Evolution taken on Faith

[Sunstone]

I think one of the best pieces of evidence that we're a species of ape is that so many of us cannot grasp something so simple as the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg. By your view, cells should only be cells. Not humans or bats or birds or anything else. So tell me. Are we actually cells or humans? How did humans come about from cells that should stay cells?


Of course, there are species that rise and branch out to become thier own classification through evolution. How on earth can it be denied with all the evidence staring you directly in front of you?

How come cells don't simply stay cells? How the stoic view even stand up to the diversity among species?

When did plants become meat eaters like Venus flytraps and pitcher plants, and squirrels glide through the air like birds?

do you believe that cells on their own have the capacity to change shape?

 

[Twilight Hue]

do you believe that cells on their own have the capacity to change shape?

Definitely. Its not a belief however. It's already been observed and documented quite extensively. Such as here....

Cells Can Respond to Changes in Their Environments - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf


I answered your query so please, if you can, answer mine.

Are we cells or human?

 

[Ouroboros]

the yeast is still yeast, bacteria is still bacteria....they havn't changed into an entirely new 'kind' of creature. They havn't grown wings. They havn't changed from the 'kind' of organism they are....they've adapted, yes. But that doesnt mean they are no longer a yeast or a bacterial.

How about single cell yeast that's become multi-cell yeast? Would that convince you? That's a different "kind" in every aspect. And it has been observed.

Macroevolution is the teaching that the bacteria became something else.... apparently all life today began as a single cell, then it changed to a multi celled organisam, then it changed again into some other creature until eventually the world was full of a wide variety of different kinds of creatures.

Macro means only "bigger scale." Micro means "smaller scale." Anything that changes in single small steps will eventually when compiled up become many steps together.

How do you run a marathon? By taking one step at a time. That's how macroevolution works. It's the compilation of many mutations and recombinations. We can see this and know this from the studies. This doesn't mean we actually have seen the past events in front of our eyes, but we have the traces, tracks, evidence that shows that it happened. And we can see it happening right now with every so small change that is happening that it is creating something new each time.

This is what is unobservable and completely out of harmony with the known evidence.

but the virus's are still virus's.

Except that God didn't create the new beneficial features. They came about through random mutations in nature in our lifetime. Which means that mutations and natural selection is true. Which means that this part of evolution is most definitely true.

When it comes to macro evolution, we can see animals that have changed their bodies over the past 150 years. The finches that Darwin documented, they have changed. The turtles too.

There are even documented events where lizards have evolved gut-pockets they didn't have before in just 40 years.

And these changes are genetical. Not just "adaptations." They are physical changes to the DNA that didn't exist before.

It doesn't matter how you reject macroevolution, microevolution is 100% true. And macroevolution is only a matter of longer time and more generations.

the breeding of dogs is a good example to think about... you can breed a huge variety of dogs so that you get more and more varieties. You mention the dalmatian, which you call a dog, why? because you know its still a dog. It hasn't changed into anything other then a dog.
And no matter how much you continue to selectively breed them, they will always be dogs. They wont change into a new 'kind' of animal.

We call it a dog because of familiarity and similarities in behavior and attributes.

Do you know that poodles have both hair and fur, while dalmatians only have fur? Where did the poodles get their hair from? God 6,000 years ago. 5,500 years ahead of their existence? Where did the dalmatians get the genes for their spots? God gave it to the dogs hidden in some pocket inside the gene for 6000 years? No. There's no evidence of that at all. But the evidence shows that genetic change, mutations, and selection (artificial or natural) will produce new types of offspring.

The cat-dog 60 million years ago was both cat and dog. That's where they forked out to become cats and dogs. They came from the same ancestor.

Do you not see this?

I did use to think your way for 30 years. I was a hardcore Christian and anti-evolutionists for the longest time.

Then I got to my senses and stopped lying to myself.

Then I took classes in the subject and studied. Now I don't doubt it to be true because I understand it now. I don't think you're at that point yet. You look at it as essentialism, and it's an easy trap to fall into as a human.

You might also like to consider that many of the selectively bred dogs in the world today...the ones we call 'pedigrees', have many congenital health problems. Selective breeding is not producing healthier stronger dogs in the world today and this is recognised by many breeders. So it stands to reason that selective breeding is not something that is always beneficial.

That's a different issue.

There's a book called "Survival of the Sickest" that I would recommend that you read. It explains how genetic disease can be beneficial for survival and become selected for in nature.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think one of the best pieces of evidence that we're a species of ape is that so many of us cannot grasp something so simple as the Theory of Evolution.

In all honesty, it's not simple enough for people to understand. You have to have a certain level of intellect to grasp it. An ability to see abstractions on a different level that is common among people.

I just hope someone could come up with a very easy way of explaining evolution on a level that a 5 grader can get.

 

[Ouroboros]

do you believe that cells on their own have the capacity to change shape?

ROFLMAO!!!!

YES!!!

What do you think stem cells are and why they're so important to find cure for people with damaged nerves, muscles, tissue, and such?

And recently (2 years ago), an experiment showed that single cell brewers yeast (the thing used for beer) can evolve to multicellular structures... i.e. not brewers yeast anymore. :/

 

[Pegg]

ROFLMAO!!!!

YES!!!

What do you think stem cells are and why they're so important to find cure for people with damaged nerves, muscles, tissue, and such?

And recently (2 years ago), an experiment showed that single cell brewers yeast (the thing used for beer) can evolve to multicellular structures... i.e. not brewers yeast anymore. :/

what i mean is, can a single cell change shape to become some kind of creature....because thats what evolution describes as happening. single cells became organisms which became bigger organisms.... organisms which are living.

 

[Twilight Hue]

ROFLMAO!!!!

YES!!!

What do you think stem cells are and why they're so important to find cure for people with damaged nerves, muscles, tissue, and such?

And recently (2 years ago), an experiment showed that single cell brewers yeast (the thing used for beer) can evolve to multicellular structures... i.e. not brewers yeast anymore. :/

Exactly. The whole premise on evolution and the changes and mutations forthwith leading to diversification. Any branch can adapt to form new and unique branches.

 

[Ouroboros]

what i mean is, can a single cell change shape to become some kind of creature....

No cell has ever changed shape to become some kind of creature.

Not even you are a cell that has taken on a shape to create you.

You consist of trillions of cells. You are a multicellular organism by all standards.

because thats what evolution describes as happening. single cells became organisms which became bigger organisms.... organisms which are living.

Uhm... single cells became multicellular. The multicellular organisms changes because of changes in the DNA. That we know for a fact. Biochemistry and genetics aren't just empty words. Look it up.

 

[Twilight Hue]

what i mean is, can a single cell change shape to become some kind of creature....because thats what evolution describes as happening. single cells became organisms which became bigger organisms.... organisms which are living.

Humans start out as cells. View the answer there.

 

[Ouroboros]

Humans start out as cells. View the answer there.

Yup.

The first part of a human is an ova + a sperm. Half set of the DNA each. Producing one complete cell. That cell divides in two. Two into four. Four into Eight. Binary sequence there.

The cells, through their code in the DNA, takes on different functions and forms in the body. It takes 9 months to be born. Then it takes a lifetime. We change daily. It never stops. Our body changes because the cell changes.

What's cool is that they have mapped each and every cell division with id-numbers for several bugs. The first one was a worm, C. elegans. I saw the map-chart at some point. Each cell in the worm mapped out how it grows from a single cell. Amazing.

Oh, and also, we replace almost most of our cells in our body about every 7 years.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wish one of the students challenged Rays comments on "kinds" in the op video by challenging his consistent affirmations that "kinds" don't change, and remain kinds, by asking him why we are not those same kind of cells as obviously, we first formed our designation through those particular cells at the start leading up the the diversity we see today sharing common genetic traits shared by all living things.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wish one of the students challenged Rays comments on "kinds" in the op video by challenging his consistent affirmations that "kinds" don't change, and remain kinds, by asking him why we are not those same kind of cells as obviously, we first formed our designation through those particular cells at the start leading up the the diversity we see today sharing common genetic traits shared by all living things.

Ray can never be challenged. He never listens to a challenge or explanation. He has his talking points and just keep on repeating them ad infinitum. I've noticed that this is how most of the anti-evolutionists work. Get to a point of rejection of science, based on belief, then stick to it forever.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ray can never be challenged. He never listens to a challenge or explanation. He has his talking points and just keep on repeating them ad infinitum. I've noticed that this is how most of the anti-evolutionists work. Get to a point of rejection of science, based on belief, then stick to it forever.

His Mo operates along those lines for sure. By his arguments, cells would and should remain cells indefinitely.

I would pose the question back to him as to how humans then, can come out of what by his insistence and definition, should remain soley as cells.

He conveniently disregards and ignores where the foundational aspects of evolution occur. Right at the molecular level. He seems stuck on macro-evolution to make his arguments appear valid that should be addressed on the micro-scale to effectively answer them. He avoids micro-evolution like the plauge ignorant of it's foundational role on the macro side of things that causes one species to form a new unique species.

In hindsight, I suspect he's not actually ignorant, but rather fanatical, and one in complete denial of obvious facts that stare at him right in the face.

As a side note it's hilarious how he asks biology related questios to students of geology.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

what did the fruit flys change into? Flys?

and when they do experiments on bacteria over many thousands of generations....they get bacteria over and over again.

Do you realise that what they were trying to achieve with all the mutation experiments was to see the big changes as described by evolution theory. But the experiments did not show that anything changed into something new. the flys remained as fly's and the bacteria remained as bacteria.

All they proved is that all organisms can adapt, they can become quite varied in size and shape.... but they can't change into something other then what is written in their dna.

So flies turning into flies is not macroevolution? Then you have no problem believing that apes turned into apes correct? If that is the case then there is no problem with you believing that Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.

Let me ask you some more questions. Tell me where it gets too weird for you.
1)Do you accept that the world is more than 10k years old? That we have been here for millions upon millions of years?
2) Do you accept that mutations occur?
3) If yes do you acknowledge that you have admitted that there is additions to genetic information that was not there prior.
4) Do you accept that it is possible for there to be a mutation that is favorable (I.e. being taller, stronger, better eyes, more hair to withstand cold, resistence to diseases ect.)
5) Do you accept that a favorable mutation (or new genetic information) will pass on at a higher rate because of an increase in fitness in a population (we see this in a measurable way today)
6) If you accept everything so far then you have admitted that we get new genetic information. That new genetic information changes the population one gene at a time. Do you think there is some kind of limiter to how much new information can be admitted? If so why? Because if this process rinses and repeated then we will have infinitely more diverse and different living beings.

 

[Ouroboros]

His Mo operates along those lines for sure. By his arguments, cells would and should remain cells indefinitely.

I would pose the question back to him as to how humans then, can come out of what by his insistence and definition, should remain soley as cells.

He conveniently disregards and ignores where the foundational aspects of evolution occur. Right at the molecular level. He seems stuck on macro-evolution to make his arguments appear valid that should be addressed on the micro-scale to effectively answer them. He avoids micro-evolution like the plauge ignorant of it's foundational role on the macro side of things that causes one species to form a new unique species.

I still remember when Kent Hovind was in a debate on a show years ago. His method was to throw out simple questions that were really difficult to answer, and when the respondent couldn't answer within 2 seconds, Kent would throw the next question out. Some of the questions do take time to understand. The answers are sometimes a bit like calculus. You have to absorb it before you see how it works.

In hindsight, I suspect he's not actually ignorant, but rather fanatical, and one in complete denial of obvious facts that stare at him right in the face.

Yes! Totally agree. He doesn't want to know. That's the problem. He's been deceptive in the past in things he's done, so I don't trust his intentions a single bit.

As a side note it's hilarious how he asks biology related questios to students of geology.

Well, you know, they're atheists so they must know everything about everything or they can't be "true atheists." If they don't have an answer for everything, they should default to Way-of-the-Master Church.

 

[Pegg]

Yup.

The first part of a human is an ova + a sperm. Half set of the DNA each. Producing one complete cell. That cell divides in two. Two into four. Four into Eight. Binary sequence there.

and it only takes 9 months to produce a fully formed human


How do you think those same cells would cope out of the environment of the womb? Do you think the fact that they are cells means the will become what they are programmed to become?

 

[johnhanks]

All they proved is that all organisms can adapt, they can become quite varied in size and shape.... but they can't change into something other then what is written in their dna.

For several posts now - all studiously ignored by yourself - I've been trying to get across the simple truth that the thing that changes during evolution IS "what is written in their dna".

With apologies to those who are getting tired of reading this, I'll try to communicate the idea one more time.

1. The body form a fertilised egg develops into is controlled by the DNA base sequences it inherits (its genome).
2. All genomes consist of the same four chemical bases, and their sequences are "translated" using the same coding.
3. We can observe that genomes change between generations. No barrier limiting the extent of this change has ever been observed.
4. The genome of a population with a given adult body form (e.g. ape-like pre-hominids) can therefore change over many generations into a genome giving rise to a quite different body form (e.g. hominids).

You seem to have the idea that what is written in (for example) a cat's DNA includes some kind of ineradicable "essence of catness" that will persist no matter how much the DNA changes. This is simply not true: allow the DNA sequences of a cat population to change over many generations into those coding for canine bodies, and it will have become a dog population. (This is a hypothetical, for illustrative purposes - dogs did not evolve from cats. Substitute miacid for cat and we are closer to the truth.)

 

[Looncall]

what did the fruit flys change into? Flys?

and when they do experiments on bacteria over many thousands of generations....they get bacteria over and over again.

Do you realise that what they were trying to achieve with all the mutation experiments was to see the big changes as described by evolution theory. But the experiments did not show that anything changed into something new. the flys remained as fly's and the bacteria remained as bacteria.

All they proved is that all organisms can adapt, they can become quite varied in size and shape.... but they can't change into something other then what is written in their dna.

I recommend Neil Shuban's book "Your Inner Fish" to help you get over your essentialism.

With evolution, there is a nested hierarchy. Humans are a variety of apes, which are a variety of quadrupeds, which are a variety of chordates etc. , right back to the original life form. At each stage, branching happens, which produces these "kinds" you are so hung up on. Only creationists expect to find transitions between branches.

You are objecting that something does not happen that only you and your fellow creationists ever think is predicted by evolution.

 

[Pegg]

For several posts now - all studiously ignored by yourself - I've been trying to get across the simple truth that the thing that changes during evolution IS "what is written in their dna".

With apologies to those who are getting tired of reading this, I'll try to communicate the idea one more time.

1. The body form a fertilised egg develops into is controlled by the DNA base sequences it inherits (its genome).
2. All genomes consist of the same four chemical bases, and their sequences are "translated" using the same coding.
3. We can observe that genomes change between generations. No barrier limiting the extent of this change has ever been observed.
4. The genome of a population with a given adult body form (e.g. ape-like pre-hominids) can therefore change over many generations into a genome giving rise to a quite different body form (e.g. hominids).

You seem to have the idea that what is written in (for example) a cat's DNA includes some kind of ineradicable "essence of catness" that will persist no matter how much the DNA changes. This is simply not true: allow the DNA sequences of a cat population to change over many generations into those coding for canine bodies, and it will have become a dog population. (This is a hypothetical, for illustrative purposes - dogs did not evolve from cats. Substitute miacid for cat and we are closer to the truth.)

I think everyone has missed the point of the video in the OP.

Why can no one actually address the issue of macro evolution being unobservable? Hence its not real science if it can't be observed.