Can any creationist tell me ...

[DavidFirth]

No, it doesn't. Learn how mutations work.

I know how change works. How is it going to change over the course of generations if the individuals don't change? It won't.

 

[Skwim]

I know how change works. How is it going to change over the course of generations if the individuals don't change? It won't.

Good, then learn how mutations work, as Polymath257 has suggested.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

Good, then learn how mutations work, as Polymath257 has suggested.

.

So mutations do not happen in individuals but only in several generations of individuals? Hmm...

I suppose the scientists have a convenient way of skirting the issue.

 

[Skwim]

So mutations do not happen in individuals but only in several generations of individuals? Hmm...

I suppose the scientists have a convenient way of skirting the issue.

How about just learning how mutations work, as Polymath257 has suggested.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

How about just learning how mutations work, as Polymath257 has suggested.

.

The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

Mutations (2 of 2)

So let's see some changes in the reproductive cells from generation to generation. That should be possible and happening.

 

[DavidFirth]

Changes in the genes controlling development can have major effects on the morphology of the adult organism. Because these effects are so significant, scientists suspect that changes in developmental genes have helped bring about large-scale evolutionary transformations. Developmental changes may help explain, for example, how some hoofed mammals evolved into ocean-dwellers, how water plants invaded the land, and how small, armored invertebrates evolved wings.

Development

Should be observable.

 

[Jose Fly]

How about just learning how mutations work, as Polymath257 has suggested..

He's a Christian creationist, and they have a vested interest in not learning science. Understanding just might lead to acceptance, which might lead to falling away from Christianity. It's far safer to remain deliberately ignorant and look like a fool, than to risk any backsliding.

That's why pretty much every Christian creationist that comes in here is shockingly ignorant of the very science they try and argue against.

 

[DavidFirth]

No matter how you guys want to slice it macroevolution should be observable now in the real world. But we don't see it happening. Maybe it isn't.

 

[metis]

No matter how you guys want to slice it macroevolution should be observable now in the real world. But we don't see it happening. Maybe it isn't.

Three things:

1. How are you defining "macro-evolution"?

2. If the above is supposedly correct, then why do the geneticists overwhelmingly say that all life has evolved, including forming new "kinds" of life?

3. What evidence can you supply us that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops before becoming "macro-evolution"? Actual scientific link(s) please, preferably from actual geneticists.

 

[sayak83]

The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

Mutations (2 of 2)

So let's see some changes in the reproductive cells from generation to generation. That should be possible and happening.

Yes. It's been observed. Here.
Estimating the human mutation rate using autozygosity in a founder population : Nature Genetics : Nature Research


Knowledge of the rate and pattern of new mutation is critical to the understanding of human disease and evolution. We used extensive autozygosity in a genealogically well-defined population of Hutterites to estimate the human sequence mutation rate over multiple generations. We sequenced whole genomes from 5 parent-offspring trios and identified 44 segments of autozygosity. Using the number of meioses separating each pair of autozygous alleles and the 72 validated heterozygous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) from 512 Mb of autozygous DNA, we obtained an SNV mutation rate of 1.20 × 10−8 (95% confidence interval 0.89–1.43 × 10−8) mutations per base pair per generation. The mutation rate for bases within CpG dinucleotides (9.72 × 10−8) was 9.5-fold that of non-CpG bases, and there was strong evidence (P = 2.67 × 10−4) for a paternal bias in the origin of new mutations (85% paternal). We observed a non-uniform distribution of heterozygous SNVs (both newly identified and known) in the autozygous segments (P = 0.001), which is suggestive of mutational hotspots or sites of long-range gene conversion.

View full text

 

[Polymath257]

The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

Mutations (2 of 2)

So let's see some changes in the reproductive cells from generation to generation. That should be possible and happening.

Very good! You are learning just a bit!

Yes, such changes happen from generation to generation. Again, they don't need to be *large* changes.. Small changes are enough to add up over generations to give large changes.

As usual, @sayak83 gives some good information.

 

[Polymath257]

No matter how you guys want to slice it macroevolution should be observable now in the real world. But we don't see it happening. Maybe it isn't.

Large scale change happens over the course of many generations. We *do* observe small scale change between generations and have seen speciation (change of species) both in the lab and in the wild.

Now, until you give a definition of 'kind' that can be *tested*, we can't address the issue of changes in 'kind', but again, we *have* seen changes is biological species.

 

[Polymath257]

Changes in the genes controlling development can have major effects on the morphology of the adult organism. Because these effects are so significant, scientists suspect that changes in developmental genes have helped bring about large-scale evolutionary transformations. Developmental changes may help explain, for example, how some hoofed mammals evolved into ocean-dwellers, how water plants invaded the land, and how small, armored invertebrates evolved wings.

Development

Should be observable.

And has been.

 

[blü 2]

how some hoofed mammals evolved into ocean-dwellers, how water plants invaded the land, and how small, armored invertebrates evolved wings.

Should be observable.

You haven't seen whales and dolphins? The ones I've seen have been conspicuously observable.

I only know the liverwort from photos, but the photos tell me it too is observable.

Come to think of it, I've seen a few insects with wings too.

And evolution will tell you how they came about, and how we know, if you take the trouble to ask.

You're not afraid of learning, are you?

 

[Polymath257]

You haven't seen whales and dolphins? The ones I've seen have been conspicuously observable.

I only know the liverwort from photos, but the photos tell me it too is observable.

Come to think of it, I've seen a few insects with wings too.

And evolution will tell you how they came about, and how we know, if you take the trouble to ask.

You're not afraid of learning, are you?

Yes, actually, it is quite clear that he is.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You haven't seen whales and dolphins? The ones I've seen have been conspicuously observable.

I only know the liverwort from photos, but the photos tell me it too is observable.

Come to think of it, I've seen a few insects with wings too.

And evolution will tell you how they came about, and how we know, if you take the trouble to ask.

You're not afraid of learning, are you?

Your absolutely right about one thing, that evolution will tell you, which is all base on mere assumptions and speculations. No one will actually know, all because no one was there to give actual proof.

This is why evolutionist can not find the link between man and the apes that would make a connection between the both.

All evolutionist can do is, give mere speculations and assumptions but no proven fact. Without any proven fact that man came from the apes, without any links to connect then together, it's just like trying to prove the Spaghetti Monster really exist.

But if you want to believe that you came from a lower part of animal life. Maybe you did by your lack of knowledge of lowering yourself to be that low, of coming from lower animal life.
All because evolution can not explain where all life came from or how all life started, evolution lowers it's self all evolution does is say, Hey we can't explain where this all started but we can by our assumptions and speculations. Where may haved happen.We can't find the missing link to connect apes with man, but we do have our assumptions and speculations.

 

[DavidFirth]

And has been.

Yet for whatever reason we're not observing it happening right in the here and now.

 

[Polymath257]

Your absolutely right about one thing, that evolution will tell you, which is all base on mere assumptions and speculations. No one will actually know, all because no one was there to give actual proof.

That isn't required to know what happened in the past. The reason is that there can be enough evidence from that past that is preserved to allow us to figure out and know what happened. Maybe not in perfect detail, but in enough so that we know the overall picture.

This is why evolutionist can not find the link between man and the apes that would make a connection between the both.

Sorry to have to inform you, but 'man' is an 'ape' biologically. We also have many transitional species between us an ancestral apes.

All evolutionist can do is, give mere speculations and assumptions but no proven fact. Without any proven fact that man came from the apes, without any links to connect then together, it's just like trying to prove the Spaghetti Monster really exist.

but we *do* have the facts in the fossils we find, the genetics we can extract from many of the more recent fossils, etc.

But if you want to believe that you came from a lower part of animal life. Maybe you did by your lack of knowledge of lowering yourself to be that low, of coming from lower animal life.

Maybe you should respect the truth more than your ego.

All because evolution can not explain where all life came from or how all life started, evolution lowers it's self all evolution does is say, Hey we can't explain where this all started but we can by our assumptions and speculations. Where may haved happen.We can't find the missing link to connect apes with man, but we do have our assumptions and speculations.

Evolution doesn't address the question of where life came from. it addresses the question of how and why living species change over time. The question of where life came from is a different and important question. But it isn't a question for evolution.

 

[Faithofchristian]

According to the theory of evolution, when one species evolves from another, the other species that one evolved from cease to exist, but yet the apes are still here ?

 

[Polymath257]

Yet for whatever reason we're not observing it happening right in the here and now.

Yes, actually, we do. You can dismiss the evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Look up Hox genes sometime, along with mutations in downstream regulating genes.