Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Macro-evolution

Recommended Posts

"First, it remains a gene, does it not? This is not evolution; this is simply gaining new information if it is anything at all. I gained new abilities when I learned how to play guitar; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new ability. I gained new abilities during the processes of earning post graduate degrees; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. While in the military I earned many certifications, diplomas and honors for studies, achievements and missions; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. I am gaining new abilities during the processes of studying for my graduate degrees; I’m not evolving, I’m gaining a new abilities."

 

That isn't the same thing at all. Your genetics did not change when you learned these skells. The bacteria's genetics did. And yes, it remained a gene, but not quite the same gene. That's how evolution works, small steps like this one, simply added together.

 

"The E-coli turning into a beetle would be new information, its still E-coli."

 

But not the same E-coli. That is the point. Information must have been needed to give it the new protein it now has, or are you claiming that a new protien can be generated without new information?

 

Ron, the point is not that vestigial organs are "useless", we know some of them aren't (though I have yet to hear a creationist postulate a use for the whale's muscles which are there to move nonexistant external ears, or the eye remnants in blind cave fish). The point is that they do not serve the same purpose as those in other animals which have the same structure in non-vestigial form. They look exactly like we would expect an evolutionary leftover to look. Furthermore, these things are not the opposite of evolution. Evolution only demands that new traits be advantageous, not necessarily more complex. If the whale was transitioning from a terrestrial into an aquatic animal, losing external ears is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as it would make for a more streamlined swimmer, it can still be evolution even though it is losing a feature. Some evolutionary changes add features (like the new enzyme previously mentioned) and some remove them, whichever is advantageous to the organism.

 

I think the strongest evidence for evolution, and the original role of these "vestigial" features, comes from genetics. I mentioned earlier that baleen whales have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off. Whales also have the genes to grow fur, yet these are switched off. Birds also have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off. Birds also have the genes to grow long, dinosaurian style tails, but these are suppressed so that only a small tail is grown. And of course humans have the aforementioned chromosome which looks suspiciously similar to 2 ape chromosomes. There are many more examples, but the question for creationists is: why do these animals have these genes?

 

ikester7579: I don't know what my personal beliefs have to do with a thread about biology, but let me assure you I am not an atheist. I don't even like atheists, I think they are massively arrogant because what they basically are saying is "I know everything in universe, and there is definitely no God". It is a ridiculous claim, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove the supernatural and yet they claim to have done so somehow. They can't even back up their bald assertions with personal testimnies like some religious people do, becasuse of course they don't belive that God has had any effect on their lives. They are often so smug or so rude about their beliefs that they honestly make me think "their belief system is not for me, it has turned them into people who are genuinely not nice". My posts are not "anti-God", they are anti-biblical literalism. I don't think Genesis needs to be taken as a literal account, and I think that there are large scientiffic problems with a literal interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, the point is not that vestigial organs are "useless", we know some of them aren't (though I have yet to hear a creationist postulate a use for the whale's muscles which are there to move nonexistant external ears, or the eye remnants in blind cave fish).

71782[/snapback]

No adz87, the main point is that all of your assertions are made on “assumptions†(as I provided in my rebuttal above). And your assertion that you are merely waiting on a creationist “postulate†is doing nothing more than proving my point. You want a “postulate†(which is, again, nothing more than an “assumption); a “postulate†by definition is nothing more than “to assume or suggest that something is true or exists, especially as the basis of an argument or theoryâ€ÂÂ. Further, a “postulate†is “something that is assumed or believed to be true and that is used as the basis of an argument or theoryâ€ÂÂ… They are faith statements.

 

Therefore, either you or I can “postulate†anything we want, and bring absolutely nothing of worth to the table when it comes to submitting “factsâ€ÂÂ.

 

The point is that they do not serve the same purpose as those in other animals which have the same structure in non-vestigial form.

71782[/snapback]

The point is that you are “assuming†what they are for, instead of “knowing†what they are for.

 

They look exactly like we would expect an evolutionary leftover to look.

71782[/snapback]

They look exactly like you “postulate†your expectations for them to be. Just like you “postulateâ€ÂÂ(sans any empirical evidence) that the whale was previously a wolf-like land dwelling animal. But before this could happen, you have to “postulate†that the wolf-like creature was originally an aquatic animal. Which ends (today) demands de-evolution to reach! If this were the case, then we could all de-evolve back to the protozoa stage. Have we observed any of this, or is this simply a “postulate†as well.

 

Furthermore, these things are not the opposite of evolution. Evolution only demands that new traits be advantageous, not necessarily more complex.

71782[/snapback]

Actually they do demand de-evolution in the case submitted, as there is absolutely no empirical evidence of the complex becoming decreasingly complex, just like there is no empirical evidence that an aquatic animal evolved into a wolf like creature, then evolved into a whale. But then again, we are only submitting “postulates†and not facts and evidences.

 

If the whale was transitioning from a terrestrial into an aquatic animal, losing external ears is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as it would make for a more streamlined swimmer, it can still be evolution even though it is losing a feature. Some evolutionary changes add features (like the new enzyme previously mentioned) and some remove them, whichever is advantageous to the organism.

71782[/snapback]

And again, you are only “postulatingâ€ÂÂ, therefore I “postulate†that you have absolutely no “empirical†evidence to support your “postulatesâ€ÂÂ. The difference is, I actually have the inductive empirical facts to back up my “postulatesâ€ÂÂ.

 

I think the strongest evidence for evolution, and the original role of these "vestigial" features, comes from genetics.

71782[/snapback]

Again, you keep using the “vestigial†word, as if your use of it lends validity to your “postulatesâ€ÂÂ. You do realize this do oyu not?

 

I mentioned earlier that baleen whales have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off. Whales also have the genes to grow fur, yet these are switched off. Birds also have the genes to grow teeth, but they are switched off.

71782[/snapback]

Other than your “postulatesâ€ÂÂ, what exactly has this empirically proven?

 

Birds also have the genes to grow long, dinosaurian style tails, but these are suppressed so that only a small tail is grown. And of course humans have the aforementioned chromosome which looks suspiciously similar to 2 ape chromosomes. There are many more examples, but the question for creationists is: why do these animals have these genes?

71782[/snapback]

Once more you insert your totally assumed phrase “dinosaurian style tailsâ€ÂÂ, when in fact, if it was on a bird, it would be a “bird style tailâ€ÂÂ; as a bird is not a dinosaur, and a dinosaur is not a bird (except in your postulates). And you insert your totally assumed phrase “chromosome which looks suspiciously similar to 2 ape chromosomesâ€ÂÂ, emphasizing the words “suspiciously similar†as if it somehow enhances (or elevates) your “postulate†to “verified fact†status. There again, a man is not an ape, and an ape is not a man.

 

Further, when your “postulates†are not facts, you statements are nothing more than opinions, and “assumptive†opinions at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

71707[/snapback]

Empirical sources for that? None.

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

Our Terms