Evolution is a true theory!

[steen]

I repeat, I've denied none of these, although the only reason I haven't addressed genetic drift is that it hasn't come up in any of the threads I've participated in. Now, denying they are evolution? Absolutely. It is a giant leap from acknowledging these things are biological facts, and saying they "prove" evolution.

They are not causing Evolution, they ARE evolution. That's why I am saying that your posts are showing that you do NOT know what Evolution is, despite your claim.

Natural selection is absolutely true,

And is part of Evolution.

mutations occur and some are actually beneficial,

And that process is part of Evolution.

and speciation is nothing more than a genetic grouping being divided by natural disaster or other means of separating one large gene pool into two smaller ones, and the result will be the two groups perhaps exhibiting a different set of dominant genes, due to the nature of those present in the original members of the groups.

And this is also part of Evolution.

If two members of the different groups interbreed, they will be as Darwin's pigeons.

Could you clarify? It seems like you are trying to talk about hybrids here?

The differing traits the two parents exhibit will, within two generations, reintegrate to be as the original one large group, before the separation. Darwin bred his pigeons for crests, colors, and wing shape. But when allowed to interbreed, they returned to their original form. This proves this is not evolution, but selective breeding.

Huh? Evolution is not evidenced by pigeon breeding. But that still leaves the question of why you deny that it is an example of Evolution?

Similarly, if all the dogs in the world were allowed to interbreed, within several generations, the differing traits creating tall dogs, short dogs, spotted dogs, black dogs, etc. would disappear and we would return to the basic dog that walked the earth before man domesticated it.

Well, not exactly, but you do know that all dogs are one species, right?

No new genetic material results.

Not in natural selection or breeding, right. That would come from mutations, which certainly are known to result in new genes. I have linked several such examples to you in the past.

The dogs and Darwin's pigeons all had these genes present when nature or man intervened.

yes, and the nylon-digesting bacteria did not. It is a little bit strange here. You almost are trying to say that since unnatural selection is not mutations, Evolution is invalid? It frankly does not make sense, but since you claimed to know what Evolution actually is, I am sure you can clarify for us.

Left to themselves, they return to the basic original animal. That's not evolution at all, but the differing "breeds" of dogs are really nothing more than man-initiated speciation and is easily reversed.

They are all different breed within the same species, varied because of selective breeding, yes. Now how is that somehow detrimental to the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

If evolutionists want to call that proof of their theory, I'll let them,

They don't. I have not seen any significant evidence for the Scientific Theory of Evolution that is based on livestock or artificial breeding. So it really is not clear what the relevance is here?

but its not what Darwin was talking about,

Correct. Darwin talked about NATURAL Selection, not artificial breeding of unnatural selection. As such, why is your example of any relevance here?

or what Haeckel tried to prove with false data.

Hmm, what does Haeckel have to do with the Scientific theory of Evolution?

Your examples simply do not seem to have any relevance to the science and scientific evidence. Do you have anything that actually pertains here, something that shows us that you know what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually is?

 

[gluadys]

... and the result [of speciation] will be the two groups perhaps exhibiting a different set of dominant genes, due to the nature of those present in the original members of the groups.

Why dominant genes in particular?

More and more I am seeing creationists make weird statements involving dominant and recessive genes.

Can you define what makes a gene dominant or recessive, and why this would be relevant to speciation?

 

[shernren]

Why dominant genes in particular?

More and more I am seeing creationists make weird statements involving dominant and recessive genes.

Can you define what makes a gene dominant or recessive, and why this would be relevant to speciation?

You're right, I have a bad feeling we're seeing the birth of a new creationist pseudo-argument. When I'm back home with a much faster connection I'll go see what new content there has been on AiG and ICR within the past few days.

I have a sneaky suspicion (which I hope to be proved wrong) that these creationists are treating recessive genes as some sort of "information-smuggling" mechanism by which they can explain quick, irreversible "information loss". After all mutations are too slow and they are reversible, meaning that they simply won't do for postdiluvean hyperevolutionism. But I think the creationist idea seems to be that you can have some kind of meiotic recombination assort genes so that different combinations of recessive genes show up in descendants and completely change a generic kind-ancestor into a lion, tiger, and panther within a few generations which aren't seen in other species in the same kind or in the generic kind-ancestor.

I really can't imagine if anybody would ever believe something like that, it goes against basic genetics. Chalk another one up for lousy science education.

 

[gluadys]

You're right, I have a bad feeling we're seeing the birth of a new creationist pseudo-argument. When I'm back home with a much faster connection I'll go see what new content there has been on AiG and ICR within the past few days.

I have a sneaky suspicion (which I hope to be proved wrong) that these creationists are treating recessive genes as some sort of "information-smuggling" mechanism by which they can explain quick, irreversible "information loss". After all mutations are too slow and they are reversible, meaning that they simply won't do for postdiluvean hyperevolutionism. But I think the creationist idea seems to be that you can have some kind of meiotic recombination assort genes so that different combinations of recessive genes show up in descendants and completely change a generic kind-ancestor into a lion, tiger, and panther within a few generations which aren't seen in other species in the same kind or in the generic kind-ancestor.

I really can't imagine if anybody would ever believe something like that, it goes against basic genetics. Chalk another one up for lousy science education.

I am also seeing a tendency to associate dominance with "more frequently occurring" and with "more favorable" neither of which is correct. The idea seems to be that recessive genes are more prone to harbour mutations that cause disease and defects, so Adam and Eve would have had only dominant genes. There is absolutely no scientific basis for these ideas.

In fact, it would undermine the idea that original kinds were genetically diverse and exhibited a lot of heterozygosity.

 

[IisJustMe]

Neither of which has anything to do with evolution, and neither of which explain how Creation took place. Perhaps you should study about what evolution says rather than spout nonsense?

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with evolution, because evolution doesn't exist as it was conceived by Darwin's contemporaries once he published "Origins ... " The fact that you and others insist that natural selection, speciation, "genetic shift" and other observable events within the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family and genus of a given plant or animal proves evolution completely ignores the fact that the TofE contends that all animals came from a common ancestor. That is, after all, the purpose of the theory's development, to explain how everything got here, and many (not all) took the tack that it was a convenient way to leave God out of the process.

Creationists deny none of the events listed above take place. We simply deny they "prove" evolution, since there is no new genetic material produced. My take on genetic shift is that it produced no new material (I know some evolutionists disagree) but rather produces adaptations that, if advantageous, are retained. But the animal is still the same basic animal it was before the adaptation, and can still mate with its predecessors. That is not evolution, but the best example of natural selection improving a species that is available.

And to say that quoting Genesis 1:1 is "spouting nonsense" calls into question your perspective on this whole issue.

 

[Mallon]

Creationists deny none of the events listed above take place. We simply deny they "prove" evolution, since there is no new genetic material produced. My take on genetic shift is that it produced no new material (I know some evolutionists disagree) but rather produces adaptations that, if advantageous, are retained.

Your insistance that new genetic information cannot be produced, and that an organism can only exhibit pre-programmed variation as dictated by the environment interests me. I'm curious as to how you might explain rare humans born with tails:

or horses with three toes:

What adaptive significance do these have? Why did God give us tails?

 

[Smidlee]

Your insistance that new genetic information cannot be produced, and that an organism can only exhibit pre-programmed variation as dictated by the environment interests me. I'm curious as to how you might explain rare humans born with tails:

or horses with three toes:

What adaptive significance do these have? Why did God give us tails?

This is called birth defects. You do know some people have both sex organs because of birth defect, right? It doesn't prove that man once had both female and male organs or asexual. It only proves people can be born with defects. your tail bone is what ends your back bone so in some cases it can grow longer than normal just like someone has water on the brain has a big head. In these pictures the growth looks as if it on the cheek. It just a piece of meat.

 

[random_guy]

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with evolution, because evolution doesn't exist as it was conceived by Darwin's contemporaries once he published "Origins ... " The fact that you and others insist that natural selection, speciation, "genetic shift" and other observable events within the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family and genus of a given plant or animal proves evolution completely ignores the fact that the TofE contends that all animals came from a common ancestor. That is, after all, the purpose of the theory's development, to explain how everything got here, and many (not all) took the tack that it was a convenient way to leave God out of the process.

Creationists deny none of the events listed above take place. We simply deny they "prove" evolution, since there is no new genetic material produced. My take on genetic shift is that it produced no new material (I know some evolutionists disagree) but rather produces adaptations that, if advantageous, are retained. But the animal is still the same basic animal it was before the adaptation, and can still mate with its predecessors. That is not evolution, but the best example of natural selection improving a species that is available.

And to say that quoting Genesis 1:1 is "spouting nonsense" calls into question your perspective on this whole issue.

I didn't say the Bible was nonsense, just the way you tried to use the line to justify not accepting evolution. You really need to under work on understanding context, science, and evolution. First, the line you quoted dealt with the creation of the Heavens and Earth. Neither of which deal with evolution. Neither of which was detailed on what method was used on the creation of each. That's why your quote was nonsense in regards to evolution.


Next, saying evolution doesn't exist is the same as saying gravity doesn't exist. You may deny it all you want, but feel free to jump off a bridge to show gravity doesn't exist, or feel free to keep taking penicillin to fight of bugs. Evolution is allele frequencies changing over time. This is observable.

As for the conclusion of common ancestory, it is used by biologists all the time, and whether you accept it or not, it provides fruitful research. For example, scientists use the cladistics (seems you're still stuck in Linnaean) that are derived from common ancestory to find an ancestorial enzyme that helped them produce more malarial drugs. I'm sure that you spouting all those assertions with no evidence to back it up will convince Africans that evolution is false regardless of the fact that scientists use it to help ease their suffering.

Finally, you continue to show your ignorance of science. Science doesn't prove stuff, it provides evidence to support a theory or falsifies a theory. Proofs are for math and alcohol. Of course, considering you said you understand evolution when you continue make incorrect claims about it, is indictive of this. Why don't you take my Creationists challenge, which no Creationist has ever done, and give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil? Show me you actually understand science by giving me the definition and explain why there are no transitional fossils using the definition? Like the Creationists before you, the silence speaks volume.

 

[IisJustMe]

I didn't say the Bible was nonsense, just the way you tried to use the line to justify not accepting evolution.

... it was savedbygrace who quoted Genesis 1:1, not me.

It is specifically because of Genesis 1:1 that we reject evolution. The word translated "creation" is the Hebrew bara` and excludes the manipulation of pre-existing material for the creation, thereby excluding TE or OEC. It requires the sense of God making the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Which is the same way secular evolutionists believe the world came into being, but by chance and accident, not by intelligent design.

As for the rest of your post, you and I can't come to an understanding as long as you insist on adopting secular redefinitions of evolution to make the Bible fit the science.

 

[random_guy]

... it was savedbygrace who quoted Genesis 1:1, not me.

It is specifically because of Genesis 1:1 that we reject evolution. The word translated "creation" is the Hebrew bara` and excludes the manipulation of pre-existing material for the creation, thereby excluding TE or OEC. It requires the sense of God making the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Which is the same way secular evolutionists believe the world came into being, but by chance and accident, not by intelligent design.

As for the rest of your post, you and I can't come to an understanding as long as you insist on adopting secular redefinitions of evolution to make the Bible fit the science.

Whoops, my mistake.

As for the last part, I think you're right. I accept science and I think the best way to learn science is to get it from scientists. Therefore, I accept science's official definition of evolution, not the made up one by Creationists. Also, evolution was not redefined to make the Bible fit into science, evolution is defined by scientists, with no regards to the Bible. I have no idea where you get this stuff, but if you feel that your non-science understanding of evolution is better than my science understand of evolution, obviously there's no further point to argue. It's basically the equivalent of some laymen saying .999~ doesn't equal one just because he believes so regardless of what actual math says. If you can't agree to use science to discuss science, it's pointless to argue.

 

[Willtor]

... it was savedbygrace who quoted Genesis 1:1, not me.

It is specifically because of Genesis 1:1 that we reject evolution. The word translated "creation" is the Hebrew bara` and excludes the manipulation of pre-existing material for the creation, thereby excluding TE or OEC. It requires the sense of God making the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Which is the same way secular evolutionists believe the world came into being, but by chance and accident, not by intelligent design.

As for the rest of your post, you and I can't come to an understanding as long as you insist on adopting secular redefinitions of evolution to make the Bible fit the science.

This relates to a very important point. Gen 1:1 deals with the creation of the universe ex nihilo. This doctrine has been considered essential for nearly 1000 years. However, it doesn't address changes that occurred to the universe after the act of creation. As Aquinas pointed out, even an eternal universe still has an ontological cause and, as such, Christianity is not opposed to this.

After the act of creation, however, were all of the changes within the universe also acts of creation ex nihilo? If so, it is a new doctrine. Man was not created out of nothing. The Genesis account indicates that he was made out of what was already there. Evolution is a process that makes things out of what is already present. That doesn't mean that evolution is what God used, but it does mean that it fits within the traditional theological understanding of the creation account.

 

[Mallon]

This is called birth defects.

I agree. The defect is in a gene that times the termination of growth of the caudal series. A defect in this gene allows for continued growth of the tail, in which up to 5 articulated vertebrae may be present. This sort of structure is easily explained by evolution as a vestigial structure resurrected via mutation.
Creation "science", however, cannot explain such a structure. That is my point. If "new genetic information" cannot be produced via mutation, as IisJustMe has argued, that must mean that the human tail was present since the beginning as one endpoint in a spectrum of limited variation. So my question, again, is why would God give us a tail?

 

[gluadys]

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with evolution, because evolution doesn't exist as it was conceived by Darwin's contemporaries once he published "Origins ... "

Rather, the caricature creationists call "evolution" doesn't exist. Darwin's natural selection assuredly does exist. So his "descent with modification" assuredly does exist. So do other mechanisms of evolution discovered (or re-discovered) since his time. Evolution as described by scientists does exist.

When creationists learn what that is, and deal with it instead of hiding behind pseudo-definitions and pulling down their own straw man, we can stop talking past each other and start discussing real science in the light of Christian theology.

The fact that you and others insist that natural selection, speciation, "genetic shift" and other observable events within the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family and genus

of a given plant or animal proves evolution completely ignores the fact that the TofE contends that all animals came from a common ancestor.

How so? It is exactly these things that point to common ancestry.

I suppose you want some sort of evidence that would be impossible under the genuine scientific scenario.

btw--all the events you list actually occur in species. The higher taxonomic categories are just a filing system invented for convenience. In nature the only thing that evolves are species.

That is, after all, the purpose of the theory's development, to explain how everything got here, and many (not all) took the tack that it was a convenient way to leave God out of the process.

Which doesn't make them right. And it certainly does not make their opinions part of science.

Creationists deny none of the events listed above take place. We simply deny they "prove" evolution, since there is no new genetic material produced.

All evolution requires is a modification of genetic material. To me it seems a matter of semantics as to whether or not one calls modified genetic material "new".

Or are you asking for evolution to produce new amino acids or even new nucleotides? If you are not going to that extreme, just what do you mean by "new" if not "a different sequence of nucleotides" or "amino acids arranged in a different order."?

My take on genetic shift is that it produced no new material (I know some evolutionists disagree) but rather produces adaptations that, if advantageous, are retained. But the animal is still the same basic animal it was before the adaptation, and can still mate with its predecessors. That is not evolution, but the best example of natural selection improving a species that is available.

Actually that is exactly what evolution is. Most examples of evolution are about such observed adaptation due to natural selection bringing about a change in allele frequencies in the population.


Only when you understand that this IS evolution will you be able to understand how speciation happens and how common descent occurs.

 

[gluadys]

As for the rest of your post, you and I can't come to an understanding as long as you insist on adopting secular redefinitions of evolution to make the Bible fit the science.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Why on earth would secular redefinitions of evolution take any note of the Bible at all? When the Theory of Evolution is revised it is to bring the Theory in line with new evidence, not with the Bible.


Creationist revisions of their caricature model of evolution are made to bring "acceptable" evolution under the umbrella of creationism without acknowledging it as evolution.

The creationists of Darwin's time insisted on the fixity of species. When they couldn't shut out the evidence of species change anymore, they developed the concepts of "micro" vs "macro" evolution. Then they began calling "micro-evolution" "adaptation" and insisting it was not evolution at all. There is a whole generation of younger creationists now who speak of "adaptation" without realizing that there cannot be any adaptation without evolution. Or that the evolution which brings about adaptation is exactly the same evolution which brings about speciation and common ancestry.

 

[IisJustMe]

The creationists of Darwin's time insisted on the fixity of species. When they couldn't shut out the evidence of species change anymore, they developed the concepts of "micro" vs "macro" evolution. Then they began calling "micro-evolution" "adaptation" and insisting it was not evolution at all.

Thank you for making mya rgument for me. it isn't evolution, not in the sense of "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state," which is one of Meriam-Webster's entries for evolution. Many on the board want to take the focus off this aspect of evolution and talk about minor changes, which is the result of natural selection or speciation, as defined by the division of a single species into two groups separated by natural or other disaster.[/quote]

There is a whole generation of younger creationists now who speak of "adaptation" without realizing that there cannot be any adaptation without evolution.

And that is a baldly false statement that evolutionists wouldn't have thought of making two generations ago. Darwin didn't define evolution that way. Adaptation is nothing more than a mutation that is advantageous and is retained -- though there are no solid examples of that occurring in recent history, either.

Proponents of the theory, if they were honest, would admit that "evolution" has been redefined over the years, not to make adjustments for new evidence, because there is no evidencce to present. The redefinition has been made necessary to broaden the scope of what is accepted as evolution, in order to keep the concept viable. Thus, natural selection is now called "evolution," speciation is called "evolution," and the questionable concept of "genetic drift" is thrown in the mix too, and referred to as "evolution."

Or that the evolution which brings about adaptation is exactly the same evolution which brings about speciation and common ancestry.

Common ancestry within the genus, yes, but you cannot produce a single iota of evidence linking one plant or animal to a different type or kind of plant or animal. You talk about gulls of different types, but they are still gulls. The "races" of men are another such weak and false example. Natural selection is real. Speciation is a vehicle for natural selection. Genetic drift probably isn't valid. And evolution is a fairy tale that more and more scientists are rejecting as impossible.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The redefinition has been made necessary to broaden the scope of what is accepted as evolution, in order to keep the concept viable. Thus, natural selection is now called "evolution," speciation is called "evolution," and the questionable concept of "genetic drift" is thrown in the mix too, and referred to as "evolution."

Are you aware that Darwin wrote a book that was fairly influential in defining the scientific theory of evolution? The book was called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

If you want to claim that a redefinition took place, it must have started with Darwin.

 

[shernren]

And that is a baldly false statement that evolutionists wouldn't have thought of making two generations ago. Darwin didn't define evolution that way. Adaptation is nothing more than a mutation that is advantageous and is retained -- though there are no solid examples of that occurring in recent history, either.

I'm expecting that you can quote me counterexamples from The Origin of Species. Even the introduction seems to count against your views:

From these considerations, I shall devote the first chapter of this Abstract to Variation under Domestication. We shall thus see that a large amount of hereditary modification is at least possible; and, what is equally or more important, we shall see how great is the power of man in accumulating by his Selection successive slight variations. I will then pass on to the variability of species in a state of nature; but I shall, unfortunately, be compelled to treat this subject far too briefly, as it can be treated properly only by giving long catalogues of facts. We shall, however, be enabled to discuss what circumstances are most favourable to variation. In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.
This fundamental subject of Natural Selection will be treated at some length in the fourth chapter; and we shall then see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life, and leads to what I have called Divergence of Character. In the next chapter I shall discuss the complex and little known laws of variation. In the five succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties in accepting the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or into an elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record. In the next chapter I shall consider the geological succession of organic beings throughout time; in the twelfth and thirteenth, their geographical distribution throughout space; in the fourteenth, their classification or mutual affinities, both when mature and in an embryonic condition. In the last chapter I shall give a brief recapitulation of the whole work, and a few concluding remarks.

Underlining and bolding emphases added.

You can see that right from the start, adaptation and its accumulation was considered equivalent to evolution (unless one can disprove either the Malthusian hypothesis of insufficient resources or the Mendelian genetics which have supplanted the laws of variation). Also, only one chapter is devoted to the chronological positions of various life-forms.

And as for solid examples of advantageous mutations, refer to the nylon bug.

 

[IisJustMe]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

If you want to claim that a redefinition took place, it must have started with Darwin.

And if you note the phaseology of that title, it implies that natural selection is a separate though related process to actually evolution.

BTW, I wonder what the rest of that title means? Certainly Haekel, Huxley, Malthus and others leaped on the bandwagon because Darwin's ridiculous extension of a totally viable concept -- natural selection -- into the unsupportable notion that all life has a common ancester provided for their racist leanings a premise upon which to hang white superiority to other "races." Darwinists know what it means, they are just too ashamed, too dishonest, or both, to admit it.

 

[Dannager]

And if you note the phaseology of that title, it implies that natural selection is a separate though related process to actually evolution.

BTW, I wonder what the rest of that title means? Certainly Haekel, Huxley, Malthus and others leaped on the bandwagon because Darwin's ridiculous extension of a totally viable concept -- natural selection -- into the unsupportable notion that all life has a common ancester provided for their racist leanings a premise upon which to hang white superiority to other "races." Darwinists know what it means, they are just too ashamed, too dishonest, or both, to admit it.

Completely incorrect. How about actually reading Origin of Species? If you had, you'd note that the term "race" is used to describe biological species, not anything like the layman's term we use to denote geographical heritage or the like. Please don't demonize without due cause, especially when the corrections make your actions look rather premature.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

IisJustMe, it is bad form to edit people's words when you are quoting them, and doubly so when you make a spelling mistake while doing so (in that country and time the spelling was "Favoured", not "Favored"). There's no need for that kind of deception to make your point.

And if you note the phaseology of that title, it implies that natural selection is a separate though related process to actually evolution.

How does it imply that it is a separate process? The book is about evolution, and it is demonstrating that evolution takes place by means of natural selection. This is in contrast to earlier forms of evolution that saw it happening due to the behaviour of animals during their life (such as giraffes stretching their necks). One could as easily separate the electromagnetic force from electromagnetism as separate natural selection from Darwin's theory of evolution.

BTW, I wonder what the rest of that title means? Certainly Haekel, Huxley, Malthus and others leaped on the bandwagon because Darwin's ridiculous extension of a totally viable concept -- natural selection -- into the unsupportable notion that all life has a common ancester provided for their racist leanings a premise upon which to hang white superiority to other "races." Darwinists know what it means, they are just too ashamed, too dishonest, or both, to admit it.

Or, they know that the first races Darwin spoke of were races of cabbage (excepting the preface added in later editions). At that time, the word "race" was nearly synonymous with "species". To read racism into it is no more credible than reading homosexuality into a statement from the same era that someone felt rather gay.