Evolution, a subject or word that is irrelevant to the truth, You seek to understand evolution but end with vanity, truly those who are seeking, seek the creator God. you cannot understand or fathom the truth unless you believe that GOd is real and his vessel Jesus.simple as that, all evolution and atheism etc. etc. is, is a internal affair with the complexion of a humans makeup trying to justify many things yet unanswered. as strange as it may come to you. you view things and perspectives with carnal minds,which is a dead brain.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Evolution?
- Thread starter Aasimar
- Start date
kadzbiz
..........................
Hello and new here.
Evolution proper is biological evolution. Under biological is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Darwin witnessed micro-evolution (genetic adaptation or generational predisposition) and theorized that species may have crossed the traditional speciation boundaries espoused up until that time. Since genetic science has progressed, we see no new genetic information being added to a given species which challenges the theory of macro-evolution in a way it has yet to overcome. Add to this the mitochondria that points to a single woman (Mitochondria Eve) and the Y-Chromosome, genetic research also pointing to a single father and bio evolution is even further challenged.
Big-bang has also been given the slang cosmic evolution although in my experience, these scientists generally abhor being lumped with the bio field and called evolutionists. Even those in the bio field prefer being called naturalists.
Evolution proper is biological evolution. Under biological is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Darwin witnessed micro-evolution (genetic adaptation or generational predisposition) and theorized that species may have crossed the traditional speciation boundaries espoused up until that time. Since genetic science has progressed, we see no new genetic information being added to a given species which challenges the theory of macro-evolution in a way it has yet to overcome. Add to this the mitochondria that points to a single woman (Mitochondria Eve) and the Y-Chromosome, genetic research also pointing to a single father and bio evolution is even further challenged.
Big-bang has also been given the slang cosmic evolution although in my experience, these scientists generally abhor being lumped with the bio field and called evolutionists. Even those in the bio field prefer being called naturalists.
Welcome to the forums, deviant1.
I'm confused, though: is that not exactly waht "mutation" is in biological evolution, new genetic information? When a butterfly emerges with a new spot on its wings, that is new genetic information.
I believe we call the butterfly's transformation its "life-cycle." The genetic code that produces the wings is already present in the pre-cocooned, non-winged form. A mutation is when a healthy/normal genetic code is missing information or is mixed abnormally. This usually results in a deformity/disease and becomes less likely to be passed on with a demanding environment.
Micro-evolution occurs when environmental conditions require pre-existing, available genetic codes to go from near-equal or recessive, to dominate in a limited breeding pool. For instance, a certain mammal is preyed upon so longer legs might give it the speed it needs to survive/thrive. Those with smaller legs might be pushed out from the main breeding pool and migrate to safer ground. Those that stay would develop even longer legs due to generationally progressive, genetic dominance of that available code (leg length). However, the available genetic information is only reorganized, never added to. This makes the chances of a leg evolving into a fin (different/new code) an impossibility.
Micro-evolution occurs when environmental conditions require pre-existing, available genetic codes to go from near-equal or recessive, to dominate in a limited breeding pool. For instance, a certain mammal is preyed upon so longer legs might give it the speed it needs to survive/thrive. Those with smaller legs might be pushed out from the main breeding pool and migrate to safer ground. Those that stay would develop even longer legs due to generationally progressive, genetic dominance of that available code (leg length). However, the available genetic information is only reorganized, never added to. This makes the chances of a leg evolving into a fin (different/new code) an impossibility.
Yeah; I was referring to the "spot."
April 25, 2002 Nature and the Oct. 29, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
These papers dashed the notion that butterfly-spot size represents an example of a trait that's evolved under such a strong constraint that some forms, such as one big spot and one little spot, never develop, according to Beldade. Other proposed examples of traits that can't evolve certain forms include the number of neck vertebrae in mammals--seemingly always seven--and the number of leg-bearing segments of centipedes--seemingly always odd. These examples have all been controversial.
These papers dashed the notion that butterfly-spot size represents an example of a trait that's evolved under such a strong constraint that some forms, such as one big spot and one little spot, never develop, according to Beldade. Other proposed examples of traits that can't evolve certain forms include the number of neck vertebrae in mammals--seemingly always seven--and the number of leg-bearing segments of centipedes--seemingly always odd. These examples have all been controversial.
Then too bad it's happened, eh?
Well, I can tell you that it has never occurred in the history of naturalism nor is it likely based on genetic science. Can you show me where it has (or is currently) happening and how it *is* likely in light of genetic science?
Simply get yourself a good college level biology textbook. That would be the easiest way for you to disabuse yourself of the silly notion evolution has not occurred and the even sillier speculation that it cannot occur.
By the way, welcome to the Forum!
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Just two questions:
Would you consider duplicated sequences in our DNA to be examples of different "genetic information"?
Do you accept that frame shifting is a valid method of genetic mutation?
Simply get yourself a good college level biology textbook. That would be the easiest way for you to disabuse yourself of the silly notion evolution has not occurred and the even sillier speculation that it cannot occur.
By the way, welcome to the Forum!
Thanks for the welcome.
My last college textbook told me Neanderthal was a missing link, humanoid from 10+ million years ago. Now, after mapping the genome of a Neanderthal fossil, we find out he was contemporaneous to modern and even interbred with us? What do you suggest I do with *that* textbook
Thanks for the welcome.
My last college textbook told me Neanderthal was a missing link, humanoid from 10+ million years ago. Now, after mapping the genome of a Neanderthal fossil, we find out he was contemporaneous to modern and even interbred with us? What do you suggest I do with *that* textbook
Do you think the ability of science to correct itself is worse than the inability of religions to do the same?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
By what direct evidence? If you are using the basis I think you are, then the existance of fins and legs proves creation as well.
Again, check out an up to date biology text. Don't just take my word for it. Go to the evidence and evaluate it.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
From Wikipedia:
"Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:[4]
- Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
- Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
- Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
- An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
- In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
- Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
- Much of this variation is inheritable.
- Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
- The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
- This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species. "
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm not aware of any biology texts that can show a direct line from fins to legs. Perhaps you could recommend one.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Here's a primer on the current evidence and theories:
Getting a Leg Up on Land: Scientific American
The whole article, though long, is worth reading if you actually are interested in biology and evolution.
Some evolutionists are now recognizing the widespread functionality of pseudogenes. In the light of this fact, the notion of shared mistakes yields to shared engineering and/or artistic similarities (as is recognized by creationist scientists for all homologies encountered between living organisms). Pseudogenes must be recognized as non-canonical genes as well as truly disabled genes. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and the creationist scientist must accommodate both eventualities.
Here is the real problem. Although this is a relatively new area of study, early results are not looking good for macro-evolutionary theory. Suppose this one gets knocked out of the running like so many in the past. What will be the next theory that evolutionist latch onto and where will it end?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I think they'll settle on all of life being created by a Giant All-Knowing Turtle named Dave, upon whose shell we all ride. As for evidence, they'll dispense with all that and go with "faith," which is much easier anyway.