Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Big_TJ]

Here is a post by Dirty_Penguin in another thread that I started:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

There is an illustration at the link I provided but think of it this way...Your dad and your mom passed on some of their genetic traits to you. You and your wife will pass on your traits to your children and in turn they will pass on their traits along with the traits of their respective husband or wife to their children...and so on and so on.....

Evolution is not about the "origin" (per se) of life. It's helpful to remember that as you enter into the various evolution debates here at RF.


the link provided was here: An introduction to evolution

Now, with THIS knowledge of Evolution, what, about the Theory of Evolution, do you disagree with and why? NOTE: I am not asking about any disagreement that you have with YOUR understanding of evolution; I am asking about what aspect of TOE, as defined above, do you disagree with and why?

 

[newhope101]

Here is a post by Dirty_Penguin in another thread that I started:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Yes this is what evolutionists say yet have not proven. Somatic changes and immunity is different to legs growing off a drosophila head.
There is an illustration at the link I provided but think of it this way...Your dad and your mom passed on some of their genetic traits to you. You and your wife will pass on your traits to your children and in turn they will pass on their traits along with the traits of their respective husband or wife to their children...and so on and so on.....
Having children doesn not prove evolution. We all agree Adam and Eve had kids.
Evolution is not about the "origin" (per se) of life. It's helpful to remember that as you enter into the various evolution debates here at RF.
Of course it has been split off from evolution, otherwise you would have to explain 'poofing' into existence. I guess that means creationists do not have to explain how God 'created' anything either.

the link provided was here: An introduction to evolution. My link is better



Now, with THIS knowledge of Evolution, what, about the Theory of Evolution, do you disagree with and why? NOTE: I am not asking about any disagreement that you have with YOUR understanding of evolution; I am asking about what aspect of TOE, as defined above, do you disagree with and why?

Because your well credentialed scientists can look at the same evidence and disagree. Meaning they are all as clear as mud when it comes to Toe.

The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

 

[Looncall]

Because your well credentialed scientists can look at the same evidence and disagree. Meaning they are all as clear as mud when it comes to Toe.

The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

Your linked article does not show anything different from what one would expect.The author is making up controversy where none exists.

Also, the fact that some details are still being worked out is not evidence that the whole concept is wrong. That approach is just typical fundie propaganda.

The point you replied to about children is that children are different from their parents, so change will happen over time.

 

[4given]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

 

[Skwim]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

Ah good, another "believer."

Welcome to RF 4given .

 

[Breathe]

opcorn:

 

[Noaidi]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

Read up on gene duplication for info on both novel genes and functions. Start with this Wiki, then follow some of the references:

"The duplication of a gene results in an additional copy that is free from selective pressure. One kind of view is that this allows the new copy of the gene to mutate without deleterious consequence to the organism. This freedom from consequences allows for the mutation of novel genes that could potentially increase the fitness of the organism or code for a new function. An example of this is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene."

Gene duplication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

once again lack of education speaks volumes

good post Noaidi

 

[Noaidi]

Thanks, Outhouse. Gene duplication and it's effects is taught in high school biology. This thread makes me wonder what some people actually get taught in school.

 

[outhouse]

Thanks, Outhouse. Gene duplication and it's effects is taught in high school biology. This thread makes me wonder what some people actually get taught in school.

I understand

taught?

Due to religious belief many refuse to learn. They have ignorant parents who will not accept reality because they were raised differently, This is passed down.

Its really sad in the midwest where teachers make jokes about man coming from monkeys in a room full of students wearing cross necklaces, and then state the gov makes me do it.

its to common. Creation drags humanity down

 

[camanintx]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

If I were bacteria, I would consider the ability to digest nylon a new function.

 

[David M]

If I were bacteria, I would consider the ability to digest nylon a new function.

Or the ability to digest citrate.

 

[painted wolf]

I also would avoid the "scientists disagree" argument. When creationists can't agree on the exact same wording in the Bible... for example how long a "day" is.

wa:do

 

[Iasion]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

There are many such examples.

Such as the NOVEL FUNCTION allowing the ability to eat nylon - a function that cannot have existed before nylon, but evolved after nylon was invented.

Or the ability to eat citrate - another NOVEL FUNCTION recently observed.

In fact science has many many such examples.
But creationists simply ignore or deny them.


Iasion

 

[RitalinO.D.]

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

A "Believer" using blind faith to argue against evolution. How ironic.

 

[Big_TJ]

Yes this is what evolutionists say yet have not proven. Somatic changes and immunity is different to legs growing off a drosophila head.

Remember the rules; not what YOU think evolution says. So, unless you can quote some credible source that states the above, it is not useful information here

Having children doesn not prove evolution. We all agree Adam and Eve had kids.

Again, not what YOU think evolution state; please comment on Evolution as described in my original post. There is no aspect of evolution (neither in my post or in reality) that states that having children proves evolution)

Of course it has been split off from evolution, otherwise you would have to explain 'poofing' into existence. I guess that means creationists do not have to explain how God 'created' anything either.

Correct; christian does not need to explain GOD; not in this thread at least. Again, please stick to the definition used for evolution in this post; not what your church told you it is.

Because your well credentialed scientists can look at the same evidence and disagree. Meaning they are all as clear as mud when it comes to Toe.

The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

Ok, there are disagreements; now, can you tell me what do YOU disagree with? After all, that was the intent of this thread; getting YOUR thoughts

 

[Big_TJ]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

Welcome to RF. . Let's keep on the topic. This thread is not about whether evolution is right or wrong; it's about what aspect of evolution you disagree with and why:yes:

 

[Iasion]

Heya Big_TJ,

You're posts are very patient and mild
Good work.

So, what have we learned?

That creationists do not actually understand evolution.

Was it Dawkins who said :
"anyone who disagrees with evolution does not understand it"


Iasion

 

[proffesb]

With different interpretations of the bible I don't see how evolution and creationism have to be mutually exclusive, with the exception of literal interpretations of course, ie if you believe in a creator isn't it possible that he created life on the planet in it's simplest form and let evolution do the rest.

to the original question one problem I see with that definition is that all life came from a common ancestor. If the cause of life occurred once to make an ancestor couldn't it have happened twice or more to make two or more ancestors.

 

[Iasion]

to the original question one problem I see with that definition is that all life came from a common ancestor. If the cause of life occurred once to make an ancestor couldn't it have happened twice or more to make two or more ancestors.

Sure, it could have.
Evolution does NOT requires exactly ONE.
Evolution is NOT defined that way.

But so far - the evidence all points to one.


Iasion