Looking for Evidence for Atheistic Evolution

justlookinla said:

You aren't going to tell us about your parents designing and creating the interconnected circuitry for functional tactile sensory units?

Click to expand...

Why do you think that was necessary. Read:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-talk-about-sex-with-older-children.html

Subduction Zone said:

Why do you think that was necessary. Read:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-talk-about-sex-with-older-children.html

Click to expand...

Your parents haven't designed and created functional tactile sensory units, have they?

justlookinla said:

Your parents haven't designed and created functional tactile sensory units, have they?

Click to expand...

They created functional tactile sensory units four times.

Subduction Zone said:

They created functional tactile sensory units four times.

Click to expand...

Describe the process where they created your tactile sensory units. How did they construct them, how did they wire them, how did they program them, how did they connect them in the sensory network?

justlookinla said:

Describe the process where they created your tactile sensory units. How did they construct them, how did they wire them, how did they program them, how did they connect them in the sensory network?

Click to expand...

Read the book.

Subduction Zone said:

Read the book.

Click to expand...

Don't leave me now.

Describe the process where they created your tactile sensory units. How did they construct them, how did they wire them, how did they program them, how did they connect them in the sensory network?

justlookinla said:

Don't leave me now.

Describe the process where they created your tactile sensory units. How did they construct them, how did they wire them, how did they program them, how did they connect them in the sensory network?

Click to expand...

I am not describing the sex act to you. Read the book.

Subduction Zone said:

I am not describing the sex act to you. Read the book.

Click to expand...

Sex acts don't do what I've asked. Now again...

Describe the process where they created your tactile sensory units. How did they construct them, how did they wire them, how did they program them, how did they connect them in the sensory network?

Gene2memE said:

C'mon Peter, you're smarter than this.

We've known about pre-Cambrian soft bodied creatures for 120 years. Starting with stromatolites, Ediacaran microbial mats - which are cyanobacteria, so there's your bacterial evolution right there - and proteobacteria - again, lots of evolutionary mutations there, the hint is in the name - and progressing all the way up the Dickinsonia and to hard-shell proto-arthropods like the Spriggina.

Click to expand...

OK I accept that.

But on the other hand, a picture emerges for me concerning evolutionism. If you can find something that can be arranged in some order that fits your theory, you are willing to believe that those things evolved from each other, in spite of no indication from e.g. an ability to point to molecular mechanisms of evolution. I guess I am just not willing to make the same step.

What do you think "adaption to different environments" is, if not evolution?
OK, I was the one who used the word, so let me explain. Adaption is the change in expression of genes if the environment becomes anaerobic, and if the environment becomes aerobic there is a similar change in expression of genes. There need be no mutational event there.
Actually the book that I read was titled "regulation of bacterial differentiation" by Norman MacLeod (I believe) and that title sounds quite a bit more promising to contain some description of evolutionary methods. So I was sorely disappointed to find not something in that book. The book was all about adaption, as I remember it. (can no longer find it on google)

Loudmouth said:

I did not see your answer to phylogenetics earlier, and would certainly like to address your comments.

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.com/posts/67531553/

How did you determine that there was too short of a time for evolution to happen?
It was a project that we never got into, so I cannot tell who stated it. But the professors did not reject the concept at all.

Not knowing how something evolved is evidence against evolution? It would seem to me that finding a gap in our knowledge of E. coli's evolutionary history would spur you on to fill in that gap in our knowledge.
I struggled, and I did everything I could. In one semester you can do a lot of litterature research.

You are unaware of inducible hypermutation?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22869726
I was. I think it was not described at that time. It does better the case for evolution a bit. At least a mechanism of reaction has been described, that could point to the evolutionary concept of mutations.

Molecular mechanisms of evolution?

How about:
Gene duplication
Functional divergence
Denaturation
Tautomerism
Depurination
Deamination
Crosslinking
Radioactive and chemical adduction
Horizontal gene transfer mechanisms
Exon shuffling
Psuedogene dysfunction
Frameshift mutation and transposition

Gene2memE said:

Molecular mechanisms of evolution?

How about:
Gene duplication
Functional divergence
Denaturation
Tautomerism
Depurination
Deamination
Crosslinking
Radioactive and chemical adduction
Horizontal gene transfer mechanisms
Exon shuffling
Psuedogene dysfunction
Frameshift mutation and transposition

Click to expand...

Well, that is certainly molecular mechanisms of mutation. I guess it is a matter of faith if you link mutation = evolution. I did not make that step. If you would think harder about it, doesnt evolution take more than just mutation? But again, maybe that is a matter of faith.

Functional divergence .... I do not know about that one, does it mean that the same protein has different function in different locations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_divergence
Oh I see it, another evolutionary theoretical concept. When discussing your theory, you need to be very aware what is theory and what is fact. Describing protein families may be helpful for understanding their function, but it is another matter to begin to postulate common origin and evolutionary events.
In the case of a protein family I would certainly accept the idea about functional relatedness, as a starting theory (to be proven or disproved later on), but I would not spend a lot of time on evolutionary relatedness.
My professor did state this thing, and i respect her as a qualified scientist: You can have an idea (based on evolution theory), and sometimes it fits and sometimes it dont.

PeterDona said:

If you would think harder about it, doesnt evolution take more than just mutation?

Click to expand...

Indeed it does - the other half of the equation is natural selection. Beneficial mutations are selected for over time, which eventually leads to speciation.

justlookinla said:

Sex acts don't do what I've asked. Now again...

Describe the process where they created your tactile sensory units. How did they construct them, how did they wire them, how did they program them, how did they connect them in the sensory network?

Click to expand...

Sex acts don't do what you've asked, but the results of them do. Once again, read the book. I am not going to go over all of the implications of sexual intercourse with you.

RocksInMyHead said:

Indeed it does - the other half of the equation is natural selection. Beneficial mutations are selected for over time, which eventually leads to speciation.

Click to expand...

Exactly and well said!

Too many deniers of evolution try to "refute" evolution by focusing only on mutations or only on natural selection. By themselves neither can drive evolution. But together it is another story altogether.

PeterDona said:

Well, that is certainly molecular mechanisms of mutation. I guess it is a matter of faith if you link mutation = evolution. I did not make that step. If you would think harder about it, doesnt evolution take more than just mutation? But again, maybe that is a matter of faith.

Functional divergence .... I do not know about that one, does it mean that the same protein has different function in different locations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_divergence
Oh I see it, another evolutionary theoretical concept.

Click to expand...

Functional divergence is not a "theoretical concept", its an observed mechanism of changes in gene function.

That wikipedia link. Did you actually look at any of the papers used as references? Like the study showing functional divergence among the triplicated α-globin genes in rat and mice showing a change in oxygen-binding affinities? Or the study showing two types of functional divergence, that found that the function transferred for a newly copied gene may be significantly different from the original function?

PeterDona said:

When discussing your theory, you need to be very aware what is theory and what is fact. Describing protein families may be helpful for understanding their function, but it is another matter to begin to postulate common origin and evolutionary events.
In the case of a protein family I would certainly accept the idea about functional relatedness, as a starting theory (to be proven or disproved later on), but I would not spend a lot of time on evolutionary relatedness.

Click to expand...

This is wibble. Its akin to accepting that a man can walk a step, but not a mile.

PeterDona said:

I think that YE creationism has to disprove the current understanding of radiometric dating. I also believe that they are working on it. Or to state it, the challenge is both do disprove the current understanding and come up with a better understanding. And that better understanding has to accomodate the truth that the world is no more than 6000 years old.

Click to expand...

They may be trying, but every effort I've seen so far has involved misuse of dating methods, blatant dishonesty, a fundamental misunderstanding of the science behind radiometric dating, or some combination of all three.

Why I asked about deep sea fossil beds is, that I would actually believe that even in the deep seas of the oceans there should be fossil beds. Because, as I understand it, the elevation of continents happened towards the end of the flood, and therefore fossils should be already deposited also in locations that would be covered by water.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about fossils that are currently in the deep ocean? Because once you get off the continental shelf, you're only going to see marine fossils (barring the occasional terrestrial organism swept out to sea). We have drill cores that support this.

Oceanic crust is all less than 180 million years old (everything older has been recycled) and never really emerges from the ocean except small bits here and there. New oceanic crust is constantly being formed at mid ocean ridges, and older crust is subducted at oceanic trenches.

RocksInMyHead said:

Indeed it does - the other half of the equation is natural selection. Beneficial mutations are selected for over time, which eventually leads to speciation.

Click to expand...

Isnt this pure religion?
If we look at man's history, there is a history of accumulating more and more bad mutations. I do not believe in the concept you bring to the table here. I mean, the selection of beneficial mutations. Because the kind of animal will long before have died from all the bad mutations.

OK but anyway, I believe that there is a big hole in evolution science when it comes to describing selective pressures. Example: what selective pressure caused the different kinds of apes, or the different kinds of cats, etc. And then put that selective pressure to work and reaffirm that it would indeed create that effect.

PeterDona said:

Isnt this pure religion?

Click to expand...

How so?

Because the kind of animal will long before have died from all the bad mutations.

Click to expand...

Yes, individuals with harmful mutations generally tend to die, fail to reproduce, or reproduce less than their better-adapted peers, and thus fail to pass on their genes to the next generation. I don't see why this is an issue though - the death of a few individuals will have very little effect on any reasonably-sized population.

Harmful mutations in humans are a little more common than average because we don't select against them very strongly. We save many who would not have lived without modern science, then they reproduce and pass on their harmful mutations. From a totally objective, biologic point of view, this is bad for our species. But it's part of what makes us human.

RocksInMyHead said:

They may be trying, but every effort I've seen so far has involved misuse of dating methods, blatant dishonesty, a fundamental misunderstanding of the science behind radiometric dating, or some combination of all three.

Click to expand...

I must say, if you are right, that the use of translayer fossils to disprove evolution and prove creation didnt look to good if you are right, that it is taken out of context. But I would like a creationist geologist to answer that better.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you talking about fossils that are currently in the deep ocean? Because once you get off the continental shelf, you're only going to see marine fossils (barring the occasional terrestrial organism swept out to sea). We have drill cores that support this.
Oceanic crust is all less than 180 million years old (everything older has been recycled) and never really emerges from the ocean except small bits here and there. New oceanic crust is constantly being formed at mid ocean ridges, and older crust is subducted at oceanic trenches.
Yes this is what I was getting at.

I have to be honest, I do not know how to translate your ages into something useful, and maybe evolutionists do not know themselves. I remember how disappointed I was when evolutionists claimed that dinosaurs died 130 million ooooppsss 65 million years ago. I mean, that is a lot of million years to be mistaken. That really shook my faith in their scientific methods. If it is all just a calculation, then it is certainly not solid (enough).