Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution

Recommended Posts

The triple-alpha process is not relevant in normal (main sequence) stars like the Sun because their central temperatures are too low. Theoretically the temperature would be high enough in a red giant. However, it would be used up in the cycling in the stars.

 

You may point out that such elements could be dispersed through the universe via a supernova but that is an extremely poor mechanism for the Earth to obtain oxygen and is astronomically improbable and a far cry to an empirical solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Actually that cycle requires there already be existing carbon in the star.... Where did this carbon initially come from? Furthermore, since it is a cycle then there will be no excess oxygen to send to the Earth since it is used up in more revolutions of the cycle.

You are correct.

 

 

 

3 +4. I asked for evidence not a wikipedia article.. Furthermore you have not attempted to answer how these elements get from the sun to the Earth... Considering that gravity is in effect and that since space doesn't have random gases floating about it is a fair call to say that there is no way that your hypotheis could work in reality.

71265[/snapback]

Wikipedia is a tool used by atheist evangelist that they use to pretend that their ideas are in coherence with scientific literature. They will normally quote from scientific literature but only from the parts of it that favors their view, and not the problems with the theories that are mentioned in scientific journals. This whole "rational atheist" movement is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. A good example is the blood clotting system we have.  This system evolved in sea creatures.  In fact, there are elements in their blood clotting system which are different from our system in that they are missing some elements we have.  For example, one element of the human clotting system, factor 12 does not exist in dolphins and whales.  The puffer fish is missing the entire contact phase system.  So different animals and environments, can indeed miss some of parts of our systems.

 

2. There are a few examples, but there are many more of species that have disappeared in the fossil record to be replaced with simmilar looking organisms, or with nothing at all. 

 

3. There have been 5 mass extinctions in which around 44-95% of earths species have gone extinct, the most famous being the extinction of the dinosaurs which killed off 85% of all species on earth.  In fact, 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. 

 

4. We only find most of the species that are alive today in the upper rocks (with several exceptions).  You will not find rabbits, lions, humans, or whales in the precambrian or devonian rocks.

 

Species Diversity and Extinction

 

5. These species were adapted to their ecological niches so they stayed pretty much the same.  If they were to move to new niches, they would face competition from those who were already well adapted to these. 

 

6. Evolution is not an unlimited process and has some real limits imposed by genetics, the environment, and natural selection.  Sometimes it takes some time to find the right combination of genes natural selection would approve of to evolve. 

 

7. Easy.  Humans have evolved much more than chimpanzees from their common ancestor.  Hominids first evolved their ability to walk and then sort of stayed the same for a while.  Then they started evolving bigger brains starting with homo habilis to homo erectus and finally to modern humans.

 

8. I agree with Dr.  Green.  Although the structure of the fossil record shows a progression from simpler to complex forms proving common descent, the method by which things become complex is not even and constant at all.  In fact many species go into evolutionary stasis until picking up their evolution again. 

 

9. This is why I believe that while a constant evolution happens in some cases, this is not always the case.  This is why a punctuated equilibrium view of evolution is far more accurate than a dogmatic rule of constant evolution which is too disconnected from what we see in the real world and does not factor in the nitty gritty of the environmental and genetic conditions of evolution.

71257[/snapback]

......

 

1. Ken Miller is assuming that since dolphins don't need factor 12 then all organisms don't.... Did he test this on an organism that does require factor 12?

What if he takes away one of the ones he doesn't mention?? Will it still work then?

 

I find it really frustrating how scientists DO NOT self-analyse and criticise their own hypothesises...

 

What was the pathway Miller proposed? Considering all he said was it is there... and did not go into detail on what it actually is.. He admits that specific interactions are required... This is the main thrust of ID..

 

 

2. How do you know this, what is your evidence?

 

3. Is this 99% of actual species found or 99% of proposed species including the many many many imaginary transitional forms of which we have no evidence for.

 

4. Perhaps.. But what can you conclude from that? All you can claim is that we don't find rabbits, lions etc in pre-cambrian rocks... Anything else is an assumption.

 

5. I believe I posted a thread that shows the fossils of many different species are the same as their modern equivalent.. Considering that evolution is meant to be in effect, this fossil evidence should not occur, (as it demonstrates no change over millions of years)... No change means no evolution of that species... And since there is no progression of traits from one to the next, then it seems that these organisms appeared fully formed.

 

6. Wow! You are the first person to admit that evolution has limits ;) Most claim that with enough time anything can happen. I concur there are limits, and it is these limits that give evidence against evolution occuring.. Since all we see is change within a species, not change to become a new species.

 

7. Really? Where is the evidence?

 

8. Yes the fossil record does give evidence against Darwinistic gradualistic evolution.

 

9. Puntuated equilibrium has its own flaws, like mutation rate, % of good and bad mutations. Which means that increasing the mutation rate for PE to occur would increase the amount of negative mutations since the % is that the majority is negative.

 

Most single base mutations are not stable, due to the change of a single base, the coefficients of each base is changed and the DNA unzips since A only binds to T and C only binds to G, visa versa.. I assume unzipping the DNA length will be bad for the bacteria... :) Those that do remain fixed will encounter further problems, like below.

 

Base pair additions / deletions, will change how the DNA is read

 

AAT TCG GCG CGT ATT

TTA AGC CGC GCA TAA

 

add in a CG at the start =

 

CAA TTC GGC GCG TAT T

GTT AAG CCG CGC ATA A

 

This fundamentaly shifts the codon sequence and hence it will be read in totally different way, also bypassing stop codons as well as creating new stop codons.. From this example you can see how just one slight change can drastically change the shape of a protein, (and thus render it inoperable for its specific task)

 

Horizontal gene transfer, I have recently found out in Microbiology that this is mediated via proteins, hence it is not a random mutation.. (it implies more of a design concept).. and should not be a part of evolution, (as per random mutations + natural selection)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct.

Wikipedia is a tool used by atheist evangelist that they use to pretend that their ideas are in coherence with scientific literature. They will normally quote from scientific literature but only from the parts of it that favors their view, and not the problems with the theories that are mentioned in scientific journals. This whole "rational atheist" movement is a joke.

71267[/snapback]

Thanks. Its amusing when just simple things can tear the whole hypothesis apart... Gravity in this case, and the fact that it is a cycle...

 

Yeah I have noticed that alot of evolution videos on youtube use classical music... like as if it will make it a more intellectual video... Not sure if that is part of the movement, but you are correct it is a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6) There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that the earth's atmosphere formed prior to life, and that the abundance of oxygen in the current atmosphere is due to photosynthesis converting CO2 in the atmosphere into O2.  Changing the composition of an atmosphere doesn't mean that an atmosphere didn't exist before the change.  Bacteria survived by living deep enough for UV not to kill them (see 5).

71263[/snapback]

Numbers,

While I appreciate your knowledge of particle physics, current science has cyanobacteria (blue green algae) as responsible for the oxygen atmosphere. I believe they live more toward the water's surface don't they. Besides, in my book there would have been huge problems with greenhouse gases in the first atmosphere. I don't know how they expect an ocean to form with the heat of the planet in the first atmosphere. It's a horrible model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 and 4) Look up nucleosynthesis.  All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were at one point created in a star via fusion. They get scattered when

the star dies and explodes. 

 

One of the pieces of evidence for this is that the distribution of elements in the universe matches the distribution of elements that is produced in stars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

And yes, we can perform fusion in particle accelerators or research reactors.

 

71263[/snapback]

Have you, or any scientist observed a star exploding? or tested it etc

 

If not then what you claim here is an assumption, furthermore it is believed that when a star explodes a black hole is formed which would suck all the elements in anyway....

 

"Distribution of elelments in the univers matches the distribution of elelments produced in stars"

 

Now this really is a bold statement to make, since many of the elements are not accounted for in the processes that COULD have happened in the Sun to fuse into them... Furthermore the rates are unknown as well as the concentrations hence this "evidence" is just wind.. There is no logical way anyone can know what you just claimed, you've based this on your own faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merging responses to several posts

 

Actually that cycle requires there already be existing carbon in the star.... Where did this carbon initially come from? Furthermore, since it is a cycle then there will be no excess oxygen to send to the Earth since it is used up in more revolutions of the cycle.

 

One way to make carbon is the fusion of 3 helium atoms. This is the same link I already gave you. It may help you if you read the articles, they contain the answers to your questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

He + He → Be

Be + He → C

 

From the triple apha page I already linked.

This creates a situation in which stellar nucleosynthesis produces large amounts of carbon and oxygen but only a small fraction of these elements is converted into neon and heavier elements

 

And for water to form there needs to be oxygen yes? Which defies the logic that was used for the Miller-Urey experiment whereby NO oxygen was present for life to begin... (evos go on to state that the oxygen is created via plants and photosynthesising bacteria, this is what my lecturers said)

 

Water is formed in space, not on earth, when it combines with hydrogen which is the most common substance in the universe. Molecular Oxygen is what was absent from the atmosphere (not to be confused with Oxygen atoms which were part of chemical compounds like water). O2 is so reactive that it won't exist while there are other elements like Hydrogen/carbon/iron etc. for it to react with (it forms H2O or CO2 or various other oxides instead of existing as O2). An atmosphere can only contain O2 after all the various oxygen sinks are full.

 

I asked for evidence not a wikipedia article.. Furthermore you have not attempted to answer how these elements get from the sun to the Earth... Considering that gravity is in effect and that since space doesn't have random gases floating about it is a fair call to say that there is no way that your hypotheis could work in reality

 

They don't come from our sun, that would be impossible since our sun hasn't died yet. Heavy elements come from stars that have exploded. Where are you getting the idea that space doesn't have random gases floating around? Ever hear of the interstellar medium? nebulae? gas clouds?

 

So how do these early cells remain at the proper depth? Did they employ a system of ballasts, (which indicates complexity in an assumed to be "simple" organism).

 

Some bacteria are able to change their bouyancy so that would be a possiblity. A simpler answer would be to just live on the sea floor. (see below for stromatolites link)

 

and that was a faith statement. Just because something could happen, doesn't necessary mean that it did... Until it is proven, the null hypothesis says no

 

Actually it's simple logic. If there's a region of the ocean that is uninhabitable, anything that lives in the ocean must therefore not live in that uninhabitable region.

Granted, this assumes the validity of the creationist argument that UV was lethal at ocean's surface, but I was feeling generous.

 

Numbers,

While I appreciate your knowledge of particle physics, current science has cyanobacteria (blue green algae) as responsible for the oxygen atmosphere.  I believe they live more toward the water's surface don't they. 

 

Not necessarily.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16239195

We investigated the distribution of Planktothrix, as well as other cyanobacteria, through the water-column during a Planktothrix mass development at 10-16 m depth

 

There's also stromatolites which are formed by mats of cyanobacteria living on the sea floor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

 

Besides, in my book there would have been huge problems with greenhouse gases in the first atmosphere.  I don't know how they expect an ocean to form with the heat of the planet in the first atmosphere.  It's a horrible model.

71277[/snapback]

There's something that I think you and Ikester aren't realizing. Water vapor is a gas and therefore counts toward atmospheric pressure.

 

Look at a phase diagram for water and notice that as pressure goes up (more water vapor in the air) the state of water approaches liquid. For an oceans worth of water vapor, the atmospheric pressure would be roughly similar to the pressure at the bottom of the ocean (mass is the same whether its liquid or gas, it'd just be spread out a bit more after factoring in dry land). For a more specific answer you'd need to tell me what temperature you think the earth had, that would have prevented condensation and how much water you think would be in the atmosphere at that point. If you can find a temperature where condensation is impossible you'll also need to explain why you think the earth never cooled below that point.

 

 

Have you, or any scientist observed a star exploding? or tested it etc

 

Yes, they are called nova or supernova, you can find pictures of them online if you look. We can see the radioactive decay of elements formed during the explosions such as Cobalt detections from SN-1987A.

 

If not then what you claim here is an assumption, furthermore it is believed that when a star explodes a black hole is formed which would suck all the elements in anyway....

 

Only stars above the Chandrasekhar limit form black holes and the upper layers of the star gets blasted away prior to the formation of the black hole which allows elements to escape.

 

Distribution of elelments in the univers matches the distribution of elelments produced in stars"

 

Now this really is a bold statement to make, since many of the elements are not accounted for in the processes that COULD have happened in the Sun to fuse into them... Furthermore the rates are unknown as well as the concentrations hence this "evidence" is just wind.. There is no logical way anyone can know what you just claimed, you've based this on your own faith.

 

If you read the article I linked you'd have seen a chart showing the relative abundances of elements in the solar system with an explination for the various peaks and dips relating to the rate of synthesis in stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merging responses to several posts

Water is formed in space, not on earth, when it combines with hydrogen which is the most common substance in the universe.

There is no evidence to suggest that our water came from space. There is also ice on the moon, of course there is water in space, this isn't news to us.

 

 

They don't come from our sun, that would be impossible since our sun hasn't died yet.  Heavy elements come from stars that have exploded.  Where are you getting the idea that space doesn't have random gases floating around?  Ever hear of the interstellar medium? nebulae? gas clouds?

Some bacteria are able to change their bouyancy so that would be a possiblity.  A simpler answer would be to just live on the sea floor. (see below for stromatolites link)

To leave a chemical signature on the Earth, the supernova explosion must, according to the current theories of astrophysics, have taken place quite close to Earth, within eight parsecs. If it had taken place much further away, then our solar wind would have shielded us from that supernova explosion. Only a close explosion would have enough force to leave a chemical signature on Earth.

 

When a star goes supernova, it blasts most of its material into space with great force. When the remnants of that blast made up of plasma, and stellar dust – meet the solar wind, a fight ensues. If the supernova explosion took place nearby, then its blast remnant will likely be fast and dense enough to overwhelm the solar wind. In this way, the remnant – containing certain chemicals like 60Fe can reach the inner solar system. But if the supernova was far away, then the odds are stacked in the solar wind’s favor, and many of the chemicals are held back.

 

Scientists have a hypothesis that attempts to resolve this problem. When the remnant meets the solar wind, the plasma does get held back but the iron that the plasma contains can actually escape out of the plasma, and continue on into the inner solar system.

 

Their path to Earth depends on the size of the grains, how much charge they carry on their surface, and the velocity at which the grains travel. Most scientists summarize that at a velocity of 100 kilometers per second, the remnants can easily reach Earth.

 

This sounds like a problem for Creationists and a score for Evolutionists. Not really. This is VERY theoretical astrophysics. Scientists freely admit that they had to make some assumptions about the density of the iron to get this hypothesis to even sound plausible. In the end, it is still a figment of imagination and is far from empirical Science like you keep trying to point it out to be. Let me welcome you to reality, again. I recommend reading some books like Astrophysics for Dummies so that you can actually understand what you are parroting from other sites.

 

Reference:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...2f&searchtype=a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Water is formed in space, not on earth,

 

2. Molecular Oxygen is what was absent from the atmosphere (not to be confused with Oxygen atoms which were part of chemical compounds like water). 

 

3. O2 is so reactive that it won't exist while there are other elements like Hydrogen/carbon/iron etc. for it to react with (it forms H2O or CO2 or various other oxides instead of existing as O2).  An atmosphere can only contain O2 after all the various oxygen sinks are full.

 

4. Heavy elements come from stars that have exploded. 

 

5. Some bacteria are able to change their bouyancy so that would be a possiblity. 

 

6. A simpler answer would be to just live on the sea floor. (see below for stromatolites link)

 

7. Actually it's simple logic.  If there's a region of the ocean that is uninhabitable, anything that lives in the ocean must therefore not live in that uninhabitable region.

Granted, this assumes the validity of the creationist argument that UV was lethal at ocean's surface, but I was feeling generous. 

 

8. If you read the article I linked you'd have seen a chart showing the relative abundances of elements in the solar system with an explination for the various peaks and dips relating to the rate of synthesis in stars.

71285[/snapback]

As you may have noticed I am not an astrophysicist I am a Biologist... (like this thread was intended to be about in the first place)

 

1. If this is a fact as you claim, then where is your empirical evidence?

 

2. Again where is your empirical evidence

 

3. Yet there is an abundance of O2 and H2 in our atmosphere... According to you all of this should combine to form water, (until one runs out).... Yet there is oxygen in the atmosphere which defies your logic.

 

4. Again, empirical evidence needed to make a "fact" claim

 

5. And as I said this would introduce complexity, (apart from photosynthesis) in a cell that is assumed to be the pre-cursor for cellular life... Does this not demonstrate to you the level of complexity that is required for life to occur.. This is in direct contradiction to evolution in which each part / function "evolved" over a slow time... SO I ask you, was it the photosynthesis / bouyancy that evolved first... and how did the cell survive without the other at the time...

 

6. Right... so photosyntesis can occur on the ocean floor.... 100's of m or even km under the surface... You have a conundrum here, either its too low and cannot photosynthesise or it is too high and gets fryed by the UV light that is not filtered by the aparant lack of oxygen (and thus ozone) in the atmosphere.

 

7. You did not address my comments.. "and that was a faith statement. Just because something could happen, doesn't necessary mean that it did... Until it is proven, the null hypothesis says no"

 

In other words the logic fallacy "appello probabilitatem"... You cannot claim something as a fact UNTIL you have empirical evidence for it.. Period.

 

8. I would rather YOU post the evidences for this chart since it is you who is making the claim... (This way you are accountable, rather than palming it off to a link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Again, empirical evidence needed to make a "fact" claim

There isn't any evidence for his claim. It is only theoretical astrophysics. Unfortunately this guy along with many other evo evangelists don't understand it. Rather they read talk origins and parrot what they read. They state things that are unproven in science as if it is some sort of fact that correlates with their pseudo religion, therefore giving it credibility because it is the "scientific" outlook on things. In reality, it is just taking chosen pieces out of scientific literature and then ignoring the problems that the same literature mentions. I said that the "rational atheist" movement is a joke. I will go further and say that it is not a community that knows anything about science, rather, it is a circus act.

 

They tend to state things that are still unproven as fact then state that Creationists are stupid and uninformed, when in reality, they don't understand anything that they are copying and pasting from their "atheist" sites that are using selective quoting from "scientific literature." I am going to start looking at the references of talkorigins articles and expose how often that stupid site "quote mines" in secular peer reviewed journals to show how misleading and idiotic the site itself is.

 

They don't care about Science, they only care about denying God and bringing people to their side so that they can feel better about their folly. They are doing a major disservice to the scientific community by quoting their theoretical literature as if it is fact because it makes the honest scientists look like liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

71297[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

Posted Image

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Wikipedia: Lenski ExperimentLenski's Summary of his Experiment

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/a...ons-in-bacteria

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Are Mutations Harmful?

 

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

71057[/snapback]

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

Neanderthals

 

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

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Wikipedia: Lenski ExperimentLenski's Summary of his Experiment

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Are Mutations Harmful?

 

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

Neanderthals

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

 

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

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Have you ever considered that there might be a problem classifying these two animals as of the same species? They probably don't reproduce much anyway. You would need a small young female great dane and a large male chihuahua, and then maybe we would see come cross breeding!

 

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

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I will let you have the last word in this discussion.

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

Are Mutations all bad?

 

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Enjoy.

71161[/snapback]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Neanderthals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

71326[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

71330[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Are Mutations all bad?

 

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

71327[/snapback]

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Have you ever considered that there might be a problem classifying these two animals as of the same species?  They probably don't reproduce much anyway.  You would need a small young female great dane and a large male chihuahua, and then maybe we would see come cross breeding!

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

71326[/snapback]

Not a problem ;)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Posted Image

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

 

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

71320[/snapback]

 

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

71322[/snapback]

Dan writes:"Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth." I think it is just a big version of common sloth. It's not even another species. The difference could be due to food abundance or genetic. I won't say that this is certain. In case of the first it surely isn't proof of evolution, but rather a proof for changing habitat.

In case of the later the giant sloth is likely just a genetic variety of the giant one. One that died out (was "naturally selected against") once the food supply shrinked. Again no proof of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

71297[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan writes:"Indeed the giant sloth is just a big version of a normal sloth." I think it is just a big version of common sloth. It's not even another species. The difference could be due to food abundance or genetic. I won't say that this is certain. In case of the first it surely isn't proof of evolution, but rather a proof for changing habitat.

In case of the later the giant sloth is likely just a genetic variety of the giant one. One that died out (was "naturally selected against") once the food supply shrinked. Again no proof of evolution.

71338[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms