Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

No. The experiment has been done with fruit flies. They are animals.

Prove what exactly? That bacteria are diverse? That Staphylococcus (which has 20 known species in that family alone) is as uniquly different from Pasteurella bacteria as we are from lets say monkeys? Here is a link and under point 2 section A it talks about how much commonality should be required to determine if they are within the same species. Typically its been 95% to 70% but within larger strains of similar bacteria there can be up to a 35% variation in DNA within just that strand.

Humans by compairison are 98% identical to chimpanzees, 85% indentical to zebra fish and 37% identical to fruit flies. The less we have in common the farther up the tree of life we need to go to find a common ancestor. Its not terribly long ago for chimpanzee's and other apes but a very very long time before we find our common ancestors with flies.

How much human DNA matches any form of bacteria DNA?

 

[savagewind]

As stated earlier they are new all the time. What you want to see for some reason is specifically visible multicellurism which isn't a requirment for evolution. We have only one difinitive case of it ever happening in all of the 3.6 billion years of life that has ever happened. There perhaps was more but at least one and definitly not many more. Bacteria evolves and it evolves quickly. It doesn't need to sprout legs and start worshiping god to have been evolved.

I think that is a good joke. Haha

 

[Deeje]

Here is a list of ones happening in nature.
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Thank you again for posting exactly what has been said all along.....all of these "examples of evolution" were merely adaptations within a species. Nothing changed about those species except traits that were necessary for survival. No new "kinds" were in evidence.
This is not evidence of organic evolution.

However if I were to show you a more extreme difference it requires a long period of time of change. Then you simply cry that there is no missing link despite evidence to the contrary. So it feels a lot like we're just playing a game of nothing is ever good enough. Either its too similar to be evolution or its too extreme to be true despite evidence.

"Similar in appearance" isn't the same as "the same animal but more evolved" is it? "Evidence" in evolution is a sample of a once living thing, that is invisibly linked to a similar (sometimes not so similar) example of another creature who may or may not be related, let alone "evolved" from the previous sample. The fact that they are separated by millions of years, means nothing to evolutionists. The only thing linking them is the scientist's suggestion and perhaps a few diagrams that illustrate the suggestion. Guessing or making predictions about what "might have" transpired is not the same as stating an absolute truth.
Most people are led to believe that these guesses are absolute truth. They are not.

The wolf to dog example however is still perfectly valid. The EXACT SAME principles of evolution were used in the selective breeding and we achieved GREAT change over a short amount of time since humans had significant direct control over the breeding processes They could do in just a few dozen generations what would normally have taken hundreds or even thousands of generations by normal natural selection. This is why wolves have changed relatively little over the last 10,000 years but dogs have hundreds of breeds from the corgi to the mastiff.

They are all the same "kind"....meaning that they could all technically interbreed. It was humans who bred these dog species, not evolution. Nature does not produce species with traits that are detrimental to them

....only stupid, selfish humans do that.

What are the problems with evolution listed so far?
1) Can't see it happen in real time as it takes too long therefore its just guessing.

No, more a case that if the suggested interpretation of the evidence cannot be demonstrated, we will just make guesses about what we think "might have" or "could have" taken place. Fill in the blanks with imagination.

- We have documented this massive change over time and seen it happen before our very eyes.

What you have documented is a colossal mountain of hog-wash. There is "no massive change over time" unless of course you are taking about Pakicetus and the Blue Whale...or perhaps T-Rex and the chicken. And you think we should take this highly scientific theory seriously...?

2) New genetic information can't be made.
- Pugs and all other breeds of dog have new genetic information not seen traditionally in wolves.

Pugs, French Bulldogs, Tibetan Mountain Dogs, Dingoes, Wolves......are all one "kind"....canines.

Those within a "kind" can produce offspring, like lions and tigers, horses and zebras, horses and donkeys etc....though if their mating is forced, the offspring are usually sterile.

10 Bizarre Hybrid Animals

3) They can't go beyond their "kind"
-Nonsensical definition aside dogs have changed so drastically in such a short amount of time using the principles of evolution that I don't see how someone could honestly say that large scale evolution is impossible.

Dogs have been bred by man, not nature.....hellooooo

Bad traits have been perpetuated because of human intervention in selecting what is not good for the animals.

http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/10-terrifying-facts-about-professional-dog-breeding/

 

[David T]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

 

[savagewind]

As stated earlier they are new all the time. What you want to see for some reason is specifically visible multicellurism which isn't a requirment for evolution. .

But, it was a requirement for evolution. One cell eventually became a human with a brain.

 

[Deeje]

I've already posted multiple examples of the observed evolution of new species. Should I do so again?

All you have produced is variations within a family of creatures. Adaptation is not the issue...it is not "evolution" of the kind that suggests things that cannot be confirmed. That is tantamount to saying my sister is blonde therefore she is a new species because everyone else in the family has brown hair. Or my brother is short when all the rest of us are tall.....new species? Seriously?

Show us the evidence for evolution that doesn't involve interpreting evidence to conform to a presupposition.....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think that is a good joke. Haha

Learning does seem to be a joke to you.

But, it was a requirement for evolution. One cell eventually became a human with a brain.

We happen to be decended from that mutation. A vast quantity of life has evolved without it. It is not a universal goal or inevitability of evolution to become multicellular.

How much human DNA matches any form of bacteria DNA?

Not sure. Googled it and apparently its around 7. I don't know if that is 7% of our DNA or 7% of the bacteria's DNA since our genome is singificantly longer. I also assume that it may differ from bacteria to bacteria species as their genes are more fluid than ours because they reproduce asexually.
BTW I somehow forgot to put my link from before. Here it is. The bacterial species definition in the genomic era

 

[savagewind]

Learning does seem to be a joke to you.

Are you perhaps saying that you presume to be my teacher?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What you have documented is a colossal mountain of hog-wash. There is "no massive change over time" unless of course you are taking about Pakicetus and the Blue Whale...or perhaps T-Rex and the chicken. And you think we should take this highly scientific theory seriously...?

It should be taken far more seriously than anyone should ever take you that is for certain. If you want to debate anything please post something of merit and I am willing to discuss it.

 

[savagewind]

Honest to goodness, and I hate to say it, but @Deeje is a better teacher imo.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you perhaps saying that you presume to be my teacher?

I am providing you with information and explanations to your questions. I am also correcting your misinformation. But I don't think i'm teaching you anything since that requires a 2 way street. Its about the same level as someone who at least has a basic understanding of astronomy "debating" with a flat earther. The flat earther may be debating but all the other guy is doing is taking what is correct and attempting to explain it to someone who doesn't believe it.

But no. I am not your teacher.

 

[savagewind]

I am providing you with information and explanations to your questions. I am also correcting your misinformation. But I don't think i'm teaching you anything since that requires a 2 way street. Its about the same level as someone who at least has a basic understanding of astronomy "debating" with a flat earther. The flat earther may be debating but all the other guy is doing is taking what is correct and attempting to explain it to someone who doesn't believe it.

But no. I am not your teacher.

Ya but, you said this, "Learning does seem to be a joke to you." What, in your opinion, am I not learning? That you know it all? You are right I am not learning that. Is it something else?

 

[Deeje]

It should be taken far more seriously than anyone should ever take you that is for certain. If you want to debate anything please post something of merit and I am willing to discuss it.

IOW...'I have no evidence to share that proves my point'.....are you running away? Please give us your evidence MoR.....not just more evidence for what we already accept, (adaptation) but evidence that a microbe evolved into a dinosaur......

 

[savagewind]

By the way, I trust that the different kinds of life we have here on the Earth were all helped by evolution. But, you see, others are not able to learn that evolution needs some help. Actually, it needs a lot of help.

 

[gnostic]

Tell me then. If new species do not come from existing species then where do they come from?

Sorry, but when did I ever say new species don't come from existing species????

You don't understand evolution and you don't understand speciation.

I thought you were smarter than Deeje and omega2xx. I was hoping that you were different, because debating with them are not challenging, just irritating. I was mistaken. I overestimated your intelligence.

Species do come from existing species, but it doesn't jump whole genus, family, order, or tribe to do so.

You are over-complicating speciation, just as Deeje and omega2xx have.

As I told you in my last (long) post I am no biologist, nor I am expert in evolution, but I do try to understand what I read, just as I do with any scripture that I read.

When I was a teenager, my problem was that I allow church teachings and church interpretations to cloud my judgement when I read the Old Testament.

The books in the Old Testament weren't written by Christians, so I shouldn't be using in Christian contexts in the Hebrew scriptures.

When I stopped reading the bible in 1986, and returned to it 14 years later, I come to realisation of my mistakes in accepting Christian interpretations of the OT at face value.

So I reread the whole bible in 2000, I have far better understanding of the OT, because I no longer view the OT from a Christian perspective, and now I tried to look at the OT, trying to understand the original context. The Christian interpretations are definitely not the original contexts of the Hebrew scriptures.

Do you understanding what I am saying here, savagewind?

You are doing exactly what I used to do as teenager with the bible.

Instead of reading evolution as a biological mechanism for biodiversity, you are trying to push creationism into biology.

Creationism is theology, not biology. The bible is not a science book.

Like Deeje and omega2xx have been doing, what you are doing is like a child trying to push a large square block into a small circle-shaped hole.

What I find really stupid with creationism and creationists, is their fr#cking dishonest double standard.

For instance, my earlier career was as a civil engineer.

• How come creationists don't try to push their agenda in my line of work?
• How come creationists don't say "God did it" when it come to designing and constructing public buildings, roads or bridges?
• How come creationists never claimed that God layout the pipeline for water or drains for sewage?

What they taught me in my bachelor of applied science in civil engineering, like the physical properties of foundation, or the tensile and compression strength of concrete or steel beams and columns, not once in my studies do I need to resort to using the bible or pray to God.

The bible cannot teach me anything about engineering or physics and mathematics.

Likewise, the bible cannot explain anything about human or animal anatomy and physiology.

Seriously why should I take what creationists say about biology, particularly about evolution? Their main source of information for creationism, is the bible, particularly Genesis. But Genesis is not a book of science.

And claiming "God did it" or "God is omnipotent" is not science, but a demonstration of your personal faith and superstitions...nothing more.

Your problem is that you are treating the bible like as a science textbook and evolution as a religion. Both are mistake.

No, you are more alike Deeje: biased, and not as smart as you think you are.

I will attempt to give you a real-life example in my next reply, the one I have used before. And I will give you an explanation of what Natural Selection (including speciation), there as well, in layman terms, since I am not biologist; I will just give you how I understand evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ya but, you said this, "Learning does seem to be a joke to you." What, in your opinion, am I not learning? That you know it all? You are right I am not learning that. Is it something else?

You obviously do not want to learn anything that doesn't already agree with your set in stone worldview which is profoundly and objectively wrong. I would be that you aren't any less intellegent than most of the atheists on this site. But in your mind you already have a psychologically implanted anxiom that you cannot go against. It reminds me of the grandfather of a good friend of mine who teaches biology and even evolution. He has a full understanding of it. I was drinking with him one night as we were playing chess (he bests me most of the time) and I had to ask him how he is able to square the science with his beliefs. His only answer is that he will believe what he was taught when he was growing up. He admits that there isn't mental problem with the science which is why he is fine with teaching it. He just sticks to his beliefs because they are his beliefs.

I can't square that. I can't fathom that doublethink process but he does. And after years of debating people I have come to the conclusion that half of the people do this doublethink. The other half lie to themselves. Every now and then I see someone who is genuinly and truely stupid but they are far and inbetween. I said that its a joke to you because any time you don't have an answer to what me or someone else is bringing up you move to baseless ridicule or throwing it aside with humor instead of thinking on it criticially. I like to perhaps believe that for a moment you question yourself but catch yourself before you go to far and its some kind of coping mechanism you use to hold your worldview together. I may be wrong on that though. Its very hard to tell how a person really is through an online debate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

IOW...'I have no evidence to share that proves my point'.....are you running away? Please give us your evidence MoR.....not just more evidence for what we already accept, (adaptation) but evidence that a microbe evolved into a dinosaur......

You have already accepted the evidence. You have some strange belief however that there is a mysterious and hidden unknown and totally undetectable and undefinable mechanism that inhibits evolution at some arbitrary piont. Please explain that to me.

 

[savagewind]

Sorry, but when did I ever say new species don't come from existing species????

You don't understand evolution and you don't understand speciation.

I thought you were smarter than Deeje and omega2xx. I was hoping that you were different, because debating with them are not challenging, just irritating. I was mistaken. I overestimated your intelligence.

Species do come from existing species, but it doesn't jump whole genus, family, order, or tribe to do so.

You are over-complicating speciation, just as Deeje and omega2xx have.

As I told you in my last (long) post I am no biologist, nor I am expert in evolution, but I do try to understand what I read, just as I do with any scripture that I read.

When I was a teenager, my problem was that I allow church teachings and church interpretations to cloud my judgement when I read the Old Testament.

The books in the Old Testament weren't written by Christians, so I shouldn't be using in Christian contexts in the Hebrew scriptures.

When I stopped reading the bible in 1986, and returned to it 14 years later, I come to realisation of my mistakes in accepting Christian interpretations of the OT at face value.

So I reread the whole bible in 2000, I have far better understanding of the OT, because I no longer view the OT from a Christian perspective, and now I tried to look at the OT, trying to understand the original context. The Christian interpretations are definitely not the original contexts of the Hebrew scriptures.

Do you understanding what I am saying here, savagewind?

You are doing exactly what I used to do as teenager with the bible.

Instead of reading evolution as a biological mechanism for biodiversity, you are trying to push creationism into biology.

Creationism is theology, not biology. The bible is not a science book.

Like Deeje and omega2xx have been doing, what you are doing is like a child trying to push a large square block into a small circle-shaped hole.

What I find really stupid with creationism and creationists, is their fr#cking dishonest double standard.

For instance, my earlier career was as a civil engineer.

• How come creationists don't try to push their agenda in my line of work?
• How come creationists don't say "God did it" when it come to designing and constructing public buildings, roads or bridges?
• How come creationists never claimed that God layout the pipeline for water or drains for sewage?

What they taught me in my bachelor of applied science in civil engineering, like the physical properties of foundation, or the tensile and compression strength of concrete or steel beams and columns, not once in my studies do I need to resort to using the bible or pray to God.

The bible cannot teach me anything about engineering or physics and mathematics.

Likewise, the bible cannot explain anything about human or animal anatomy and physiology.

Seriously why should I take what creationists say about biology, particularly about evolution? Their main source of information for creationism, is the bible, particularly Genesis. But Genesis is not a book of science.

And claiming "God did it" or "God is omnipotent" is not science, but a demonstration of your personal faith and superstitions...nothing more.

Your problem is that you are treating the bible like as a science textbook and evolution as a religion. Both are mistake.

No, you are more alike Deeje: biased, and not as smart as you think you are.

I will attempt to give you a real-life example in my next reply, the one I have used before. And I will give you an explanation of what Natural Selection (including speciation), there as well, in layman terms, since I am not biologist; I will just give you how I understand evolution.

You see, I believe it, but there needs to be another element. Materials, force and the right conditions are NOT enough to make a machine. A cell is a machine. Isn't it? I have said there is something you are missing. I call the missing value GOD. I am not asking YOU to call it a god. I am asking that you please SEE it. Find the missing value.

Evolution is BLIND. What kind of an engineer is blind?

 

[Deeje]

You have already accepted the evidence. You have some strange belief however that there is a mysterious and hidden unknown and totally undetectable and undefinable mechanism that inhibits evolution at some arbitrary piont. Please explain that to me.

It is demonstrated in nature. Living things reproduce according to their "kind"...tell me when this is not true. In oceans of fish and vast land areas, where do we see evolution taking place? All those creatures only reproduce with their own "kind" and always will. Minor adaptive changes do not alter their kind......do you have evidence to the contrary?

Where in nature will I see traits in any species that are passed on where it eventually leads to another "kind" of creature altogether.....?

 

[savagewind]

You obviously do not want to learn anything that doesn't already agree with your set in stone worldview which is profoundly and objectively wrong. I would be that you aren't any less intellegent than most of the atheists on this site. But in your mind you already have a psychologically implanted anxiom that you cannot go against. It reminds me of the grandfather of a good friend of mine who teaches biology and even evolution. He has a full understanding of it. I was drinking with him one night as we were playing chess (he bests me most of the time) and I had to ask him how he is able to square the science with his beliefs. His only answer is that he will believe what he was taught when he was growing up. He admits that there isn't mental problem with the science which is why he is fine with teaching it. He just sticks to his beliefs because they are his beliefs.

I can't square that. I can't fathom that doublethink process but he does. And after years of debating people I have come to the conclusion that half of the people do this doublethink. The other half lie to themselves. Every now and then I see someone who is genuinly and truely stupid but they are far and inbetween. I said that its a joke to you because any time you don't have an answer to what me or someone else is bringing up you move to baseless ridicule or throwing it aside with humor instead of thinking on it criticially. I like to perhaps believe that for a moment you question yourself but catch yourself before you go to far and its some kind of coping mechanism you use to hold your worldview together. I may be wrong on that though. Its very hard to tell how a person really is through an online debate.

Thank you for talking to be and imagining me. I think that YOU and THEY have not considered one bit what I brought to the table. Please explain how a mind, some very, very great minds (not mine and I am OK with being stupid) happened in such tiny steps as to be to most eyes inconceivable, in such a short time? I know millions of years is not so short. But please THINK about how many tiny steps had to have happened, and blindly, for Einstein to have been born.