Enough Time for Evolution?

[Shermana]

Thanks for affirming my guess.

If your guess is that you have absolutely nothing to actually contribute and you want to assert something is true that flies in the face of the evidence against it, I guess I've affirmed it.

Now please stop polluting my thread and embarassing yourself with affirming my point that those who believe it necessarily happened don't have to actually back their claim or have burden of proof to explain why it would have happened in the face of the propensity for mutations to be mostly benign, negative, or barely beneficial enough to support small changes within the structure rather than dramatic structural changes that would warrant what is being proposed.

 

[secret2]

If your guess is that you have absolutely nothing to actually contribute and you want to assert something is true that flies in the face of the evidence against it, I guess I've affirmed it.

Stop this kind of rhetorical ping-pong and answer us: what stops mutations from taking place when the boundary is hit, and what is that boundary?

...why it would have happened in the face of the propensity for mutations to be mostly benign, negative, or barely beneficial enough to support small changes within the structure rather than dramatic structural changes that would warrant what is being proposed.

It has already been done. There is no inherent mutation that is good/bad per se. It depends on the environment in which the organism has to live in. If a mutation is fatal enough, it won't be able to propagate in the gene pool. If the mutation doesn't kill its host, it will be passed on to the next generation. I don't know how to put this more simply.

 

[Shermana]

Stop this kind of ignoring the fact that the observed mutations indicate you wouldn't be able to change much beyond minor changes of within the Species' interior structure, and you would need a very complex series of syncrenized, coordinated changes in the alleles to make such a radical change, and there's not much evidence of such incremental changes. And please actually address what's in the Review. I don't know how to put it more simply.

 

[savagewind]

[1]what stops mutations from taking place when the boundary is hit, and [2] what is that boundary?

[1] non-cooperation
[2] cooperation

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Stop this kind of ignoring the fact that the observed mutations indicate you wouldn't be able to change much beyond minor changes of within the Species' interior structure,

Flat-out false. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations cannot add up to any extent over multiple generations. You cannot make claims like these without supposing a mechanism to prevent such mutations from occurring, and you must also explain the abundance of archaeological evidence that does not fit with your suggestion that there is a "limit" to mutations.

and you would need a very complex series of syncrenized, coordinated changes in the alleles to make such a radical change,

Also flat-out false. Mutations don't need to "synchronize" or be "coordinated" in any way to add up to "radical" changes, they just need to be selected for or against naturally over multiple generations. You are raising issues with evolutionary theory which were explained over a hundred years ago.

and there's not much evidence of such incremental changes.

Then you clearly aren't looking. We already know mutations occur, we already know that the fossil record demonstrates a progression from simple to more complex life forms, in accordance with evolutionary predictions, as we ascend the geological strata. We currently know of no such mechanism which would prevent speciation above a particular level, nor do we know of any reason why common descent would not be possible. You are clutching at straws, and clearly undereducated about genetics and biology.

 

[savagewind]

we already know that the fossil record demonstrates a progression from simple to more complex life forms

In the creation model life had to have developed from simple to complex. The complex organisms eat the simple ones. And so on and so on and so on.........

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the creation model life had to have developed from simple to complex. The complex organisms eat the simple ones. And so on and so on and so on.........

There is no "creation model", because any and all models could fit it. If all complex life just suddenly appeared in the fossil record out of nowhere you'd say that fit the "creation model" too, so the "creation model" is meaningless. At the moment, the only model that adequately explains all of the available evidence is evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Stop this kind of ignoring the fact that the observed mutations indicate you wouldn't be able to change much beyond minor changes of within the Species' interior structure, and you would need a very complex series of syncrenized, coordinated changes in the alleles to make such a radical change, and there's not much evidence of such incremental changes. And please actually address what's in the Review. I don't know how to put it more simply.

It is not a fact, just a perception of yours.

The observed fact is that species to in fact change.

For a while now you have been set in the pattern of making unfounded or just misinformed statements and demanding that others take them at face value while you disregard or even insult those that you dislike.

Are you sure that you can't have a bit of a better showing?

 

[savagewind]

There is no "creation model", because any and all models could fit it. If all complex life just suddenly appeared in the fossil record out of nowhere you'd say that fit the "creation model" too, so the "creation model" is meaningless. At the moment, the only model that adequately explains all of the available evidence is evolution.

Actually, all life suddenly appearing is NOT a creation model. It took six days. Did you read it?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Actually, all life suddenly appearing is NOT a creation model. It took six days. Did you read it?

Many wouldn't agree with the six days statement.

 

[savagewind]

Many wouldn't agree with the six days statement.

That's called an understatement, right?
I do not agree with the many others that say God speaks as a man whose 24 hours is one day. I have my own theory what a day is according to the highest perspective. It's not 1000 either, or even a million.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's called an understatement, right?
I do not agree with the many others that say God speaks as a man whose 24 hours is one day. I have my own theory what a day is according to the highest perspective. It's not 1000 either, or even a million.

You have an opinion. It's not a theory because you can't test it.

Point is if you believe the bible is divinely inspired then you should take 6 days literally. Unless God could not express to the one who wrote genesis the actual length of time, or they just could not grasp it....

 

[savagewind]

You have an opinion. It's not a theory because you can't test it.

Point is if you believe the bible is divinely inspired then you should take 6 days literally. Unless God could not express to the one who wrote genesis the actual length of time, or they just could not grasp it....

Or it's a secret

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Or it's a secret

Secrets get revealed...so maybe just maybe evolution was the way God wanted us to discover the diversity of how things came about?

We have gain so much knowledge and I agree that we should continuously challenge evolution...but I feel some just do so because they want to cling to the past. There are plenty of moral guidelines in the bible.

If you saw a person fall on the ground, start foaming at the mouth, twitching, eyes rolling back, making strange noises...would you say they were possessed by demons?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, all life suddenly appearing is NOT a creation model. It took six days. Did you read it?

So, to you, all life forming in six days isn't sudden?

Are you saying that, if we found all life suddenly appeared without any transitional forms in the fossil record, that would falsify creation?

 

[Agnostic75]

Actually, all life suddenly appearing is NOT a creation model. It took six days. Did you read it?

But that has nothing to do with whether or not common descent is true. Do you accept common descent?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Alceste]

What's dishonest is associating what's been actually observed in a lab with the idea of large structural changes that could identify a dog and cat and bear as all from the same ancestor or that a bat could develop wings. My guess is you have no idea what's been actually observed. It's pretty much limited to minor variations of the species itself that in no way deviate from the base structure of the DNA.

If you are saying it's dishonest to call it Microevolution, that's dishonest. It's been brought up over and over again, and so far, no links have provided to the contrary, despite honest attempts like the link above which does not, as far as I can tell, in any way actually go against the idea, that you need a "Freaking obscenely expontential" number of beneficial mutations to accumulate.

Now if you'd like to further embarass yourself with demonstratable ignorance, feel free to repeat the same nonsense but eventually I'd like it if you actually discussed what's in the Review. I know very few people want to actually discuss the Review or even the concepts within it and want to jump to different subjects or the general Evolution vs Creationist concepts, but it's kinda sad after 52 pages we've only had less than a handful of people who respected the purpose of the OP and actually gave anything close to an attempt at rebutting the OP, and so far I have yet to see much that didn't involve misrepresenting what it said or taking full account of what it said, or staying on subject. A few have tried though, points for them!

I can't help but notice that every time someone points out the mortal weakness of your position - that there is no boundary beyond which adaptation can not continue - you tell them they're embarrassing themselves instead of defending your claim.

For future reference:
Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

That's fine, and I'm arguing that the evidence thus far regarding what is observed about mutations indicates that there is a clear limit to this kind of adaptation through the problem of deleterious mutations and the utter rarity of beneficial ones and the evidence against incremental changes as stated by Dr Newman, that nothing of the sort being proposed has been remotely observed (but hey, who needs observations when it comes to assertions and theories in science!) and no evidence that it can possibly happen before the highly likely chance of such radical departures resulting in elimination through such deleterious effects, and nothing but evidence of tiny micro changes within the interior structure, not dramatic structural-changes themselves.

At the very least, if you're going to make assertions, it would be nice if you based them on what's actually observed, you would think that'd be the scientific approach and all, but I guess not. And what's been observed is that drastic non-incremental mutations and changes will likely result in death and malfunction.

If this limit is so clear, then why are you completely unable to provide anything to show it?

You do an awful lot of whining about things that have not been observed, yet through that line of BS out when it comes to your own beliefs. Why?