prove me wrong on evolution

[Fade]

I'm not saying science is wrong about anything, my view is that creationists are correct to distinguish between micro evolution and macro evolution because Genetic drift and natural selection themselves give rise to evolution, but that type of evolution can never get you from the first simple organism to all the organisms we now have today.

Phew that was a long sentence...

If your view is that creationists are correct then by definition you are saying that science is wrong. Creationist say there is a difference between macro/micro while Science says there isn't. It's pretty cut and dry.

The mechanism of mutation - by which genetic information is increased, is termed Macro evolution by creationists because this type of evolution is the only type that can get you the new genetic material needed to get from the first simple organism to all the organisms we have today.

My spidey sense tells me that this is incorrect...mainly because of the use of the words 'is termed Macro evolution by creationists'. It also completely ignores the fact that mutations occur on the micro level too.

All i have been doing is showing you the line between micro evolution and macro evolution.

All you needed to say was time dude. T.I.M.E. it's all there on your keyboard. It's the only difference.

 

[Endless]

Science does distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution - Look up PubMed in Google and search for both these terms in peer reviewed scientific papers, you'll find them both.
I personally think the reason why you'll find scientists who don't distinguish between them is that they don't distinguish between these three ways evolution can happen. They just see 'evolution'. Now we can observe this evolution happening all around us, however the evolution we can't see is the evolution of new structures (like the sting) because that takes millions of years. Now these scientists don't make a distinction between what they see as microevolution and what they see as macroevolution - they like you say all you need is to give microevolution more time - because they just see 'evolution' and they won't distinguish between what types of evolution we are actually observing.

But if you ask a scientist whether over time the evolution caused by natural selection will give rise to macroevolution he will be forced to say 'no'. He cannot argue that natural selection does not give rise to evolution in and of itself. Same thing if you ask about Genetic drift - he will be forced to answer 'no'. If you then ask him whether the logical conclusion of that is that the evolution caused by natural selection and genetic drift is different to the evolution that caused macroevolution, he will be forced to answer 'yes'. Then ask him if that type of evolution is microevolution - he will answer 'yes'. Then say 'So there is a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution that isn't to do with time after all'. He will have to admit the distinction.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how much time you give natural selection and Genetic drift they aren't going to get the first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have today. So evolution attributed to natural selection and genetic drift is micro-evolution. Some mutations also fit the category of microevolution as they will never cause the first organism to evolve to all the organisms we have today.

Tell you what Fade, if you do understand what i am saying here, why don't you play 'the devil's advocate' (so to speak) and have a bit of fun on a strongly evolutionary biased forum. Argue the matter from my point of view - with any luck you will meet a few scientists on there. Or choose a forum for me to debate it on, and just follow the debate with me. We can then comment on the views that surface here in this topic.

 

[Nehustan]

When somebody asks me to prove them wrong on evolution....I usually just point out why should I....you're doing such an outstanding job of it yourself.

:sarcastic​

Now that's funny almost as funny as your post about how you "saw the 'Satanic verses' reference, read this...read that, pretty much all the same old arguments rehashed pro and contra."

Evolution is a sound basis and any who suggest otherwise, are just not reading. :slap:

Now the thing is I studied evolution, genetics, at University as part of a BSc. I didn't say that I didn't believe in evolution, if something appears to be true and can be falsified and reproduced then we must assume (rightly or wrongly) that it is, my God uses means within the creation, if the facts tell me that evolution were the means, who am I to argue with God or the facts, I'll just live with what other people see as a conflict, suits me I like dialectics. I was just making a point that often people who rattle this stuff are probably not that well preadapted for the future, intellectually, physically and probably spiritually...I often wonder just how reproductively viable they and their progeny will be...but I digress.

 

[Endless]

Just as a heads up Fade, i've started a thread on another site where i know there are folks that know their stuff. If you would like to follow it i'd be happy to give you the location by PM.

 

[Fade]

yea please do.

 

[Fade]

But if you ask a scientist whether over time the evolution caused by natural selection will give rise to macroevolution he will be forced to say 'no'. He cannot argue that natural selection does not give rise to evolution in and of itself. Same thing if you ask about Genetic drift - he will be forced to answer 'no'. If you then ask him whether the logical conclusion of that is that the evolution caused by natural selection and genetic drift is different to the evolution that caused macroevolution, he will be forced to answer 'yes'. Then ask him if that type of evolution is microevolution - he will answer 'yes'. Then say 'So there is a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution that isn't to do with time after all'. He will have to admit the distinction.

I think this statement is complete rubbish. Natural selection and genetic drift do result in speciation/evolution. Please provide me with a peer reviewed, scientific source that echos your statement.

 

[Endless]

Natural selection and genetic drift do result in speciation/evolution.

Exactly - i never said they didn't.

Please provide me with a peer reviewed, scientific source that echos your statement.

Which statement?

I'll get you that link shortly

 

[Yerda]

Exactly - i never said they didn't.

It certainly sounded like you were suggesting that.

 

[Fade]

Exactly - i never said they didn't.

Yes, you did.

But if you ask a scientist whether over time the evolution caused by natural selection will give rise to macroevolution he will be forced to say 'no'. He cannot argue that natural selection does not give rise to evolution in and of itself. Same thing if you ask about Genetic drift - he will be forced to answer 'no'.

 

[JerryL]

BTW, E ndless, I'm still waiting to hear how, under your definition, there's a "new feature" difference between a chimpanzee and a human. Seems to just be a lot of resizing and rearrangement (which you explicitly stated was not macroevolution).

 

[Endless]

When i talk about macro evolution i'm talking about the evolutionary process as a whole - ie. the whole process that caused that first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have today.

Natural selection will not cause this on its own. Neither will genetic drift on its own.

Hi JerryL,
I don't know, i don't have the papers commenting on the genetic makeup of the chimp compared to the human. If the human has genes which the chimp doesn't then no matter how much resizing and reshaping you aren't going to arrive at the human. So the answer lies in the genes.

 

[Fade]

When i talk about macro evolution i'm talking about the evolutionary process as a whole - ie. the whole process that caused that first simple organism to evolve to all the organisms we have today.

It's the same thing, you can't just arbitrarily assign a line where you feel like it.

Natural selection will not cause this on its own. Neither will genetic drift on its own.

That's right, it's that wonderful mechanism called mutation that is always present that really makes all the difference. Why do you insist on ignoring this?

Hi JerryL,
I don't know, i don't have the papers commenting on the genetic makeup of the chimp compared to the human. If the human has genes which the chimp doesn't then no matter how much resizing and reshaping you aren't going to arrive at the human. So the answer lies in the genes.

Ah, do you accept that if you go far enough back through chimp and human genetic history that you will reach a point where they would both share the exact same genes? I hope you say yes, for your credibilities sake. Now, ask yourself this...what do humans have, that a chimp doesn't? Think in terms of your fly growing a wasp sting comment.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm still wondering where you draw the line between bird and dinosaur.....

ahh.. and I just got copies of two new articles one from the jurnal Nature and the other from the jurnal Science that will be interesting to summerize on another thread.
One is a study of a Devonian fish that shows the first steps to development of the Tetrapod Ear. (turns out the origional purpose of the "ear" to answer the age old question of "what use is half an ear"... was likely to prevent silt from clogging the gills of a bottom dwelling critter)
The other paper is on a new species of early Cretaceous Therian mammal that still has Monotreme features in its post cranial skelleton. Should be fun.

wa:do

 

[Endless]

Fade,
There is a difference between what we observe happening and what we think has happened.
I observe natural selection and genetic drift resulting in new traits by a process of selection on existing genes. We have never observed a novel gene being produced by mutation - that is to say a gene with a function no other gene has had before it - which you would need for 'macro evolution'. The evolution caused by natural selection is a 'mixing' evolution, the evolution caused by mutation is 'adding new genetic variability' - not mixing. So we have evolution by two processes.

Do you Fade acknowledge that we have evolution occuring by these two separate processes? Ie. Is the statement below correct or not:

Evolution consists of two basic types of processes: those that introduce new genetic variation into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing variation. "Variation proposes and selection disposes"

 

[Fade]

Fade,
There is a difference between what we observe happening and what we think has happened.

Agreed

I observe natural selection and genetic drift resulting in new traits by a process of selection on existing genes. We have never observed a novel gene being produced by mutation - that is to say a gene with a function no other gene has had before it - which you would need for 'macro evolution'.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/4-18.html

Assertion 4.18: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific.

Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else has ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs [Edit - fly into a wasp? Is a bee or a wasp ]right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.

References

Ruse M. 1982. Darwinism Defended: A Gudie to the Evolution Controversies. London: Addison-Wesley.

The evolution caused by natural selection is a 'mixing' evolution, the evolution caused by mutation is 'adding new genetic variability' - not mixing. So we have evolution by two processes.

Do you Fade acknowledge that we have evolution occuring by these two separate processes? Ie. Is the statement below correct or not:

Yes there are two seperate processes. But...and it's that ever present but, mutation is always present.

 

[JerryL]

Hi JerryL,
I don't know, i don't have the papers commenting on the genetic makeup of the chimp compared to the human. If the human has genes which the chimp doesn't then no matter how much resizing and reshaping you aren't going to arrive at the human. So the answer lies in the genes.

There are humans who have genes that humans do not. Does that mean that humans cannot arrive at humans?

People with blue eyes, for example, have blue eyes because the gene for eye color is broken or missing. People with down sydnrome have a second copy of chromosome 21, and so a lot of extra genes. Some of them only have a repeat of part of the chromosome, some have the entire chromosome extra (http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=141)

Note also that not all horses have the same number of chromosomes (much less the same number of genes). Przewalski's horses have 66 while domestic horses have 64. Despite this, they can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html).

To what you did not know. Great apes have 24 chromosomes and humans have 23. Most of the chromosomal differences among the great apes and humans involve inversions - localities on the chromosome that have been inverted, or swapped end for end. This is a relatively common occurrence among many species, and has been documented in humans (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html#8)

Some examples of new genes arising in observed populations:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030421210938data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/11/1655

 

[roli]

Steve,

i would like to continue this debate with you and you alone.

as in reply to your questions

1) we developed light sensitive cells through freak mutations. ever seen a baby with a 2 legs joined together? believe me the freaks are out there, but their not all bad

ROLI says

The DNA says 2 eyes ,2 ears,2 arms,1 nose etc, anything outside of that is an abnormal development of the cell structure
First of all, where presently in our universe / world through science ,biology, physiology , archaeology or any other form of study have there not been any findings or evidences on 1species evolving into another completely different species.
This means 2 different DNA structures mixing ,REMEMEBR that DNA is the make-up of all things and when DNA is crossed ,mutation occurs and it usually is anything but pretty, as you stated "FREAKISH" yet it may by random chance adapt and survive with help from modern science aiding it in it's survival and maybe even naturally survive.

2nd Why is there no evidence of the evolution process in fossils or any presently living organism today. Did it stop 1,2,3,4,5 maybe 6 million years ago ,or did it stop just before man evolved ,how convient that would be to the evolutionist
Do a personal study of all the mutations that have occured and you will soon see that most if not all are of a destructive ,abnormal or have negitive effect on the whole of that particular cell structure and the life and it would function contrary to what it was initially intended.
DNA is the blueprint of all living organsims and when the DNA is interrupted,altered or changed in any way, mutations occur and usually the cause is from the surrounding enviroment around that cell caused by certain laws within that enviroment being violated and altered due to germs, pollutants,chemicals which were brought in thru the blood that feeds the cell
With the innumerable number of complexities within the human body,from the eye to the individual cell, "by the way please look into the intricacies of the individual human cell"! alone, One cell is more complex then all the super- computers out there,while your doing that ask yourself if within all these complexities occurring at one time within the human body, let's say just in the 9 months of pregnacy,why is there not more mutations happening .
The worse our enviroment gets the more you will see of those mutations but on the most part you have normal cells producing after their kind through the DNA information received,cross that path of information you get freakish mutations.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.


Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

 

[Opethian]

First of all, where presently in our universe / world through science ,biology, physiology , archaeology or any other form of study have there not been any findings or evidences on 1species evolving into another completely different species.

There is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that species evolve. Just because this evidence doesn't support the false idea of how evolution works in your head, doesn't mean that it doesn't support evolution. The geological evidence alone should be sufficient to please any logical thinking person.

This means 2 different DNA structures mixing ,REMEMEBR that DNA is the make-up of all things and when DNA is crossed ,mutation occurs and it usually is anything but pretty, as you stated "FREAKISH" yet it may by random chance adapt and survive with help from modern science aiding it in it's survival and maybe even naturally survive.

From the way you write this, I can already see that you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. When you are describing something like this, be sure to do it correctly and use the correct scientifical terms. It usually is anything but pretty you say, but that doesn't change the fact that beneficial mutations do occur and that there has been plenty of time for this small ratio of beneficial mutations to cause the diversity of life we see now. You are seriously confused about the way adaptation has to be interpreted, and about how random chance works. Maybe you should look up some threads on how evolution actually works because clearly you do not understand.

2nd Why is there no evidence of the evolution process in fossils or any presently living organism today. Did it stop 1,2,3,4,5 maybe 6 million years ago ,or did it stop just before man evolved ,how convient that would be to the evolutionist
Do a personal study of all the mutations that have occured and you will soon see that most if not all are of a destructive ,abnormal or have negitive effect on the whole of that particular cell structure and the life and it would function contrary to what it was initially intended.

There are tons of evidence of evolution in fossils, what are you talking about? It never stopped, it is a continuous process, if you actually understood it you would know this. And pleaaaase learn to spell!

DNA is the blueprint of all living organsims and when the DNA is interrupted,altered or changed in any way, mutations occur and usually the cause is from the surrounding enviroment around that cell caused by certain laws within that enviroment being violated and altered due to germs, pollutants,chemicals which were brought in thru the blood that feeds the cell

you say it is the blueprint of all living organisms, but I take it you have no clue as to how it works exactly? Mutations are changes of DNA, you don't even have an understanding of this simple definition and yet you are discussing something that is based upon a simple aspect you don't understand.

With the innumerable number of complexities within the human body,from the eye to the individual cell, "by the way please look into the intricacies of the individual human cell"! alone, One cell is more complex then all the super- computers out there,while your doing that ask yourself if within all these complexities occurring at one time within the human body, let's say just in the 9 months of pregnacy,why is there not more mutations happening .

My god, did you skip your biology lessons in high school???
GO READ!!! and not in your bible!!!

 

[JerryL]

First of all, where presently in our universe / world through science ,biology, physiology , archaeology or any other form of study have there not been any findings or evidences on 1species evolving into another completely different species.

Having no idea what "completely different" means, one example of observed speciation is the emergence of American Goatsbeard from European Goatsbeard.

This means 2 different DNA structures mixing ,REMEMEBR that DNA is the make-up of all things and when DNA is crossed ,mutation occurs and it usually is anything but pretty, as you stated "FREAKISH" yet it may by random chance adapt and survive with help from modern science aiding it in it's survival and maybe even naturally survive.

2 different DNA strands mix every time sexual reproduction occurs. Another good example of different DNA strands mixing is the mule (mix of horse and donkey), or the mixing of Przewalski's horses and domestic horses.

In science labs, we've also combined DNA from such disparigent critters as jellyfish and mice, or jellyfish and plants (in both cases to make bioluminecent critters).

Why is there no evidence of the evolution process in fossils or any presently living organism today.

Why is there no evidnece of humans living today?

The point of that response is that there is plenty of modern evidence and observation of the evolutionary process. Where do you get your assertion that there is not?

Do a personal study of all the mutations that have occured and you will soon see that most if not all are of a destructive ,abnormal or have negitive effect on the whole of that particular cell structure and the life and it would function contrary to what it was initially intended.

I have, and your conclusion is wrong. Most mutations occur in "junk DNA" and have no effect what-so-ever on the morphology of the critter involved.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Give me a definition of "kind".

 

[Nehustan]

I got a message in my email saying somebody wanted evolution in one sentence. Unfortunately I can't do it in a sentence (verb missing) but in three words it is summed up as...

'descent with modification'​

I would have loved to have made it a sentence but unfortunately these are the default three words.​