So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

[Skwim]

"There is proof of so much proven fraud in evolution. Not only that it is still used in texts to teach the "fact" of evolution."

Do instances of fraud any arena of endeavor necessarily falsify its truth? If so, the Christian religion would have been a dead duck and buried hundreds of years ago. In any case, if there's "so much proven fraud in evolution", please provide a few examples. I'm curious. Quite curious.

 

[ttechsan]

Give me the well documented examples of evolution that go from the beginning to the next higher species that explains each step fully and the number of steps it took to get to the next higher order species it got to. See all you do is tell me there are so many proven. Yet those are all inferred from their just so stories. They are NEVER given in exact science explanations like they can other stuff I have given. So give me the PROVEN ones and tell me what it started as and ended up as and each step and what each step entailed and how many steps it took to get to the next higher order species. Since you say there are so many this should be no problem. But I know you can't do it. There is no such thing. You still haven't answered the problem above with my plant and animal example. All you do is quote and give same ole evolutionary just so supposed explanations that never really explain anything in a real scientific specific way.

I want a specific scientific answer how you as a top of the line evolved brain would evolve the yucca plant and yucca moth despite the time frame of evolution between plants and land animals, insects evolution. Besides all the trial and error it takes to get it right. See it doesn't have time to get it right by trial and error. It has to be right immediately or both perish. They have to evolve right next to each other despite this whole planet being the evolutionary playing field. The math odds are so astronomical for them. That doesn't account for all the others that need others for survival. You can't tell me yourself how you would evolve them and account for the time difference evolution says there is between plants and land animals insects. They would be extinct before the other evolved. Much less having to allow for the other to evolve correctly over time needed. Plus realizing for them to multiply and have enough to survive they need the other for that to occur. So how can you account for the second, third and up to hundreds, thousands etc ever existing w/o the other being there so it could multiply allowing the time for the other to evolve. Yet the other according to evolution doesn't evolve yet in time, much less the odds in the area right next to it my mathematical odds.

Come on guys. Use your heads. Give me the example you keep claiming you have that I know you don't. Then explain, despite the time problems, and the other problems, how do you get the second etc plants or animals w/o the other so they can survive and multiply and have to be right next to each other despite the math odds of all over the world.

Evolution has no real brain to organize or engineer or program where this could happen. Much less "the evolved brains" of men today still can't tell us how THEY could or would do it with the problems I have covered. You have this problem throughout evolution.

So unless I get REAL scientific answers. I don't count your just telling me there are many examples without actually giving me one much less any as I've asked. I won't count as an answer any broad assumptions or generalizations. See you say evolution is scientific fact. So I am asking you to back it up with specifics. If it were fact it should be easy to do. Just as if I asked how blood system, nervous system, muscular system etc or photosynthesis etc you could do without doing it the way you have to with "evolutions supposed proven science fact" NOT!

So either put up with science proven fact as I've asked or admit you can't. Then what you need to do is examine the frauds and the holes and find out the truth.

Or just stay willfully ignorant by choice not because you haven't been presented with the evidence to know better.

 

[McBell]

Give me the well documented examples of evolution that go from the beginning to the next higher species that explains each step fully and the number of steps it took to get to the next higher order species it got to. See all you do is tell me there are so many proven. Yet those are all inferred from their just so stories. They are NEVER given in exact science explanations like they can other stuff I have given. So give me the PROVEN ones and tell me what it started as and ended up as and each step and what each step entailed and how many steps it took to get to the next higher order species. Since you say there are so many this should be no problem. But I know you can't do it. There is no such thing. You still haven't answered the problem above with my plant and animal example. All you do is quote and give same ole evolutionary just so supposed explanations that never really explain anything in a real scientific specific way.

I want a specific scientific answer how you as a top of the line evolved brain would evolve the yucca plant and yucca moth despite the time frame of evolution between plants and land animals, insects evolution. Besides all the trial and error it takes to get it right. See it doesn't have time to get it right by trial and error. It has to be right immediately or both perish. They have to evolve right next to each other despite this whole planet being the evolutionary playing field. The math odds are so astronomical for them. That doesn't account for all the others that need others for survival. You can't tell me yourself how you would evolve them and account for the time difference evolution says there is between plants and land animals insects. They would be extinct before the other evolved. Much less having to allow for the other to evolve correctly over time needed. Plus realizing for them to multiply and have enough to survive they need the other for that to occur. So how can you account for the second, third and up to hundreds, thousands etc ever existing w/o the other being there so it could multiply allowing the time for the other to evolve. Yet the other according to evolution doesn't evolve yet in time, much less the odds in the area right next to it my mathematical odds.

Come on guys. Use your heads. Give me the example you keep claiming you have that I know you don't. Then explain, despite the time problems, and the other problems, how do you get the second etc plants or animals w/o the other so they can survive and multiply and have to be right next to each other despite the math odds of all over the world.

Evolution has no real brain to organize or engineer or program where this could happen. Much less "the evolved brains" of men today still can't tell us how THEY could or would do it with the problems I have covered. You have this problem throughout evolution.

So unless I get REAL scientific answers. I don't count your just telling me there are many examples without actually giving me one much less any as I've asked. I won't count as an answer any broad assumptions or generalizations. See you say evolution is scientific fact. So I am asking you to back it up with specifics. If it were fact it should be easy to do. Just as if I asked how blood system, nervous system, muscular system etc or photosynthesis etc you could do without doing it the way you have to with "evolutions supposed proven science fact" NOT!

So either put up with science proven fact as I've asked or admit you can't. Then what you need to do is examine the frauds and the holes and find out the truth.

Or just stay willfully ignorant by choice not because you haven't been presented with the evidence to know better.

To what end?
Everyone in this thread knows you have absolutely no intention of actually learning anything about evolution.

 

[McBell]

Do instances of fraud any arena of endeavor necessarily falsify its truth? If so, the Christian religion would have been a dead duck and buried hundreds of years ago. In any case, if there's "so much proven fraud in evolution", please provide a few examples. I'm curious. Quite curious.

How much you wanna bet he will completely ignore the fact that it was science, not religion, that pointed out the few frauds?

 

[shawn001]

I will copy and paste some definitions of Big Bang for you.

Word Origin and History for big bang theory



hypothetical explosive beginning of the universe, developed from the work of Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître and George Gamow, the name first attested 1950 (said to have been used orally 1949) by British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) in an attempt to explain the idea in laymen's terms.

big bang theory in Science

big bang

(bĭg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. Compare big crunch, steady state theory. See also open universe.

So these are definitions I got from the internet. I seem to read the word or form of explosion in both. So it seems my explanation fits quite well with these definitions.
Regardless, My point is still much bigger than that. I will stand on what I said. No explosion or whatever term you want to use, ever produces intricate, precise order, design etc. Much less how could it produce the Laws of Nature, Science, Cosmology etc. What is really funny to me. Those laws are so set as they must be for us to live. Yet evolution is constant change. So why don't those laws change or "evolve" too? If they did of course we would all perish.

Evolution has so many illogical holes it amazes me how people fall for it if you actually think and analyze it.

"
The Big Bang – Common Misconceptions

"1) The Big Bang was an explosion
This seems to be a really big one. I’ve been told that I contradict myself because I point out that the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion so I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about. The term “Big Bang” was originally given to the theory (originally called “primeval atom”) by Fred Hoyle on a radio program in which he was mocking the theory. However, the misnomer stuck and has been causing confusion ever since.

Let’s first look at what the Big Bang theory really states: “Our universe began in a hot dense state which began, and still is expanding. In this initial event, all the matter in our universe was created with approximately 80% hydrogen and 20% helium.”

That’s my personal paraphrase, but after reviewing a great number of sources, it seems to be the most comprehensive one I can come up with. So let’s analyze it. You’ll notice that nowhere do we find the word “explosion.” Instead we find the term “expansion.”

The frequent picture people seem to have is matter flying outwards from a single point (like an explosion). However, the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it.

The general analogy for this is having a series of paperclips on a rubber band. As the rubber band is stretched, the paperclips appear to move away from one another even though they are in fact holding still with regard to the rubber band. Similarly, galaxies hold still more or less (there are small movements due to gravitational interactions) while they are carried by the expanding universe.

So again, there was no “explosion” but instead, an expansion which is carrying all the rest of the universe away from us.

2) The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain what caused it

This is another big one I see a lot. If the Big Bang was the beginning, then what could have caused the Big Bang? You’ll notice my paraphrase above didn’t include anything about this. Pretty big hole eh?

Not really. The Big Bang theory doesn’t say anything about what caused it because, well, it doesn’t need to. Theories don’t try to explain everything, just what evidence is available and pertinent. Asking the Big Bang (and Evolution) to do more than this is a double standard. After all, the theory of Gravity doesn’t explain where mass came from. The Germ theory of disease transmission doesn’t explain where germs came from. Electro-magnetic theories don’t explain where charge comes from. Atomic theory doesn’t state where atoms come from.

Angry Astronomer: The Big Bang – Common Misconceptions

Misconceptions about the Big Bang
Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You're not alone. Even astronomers frequently get it wrong

Misconceptions about the Big Bang - Scientific American



Planck Mission Updates the Age of the Universe and What it Contains

Planck Mission Updates the Age of the Universe and What it Contains | Berkeley Lab

Its not hypothetical anymore.

 

[McBell]

Or just stay willfully ignorant by choice not because you haven't been presented with the evidence to know better.

Interesting that you make so many high and mighty demands of evidence and proof yet refuse to offer any of the same.
Are you familiar with the term "hypocrite"?

Perhaps you will prove me wrong about your blatant hypocrisy and present some of this "evidence to know better" you so boldly claim exists?

 

[Skwim]

How much you wanna bet he will completely ignore the fact that it was science, not religion, that pointed out the few frauds?

But it won't make any difference. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud is a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and that's all that counts. Although I can't think of a single one. Perhaps he'll fill me in as I asked.

 

[Sapiens]

Give me the well documented examples of evolution that go from the beginning to the next higher species that explains each step fully and the number of steps it took to get to the next higher order species it got to.

I be happy to, when you give me a complete genealogy of your family, back to Noah, with DNA tests that prove that all the fathers are whom the mothers claim they are.

See all you do is tell me there are so many proven. Yet those are all inferred from their just so stories. They are NEVER given in exact science explanations like they can other stuff I have given.

No all are inferred and confirmed from multiple and independent lines of inquiry.

So give me the PROVEN ones and tell me what it started as and ended up as and each step and what each step entailed and how many steps it took to get to the next higher order species.

Your asking how many steps a bicyclist must take in a trip ... a nonsense strawman.

Since you say there are so many this should be no problem. But I know you can't do it. There is no such thing. You still haven't answered the problem above with my plant and animal example. All you do is quote and give same ole evolutionary just so supposed explanations that never really explain anything in a real scientific specific way.

I answered it fully, you just don't like the answer ... tough.

I want a specific scientific answer how you as a top of the line evolved brain would evolve the yucca plant and yucca moth despite the time frame of evolution between plants and land animals, insects evolution.

Then take yourself to wiki.

Besides all the trial and error it takes to get it right. See it doesn't have time to get it right by trial and error. It has to be right immediately or both perish.

No.

They have to evolve right next to each other despite this whole planet being the evolutionary playing field. The math odds are so astronomical for them.

No.

That doesn't account for all the others that need others for survival.

No.

You can't tell me yourself how you would evolve them and account for the time difference evolution says there is between plants and land animals insects.

No. Stawman argument. No said that all plants evolved and then the first animal came along. Plants appeared and the scene first. Plants changed the nature of the Earth. Then animals appeared. The fact that the yuccas in question do not produce nectar (but retain the DNA instructions to do so) indicates that in the past the yucca was a conventionally pollinated flower that stopped putting energy into the production of nectar once it was no longer required as an attractant.

They would be extinct before the other evolved.

Evidently not.

Much less having to allow for the other to evolve correctly over time needed.

No.

Plus realizing for them to multiply and have enough to survive they need the other for that to occur.

No.

So how can you account for the second, third and up to hundreds, thousands etc ever existing w/o the other being there so it could multiply allowing the time for the other to evolve.

As I said, wiki can tell you.

Yet the other according to evolution doesn't evolve yet in time, much less the odds in the area right next to it my mathematical odds.

No, it only has to happen in one small area. Clearly the current pollination scheme raises the fitness of both, so once achieved it would spread rapidly, replacing the less fit.

Come on guys. Use your heads. Give me the example you keep claiming you have that I know you don't. Then explain, despite the time problems, and the other problems, how do you get the second etc plants or animals w/o the other so they can survive and multiply and have to be right next to each other despite the math odds of all over the world.

There is no problem, there is not issue and the odds greatly favor those organisms with successful mutualistic arrangments. Face it, that's how plants got chloroplasts and animals mitochondria.

Evolution has no real brain to organize or engineer or program where this could happen. Much less "the evolved brains" of men today still can't tell us how THEY could or would do it with the problems I have covered. You have this problem throughout evolution.

Evolution does not need a brain, it needs two things: Over production of offspring who feature variance in their genome and selective factors that result in differential survivability.

So unless I get REAL scientific answers.

You've proven that you do not know what "REAL scientific answers" are, so how would you possibly recognize them.

I don't count your just telling me there are many examples without actually giving me one much less any as I've asked.

I gave you the references, if your too lazy to read them, that's your loss. I don't prepare briefing papers for fools.

I won't count as an answer any broad assumptions or generalizations.

Much of science is based on the application of demonstrated generalizations, if you don't like that, no one is overly concerned, 'cause it's your loss.

See you say evolution is scientific fact.

No, that's a strawman on your part. You need to back up and read it again.

So I am asking you to back it up with specifics.

It has been done but you refuse to read the citations. Afraid of what you might find? Too lazy? Background inadequate for you to understand? What's your issue?

If it were fact it should be easy to do. Just as if I asked how blood system, nervous system, muscular system etc or photosynthesis etc you could do without doing it the way you have to with "evolutions supposed proven science fact" NOT!
If you had asked me those questions I'd have answered them exactly the same way ... with references to experts' writings. That is how it is done.
So either put up with science proven fact as I've asked or admit you can't.

Claim what you want, it has already been done, your request has already been filled.

Then what you need to do is examine the frauds and the holes and find out the truth.

What frauds? You've totally ignored repeated requests for documentation of this base canard.

Or just stay willfully ignorant by choice not because you haven't been presented with the evidence to know better.

The information that I have been presented with and processed over a life time would fill several small libraries, it has lead me to the conclusions that I now hold. It has taught me that people like your are usually too ignorant to understand both sides of the issue so they fall into the trap of confirmatory bias and adopt the only explanation that they can understand: godditit.

 

[Riverwolf]

Give me the well documented examples of evolution that go from the beginning to the next higher species

There's no such thing as "higher species".

You're asking for a square circle.

So either put up with science proven fact

There's no such thing as that, either.

Yet again, you demonstrate a misunderstanding of what science is, despite the explanations given. Forget everything you've ever "learned" about "science" from the TV, movies, your friends, peers, etc. because clearly you're filtering out whatever might be accurate in favor of focusing on what's completely wrong. You badly need to start from scratch.

 

[outhouse]

So unless I get REAL scientific answers

YOU don't get to dictate anything to us.


EVOLUTION ID FACT. You have nothing.

WE have the science taught in every civilized country in the best universities as higher education and not in dispute by anyone with credibility.


While you only have creation which is outlawed from public schools so we don't poison children's minds.

 

[ttechsan]

All I read is blah blah blah. Telling me it is fact yet w/o the proof I asked for. Not very impressive for something that is fact. If I asked you to prove how Photosynthesis worked or how various systems in our body worked you could do that. Yet when I put you on the spot with evolution all I get is blah blah blah how it is fact w/o demonstration and using brainwashing and propaganda techniques, as Dr. Singham admits in his article in Physics today. You use just so stories as Dr Lewontin admits.

So as usual you can't do what is needed to prove evolution at all. Esp when this whole world shows it takes actual brains to design, engineer and program and esp to thte degree we see in all of creation. Mother nature is a force of nature and it has no brain. Nor does evolution yet you give it credit as if it does by some sort of magic. Talk about faith based and against math odds. Again, I will not respond until I get more than just your blah blah words that prove nothing by science and actually answer my questions. You are proving my point all the time.

Evolution loses in debate when it gets specific. Go get those books I Linked in other thread. Heck I might mail one to someone that convinces me they will actually read it and then debate me page by page. But you must get specific and not use blah blah explanations as I get here to prove evolutionary's fact/

 

[Sapiens]

All I read is blah blah blah.

That is because of you laziness, level of reading comprehension and limited biological background. Only you can fix those things.

Telling me it is fact yet w/o the proof I asked for.

All information requested has been provided.

Not very impressive for something that is fact.

In your opinion, which does appear to be very informed.

If I asked you to prove how Photosynthesis worked or how various systems in our body worked you could do that.

Here's how I'd answer that: Photosynthesis Web Resources - Introduction

Yet when I put you on the spot with evolution all I get is blah blah blah how it is fact w/o demonstration and using brainwashing and propaganda techniques, as Dr. Singham admits in his article in Physics today. You use just so stories as Dr Lewontin admits.

Please read his actual article, and while your at it, find out what Dick" Lewontin is actually talking about. You are misrepresenting both of them, why am I not surprised?

So as usual you can't do what is needed to prove evolution at all.

It has been done, you just are not happy with the answers. Too bad.

Esp when this whole world shows it takes actual brains to design, engineer and program and esp to thte degree we see in all of creation. Mother nature is a force of nature and it has no brain. Nor does evolution yet you give it credit as if it does by some sort of magic. Talk about faith based and against math odds. Again, I will not respond until I get more than just your blah blah words that prove nothing by science and actually answer my questions. You are proving my point all the time.

Now you try with the common sense fallacy, still doesn't wash.

Evolution loses in debate when it gets specific. Go get those books I Linked in other thread. Heck I might mail one to someone that convinces me they will actually read it and then debate me page by page. But you must get specific and not use blah blah explanations as I get here to prove evolutionary's fact/

I take you up on it but I try (and I fear oft fail, like today) not to pick on the academically crippled. I guess we'll have to leave it to others to decide who is convincing and who is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

 

[Ouroboros]

To what end?
Everyone in this thread knows you have absolutely no intention of actually learning anything about evolution.

Or anything else for that matter.

 

[ttechsan]

Where is the example of one species that goes stage by stage with each stage being specifically entailed and the exact no. of stages. It tells me where it started and what it ended up being? That is NOT on this thread. Heck evolutionist use Finch's or moth's yet can't tell us what they became. They can't say what stages they went through and what it entailed and the no of stages and what it ended up being. All I get is just so stories without the specifics filling in the blanks like real science.

What it reminds me of is this. My father in law used to have a demolition business while alive. If I came to him and gave him a few bricks and asked him to describe w/o ever seeing the building itself. Describe what this building looked like. He wouldn't know the sq foot, no. of floors, no. of rooms and so much more from just a few bricks. So much of evolution is exactly like that. They find a few bones, many very very far apart and many have now been proven frauds. Yet they come up with by imagination what the animal looked like and a progression, all is imagination not real science like I've asked for. So my father in law would have to use his imagination to describe what the building looked like. Sorry guys that is NOT real honest true proven science. You still have NOT given me what I have asked for.

If you really think you have then that is really sad. No links do it either. They do just as I have described. That is why evolution is NOT real science.

 

[LuisDantas]

Where is the example of one species that goes stage by stage with each stage being specifically entailed and the exact no. of stages. It tells me where it started and what it ended up being? That is NOT on this thread.

That matters not. You are making unreasonable, uninformed demands, mainly because you lack a modicum of understanding of the matters you are asking about.

You very questions are built in unlikely ways that betray a lack of proper education on the area, I am sorry to say. They just are not very well informed by the known facts.

You really ought to read a bit on the matter before returning to this subject matter. The stickies in this area may be a good starting point.

 

[Riverwolf]

Where is the example of one species that goes stage by stage with each stage being specifically entailed and the exact no. of stages.

There aren't any "stages".

You continuously ask for square circles, and thus continuously demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what you're even asking about.

No wonder you don't recognize it. Nobody who understands how basic biology works believes the nonsense you're asking for.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is why evolution is NOT real science.

It's clear you don't know what "real science" even is, let alone have any ground to declare whether or not something qualifies as it.

First of all, "evolution" is NOT a science; it's a process. And you do fully believe in it, without recognizing it. Unless you believe all dogs are the same dog.

 

[outhouse]

Or just stay willfully ignorant by choice not because you haven't been presented with the evidence to know better

Pot calling the kettle black.

You have no evidence at all for any unsubstantiated replacement hypothesis.


And in the face of factual evidence for evolution which has been observed, you want us to swallow your view that has a 100% lack of evidence to support it.



Its called the Ben Franklin close, you loose.

 

[dust1n]

Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back to you. I have serious health issues. That is why I am so sporadic on here. I ask your forgiveness on that. It is something I can't help or control. I wish I didn't have these issues. Yet at the same time. I have dedicated them to God's glory and He does that continually. So despite the pain and constant problems, God uses me through it. I wouldn't change that as compared to what He did for me. This is a small cross to bear for Him and it puts me where I can help others I wouldn't meet otherwise. Anyway, here is a response. I hope it helps. But I do want real science answers...

Sorry to hear about your illness. But it seems understandable to me that you have much vested interest in keeping your faith for various reasons, and that this is far more compelling an issue for you than learning science is. So, I really don't know how many things I'm actually going to respond to...

A problem for evolutionist, esp considering the order you say things evolved. These couldn’t have stayed alive or survived long enough w/o the other due to long time span between! Animals and plants

Visitors to the southwestern United States are often awed by the imposing yucca plant. At its base is a rosette of stiff, sword shaped leaves with a tall stem containing clusters of white, waxy flowers. The yucca plant can only be pollinated by ONE insect, the yucca moth, because the nectar glands can only be reached by the proboscis (sucking mouth part) of this moth. Likewise, the yucca moth requires the yucca plant for its reproductive cycle and for food.

When the moth visits the yucca flower it collects pollen and carries the tiny pollen balls from plant to plant. After the female lays her four to five eggs in the yucca flower’s ovary, she deposits her pollen ball on the tip of the flower’s pistil, thus pollinating the yucca flower. The seeds then start developing at the same time the moth larvae develop. The seeds are the only source of food for the larvae. These seeds were made possible only by the pollen the female moth had earlier deposited. The larvae eat about half of the 200 seeds produced. The yucca plant could not survive without the yucca moth, and the yucca moth could not survive without the yucca plant.

If evolution were true, which came first? Both the yucca plant and the yucca moth had to be fully functioning from the beginning for this complex symbiotic relationship. God displays creativity in what He has made because He wants His existence apparent to all.

This isn't really as much of a problem as your seem to think it is.

"In biology, coevolution is "the change of a biological object triggered by the change of a related object.".[1] In other words, when changes in at least two species’ genetic compositions reciprocally affect each other’s evolution, coevolution has occurred.

There is evidence for coevolution at the level of populations and species. For example, the concept of coevolution was briefly described by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species, and developed in detail in Fertilisation of Orchids.[2][3][4] It is likely that viruses and their hosts may have coevolved in various scenarios.[5]

However, there is little evidence of coevolution driving large-scale changes in Earth's history, since abiotic factors such as mass extinction and expansion into ecospace seem to guide the shifts in the abundance of major groups.[6] One specific example is the evolution of high-crowned teeth in grazers when grasslands spread through North America. Long held up as an example of coevolution, we now know that these events happened independently.[7]

Coevolution can occur at many biological levels: it can be as microscopic as correlated mutations between amino acids in a protein, or as macroscopic as covarying traits between different species in an environment. Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each other's evolution. Coevolution of different species includes the evolution of a host species and its parasites (host–parasite coevolution), and examples of mutualism evolving through time. Evolution in response to abiotic factors, such as climate change, is not biological coevolution (since climate is not alive and does not undergo biological evolution).

The general conclusion is that coevolution may be responsible for much of the genetic diversity seen in normal populations including: blood plasma polymorphism, protein polymorphism, histocompatibility systems, etc.[8]

The parasite host relationship is probably what drove the prevalence of sexual reproduction over the more efficient asexual reproduction. It seems that most sources determine that when a host is infected by a parasite, sexual reproduction affords a chance of resistance, through variation in the next generation, giving sexual reproduction viability for fitness not seen in the asexual reproduction, which would only generate another generation of the organism susceptible to infection by the same parasite.[9]

Coevolution is primarily a biological concept, but has been applied by analogy to fields such as computer science, sociology / International Political Economy[10] and astronomy."

Coevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HOW DID THE YUCCA AND YUCCA MOTH RELATIONSHIP EVOLVE? The first fossil flowering plants appear in rocks formed 90-120 million years ago. Flowers improved a plant's ability to reproduce with variation. There were no pollinating bees and wasps, moths or butterflies prior to flowering plants, and the first pollinators were beetles. The gradual improvement in flowers' ability to attract insects, and the modification of insects to better pollinate flowers resulted in an evolutionary explosion in flowering plants and pollinating insects. North America, at that time, was a major site of flower evolution and the coevolution of the yucca and yucca moth began in southwestern North America.

The beneficial relationship has probably evolved recently in geological time. The primitive yucca plants most likely relied on wind to distribute pollen, fertilize flowers and produce seed. Today, only the moth can do this job.

There are close relatives of the yucca moth that mine the vegetative tissues of the plant; they are yucca "pests" and provide no benefits to the plants. The ancestors of the yucca moth almost certainly began as harmful feeders on yucca tissues but converted to feeding on seeds and eventually took over the pollination duties.

One possible scenario follows. The ancestral yuccas were plagued with small moth caterpillars that fed inside plants shoots. As with modern moths, there is some variation in each generation, and a few eggs are laid beyond the stems on blades and flower parts. Eggs laid in fertilized flowers discovered an untapped developing supply of seeds rich in protein, and their young survived in high numbers and reinforced this population of flower-inhabiting larval moths. The variant larval moths that ate seeds added a burden to the plant, but moths that moved from flower to flower also carried pollen with more accuracy than casting pollen to the wind. Such a tradeoff, perhaps only slightly in the plant's favor at first, became even greater as moth variants became more skillful at transfer of pollen, especially by selection for palps and behavior to comb the yucca pollen from anthers. Meanwhile, the yucca could save much energy by forming pollen that is gummy rather than fine and wind dispersed. To evolutionary biologists, confirming this sequence remains an exciting problem.

Vol 41, No 2 - Yucca Plant and the Yucca Moth - The Kansas School Naturalist | Emporia State University

This is what I found from 20 years ago...


More recently:

"The relationship between yucca plants
(Yucca and Hesperoyucca
spp.: Agavaceae) and yucca moths
(Tegeticula and Parategeticula
spp. [Lepi- doptera: Prodoxidae])
is often cited as a clas-
sic example of insect–plant coevolution and,
in particular, obligate mutualism (Powell
1992, Thompson 1994, Price 1996, Proc-
tor et al. 1996, Pellmyr 2003). Female yucca
moths exhibit morphological and behavioral
adaptations that ensure pollination of yucca
plants, which have highly modified flowers
that reduce the possibility of self-pollination
or passive pollen transfer by other insects
(Fig. 1). The ovaries of the plants serve as a
protected food source for the females’ off-
spring, which feed on seeds that develop as a
result of the pollinating activity of the female
moths."

http://entomology.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/yucca2.pdf

 

[ttechsan]

Read that whole thing. Full of just so scenarios & possibilities & guesses. Not definite science like I keep asking for. Your problem is when you actually read the wording of evolutionary explanations it exposes its fallacy. Real proven science fact doesn't read that way. It knows, doesn't have to use so much conjecture that a "proven fact of evolution" has to. Conjecture is Not proven fact of real science. Like examples I've given. You still can't give me the one example like I've asked for.

See, my whole point is all of creation is the same facts on what is known of how things work whether creationist or evolutionist. Problem is how it was created originally.

My point is life experience shows us that the extreme degree & complexity of Design, Engineering, Programming etc can only come from a supreme Intelligence. Man can't match it even today. Our robotics etc can't match it. Our computer programs can't match DNA/RNA complexity, esp the more we learn about it. We know evolution is sold as a force if nature like mother nature with abilities like only a brain has. Absurd, it has no brain any more than mother nature does. Like my example of faces on Mt Rushmore. Our world shows us that it takes actual intelligent brains to Design, Engineer, Program etc what we see man creates with his brain.
Yet you want me to believe a non thinking actual non brain can out Design, Engineer, Program what man, top of the line "evolved"brain still can't match? How illogical & non sensical do you think I am?
You sure aren't convincing & sure haven't answered the questions, esp the specifics, to show me evolution is the same proven truth as all other types of science that are very specific & detailed. Evolution can't do it because it is fraud science. So many pillars are proven frauds & your article is great example showing it is full of conjecture, innuendo etc w/o real descriptive proven detailed science! Thx.