Evolutionists, explain..

[viole]

Evolutionists say that life began in the Precambrian layer, which was to have ended 600 million years ago. When we visit the Cambrian layer, it is filled with 1000s of fossils and all of these creatures are diversified and complex- life immediately and suddenly appears! In the Precambrian layers of the Proterozoic Era, there is no multi-cellular life at all- NONE; NIL; NADA. But in the Cambrian layer life teems; it suddenly bursts into existence- without transistion, without EVOLUTION. So all kinds of life, when seen in geological strata, appears suddenly and animals appear COMPLETE. Bats are true bats, whales are true whales, sharks are true sharks, anything is a genuine whatever it is- it shows no evolving at all, no gradual changes or transitions.

When you see it in geological record, species are just as you see them today..

Where did you get that from? Current evidence suggests that life began much earlier, in the range of 3.6 ... 3.8 billions years ago. Alas, there were no cows back then.

So, do you think cows have been created by God 3 billions years later? Maybe we share the same passion for melted swiss cheese, who knows?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Alceste]

Are we using the Monkey Theory?
If so, as I said, certain things, such as typing out a third of a page of Shakespeare's works may be possible given an infinite amount of time.
But giving a monkey infinite amount of time to write out the complete works of Shakespeare would never ever happen.
It does depend on what we're talking about, however.

There is no "monkey theory". Really, fact check yourself. It's fun!

The monkey theorum is a mathematical exploration of probability and infinity. It's not about an actual monkey. The monkey is a metaphor for a device which endlessly churns out random characters, forever. The idea is that given an infinite amount of time the device would eventually randomly churn out all possible combinations and sequences of letters, including the complete works of Shakespeare.

So no, we are not using the monkey theorum because we are talking about geology and biology, not mathematics. The monkey theorem is of no use to us here.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I've never had a satisfactory answer to date to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal. I don't understand how random mutations are supposed to turn something into something that is more useful than what it had previously been. Because in the real world, genetic mutations can't be helpful or useful for a being but instead actually bring about more problems and, ultimately, kill off the organism.

 

[viole]

I've never had a satisfactory answer to date to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal. I don't understand how random mutations are supposed to turn something into something that is more useful than what it had previously been. Because in the real world, genetic mutations can't be helpful or useful for a being but instead actually bring about more problems and, ultimately, kill off the organism.

Random processes are the only ones that can generate new information. Add natural selection of new information and this will become amazingly simple.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've never had a satisfactory answer to date to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal.

Most satisfactory answers come from studying and understanding the subject of interest. If you're not actually interested in taking the time to actually learn about something, then you're destined to never get satsifactory answers, as you will not be able to understand them.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Most satisfactory answers come from studying and understanding the subject of interest. If you're not actually interested in taking the time to actually learn about something, then you're destined to never get satsifactory answers, as you will not be able to understand them.

But how could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use. One without the other is useless.

Possibly how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make evolution possible?

 

[viole]

But how could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

In the same way you eat an elephant. One small chunk at a time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Alceste]

I've never had a satisfactory answer to date to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal. I don't understand how random mutations are supposed to turn something into something that is more useful than what it had previously been. Because in the real world, genetic mutations can't be helpful or useful for a being but instead actually bring about more problems and, ultimately, kill off the organism.

Is it possible that the reason you've never found a satisfactory explanation is that you've never looked for one?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But how could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use. One without the other is useless.

Possibly how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make evolution possible?

Indeed, many people lack the imagination required to understand the expanses of time involved in these processes.

 

[viole]

But how could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use. One without the other is useless.

Possibly how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make evolution possible?

So, this is how it works.

Organism X lives happily with his fellow organisms X. Most of the time random mutations generate organism X-. He is weaker than his X fellows. He will have a hard time to reach the time where he can reproduce. After a while X- will fizzle out of existence because of the stronger competition.

But sometimes, being the process random, we will have X+. X+ is slightly stronger than his friends X. A slightly better camouflage, or speed, or anything slightly better to survive in his environment. Therefore, he will have better chance to get old enough to reproduce. All his kids will be X+ because of inheritance of the mutation.

All these kids and grandkids will enjoy the same advantages. After a while everyone will be X+. The normal X organisms will be wiped out in the same way the X- have been wiped out.

The difference between a microbe and a microbiologist is just the amount of "+" which have been selected and cumulated over time.

This is a very simplified explanation which does not keep into account the splitting of organisms and species, but I hope it conveys the idea of how cumulative complexity can arise though the natural selection of new information generated by random processes.


Ciao

- viole

 

[Agnostic75]

But how could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

Just like many other creationists, you are confusing evolution with naturalism. You used the word "how", but evolution only explains "what" has happened since life began, now "how" life started, and not "how", or "why" the mechanisms that control evolution work.

Michael Behe, Ph.D. biochemistry, is a well-known Christian biochemist, and author. He said:

I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small. Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

Do you understand what Behe said? He only questions some of Charles Darwin's "mechanisms" for evolution, not Darwin's claim that all life forms are related. If you want to question naturalism, go ahead, but you need to understand that evolution has never tried to explain how life began, only what has happened after it began.

Do you think that you know more about evolution than 99.86% of U.S. experts who accept it, including the majority of Christian experts?

 

[Parsimony]

I don't understand how random mutations are supposed to turn something into something that is more useful than what it had previously been.

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

Because in the real world, genetic mutations can't be helpful or useful for a being but instead actually bring about more problems and, ultimately, kill off the organism.

This is provably wrong. We know of mutations which increase the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. AZT-resistance in HIV is due to mutation. The ability for Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas to digest nylon polymers is due to mutation. Resistance to HIV in some humans is due to mutation. The immune system relies on self-induced mutations in order to target novel pathogens. Avoidance of sugar-baited poisons by roaches is due to a mutation. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is due to mutations.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've never had a satisfactory answer to date to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal. I don't understand how random mutations are supposed to turn something into something that is more useful than what it had previously been. Because in the real world, genetic mutations can't be helpful or useful for a being but instead actually bring about more problems and, ultimately, kill off the organism.

Genetic mutations can't be helpful?

Why not do a bit of basic reading before you come here to debate.

 

[outhouse]

biological process of evolution.

It's in the dictionary. .

Yes and evolution is now fact, and in EVERY dictionary.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why not do a bit of basic reading before you come here to debate.

I don't see how reading facts about evolution is going to help someone argue against evolution. Their time is better spent visiting biased and factually-vacant sites like answersingenesis.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't see how reading facts about evolution is going to help someone argue against evolution.

Well, it might help me stop giggling at the basic mistakes of fact he's making.

But giggling is good, I guess. I shouldn't complain.

 

[metis]

I've never had a satisfactory answer to date to the problem of where the new information comes from that evolution requires for turning a microbe into a myxomycete or a maze-mastering mammal. I don't understand how random mutations are supposed to turn something into something that is more useful than what it had previously been. Because in the real world, genetic mutations can't be helpful or useful for a being but instead actually bring about more problems and, ultimately, kill off the organism.

Just a couple quick points. One is that mutations most of the time are detrimental or neutral, but this can be deceiving since even neutral genes could turn out to be positive down the road if certain environmental conditions were to spring up. And it's the more positive mutations that will be more apt to be continue on through the process of natural selection.

Secondly, if your concerns about time and evolution were to be correct, then geneticists should overwhelming be on you side, except they ain't. As anthropologists, we work hand in hand with geneticists since they have expertise in an area that's essential for us but which we only have limited training.

 

[Bunyip]

Evolutionists say that life began in the Precambrian layer, which was to have ended 600 million years ago. When we visit the Cambrian layer, it is filled with 1000s of fossils and all of these creatures are diversified and complex- life immediately and suddenly appears! In the Precambrian layers of the Proterozoic Era, there is no multi-cellular life at all- NONE; NIL; NADA. But in the Cambrian layer life teems; it suddenly bursts into existence- without transistion, without EVOLUTION. So all kinds of life, when seen in geological strata, appears suddenly and animals appear COMPLETE. Bats are true bats, whales are true whales, sharks are true sharks, anything is a genuine whatever it is- it shows no evolving at all, no gradual changes or transitions.

When you see it in geological record, species are just as you see them today..

That makes no sense - no species from that era is 'just as you see it today' and every single fossil ever found is transitional. Of course animals appear complete - what were you expecting a half a bee?

That all fossils are transitional is just how evolution works.

 

[McBell]

Ooooh this is going to be so good

I doubt it.
It is just another thread where a creationist is trying to play "gotcha"...

 

[Alceste]

That makes no sense - no species from that era is 'just as you see it today' and every single fossil ever found is transitional. Of course animals appear complete - what were you expecting a half a bee?

That all fossils are transitional is just how evolution works.

Uh oh, here we go...

[youtube]fHx2wI0_rtA[/youtube]
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fHx2wI0_rtA