no empirical evidence. If there is I'd be the first to accept it.

I have provided a transitional form, you have said that it wasn't, and that because of prints in mud (which I would like to read the source of btw) all other fish-tetrapod transitional fossils are false. What kind of evidence do you want or would you need? I'm not going to enumerate them all one by one for you to say that none of them really are transitional.

12. I live in Australia... So how does that fit with your paragraph here? Furthermore, you do accept that evolution- common descent does require the generation of new organs and systems- lungs in fish etc.

I am not sure exactly, I'll have to research it some more, but I thought that creationism as a pseudoscientific idea came from the States and spread from there.
Also, yes, evolution does require, and tries to explain, the apparition and progressive modification of organs over time to specialize into what organs we now have today. However, as organs do not fossilize very well, that's kind of hard to do.


14. Lol If you got eggs from a great dane and sperm from a Chihuahua they would definately have offspring. Don't confuse mechanical "infertility" with actual infertility.

It will also soon be possible (if it's not already) to take 2 eggs from two different women, and implant one with the nucleus of the other to get a viable child. Does this mean that 2 women are not infertile? After all, it's only 'mechanical' infertility, right?
S@xual isolation of two sub-populations can happen in 2 ways: pre-zygotic and post-zygotic mechanisms. They are both just as important, and just as valid.

Your zombie claim is not indicative of reality...

I just made up a scenario producing selection towards either immunity or denser bones. The cause of the selection doesn't matter, what does is the selective pressure.

#35 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:43 PM

Allele frequency had nothing to do with evolution as defined by Darwin, because Darwin had no idea what an allele was. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution can explain that changes in allele frequency leads to change in populations over time.


I like to split the theory of evolution into two categories:
1) Changes to allele frequencies without increases in the length of the genome, that can lead to new species, with very transformed features
2) Increases in the length of the genome whereby bacteria transform into higher life-forms through genetic mutations whereby a life-form of about 1 million base pairs can evolve over time through a series of positive adaptive mutations into 30 billion base pairs over time.

It's difficult to actually prove evolving in both cases, but I believe (1) is observable, (2) is not. It may be theoretically possible, but the whole theory of evolution explaining the existence of a life-form of 30 billion base-pairs that are useful and not just mutated "hangers on" and are well adapted to the environment remains just a theory. Even if some instances of increases to the genome length causing an improvment to that animal can one-day be proven, even in this case evolution remains merely one theory to explain current life-forms.

Just because a genome can increase in length, does not conclude that animals are evolved and not created.

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 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 March 2012 - 04:12 AM

1. Allele frequency had nothing to do with evolution as defined by Darwin, because Darwin had no idea what an allele was. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution can explain that changes in allele frequency leads to change in populations over time.


2. And that is precisely why I wish to show you how evolution truly works. Dogs will never become birds, evolution does not say that. If a modern species were to transform into another modern species (and by modern I mean any species alive today) that would falsify evolution. What evolution does say is that the descendant of the bird or the dog will become different over time in response to different selective pressures, and will over time become another species, descendants from their ancestors but distinct from them. A mutation will never create a new organ or system, that would also falsify evolution. However, the slight change in function of organs may lead to increased specialization and separation of one organ into two or more.


3. Yes, that is also true. That's why smaller populations tend to change faster, but are more susceptible to extinction.


4. And some resistances do arise from mutations, as a virus loses sensitivity to a drug or a bacteria loses sensitivity to an antibiotic.
As for the superbug example, if you became immune to every single disease on the planet, it was impossible for you to get sick, would you still be human? Or would you be more than human? Similarly, that's why I'm saying it would be a superbug if it acquired resistance to every antibiotic.


5. Nope, indeed. You don't need the theory of gravity to understand that stuff falls, and that all things fall at the same speed. You DO need it however, if you want to get to the moon. Similarly, you need the theory of evolution if you want to tie mutations and natural selection into something you can actually use.


6. Well then, I'm sorry, but you have a flawed definition of religion. Perhaps a dictionary would be of assistance here.
Religion: the belief in and the worship of a superhuman controlling power, a system of faith and worship.


7. I would agree that blindly accepting evolution without understanding isn't good, but lumping those who do believe like that with those who actually understand evolution and use it in labs would be a fallacy, just like it would be for me to associate you with Harry Potter book-burners and religious extremists. Also, by your definition, practically everything in the world can become a religion, including cooking and eating pasta. As I said, your definition needs revising.


8. Ok, then for the sake of this argument, let's forget Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil. Everything else does stand however. Tiktaalik is not a fish. It has a flat head with eyes on top and a neck. Fish have neither. Amphibians have both. But even if Tiktaalik as a species ended up as a dead end a few million years later anyways, it proves it is possible to have transitional forms between well-defined classes of animals.
Let's also not forget exactly how scientists used the theory of evolution with geologic knowledge of the earth crust as dated by physicists using radiometric dating to FIND the fossil. It would simply not have been possible if any one of those aspects (evolution, geology, radiometric dating) was flawed.


9. Evolution is not sudden and immediate change between a parent species and its 'daughter' species. It is the gradual transition from one into the other without any specific point in time where you can say 'okay, it's a new species from now on'. It's a gradient, much like you can't tell in a gradient from black to white where exactly black ends and white starts.
Put in enough variation, regardless of what that variation is, and eventually you have something so different from the beginning you cannot call it the same species.


10. I have provided a transitional form, you have said that it wasn't, and that because of prints in mud (which I would like to read the source of btw) all other fish-tetrapod transitional fossils are false. What kind of evidence do you want or would you need? I'm not going to enumerate them all one by one for you to say that none of them really are transitional.


11. I am not sure exactly, I'll have to research it some more, but I thought that creationism as a pseudoscientific idea came from the States and spread from there.

12. Also, yes, evolution does require, and tries to explain, the apparition and progressive modification of organs over time to specialize into what organs we now have today. However, as organs do not fossilize very well, that's kind of hard to do.



13. It will also soon be possible (if it's not already) to take 2 eggs from two different women, and implant one with the nucleus of the other to get a viable child. Does this mean that 2 women are not infertile? After all, it's only 'mechanical' infertility, right?
S@xual isolation of two sub-populations can happen in 2 ways: pre-zygotic and post-zygotic mechanisms. They are both just as important, and just as valid.


14. I just made up a scenario producing selection towards either immunity or denser bones. The cause of the selection doesn't matter, what does is the selective pressure.





1. It still has nothing to do with evolution since changing the frequency of a trait, say % of blue eyes in humans... does literally nothing towards the development of new systems and structures...

2. It was an example... I was hoping you would state some evidence since you did say you would "show" me how it works. I am sorry to say that your word, (or anyone else's) is not scientific evidence. No evidence means you are merely asserting your opinion as "fact"... such is not scientific nor is it logical.

3. It also shows how fixation of a new trait is nigh impossible since drift would eliminate the trait anyway.

4. Prove it. Where is your evidence? There is empirical evidence that antibiotic resistance did not "evolve" from mutations rather it has always existed.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5958

5. Firstly your attempts to tie evolution with gravity is a misnomer... Secondly how does one "use" mutations and / or natural selection.... We have domestication which is man-made selection... such is not defined as "natural selection" however..

6. Psychologists disagree with you... http://www.psycholog...-sport-religion

7. Yes anything when taken to the extreme can become a person's religion.. I suggest you do some :kaffeetrinker:

8. How does "everything else stands" when the entire timeline is shifted for ALL of them? It "proves" nothing... firstly everything you claimed was an assumption based inference.. Assumptions are not scientific, having similar traits in fossils do not tell you how they came to be, it is merely a guess... Secondly you have no empirical evidence with which to base your claim on.

Science is about evidence, when will you show some? Here is mine http://www.usatoday....acks07_ST_N.htm

"Until the discovery, paleontologists thought the evolutionary transition from fishes to land animals was tightly nailed down to fossils dated about 379 million years old, he says. The tracks not only push back the age of the first four-legged animals by a "whopping 18 million years," he says, but also "show that quite advanced kinds of tetrapods (four-limbed creatures), with incipient wrist joints, had already appeared by this much earlier stage of animal evolution."

9. Nice story... But you do realise that what you said defies the species concept... You yourself claimed

"It is the gradual transition from one into the other without any specific point in time where you can say 'okay, it's a new species from now on'. It's a gradient, much like you can't tell in a gradient from black to white where exactly black ends and white starts.Put in enough variation, regardless of what that variation is, and eventually you have something so different from the beginning you cannot call it the same species."

If this is so then we shouldn't be able to tell anything apart from anything.... Yet I can tell the difference between a bird and a horse :snapoutofit:

10. Whinging because I have debunked your "transitional fossil" via science will not get you anywhere... 'Science is self-correcting right' hence consider this mistake corrected.

11. Serious? You do realise before Darwin ALL science was based on the concept of design. Newton wrote more about God than he did about Physics, since back then it was believed that since the universe has laws there must be a law-giver, since there are designs there must be a designer... a Purpose, a purpose-giver..

All through history there has been the idea of design and the idea of random accident, I suggest :kaffeetrinker: on the history of science

12. Yet we can look at organ systems today and observe how they are irreducibly complex... something evolution cannot explain.

13. Apples to Oranges... Both dogs are ONLY limited by their body height. If a woman is infertile naturally then she is infertile for a totally different reason than a mechanical reason.... (mechanical refering to how the male is able to insert etc)... This difference is taught in basic year 10 Biology

14. Making up stupid imaginary scenarios is scientific... how? So it doesn't matter about what the reason, all that matters is that you support evolution with stories right...

#37 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 23 March 2012 - 07:10 AM

I like to split the theory of evolution into two categories:
1) Changes to allele frequencies without increases in the length of the genome, that can lead to new species, with very transformed features
2) Increases in the length of the genome whereby bacteria transform into higher life-forms through genetic mutations whereby a life-form of about 1 million base pairs can evolve over time through a series of positive adaptive mutations into 30 billion base pairs over time.

It's difficult to actually prove evolving in both cases, but I believe (1) is observable, (2) is not. It may be theoretically possible, but the whole theory of evolution explaining the existence of a life-form of 30 billion base-pairs that are useful and not just mutated "hangers on" and are well adapted to the environment remains just a theory. Even if some instances of increases to the genome length causing an improvment to that animal can one-day be proven, even in this case evolution remains merely one theory to explain current life-forms.

Just because a genome can increase in length, does not conclude that animals are evolved and not created.

Actually, what has happened was events where the entire genome was copied. I am not familiar with how this was possible, or when exactly it happened, but apparently, our entire genome was replicated, shifted, thrown around a bit, with genes going a bit here there and everywhere. The resulting factor is that we have genetic sequences which are repeated throughout our DNA. By sequence I mean a huge portion of a chromosome or even a sequence a few hundred genes long, many genes in a row, replicated and scattered throughout the entire genome. The sequence might be reversed, but it is still there. Many of those sequences have been turned off over time, resulting in the fact that we have only one 'active' sequence in the genome, and one or two older 'copies' deactivated scattered through our genome. Since these genes are not active, selection cannot act on them, and mutations are free to change the sequence. It does happen occasionally that one sch deactivated sequence is reactivated, and with the newer mutations that can lead to some interesting changes.

You are right. However, the evidence that points to how the genome has increased is telling evidence of a being who was not created as-is by a designer/creator/God.

Might I also point out that you are separating the theory of evolution in two parts, one of which you agree with, the other you do not? If I were to disagree with the theory of relativity, would I be correct in trying to split it in two? If I disagreed with the germ theory, would I be correct in separating it in two? The scientific theory of evolution is one and the same. You can disagree all you want, and you can provide as many reasons as you wish to show which part of evolution does not function, but you cannot split it in two, into what you like and what you don't like.


1. It still has nothing to do with evolution since changing the frequency of a trait, say % of blue eyes in humans... does literally nothing towards the development of new systems and structures...

2. It was an example... I was hoping you would state some evidence since you did say you would "show" me how it works. I am sorry to say that your word, (or anyone else's) is not scientific evidence. No evidence means you are merely asserting your opinion as "fact"... such is not scientific nor is it logical.

3. It also shows how fixation of a new trait is nigh impossible since drift would eliminate the trait anyway.

4. Prove it. Where is your evidence? There is empirical evidence that antibiotic resistance did not "evolve" from mutations rather it has always existed.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5958

5. Firstly your attempts to tie evolution with gravity is a misnomer... Secondly how does one "use" mutations and / or natural selection.... We have domestication which is man-made selection... such is not defined as "natural selection" however..

6. Psychologists disagree with you... http://www.psycholog...-sport-religion

7. Yes anything when taken to the extreme can become a person's religion.. I suggest you do some :kaffeetrinker:

8. How does "everything else stands" when the entire timeline is shifted for ALL of them? It "proves" nothing... firstly everything you claimed was an assumption based inference.. Assumptions are not scientific, having similar traits in fossils do not tell you how they came to be, it is merely a guess... Secondly you have no empirical evidence with which to base your claim on.

Science is about evidence, when will you show some? Here is mine http://www.usatoday....acks07_ST_N.htm

"Until the discovery, paleontologists thought the evolutionary transition from fishes to land animals was tightly nailed down to fossils dated about 379 million years old, he says. The tracks not only push back the age of the first four-legged animals by a "whopping 18 million years," he says, but also "show that quite advanced kinds of tetrapods (four-limbed creatures), with incipient wrist joints, had already appeared by this much earlier stage of animal evolution."

9. Nice story... But you do realise that what you said defies the species concept... You yourself claimed

"It is the gradual transition from one into the other without any specific point in time where you can say 'okay, it's a new species from now on'. It's a gradient, much like you can't tell in a gradient from black to white where exactly black ends and white starts.Put in enough variation, regardless of what that variation is, and eventually you have something so different from the beginning you cannot call it the same species."

If this is so then we shouldn't be able to tell anything apart from anything.... Yet I can tell the difference between a bird and a horse :snapoutofit:

10. Whinging because I have debunked your "transitional fossil" via science will not get you anywhere... 'Science is self-correcting right' hence consider this mistake corrected.

11. Serious? You do realise before Darwin ALL science was based on the concept of design. Newton wrote more about God than he did about Physics, since back then it was believed that since the universe has laws there must be a law-giver, since there are designs there must be a designer... a Purpose, a purpose-giver..

All through history there has been the idea of design and the idea of random accident, I suggest :kaffeetrinker: on the history of science

12. Yet we can look at organ systems today and observe how they are irreducibly complex... something evolution cannot explain.

13. Apples to Oranges... Both dogs are ONLY limited by their body height. If a woman is infertile naturally then she is infertile for a totally different reason than a mechanical reason.... (mechanical refering to how the male is able to insert etc)... This difference is taught in basic year 10 Biology

14. Making up stupid imaginary scenarios is scientific... how? So it doesn't matter about what the reason, all that matters is that you support evolution with stories right...


1. Did you know that many morphological changes can be a result of no mutations whatsoever, but only of the timing of when mutations are turned on or off? So these changes occur with zero mutations, and they can be selected upon by natural selection. Zero mutations, a change in the alleles regulating growth, variety, selection. I'd say that yes, it is part of evolution.
For other species, such as a butterfly, where the wing color is coded by such alleles. If a population of red and blue butterflies settle in a field or red flowers, of course the red ones are more likely to survive. Change in allele frequency. If however the red color mutation also happens to be associated to a 'defective' gene producing a weird wing shape, then that defective mutation will also be selected for. Over time, natural selection will continue to select the red butterflies, but will also select those whose wing mutation is less severe, which can result in an entirely new wing shape.

2. http://www.scienceda...60930094021.htm
This is evidence of how a defect can create a newer and more complex structure. While we don't know all the details and the specifics of how exactly this all works, we are on our way to study and understand how. Creation of something more complex is possible via evolution. Selection for that complex factor depends on natural selection. Variation and selection will 'stabilize' that new form (remove fatal mistakes) and will 'perfect' it (favor variations which increase the efficiency of the new structure).

3. Not necessarily nigh impossible, but I understand what you mean. However, drift while random can be influenced by selection in one direction or another, so as to increase the odds of the fixation of a better allele.

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm....?tool=pmcentrez
From what I've seen, some bacteria develop the ability to 'export' toxins outside the bacteria before they can cause too much harm, and other bacteria developed mutations on an enzyme to allow it to react with and deactivate a toxin (fluoroquinone I believe it was). I am not sure where else also, but I do remember having read of bacteria gaining mutations which destroys a reaction where a toxin would bind with a biomolecule inside the bacteria and make it stop working. By destroying that binding site, the toxin can no longer stop the biomolecule. I don't remember where I read that though.

5. No, my attempt to compare random mutations + natural selection = theory of evolution and that G (m1 x m2)/(r1 x r2) + F = m x a = theory of gravity is valid, although very simplistic.
Secondly, we can use the mechanisms as outlined in the theory to understand how evolution works and to predict what will be the next step in evolution of species under specific conditions, and how structures in the past might have evolved.
Thirdly, that is artificial selection, and the only difference between it and natural selection is that man was selecting, it is still using the concepts of evolution.

6 + 7. While that was an interesting read, I do think the authors of the paper forgot to make a distinction that while sports may be a set of beliefs and practices, they do not involve deities. Otherwise, we could have the religion of farming, the religion of stamp collecting, the religion of practically anything. Does that mean we should have Farmists and Stamp-collectists? I think applying the term religion across such a wide spectrum devaluates religons while also being a misnomer. Basically you could call practically anything a religion, and that would be very problematic for the first amendment of the States.

8. I wasn't talking about a timeline, I was mentioning the fact that radiometric dating, geology and biology worked together to produce a fossil that conformed exactly to what we expected to find (transitional) exactly where we expected to find it. The finding of Tiktaalik in and of itself is an empirical test, and its success is a testament to the explanatory power of all the fields of science when used together.
Then, there's the fact that fish don't have flat heads with eyes on tops nor necks, and tetrapods don't have fins as arms and legs along with a fish tail. Tiktaalik fits in neither of those categories, but having characteristics from either, fits in the middle.
If Tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil, do please explain to me why exactly the designer would create such a strange creature, who would give the appearance of being a transition between aquatic and land animals?

Also, I have read some more on the tracks, and yes, it does appear that it predates Tiktaalik by quite a bit, and that animals had evolved earlier than we had previously thought. However, this does not dethrone Tiktaalik for many reasons, one of them being that not all tetrapods might have evolved from the same one species to have adventured on land. Similarly, scientists have discovered that birds may be descendants from a few different species of dinosaurs.

9. If one species slowly changes, you will be unable to say when exactly it 'stopped' being like is ancestors and became something 'new'. However, when one species becomes two, when two populations of that species slowly diverge in different directions, it would be a continuum in two different directions. See it like a continuum between blue (original population) to green (first divergent population) and from blue to purple for the second divergent population. There is a gradual transition from blue to the other colors, but no transition at all between green and purple, and that distinction is sharp. In terms of evolution, I would compare this phenomena to ring species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species


10. I'm not whining because you 'debunked' my transitional fossil, I am asking what would be for you the definition of a transitional fossil? If your definition is something akin to a crocoduck, I could show you all the transitional fossils there are, and you'd tell me 'Nope, none of them are transitional fossils'.
So I'm going to tell you what I define as a transitional fossil, then compare it to a definition. To me, a transitional fossil is a fossil sharing some characteristics but not all with a parent species, and sharing some characteristics but not all with a 'daughter' species. I'll get back to Tiktaalik again. A fish is an animal which lives in water, with a vertical head, eyes on each side, no neck, and flippers instead of limbs. An amphibian is an animal that lives on land, has a flat head with eyes on top, has a neck, and has webbed limbs. Interestingly, an amphibian sometimes has gills and lungs present a the same time, just like fish with lungs. Now, Tiktaalik has a fish body shape, flippers, and lives in the water, just like fish (shared characteristics with a parent species). However, Tiktaalik also has a flat head and eyes on top, along with more rigid bones in its flippers, and with bones shaped like shoulder blades. Fish do have similar bones but they are placed differently, and amphibians also have similar bones, although they are very different in shape. Tiktaalik bridges the gap here.
The dictionary definition could be this, from Wikipedia : A transitional fossil is any fossilized emains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group [1]. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.
The first quote is atributed to : Herron, Scott Freeman, Jon C. (2004). Evolutionary analysis (3rd ed. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. pp. 816, so it's not just say-so.

Here, you may find aditional explanations of what a transitional fossil really is and isn't, if you wish. http://www.don-linds...tional_def.html

So, what is your definition of a transitional fossil? And where can I find one?

11. Yes, but this idea of design was always invoked when scientists explained something, but they came at the ends of their wit. It always came when they expanded concept A further, but couldn't explain it fully. Newton didn't invoke God when he developped his theory of gravity, but he invoked God when he wasn't able to figure out why exactly the moon was staying in orbit. Creationists who developped geology assumed God created the earth, and were amazed at the geologic processes that shaped it afterwards. They might have been confused by what they found, but they didn't say 'God is moving this tectonic plate, and this explain the evidence we see', they said 'we have evidence that this tectonic plate has been moving for some unknown reason. God must have created the world this way.' The current version of creationism as I see it is actively trying to change science to fit it within biblical interpretation, and to correct all 'mistakes' which do not agree with the Bible. It is an aggressive movement that is less interested in studying God's world as he created it for us rather than trying to fit God's world into the boundaries of the Bible.
Think of this. If God created the universe, then by studying it we are studying an immediate first-generation 'document' if you wish. There was God, the universe, then us. Therefore, by studying the universe, we should arrive at God, no?
Or we can study the Bible, which was the word of God given to Moses, Abraham, etc etc etc, all of whom wrote down their tales and shared it with their tribes throughout the ages. The Bible as we know it has been canonized by vote in the council of nicea, where they literally voted to decide what would be 'divine' and what wouldn't be. There is at least some degree ofhuman interpretation, error, transcription, and translation involved. Not so with the universe. So why then try to fit the universe within the Bible?
I also say aggressive because creationists could build models and explain the universe, build theories, make scientific advancement, in short have their viable science work, and then demand that it be taught in schools, since it's obvious it works. Yet what creationists more often than not try to do is to vote creationism in school, to make appeals to the public, instead of passing the test like science does.

If you would like, we could discuss further the idea of the purpose-giver, initial causer, etc common designer argument.

12. And yet we can look at cars today and see they are irreducibly complex. If you remove the engine block or the transmission or the gas tank, a car is irreducibly complex, no?
I can look at a human being and say they are irreducibly complex. Remove a heart, lungs, a stomach, a brain, and they stop working. Does that mean they are irreducibly complex? And yet, every single living organism on this planet developped from a single cell.
Behe stated that the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the immune system were irreducibly complex, and he was shown to be wrong. Do you acknowledge this?

13. No, I meant if both women are fertile. Or we could talk about to female dogs if you prefer, it's all the same. You have two fertile females, and we can take the nucleus from one an implant it in the second, giving a viable, healthy, 100% normal offspring. Since there is nothing at the genetic level stopping this, by your definition this would only be a case of 'mechanical' infertility, just like with the Chihuahua and the Great Dane, no?

14. I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have worded it that way. I was just too lazy to think of a better scenario which would create two selective forces, one for immunity and the other for denser bones. And yet, if such a selective pressure were to be applied today, it would act upon these traits already present in the human population and select them.

#38 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 23 March 2012 - 10:24 AM

Antibiotic resistance predates the medical use of antibodies and clearly shows stasis for millions of generations, since bacteria reproduce so quickly compared to humans.

"Research findings published August 31 in the science journal Nature show antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern clinical antibiotic use. Principal investigators for the study are Gerry Wright, scientific director of the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research and Hendrik Poinar, McMaster evolutionary geneticist."

"We identified that these genes were present in the permafrost at depths consistent with the age of the other DNAs, such as the mammoth. Brian Golding of McMaster's Department of Biology showed that these were not contemporary, but formed part of the same family tree. We then recreated the gene product in the lab, purified its protein and showed that it had the same activity and structure then as it does now."

http://www.scienceda...10831155334.htm


Wow, I did not know that. I had thought that scientists developing antibiotics specifically against which there were no resistances for them, and that mutations arose to counter such antibiotics. I guess it looks like antibiotic research is based specifically on what is actually killing the most bacteria, regardless of whether some strains of bacteria have an immunity to it, which can then spread to other bacteria via horizontal transfer. I wonder then, what kind of research has gone to make entirely novel, ie never before seen molecules in nature... Or if we're just kidding ourselves because somewhere, at some time, one organism or another had already produced that molecule...

That said, I'm not entirely familiar with exactly how antibiotics actually work. Methinks more research is necessary on my part. Thanks :) I'll be much more careful in my use of the bacterial resistance argument from now on :)

#39 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 10:37 AM

Actually, what has happened was events where the entire genome was copied. I am not familiar with how this was possible, or when exactly it happened, but apparently, our entire genome was replicated, shifted, thrown around a bit, with genes going a bit here there and everywhere. The resulting factor is that we have genetic sequences which are repeated throughout our DNA. By sequence I mean a huge portion of a chromosome or even a sequence a few hundred genes long, many genes in a row, replicated and scattered throughout the entire genome. The sequence might be reversed, but it is still there. Many of those sequences have been turned off over time, resulting in the fact that we have only one 'active' sequence in the genome, and one or two older 'copies' deactivated scattered through our genome. Since these genes are not active, selection cannot act on them, and mutations are free to change the sequence. It does happen occasionally that one sch deactivated sequence is reactivated, and with the newer mutations that can lead to some interesting changes.

You are right. However, the evidence that points to how the genome has increased is telling evidence of a being who was not created as-is by a designer/creator/God.

Might I also point out that you are separating the theory of evolution in two parts, one of which you agree with, the other you do not? If I were to disagree with the theory of relativity, would I be correct in trying to split it in two? If I disagreed with the germ theory, would I be correct in separating it in two? The scientific theory of evolution is one and the same. You can disagree all you want, and you can provide as many reasons as you wish to show which part of evolution does not function, but you cannot split it in two, into what you like and what you don't like.


I was just recognising two seperate processes to macro-evolution. Its not according to what I like and don't like, I am saying the one is more observable, the other is not. Unless you do have evidence of "interesting changes" that caused a positive effect on the newer mutation?

If not observed then favourable increases to the genome length are merely a theory.
If observed then favorable increases to the genome length being the reason behind the geologic column is just one possible theory to explain the geologic column.

#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 23 March 2012 - 01:52 PM

1. Did you know that many morphological changes can be a result of no mutations whatsoever, but only of the timing of when mutations are turned on or off? So these changes occur with zero mutations, and they can be selected upon by natural selection. Zero mutations, a change in the alleles regulating growth, variety, selection. I'd say that yes, it is part of evolution.
For other species, such as a butterfly, where the wing color is coded by such alleles. If a population of red and blue butterflies settle in a field or red flowers, of course the red ones are more likely to survive. Change in allele frequency. If however the red color mutation also happens to be associated to a 'defective' gene producing a weird wing shape, then that defective mutation will also be selected for. Over time, natural selection will continue to select the red butterflies, but will also select those whose wing mutation is less severe, which can result in an entirely new wing shape.

2. http://www.scienceda...60930094021.htm
This is evidence of how a defect can create a newer and more complex structure. While we don't know all the details and the specifics of how exactly this all works, we are on our way to study and understand how. Creation of something more complex is possible via evolution. Selection for that complex factor depends on natural selection. Variation and selection will 'stabilize' that new form (remove fatal mistakes) and will 'perfect' it (favor variations which increase the efficiency of the new structure).

3. Not necessarily nigh impossible, but I understand what you mean. However, drift while random can be influenced by selection in one direction or another, so as to increase the odds of the fixation of a better allele.

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm....?tool=pmcentrez
From what I've seen, some bacteria develop the ability to 'export' toxins outside the bacteria before they can cause too much harm, and other bacteria developed mutations on an enzyme to allow it to react with and deactivate a toxin (fluoroquinone I believe it was). I am not sure where else also, but I do remember having read of bacteria gaining mutations which destroys a reaction where a toxin would bind with a biomolecule inside the bacteria and make it stop working. By destroying that binding site, the toxin can no longer stop the biomolecule. I don't remember where I read that though.

5. No, my attempt to compare random mutations + natural selection = theory of evolution and that G (m1 x m2)/(r1 x r2) + F = m x a = theory of gravity is valid, although very simplistic.
Secondly, we can use the mechanisms as outlined in the theory to understand how evolution works and to predict what will be the next step in evolution of species under specific conditions, and how structures in the past might have evolved.
Thirdly, that is artificial selection, and the only difference between it and natural selection is that man was selecting, it is still using the concepts of evolution.

6 + 7. While that was an interesting read, I do think the authors of the paper forgot to make a distinction that while sports may be a set of beliefs and practices, they do not involve deities. Otherwise, we could have the religion of farming, the religion of stamp collecting, the religion of practically anything. Does that mean we should have Farmists and Stamp-collectists? I think applying the term religion across such a wide spectrum devaluates religons while also being a misnomer. Basically you could call practically anything a religion, and that would be very problematic for the first amendment of the States.

8. I wasn't talking about a timeline, I was mentioning the fact that radiometric dating, geology and biology worked together to produce a fossil that conformed exactly to what we expected to find (transitional) exactly where we expected to find it. The finding of Tiktaalik in and of itself is an empirical test, and its success is a testament to the explanatory power of all the fields of science when used together.
Then, there's the fact that fish don't have flat heads with eyes on tops nor necks, and tetrapods don't have fins as arms and legs along with a fish tail. Tiktaalik fits in neither of those categories, but having characteristics from either, fits in the middle.
If Tiktaalik is not a transitional fossil, do please explain to me why exactly the designer would create such a strange creature, who would give the appearance of being a transition between aquatic and land animals?

Also, I have read some more on the tracks, and yes, it does appear that it predates Tiktaalik by quite a bit, and that animals had evolved earlier than we had previously thought. However, this does not dethrone Tiktaalik for many reasons, one of them being that not all tetrapods might have evolved from the same one species to have adventured on land. Similarly, scientists have discovered that birds may be descendants from a few different species of dinosaurs.

9. If one species slowly changes, you will be unable to say when exactly it 'stopped' being like is ancestors and became something 'new'. However, when one species becomes two, when two populations of that species slowly diverge in different directions, it would be a continuum in two different directions. See it like a continuum between blue (original population) to green (first divergent population) and from blue to purple for the second divergent population. There is a gradual transition from blue to the other colors, but no transition at all between green and purple, and that distinction is sharp. In terms of evolution, I would compare this phenomena to ring species.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ring_species


10. I'm not whining because you 'debunked' my transitional fossil, I am asking what would be for you the definition of a transitional fossil? If your definition is something akin to a crocoduck, I could show you all the transitional fossils there are, and you'd tell me 'Nope, none of them are transitional fossils'.
So I'm going to tell you what I define as a transitional fossil, then compare it to a definition. To me, a transitional fossil is a fossil sharing some characteristics but not all with a parent species, and sharing some characteristics but not all with a 'daughter' species. I'll get back to Tiktaalik again. A fish is an animal which lives in water, with a vertical head, eyes on each side, no neck, and flippers instead of limbs. An amphibian is an animal that lives on land, has a flat head with eyes on top, has a neck, and has webbed limbs. Interestingly, an amphibian sometimes has gills and lungs present a the same time, just like fish with lungs. Now, Tiktaalik has a fish body shape, flippers, and lives in the water, just like fish (shared characteristics with a parent species). However, Tiktaalik also has a flat head and eyes on top, along with more rigid bones in its flippers, and with bones shaped like shoulder blades. Fish do have similar bones but they are placed differently, and amphibians also have similar bones, although they are very different in shape. Tiktaalik bridges the gap here.
The dictionary definition could be this, from Wikipedia : A transitional fossil is any fossilized emains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group [1]. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.
The first quote is atributed to : Herron, Scott Freeman, Jon C. (2004). Evolutionary analysis (3rd ed. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. pp. 816, so it's not just say-so.

Here, you may find aditional explanations of what a transitional fossil really is and isn't, if you wish. http://www.don-linds...tional_def.html

So, what is your definition of a transitional fossil? And where can I find one?

11. Yes, but this idea of design was always invoked when scientists explained something, but they came at the ends of their wit. It always came when they expanded concept A further, but couldn't explain it fully. Newton didn't invoke God when he developped his theory of gravity, but he invoked God when he wasn't able to figure out why exactly the moon was staying in orbit. Creationists who developped geology assumed God created the earth, and were amazed at the geologic processes that shaped it afterwards. They might have been confused by what they found, but they didn't say 'God is moving this tectonic plate, and this explain the evidence we see', they said 'we have evidence that this tectonic plate has been moving for some unknown reason. God must have created the world this way.' The current version of creationism as I see it is actively trying to change science to fit it within biblical interpretation, and to correct all 'mistakes' which do not agree with the Bible. It is an aggressive movement that is less interested in studying God's world as he created it for us rather than trying to fit God's world into the boundaries of the Bible.
Think of this. If God created the universe, then by studying it we are studying an immediate first-generation 'document' if you wish. There was God, the universe, then us. Therefore, by studying the universe, we should arrive at God, no?
Or we can study the Bible, which was the word of God given to Moses, Abraham, etc etc etc, all of whom wrote down their tales and shared it with their tribes throughout the ages. The Bible as we know it has been canonized by vote in the council of nicea, where they literally voted to decide what would be 'divine' and what wouldn't be. There is at least some degree ofhuman interpretation, error, transcription, and translation involved. Not so with the universe. So why then try to fit the universe within the Bible?
I also say aggressive because creationists could build models and explain the universe, build theories, make scientific advancement, in short have their viable science work, and then demand that it be taught in schools, since it's obvious it works. Yet what creationists more often than not try to do is to vote creationism in school, to make appeals to the public, instead of passing the test like science does.

If you would like, we could discuss further the idea of the purpose-giver, initial causer, etc common designer argument.

12. And yet we can look at cars today and see they are irreducibly complex. If you remove the engine block or the transmission or the gas tank, a car is irreducibly complex, no?
I can look at a human being and say they are irreducibly complex. Remove a heart, lungs, a stomach, a brain, and they stop working. Does that mean they are irreducibly complex? And yet, every single living organism on this planet developped from a single cell.
Behe stated that the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the immune system were irreducibly complex, and he was shown to be wrong. Do you acknowledge this?

13. No, I meant if both women are fertile. Or we could talk about to female dogs if you prefer, it's all the same. You have two fertile females, and we can take the nucleus from one an implant it in the second, giving a viable, healthy, 100% normal offspring. Since there is nothing at the genetic level stopping this, by your definition this would only be a case of 'mechanical' infertility, just like with the Chihuahua and the Great Dane, no?

14. I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have worded it that way. I was just too lazy to think of a better scenario which would create two selective forces, one for immunity and the other for denser bones. And yet, if such a selective pressure were to be applied today, it would act upon these traits already present in the human population and select them.


1. Nice story... Now all you need is evidence for it. Further you have forgotten to include the decrease in fitness for the red butterflies due to bad wings... I'm pretty sure if it cannot fly properly that will have a serious effect on its chances of survival. Furthermore your example is not an actual example... I can make up a thousand stories supporting design, but that does nothing... I believe I have already dealt with this kind of argument before, I've already shown you how it isn't logical.

2. Obviously you didn't read the paper.. Its discussing the mechanism by which embryonic cells specialize, this has been known for a very long time, (whilst the specific markers used are not all known)... Ok lets expand this, you take a marker away the organism doesn't develop the organ / tissue etc.... Sounds like a LOSS not a gain of a complex system.

Further it has no relevance on the creation of a new system, since the embryonic cells are already programed to do X,Y,Z in the presence of the proper marker.

3. I was taught that drift is not dependent on selection

4. And? The fact that bacteria are resistant to drugs doesn't automatically equate to evidence of evolution... As has been provided by Jason drug resistance in bacteria pre-dates human use of drugs... The reality of this is that many drugs come from compounds / enzymes produced by micro-organisms so this fact should be self evident. Yet despite how long it has been known, it still isn't taught in science classes?... hmm

5. Why is it valid? How does evolution fit with gravity.... Keep in mind that gravity is empirically demonstrable, how is evolution empirically demonstrable? (preemptively I will mention that variation, microchanges, are not evidence of evolution since evolution is assumed to occur from the accumulation of small changes, this has never been demonstrated in the real world so there is no evidence to back up the extrapolation.

6. And I've been telling you that you need no deities to have a Religion.... Adding to the evidence I have already given, (of which you merely dismiss) Here is a site of Religions that require no deity...

http://www.interfaithcalendar.org/nodeity.htm

8. I am talking about the timeline since that is what is proven wrong. What this shows is that the conglomeration of all those aspects to find tiktaalik was fundamentally wrong as, evidenced by these fossil footprints, there was already life on the land when Tiktaalik was alive... Hence how can it be a transitional fossil when its supposed predecessor was alive before it was? This is the fundamental point.

Just because there are similarities doesn't prove that it evolved! You are assuming it evolved from looking at the similarities (and differences- flat head)... Actually there was a fish with a flat head... its called tiktaalik... Actually you should do some more :kaffeetrinker: since there is a FISH alive today that fits that description http://en.wikipedia....Flathead_(fish)

How can one explain the purpose of design, you'd sooner be able to understand God's thoughts or work out the meaning of life. I could ask you to predict what will humans "evolve" into in the next 5000 years?

9. And your point?

10. My definition of a transitional fossil is similar to anyone elses... HOWEVER in order to verify that it is indeed transitional and not just an extinct seperate species, there needs to be a progression of one form to the other... (many hundreds of fossils will be required to depict this slow transition, if it took millions of years then the amount of organisms dieing should be sufficient... This is in line with what Darwin said).

Yes thats great it has similar features... But how can you VERIFY that it is indeed a transition.. It could be like the platypus and share traits with many different types of organisms... duck bill, beaver tail, has eggs, mammary glands, sensors like fish in bill..

This is what science is about. Supporting a hypothesis, not just making an assumption based on an observation and claim it is correct.

11. No you're totally wrong. God isn't used as an excuse for what we don't know but an explanation for what we do know. Yes Newton invoked God the whole time, making unsubstanciated claims are not on.

"For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[28]"-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2"

In otherwords he is stating that since planets move in order to laws and do so without a hint of randomness there must be a reason for these laws governing them. What are these laws? how do they work? etc are grounds for further investigation.

The design hypothesis has never been well God did it thats it... It is and always was, "Wow, God created this thing, lets find out how it works so we can learn more about God". Christians are called to love God with all their heart, soul and mind. Science is one way they do this.

12. "And yet, every single living organism on this planet developped from a single cell."

And how is this claim verified?

Yes if you take a heart away the organism dies, yet it also requires the lungs to function, as well as a brain... and the digestive system to supply nutrients etc.. Yes one can claim this as irreducibly complex... (Which Darwin said would demolish his theory, so you've just demolished evolution... Congratulations!)

13. No it isn't a case of mechanical infertility.. From the sound of your claim, you're totally confused. Mechanical infertility refers to the physical properties of the organisms to have s@x, if a man was too big that is mechanical infertility, (mods sorry for this I have tried to explain this without refering to it but it seems I need to be more direct in explaining this concept).

14. No problem, when you find an ACTUAL scenario be sure to let me know.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users