prove me wrong on evolution

[Fade]

Strawman - Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Seems like a pretty apt description of what you are doing.
You've made up your own definition of 'macro' evolution, refuted it and are now pretending that this refutes evolutionary theory. It's about as strawman as you can get really.

 

[Yerda]

Endless, my post was impolite and I apologise. However, your argument does seem like a deliberately misconstrued position.

There are no examples of it in nature Jaiket - antibiotic resistance is not down to a gene with a new function - either bacteria obtain it from plasmids or it's a defect in a function which the antibiotic used to kill the bacteria - hence the gene product is no longer functioning or is impaired. There is no new function arising. It's exactly the same with pesticide resistance in insects.

The events leading to a gene conferring antibiotic arising are similar to this - yes. Whether it's on the chromosome or a plasmid makes no difference. Resistance to antibiotics is the result of genetic change and is a new function.

Gene X codes for a membrane or peptidoglycan protein domain, it is the target of antibiotic a. Gene X grants no resistance to a. A mutation during copying of X means a single amino acid in the final structure is substituted for another, resulting in the domain folding differently and altering the target region. X is no longer susceptible to a. X performs it's other 'function(s)' with less (maybe more) fidelity.

Endless, would you seriously suggest that in my little hypothetical there is no new property coded by a gene? As for the word 'function', you've made a bit of a dance around it, but if performing as a receptor or structural component or electron transporter can be called a function then so must antibiotic resistance. Remembering that proteins are merely chemicals and function according to constitution and conditions rather than 'having a function'.

Sorry if this seems condescending.

 

[gola153]

To Murdocsvan


What came first --- The Chicken or the Egg ? If it was the egg, then what laid it, and who were its parents? And how can just one chicken from one egg reproduce to form yet another egg to keep the species going? What if it was a rooster that was in the egg? If the Chicken came first, then if evolution is true, then the rooster and the chicken would have had to "evolve" at precisely the same time into an environment that provided them at least food and water. (Not to mention the millions of other species that we now understand that it takes "two to tango" so to speak.

But it is simple questions like this which evolutionists will not be able to answer directly, because there is no answer but the fact that the chicken and the rooster, and the miraculous inner-workings of the egg itself, along with the myriad of miraculous, microscopic, protein driven, DNA directed, incredibly complex (and irreducibly complex) functions that have to take place for life to exist, started with a Supreme Creator, known as God. The intricacies of life, which mankind is beginning to understand more and more had to be designed, logically speaking, and could not possibly have arose from random chance. It doesn't take faith in a Creator to understand that. It only takes a little logic.

How could a single mutation along a strand of thousands of genes effect a change of dramatic proportion to any species, when thousands of changes to DNA would have to take place in order for the entire organism to function properly. Even more changes, from the number to type of gene would have to occur for one species to "change" to another.

God at least wrote a Bible to explain himself. What did "evolution" write to explain itself?

God - 1 - Those who believe in God do not look to another man for the unanswerable questions that life presents.
Evolution - 0 - Those who believe in evolution look to other men who are smarter than they are to give them the answers to these questions and then behave as if they are smarter than the men who gave them the answers in the first place.

It was written in the Bible which you seem to give no credence to - "If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as heought to know."

 

[gola153]

To Murdocsvan


What came first --- The Chicken or the Egg ? If it was the egg, then what laid it, and who were its parents? And how can just one chicken from one egg reproduce to form yet another egg to keep the species going? What if it was a rooster that was in the egg? If the Chicken came first, then if evolution is true, then the rooster and the chicken would have had to "evolve" at precisely the same time into an environment that provided them at least food and water. (Not to mention the millions of other species that we now understand that it takes "two to tango" so to speak.

But it is simple questions like this which evolutionists will not be able to answer directly, because there is no answer but the fact that the chicken and the rooster, and the miraculous inner-workings of the egg itself, along with the myriad of miraculous, microscopic, protein driven, DNA directed, incredibly complex (and irreducibly complex) functions that have to take place for life to exist, started with a Supreme Creator, known as God. The intricacies of life, which mankind is beginning to understand more and more had to be designed, logically speaking, and could not possibly have arose from random chance. It doesn't take faith in a Creator to understand that. It only takes a little logic.

How could a single mutation along a strand of thousands of genes effect a change of dramatic proportion to any species, when thousands of changes to DNA would have to take place in order for the entire organism to function properly. Even more changes, from the number to type of gene would have to occur for one species to "change" to another.

God at least wrote a Bible to explain himself. What did "evolution" write to explain itself?

God - 1 -
Evolution - 0 -

 

[Ryan2065]

God at least wrote a Bible to explain himself. What did "evolution" write to explain itself?

Many many books you obviously didn't read.

 

[Zeno]

If one more person claims that evolution is a random process, I am going to have a brain aneurysm.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=825040&postcount=78

Please, please, please, please, before making a claim that attacks something know what that something actually says.

 

[Ryan2065]

If one more person claims that evolution is a random process, I am going to have a brain aneurysm.

But but... evolution is a random process.

God randomly made everything

:run:

 

[camanintx]

But it is simple questions like this which evolutionists will not be able to answer directly

Something tells me that you are not a biologist, am I wrong? How does the fact that you do not understand evolution constitute proof that evolution is false?

 

[Papersock]

What came first --- The Chicken or the Egg ? If it was the egg, then what laid it, and who were its parents?

Could they have developed at the same time?

God at least wrote a Bible to explain himself. What did "evolution" write to explain itself?

Actually, humans wrote the Bible. Whether God inspired it or not is debatable.

 

[gola153]

Something tells me that you are not a biologist, am I wrong? How does the fact that you do not understand evolution constitute proof that evolution is false?

You have proven my point to this extent - I asked for the question to be answered (Which came first?) and instead of answering it, you jump off into some specious supposition that I do not understand evolution. This is typical of godless people - attacking the messenger instead of message. Numerous prophets of the Bible were likewise attacked.

Now I ask again, which came first? - if you can successfully explain that through your "THEORY" then perhaps I might understand it. As it is, it cannot be understood because first, it is a theory and not scientific fact, secondly, it fails to, has failed to, and will always fail to answer such questions as, "How does one species evolve into another? How does it break through the DNA barrier? How does ape become man? Furthermore, evolution seems to always begin with proteins, DNA, special cells already formed. Where did they come from? How did they evolve? Let me guess - Primordial Soup!!!

Could they have developed at the same time?

If you believe in evolution as the explanation for the myriad species of life on our planet, then you would likely believe that they could have evolved together.Since I do not believe in evolution, then to me, it is impossible for the male and female to have evolved together. Can you try to imagine the odds of everything coming together, perfectly at the right time for all males and females of all the species that require male and female interaction to propagate their respective species? But you, like the previous poster, cannot answer the question as to which came first. This indicates that the two of you do not understand the THEORY well enough to do so.

God wrote the Bible through humans. But if you do not believe in God or the Bible, then you are not likely to understand and agree with the verse in the letter to Timothy which states, "All scripture is inspired (God-breathed in Greek) by God, and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, and equipped for all good works."

 

[Ryan2065]

You have proven my point to this extent - I asked for the question to be answered (Which came first?) and instead of answering it, you jump off into some specious supposition that I do not understand evolution. This is typical of godless people - attacking the messenger instead of message. Numerous prophets of the Bible were likewise attacked.

The egg came first. What made the egg? The Chickens ancestors.

Now I ask again, which came first? - if you can successfully explain that through your "THEORY" then perhaps I might understand it. As it is, it cannot be understood because first, it is a theory and not scientific fact, secondly, it fails to, has failed to, and will always fail to answer such questions as, "How does one species evolve into another? How does it break through the DNA barrier? How does ape become man? Furthermore, evolution seems to always begin with proteins, DNA, special cells already formed. Where did they come from? How did they evolve? Let me guess - Primordial Soup!!!

You don't even know what a scientific theory is... I'm sorry, but before you understand this you should at least have a high schoolers understand of science. A theory is the highest level many things in science can ever get. Most Laws need to be proven mathematically. If something cannot be proven mathematically, it usually is considered a Theory. Theory = tested numerous times by scientists all over the globe with no credible evidence against it.

And I think you mean to say abiogenesis begins with the primordial soup theory... Biological evolution assumes there already is life.

If you believe in evolution as the explanation for the myriad species of life on our planet, then you would likely believe that they could have evolved together.Since I do not believe in evolution, then to me, it is impossible for the male and female to have evolved together. Can you try to imagine the odds of everything coming together, perfectly at the right time for all males and females of all the species that require male and female interaction to propagate their respective species? But you, like the previous poster, cannot answer the question as to which came first. This indicates that the two of you do not understand the THEORY well enough to do so.

Actually you don't understand the theory at all. The genes are the things that change... This brings about physical changes in the species. We aren't saying that a frog lays an egg and a chicken pops out. We are saying there are millions of little changes on the genetic level that over time will create a new species.

The reason people are not even trying to explain this to you is because you obviously have not done much reading on evolution. Think of how hard it would be to teach someone about Jesus with them having only ever heard about him through people who hate him. It is nearly impossible to do this without them reading passages from the Bible. This is, in essence what we are asking you to do. The research is out there and simple easy to understand summaries of evolution are out there. Gather a basic understand of evolution before you dismiss it as silly.

 

[Zeno]

it fails to, has failed to, and will always fail to answer such questions as, "How does one species evolve into another?

The "chicken" came first but only in the sense that an egg is not spontaneously generated. Please read this in it's entirety before persisting with these questions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

[camanintx]

You have proven my point to this extent - I asked for the question to be answered (Which came first?) and instead of answering it, you jump off into some specious supposition that I do not understand evolution.

Now I ask again, which came first? - if you can successfully explain that through your "THEORY" then perhaps I might understand it.

My point is that you obviously don't understand either evolution or biology. Since an egg and the bird that hatches from it are the same organism, it cannot change species between the egg and the chick stage, so the egg had to come first.

If you think your argument refutes evolution, you would first have to define exactly what a chicken is and how an animal that is almost, but not quite, a chicken is incapable of laying a chicken egg.

 

[Ryan2065]

The "chicken" came first but only in the sense that an egg is not spontaneously generated. Please read this in it's entirety before persisting with these questions.

No, the egg came first. From what I understand the genetic mutations occur before something comes alive... So the first chicken in the world would have come from an egg, not mutated from an already living ancestor.

 

[Zeno]

No, the egg came first. From what I understand the genetic mutations occur before something comes alive... So the first chicken in the world would have come from an egg, not mutated from an already living ancestor.

Well I was just pointing out that the line isn't a distinct one. The animal that produced the egg was basically a chicken.

 

[Papersock]

Could they have developed at the same time?

If you believe in evolution as the explanation for the myriad species of life on our planet, then you would likely believe that they could have evolved together.Since I do not believe in evolution, then to me, it is impossible for the male and female to have evolved together. Can you try to imagine the odds of everything coming together, perfectly at the right time for all males and females of all the species that require male and female interaction to propagate their respective species? But you, like the previous poster, cannot answer the question as to which came first. This indicates that the two of you do not understand the THEORY well enough to do so.

I know the theory well enough to know that everything did not just come together perfectly at the right time to make males and females for all the species. I imagine sexual reproduction develped long before most of the species (extinct and living) ever existed.

I don't know the details, but first living things would have reproduced asexually (like some living things still do), then gradually something like hermaphrodites would develop before distinct sexes came to be.

 

[Papersock]

Which came first?

The egg came first. Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens ever existed

 

[sandy whitelinger]

ok does anyone want to quiz me on evolution and see if they can stump me?



good luck

What is the direct evidence that evolution is responsible for classes of species?

 

[Zeno]

What is the direct evidence that evolution is responsible for classes of species?

Here, here, and here. (and here).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here, here, and here. (and here).

There is more to distinguishing the variation of life on this planet than species. I asked for direct evidence of classes of life being caused by evolution.