• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Answers In Genesis on Facebook

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Natural selection works in conjunction with mutation and genetic drift, so here is another cut & paste just for you:

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


There is no such thing as migration or genetic drift. Those are necessary terms made up to give the faithful hope they have not believed in vain.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:
  1. There is variation in traits.
    For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.
dot_clear.gif
browngreenbeetles1.gif

  1. There is differential reproduction.
    Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

That is no different than parents having one blond kid and one red headed kid. The beetles remained beetles who could mate and reproduce. No evolution.



dot_clear.gif
browngreenbeetles2.gif

  1. There is heredity.
    The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.
dot_clear.gif
browngreenbeetles3.gif

  1. End result:
    The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.
dot_clear.gif
browngreenbeetles4.gif

dot_clear.gif

Download this series of graphics from the Image library.
If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that
.-- Natural selection[/QUOTE]

The better ability to survive only help;s keep the beetle from becoming extinct. Because of the genetic effects, some brown beetles will still produce some green beetles.

There omega, two cut & pastes, which you will just pooh-pooh or ignore, so please stop the whining about us not doing this when we have.

You are half right. I did not ignore it, but I did pooh-pooh, because as I predicted, no scientific evidence was presented, and the opinions presented were wrong. Keep one truth in mind, time the usual default position of evolution, will not change the laws of genetics. Not in a gazillion years.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So you don't understand how evolution actually works?

Everything that reproduces does so with variation. Every individual organism has around 60 completely unique mutations in its genetic code. Most of these mutations produce little difference in the life or survivability of that organism, but a very small number will produce benefits and will increase either the likelihood of survival to reproduce or an improvement in reproductive potential overall. This improvement is largely determined by the environment a population lives in, which naturally sets the conditions under which certain mutations will be "successful" over others. From this point on, those organisms more likely to survive and/or thrive will tend to do so and produce more copies of themselves, which will proliferate into subsequent generations. Over time, this will affect the overall allele frequency in a population, or create a separate population altogether (leading to such things as ring species). This is how a single population of organisms diversifies or changes over time, and how new populations - and even new species - arise out of old ones, and this is how evolution works.



Pakicetus was not a dog, and it was certainly not "one generation from a whale". Pakicestus were around about 48-49 million years ago, and the earliest whales didn't appear until around 34 million years ago.
SOURCE: Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia


Then you don't know what a "species" is. Ring species is a clear and observed instance of a single population of organisms diverging and becoming two separate and distinct species, and proves that there is no genetic barrier at the level of "species" that prevents evolution beyond that level.


I've already given you two links which list observed instances of speciation.


Like I said, this is an odd request considering the information would be exactly the same, and further considering that posts have a word limit. Here are just a couple of examples from the links I already provided:

From Observed Instances of Speciation:
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow
Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.


5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.



From Some More Observed Speciation Events:
Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348



Observation is not a matter of opinion.


You should throw out your crystal ball.
Well done, but you know that this is to no avail with omega.

What's so bizarre with those who deny evolution is the simple fact that evolution is so obvious and is just plain old common sense as all material objects appear to change one way or another over time, and genes are material objects.

So, instead of using serious science, serious theology, and serious common sense, they ignore these and then blindly rely on what their denomination brainwashes them with.

However, with that being said, your post is quite worthwhile largely because there are some other people that see what you wrote who may be on the fence on this and related issues.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Not true, A mutation only affect one gene in the gene pool of the parents.
Nonsense. On average, an organism will carry around 64 mutations.

"In general, the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per cellgeneration.[5] This means that a human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes.[5]"
SOURCE: Mutation rate - Wikipedia


The mutation will only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation It will not add a new characteristic.
Except new characteristics can arise by slightly altering the form or function of existing characteristics over time. For example, the evolution of the eye:

320px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png



"Mutations hve no final evolutionary effect." Pierre Paul Grasse.
Firstly, providing a quote without a source or context is dishonest.

Secondly, the only source I can find for this quote is a page from the ICR (Creation, Mutation, and Variation | The Institute for Creation Research) which references it as being a quote from William Bauer's review of Pierre Paul Grasse.

Thirdly, Grasse was writing in 1973, at a time when genetics and sequencing the genome were still at a relatively early stage.

Fourth, providing one man's opinion (an outdated one at that) does not lend credibility to your argument. If you wish to debate evidence, then stick to debating evidence.

There is no evidence that mutation are responsible for a change of species,. The apple is still an apple. At lest you tried, which is more than any of the other have done.
What is it that you are failing to understand? Evolution doesn't say or predict that an apple will produce "something other than an apple". It says it will produce "variations of an apple", and this is exactly what is observed. Nothing needs to produce "something other" than what it is, it only needs to produce a variation of what it is, hence humans being descended from early hominids because we are still hominids, and why hominids descended from early mammals because hominids are still mammals, and why all living things are descended from early eukaryotes because all living things are still eukaryotes.

tree-of-life_2000.jpg


Everything is still a branch of that which produced it. It amazes me that you have the gall to post in this thread denying evolution when you clearly know so staggeringly little about it.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
There is no such thing as migration or genetic drift. Those are necessary terms made up to give the faithful hope they have not believed in vain.
What is the point of asking for evidence if you're just going to flat-out deny what people tell you?

That is no different than parents having one blond kid and one red headed kid. The beetles remained beetles who could mate and reproduce. No evolution.
Again, you don't understand evolution. Evolution can produce big changes or small changes in allele frequencies over time - the beetles don't have to become "something other than a beetle", they just become "variations of a beetle". But, over time, these variations can diverge so much from the source population that they can become a sub-species or entirely separate species altogether.


The better ability to survive only help;s keep the beetle from becoming extinct. Because of the genetic effects, some brown beetles will still produce some green beetles.
But the overall frequency of the mutations will favour the brown beetles, because the green beetles will continue to be eaten at a higher rate, and the mutation that produces brown beetles will therefore be far more likely to proliferate hereditarily.

You are half right. I did not ignore it, but I did pooh-pooh, because as I predicted, no scientific evidence was presented, and the opinions presented were wrong. Keep one truth in mind, time the usual default position of evolution, will not change the laws of genetics. Not in a gazillion years.
You're insufficiently educated to make any of these assessments.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
No they won't. They will only say it happened.
Well yeah, that's what I'm talking about. So you're saying to you, scientists seeing, documenting, and reporting populations evolving is not evidence that evolution happens?

For example they must give the science that causes it to happen.
What do you mean "the science that causes it to happen"?

For example they must show genetically how a dogs leg can become a whale fin.
First, dog legs didn't become whale fins. Second, if you mean the scientists need to identify the genetic changes that occurred, that's certainly part of the papers.

So again, if scientists see, document, and report populations evolving, including identifying the genetic changes that occurred, would that be evidence that evolution occurs?

I will give you an easy one---how can natural selection be a mechanism for a change of species. Pick any example you want. Just cut and pasts what is offered as evidence.
Let's see how you respond to the above.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I have been on the Answers In Genesis facebook page for a couple of months. They post articles and arguments that their numerous followers eat up. They think evolution is ridiculous, athiestic and part of a plan to undermine the bible. A few people go to that page to try to convince them evolution is true but to no avail partly because the articles posted on the facebook page is very convincing to them.

I hope some you guys will share your knowledge of evolution on their facebook page because my scientific abilities are limited.

All of the evidence for macro-evolution is assumed intelligence only. Genesis believers interpret the evidence far differently. If you can't handle that stay away from Genesis believers.

We will never believe the hogwash outside of God's word.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
I just did from a science source!
And as I knew your source did not tell HOW. As usually, they just said it happened and even then some of it saw wrong, scientifically.

keep telling yourself that, especially since you have so little "knowledge" of early Jewish literature, and to excuse this as "liberal theology" is just so unbelievably bizarre.

I am not concerned with Jewish history written by fallible men. I am only concerned about Jewish history written b y men inspired by God. It amuses that intelligent people believe knowing history can help me understand the Bible.

Wow, no wonder you like Trump-- two peas in a pod. I would rather be associated with Trump the with Clinton.

I'm done with your disingenuousness and your prejudicial judgmentalism-- have you no shame whatsoever? We do what you demand and then you just claim that we didn't. You only making a mockery of yourself and your denomination by acting in these ways.

That is amusing and ironic coming from you. You have been far more derogatory in you statements about me than I have been about you. The only thing I have said about you is that you are liberal, which you are. That is not derogatory since it is true. You have been far more judgemental of me than I have been of you and this post of yours proves it. you are not qualified to declare am disingenuousness. I have not demanded anything, I have only ask. That is your way of trying to make me look unChristian. That is disingenuous.

Good bye.

Have a very + day.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I have been on the Answers In Genesis facebook page for a couple of months. They post articles and arguments that their numerous followers eat up. They think evolution is ridiculous, athiestic and part of a plan to undermine the bible. A few people go to that page to try to convince them evolution is true but to no avail partly because the articles posted on the facebook page is very convincing to them.

I hope some you guys will share your knowledge of evolution on their facebook page because my scientific abilities are limited.
Facebook? Good place for them.
 

McBell

Unbound
I don't. I ask all the evo to cut and paste the evidence from their links and not one, not one single one has done so. That tells me they would if they could but the can't. I can't wave away what you don't present.

Maybe you would like to be the first to show I am wrong.

As I gaze into my crystal ball I see a message: He won't. He would if he could, but he can't.
So many bold faced lies in such a small post.

You should get a trophy
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Nonsense. On average, an organism will carry around 64 mutations.

Even if that is true, which I doubt only 1 of them will affect a particular gene.

"In general, the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per cellgeneration.[5] This means that a human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes.[5]"
SOURCE: Mutation rate - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

It doesn't matter how many there are, they do not change the species,



Except new characteristics can arise by slightly altering the form or function of existing characteristics over time. For example, the evolution of the eye:

320px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png



Mutations do not form new characteristics, they alter the characteristic the offspring would have
gotten if the mutation had not occurred.


Firstly, providing a quote without a source or context is dishonest.

What is even more dishonest is accusing someone of something you are guilty of. Where is your source for what you just posted?

Secondly, the only source I can find for this quote is a page from the ICR (Creation, Mutation, and Variation | The Institute for Creation Research) which references it as being a quote from William Bauer's review of Pierre Paul Grasse.

Thatgs where it came from, so the only questin is did he say it and is it rrue.

Thirdly, Grasse was writing in 1973, at a time when genetics and sequencing the genome were still at a relatively early stage.
Time has not and will not change the law of genetics.

Fourth, providing one man's opinion (an outdated one at that) does not lend credibility to your argument.
Unless you can prove his statement is wrong, and you can't, your opinion doe snot lent credibility to your argument.

If you wish to debate evidence, then stick to debating evidence.

If you want to debate evidence than present some with the science that support is.


What is it that you are failing to understand? Evolution doesn't say or predict that an apple will produce "something other than an apple".

It certainly does.

It says it will produce "variations of an apple", and this is exactly what is observed. Nothing needs to produce "something other" than what it is, it only needs to produce a variation of what it is, hence humans being descended from early hominids because we are still hominids, and why hominids descended from early mammals because hominids are still mammals, and why all living things are descended from early eukaryotes because all living things are still eukaryotes.

That is pure bolony. Not only that, evolution says before it was an apple, it was something other than an apple. An apple has to become something other than an apple,. Also it had to be something other than an apple to become an apple. When a bull dog and a poodle mate they will have a variety of god, but it will always be a dog.

tree-of-life_2000.jpg


Everything is still a branch of that which produced it. It amazes me that you have the gall to post in this thread denying evolution when you clearly know so staggeringly little about it.

If you think all living things we have today, plants, animals and humans originated from one source, it is you who not only don't understand evolution, you also don't understand real science.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
What is the point of asking for evidence if you're just going to flat-out deny what people tell you?

What is the point of saying there is evidence but wont cut and paste it? Why should I believe what people tell me without any supporting evidence? That is what those who accept evolution do.

Again, you don't understand evolution. Evolution can produce big changes or small changes in allele frequencies over time - the beetles don't have to become "something other than a beetle", they just become "variations of a beetle". But, over time, these variations can diverge so much from the source population that they can become a sub-species or entirely separate species altogether.

If you think a variation in a species is evidence of evolution, it is you who does not understand what evolution preaches.

But the overall frequency of the mutations will favour the brown beetles, because the green beetles will continue to be eaten at a higher rate, and the mutation that produces brown beetles will therefore be far more likely to proliferate hereditarily.

The color of the beetle is not dependent on a mutation. It is dependent which color in its parents is dominant. You lack understand of basic genetics.

You're insufficiently educated to make any of these assessments.

And you are insufficiently educated to make such an ignorant statement.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Well yeah, that's what I'm talking about. So you're saying to you, scientists seeing, documenting, and reporting populations evolving is not evidence that evolution happens?


What do you mean "the science that causes it to happen"?

Do you really not understand that writing a paper is not evidence. Also those populations of salamanders and gulls did not change species.

First, dog legs didn't become whale fins.



Pakicetus, a medium sized dog-like animal is in the line of whale evolution.

Second, if you mean the scientists need to identify the genetic changes that occurred, that's certainly part of the papers.

Then cut and paste the genetic evidence they presented.

So again, if scientists see, document, and report populations evolving, including identifying the genetic changes that occurred, would that be evidence that evolution occurs?

Only if the describe the genetic process that cause the change.

Let's see how you respond to the above.

My usual "cut and paste the evidence."
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
This isn't Pokémon - why do you creationists insist upon such inane examples or demands of evolution?

Because your whale experts say it happened but offer no science to support that it did.

But speaking of whales, how do you explain them having hip bones and hind leg remnants?

Easy---they don't have them. That is part of the fairy tale invented by your whale experts.

Isn't that a bit "Pagany" for such a staunch and rigid christian?

Why do you object to me asking for evidence?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Even if that is true, which I doubt only 1 of them will affect a particular gene.
What does that even mean? Any mutations have the potential to impact a gene.

It doesn't matter how many there are, they do not change the species,
I've already provided you with multiple examples of observed instances of speciation. So yes, it does.

Mutations do not form new characteristics, they alter the characteristic the offspring would have
gotten if the mutation had not occurred.
You've repeated the same argument I've responded to.

What is even more dishonest is accusing someone of something you are guilty of. Where is your source for what you just posted?
It's literally in the next sentence.

Thatgs where it came from, so the only questin is did he say it and is it rrue.
That is correct. What he says is unimportant, it's how we go about determining the truth of the statement that matters, so your quoting him has absolutely no impact on the debate.

Time has not and will not change the law of genetics.
What law of genetics, specifically?

Unless you can prove his statement is wrong, and you can't, your opinion doe snot lent credibility to your argument.
"Omega2xx is made of speghetti".

Unless you can prove my statement wrong, and you can't, your opinion does not lend credibility to your argument.

If you want to debate evidence than present some with the science that support is.
I've done this five times already.

It certainly does.
That is a lie. Evolutionary theory says no such thing.

That is pure bolony. Not only that, evolution says before it was an apple, it was something other than an apple. An apple has to become something other than an apple,. Also it had to be something other than an apple to become an apple. When a bull dog and a poodle mate they will have a variety of god, but it will always be a dog.
Before apples existed, there were fruits, and an apple is a variety of fruit. It is a variation on the "fruit category". It's funny that you should bring up dogs, because they're actually a perfect example of this. Because, at one point, dogs didn't exist. All dogs are descended from grey wolves. Does this mean that a grey wolf produced "something other than a grey wolf"? No. Because "dogs" are a variation on the "wolf category".

SOURCE: Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog

Do you understand?

If you think all living things we have today, plants, animals and humans originated from one source, it is you who not only don't understand evolution, you also don't understand real science.
Your opinion is irrelevant. Only facts are relevant on this issue, and they uniformly indicate common descent.
 
Top