Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Sunstone]

That was not my challenge. I do not dispute beneficial mutations. Read my OP again.

But don't you see how utterly trivial and unimportant your challenge is because you have narrowed it to the point it proves nothing?

 

[painted wolf]

So then what about the change from einkorn wheat to modern wheat? There was a lot of genetic change involved there.
how about the observed speciation of the following.
Evening Primrose (Oenothra gigas)
Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

then there are all the currently being observed speciations events like the London Tube Mosquieto, Australian Cain Toad, and so on.

Genetic change has been observed in Humans as well... Genetic change happins all the time.

Epigenetics only shows one more of several meccanisms for genetic change, it doesn't disprove the other well documented meccanisms. Not any more than Relitivity disproves Gravity.

wa:do

 

[supersport]

So then what about the change from einkorn wheat to modern wheat? There was a lot of genetic change involved there.
how about the observed speciation of the following.
Evening Primrose (Oenothra gigas)
Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

then there are all the currently being observed speciations events like the London Tube Mosquieto, Australian Cain Toad, and so on.

Genetic change has been observed in Humans as well... Genetic change happins all the time.

Epigenetics only shows one more of several meccanisms for genetic change, it doesn't disprove the other well documented meccanisms. Not any more than Relitivity disproves Gravity.

wa:do

listen close because you don't seem to understand the basics....epigenetics is not, I repeat not a change in the genetic sequence. It has nothing to do with dna or mutations. It's a change that goes under the radar of genes.

And to the rest of your post, just because there is a genetic change does not mean that random mutations culled by selection was responsible. Changes in genes do not validate ToE. Neither does it validate that one creature evolved from another. There is simply no scientific proof, for example, that polar bears "evolved" (by way of random mutations + natural selection) from grizzley bears. They may be descended from grizzley bears, but that does not mean they evolved by way of the stated mechanism given by darwinists. I am debating the mechansims of change, which I suggest has no scientific merit.

 

[Quiddity]

I don’t think supersport is denying that mutations take place. The very fact that we age is evidence that copying errors in the genetic material take place. So in that sense mutations happen in our own bodies all the time.

From his OP I think he was talking about macroevolution. Although it’s likely that the fossils found are due to evolution it is a mistake (IMO) to assume micro and macro function the same. Its one thing to say a bacteria mutated and quite another for me to grow wings. But like always, with enough time (millions and millions of years) and fancy conjectures, anything is possible. This isn’t to dog on evolution, but rather to point to the disservice its loyalist bring to science by not questioning the silliest of conjectures.

 

[camanintx]

There is simply no scientific proof, for example, that polar bears "evolved" (by way of random mutations + natural selection) from grizzley bears. They may be descended from grizzley bears, but that does not mean they evolved by way of the stated mechanism given by darwinists. I am debating the mechansims of change, which I suggest has no scientific merit.

Biological Evolution is simply the change in inherited characteristics of a population from generation to successive generation. Whether those characteristics resulted from genetic mutation or epigenetics does not change the fact that they were inherited from previous generations. If polar bears descended from grizzly bears and they have different inheritable characteristics, then they evolved from grizzly bears. Just because we cannot explain the specific mechanism doesn't invalidate the basic theory, no more than our lack of understanding of what causes gravity doesn't invalidate General Relativity.

 

[Quiddity]

Biological Evolution is simply the change in inherited characteristics of a population from generation to successive generation. Whether those characteristics resulted from genetic mutation or epigenetics does not change the fact that they were inherited from previous generations. If polar bears descended from grizzly bears and they have different inheritable characteristics, then they evolved from grizzly bears. Just because we cannot explain the specific mechanism doesn't invalidate the basic theory, no more than our lack of understanding of what causes gravity doesn't invalidate General Relativity.

Just be mindful that inherited characteristics from one to another is one thing, but extending that over generations is another. Yes, it's reasonable to make the leap that it is probably no different but it's also healthy to think it's not the same. There is always that possiblity that the fossils we find are simply a different type of bird that never really had any connections to anything inherited.

 

[supersport]

Biological Evolution is simply the change in inherited characteristics of a population from generation to successive generation. Whether those characteristics resulted from genetic mutation or epigenetics does not change the fact that they were inherited from previous generations. If polar bears descended from grizzly bears and they have different inheritable characteristics, then they evolved from grizzly bears. Just because we cannot explain the specific mechanism doesn't invalidate the basic theory, no more than our lack of understanding of what causes gravity doesn't invalidate General Relativity.

I think it's cool how you say this with such authority -- that it doesn't matter HOW evolution (aka...change over time) happens, all that's important is that it happens.

In reality, nothing could be further than the truth. The whole debate is over how change happens. Darwinists say it happens by natural selection which sifts through random mutations...thus making adaptation an external thing (selection).....IDists and creationists believe that variation arises from within the individual -- this is important because if variation arises from within the individual, then adaptation is an internal thing -- which incidently would be unexplainable scientifically because it would stem from mental processes.

but just to show you that you are wrong, please read the following site...(sorry cannot yet post urls yet....go to evolution.berkeley.edu and check out the mechanism section:

"Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life—but exactly how does it work?
Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur."

In otherwords, unless it is genetic variation acted upon by selection -- then it is not, by definition "evolution"...and thus cannot be part of an explanation of microbes-to-man.

 

[UnTheist]

What is the competing theory you are proposing?

What is the alternative theory you are proposing?

Yes, what is your alternative theory, supersport?

 

[UnTheist]

In otherwords, unless it is genetic variation acted upon by selection -- then it is not, by definition "evolution"...and thus cannot be part of an explanation of microbes-to-man.

But there is genetic variation, and selection. I'm not getting your argument

 

[Quiddity]

But there is genetic variation, and selection. I'm not getting your argument

Plus, the fact that we do not know everything about Evolution does not invalidate it. It's a non-argument.

True dat! But neither does it make it conclusive in relation to the scientific method. At least not all of it.

 

[painted wolf]

listen close because you don't seem to understand the basics....epigenetics is not, I repeat not a change in the genetic sequence. It has nothing to do with dna or mutations. It's a change that goes under the radar of genes.
And to the rest of your post, just because there is a genetic change does not mean that random mutations culled by selection was responsible. Changes in genes do not validate ToE. Neither does it validate that one creature evolved from another. There is simply no scientific proof, for example, that polar bears "evolved" (by way of random mutations + natural selection) from grizzley bears. They may be descended from grizzley bears, but that does not mean they evolved by way of the stated mechanism given by darwinists. I am debating the mechansims of change, which I suggest has no scientific merit.

please read closer... I didn't say Epigenetics was a change in the geneome... it is the result of protiens acting on the DNA to block parts of it from functioning correctly.

you said this:

My claim is that mutations cannot add new, beneficial, selectable novelty.

I provided examples to prove this statement false.
The mecanism of change is well documented and has more and more documentation added everyday in scientific literature around the world.

Do you have any evidence that single cells choose to have protiens interfere with the functioning of their own DNA and how do they manage it?

without this method of single cells choosing on their devolpment to change their own DNA Epigenetics can not be used to substitute or disprove mutation, horizontal gene transfer and other forms of inheritable genetic change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is a tiresome and sophomoric challenge raised by the willfully ignorant on behalf of the religiously backward, and one that has been successfully and repeatedly answered by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

 

[UnTheist]

It is a tiresome and sophomoric challenge raised by the willfully ignorant on behalf of the religiously backward, and one that has been successfully and repeatedly answered by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

But Science is wrong, 'Cuz God says so. You can't argue that

 

[supersport]

But there is genetic variation, and selection. I'm not getting your argument

where? Please show me. I would suggest you cannot even provide me a scientifically-verfied example of natural selection, much less a mutation that fits the criteria in my OP. But you're welcome to try. I'm open to what you may have up your sleeve.

 

[Sunstone]

I would suggest you cannot even provide me a scientifically-verfied example of natural selection...

What do you consider "scientific verification"? Would you be willing to consider something "scientifically verified" if the vast majority of scientists in the field considered it solid evidence for something?

 

[supersport]

What do you consider "scientific verification"? Would you be willing to consider something "scientifically verified" if the vast majority of scientists in the field considered it solid evidence for something?

"scientific verification" is evidence produced by way of the scientific method -- experimentation and observation. One cannot just look at a population of animals over a period of months or years, take note of a change and then just blindly give the credit to RMNS. That's not science -- that' s guessing. What has passed as "science" for the past century is nothing like science, but more like science fiction. There is not one scientifically-verified example of natural selection in the field. Science doesn't even bother trying to test it....never has, never will. And this is because they know deep inside that it's a bogus concept because creatures do not need to be adapted by an outside source (selection) because they do their own adaptation.

The alternative to darwinian natural selection is self-adaptation....yet they don't test that either. They want no part of scientifically disproving ToE....thus, they don't. Go ahead -- I challenge anyone on this board to show me an example of science transplanting a group of animals to a new environment to check to see if new, heritable traits emerge amongst the group over a period of multiple generations. There is no such thing. Science ignores this type of thing because the results would destroy a whole worldview. It is clear that Darwinian evolution is nothing but an atheistic philosophy masquerading as science..........the truth is that today's scientists are afraid of real science and could care less about investigating the truth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your idea that mutations are small does not help you --- you still need mutations that add random, new, beneficial, selectable novelties.

I already stated, the small things add up. Also, evolution may seem random at first, but looking closer, it seems much less random as species adapted to better suit their environment. A random pink skin on a frog in the jungle would not help it survive at all, thus the species with that mutated gene would die out. Few mutations also last more than one off spring, which is why change takes a very, very long time and is very subtle when it happens. Even man has evolved from the days of the Neanderthal to modern man. If you look at the skeletons of both examples, you will notice quite a few structural differences.

And, my own arms prove natural selection. They are very hairy where they are constantly exposed to the winter colds, yet the rest of them have very thin hair where they are covered and not subjected to as much cold.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

that' s guessing. What has passed as "science" for the past century is nothing like science, but more like science fiction. There is not one scientifically-verified example of natural selection in the field. Science doesn't even bother trying to test it....never has, never will. And this is because they know deep inside that it's a bogus concept because creatures do not need to be adapted by an outside source (selection) because they do their own adaptation.

Well, scientist have made clones of animals before. Also, they have created what does resemble a light saber. Also, there are dozens of examples of natural selection. I listed a few in my first post in this thread. Creatures doing their own adaption is natural selection. Such as sharks being able to travel in fresh water. Also, bacteria gaining resistance to current medications is another example of evolution. Man has intervened, and forced evolution upon another species.
Also, scientist have observed micro evolution dozens of times. It has been tested and observed many, many times.

 

[Sunstone]

"scientific verification" is evidence produced by way of the scientific method -- experimentation and observation. One cannot just look at a population of animals over a period of months or years, take note of a change and then just blindly give the credit to RMNS. That's not science -- that' s guessing. What has passed as "science" for the past century is nothing like science, but more like science fiction. There is not one scientifically-verified example of natural selection in the field. Science doesn't even bother trying to test it....never has, never will. And this is because they know deep inside that it's a bogus concept because creatures do not need to be adapted by an outside source (selection) because they do their own adaptation.

The alternative to darwinian natural selection is self-adaptation....yet they don't test that either. They want no part of scientifically disproving ToE....thus, they don't. Go ahead -- I challenge anyone on this board to show me an example of science transplanting a group of animals to a new environment to check to see if new, heritable traits emerge amongst the group over a period of multiple generations. There is no such thing. Science ignores this type of thing because the results would destroy a whole worldview. It is clear that Darwinian evolution is nothing but an atheistic philosophy masquerading as science..........the truth is that today's scientists are afraid of real science and could care less about investigating the truth.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Your understanding of science is entirely too distant from mine for us to have enough grounds in common for a reasonable discussion. Thank you for your time.

 

[Runt]

Anyone remember that baby that was born like 6-10 years ago with a mutation in the gene responsible for the production of myostatin? 1-mutation. The benefit: The world's strongest baby.

Muscle Boy: ScienCentral Video News
Mr. Universe Jr.: Child's gene mutation confirms protein's role in human-muscle growth: Science News Online, June 26, 2004