Evolution just an unsubstantiated hypothesis .

[Angelwarrioress]

Natural selection is incapable of producing a life form to a higher order. It may seem logical that small changes over millions of years could produce, say, a man from an ape. But the details required for this to happen make it inconceivable that this could happen. Can a mutation create a new species ?A mutation could not result in a different species. In fact it is more likely to cause an animal (or human) to be damaged or to be sick.Where are the intermediate stages ?If evolution's claims that small changes over millions of years would produce a new species from an existing species then we would be able to see some intermediatory forms in the fossil record. So the eveolutionist now suggests that the changes occurred in small, isolated populations so that it would be highly unlikely that the intermediatary forms would be found! This is simply a red herring! An attempt to suggest something that could never be proven one way or the other. The huge variety of life on the Earth would suggest that there would have to be many hundreds of thousands of small, isolated populations of creatures, all undergoing change during the same period of time. The Earth would have to be very stable with no extreme weather conditions, earthquakes, floods etc for many millions of years in order for all of the creatures that we see now to have evolved. Another difficulty for the Evolutionist is that mankind is finding more and more creatures, insects and plants that are unchanged from the fossil records of million of years ago! Why would evolutionary forces be working on some creatures and not on others? Surely all creatures would be changing to better and improved forms in order to survive?es, some creatures have died out. Scientists talk about ice ages, volcanos, earthquakes etc. (So the Earth was not very stable over this period!) But if the claims for millions of years of evolution to have taken place for the modern day man, animals, plants, etc to be as they are, then it must be impossible for any creatures not to have changed at all! If scientists dropped the idea of millions of years then they would have to give up the concept of evolution. But they would be able to explain the current global situation with very few issues; but they would have to accept the concept of a designer!

 

[KTatis]

Natural selection is incapable of producing a life form to a higher order. It may seem logical that small changes over millions of years could produce, say, a man from an ape. But the details required for this to happen make it inconceivable that this could happen. Can a mutation create a new species ?
A mutation could not result in a different species. In fact it is more likely to cause an animal (or human) to be damaged or to be sick.

Actually with the right stuff and living conditions yes it is possible.

Where are the intermediate stages ?If evolution's claims that small changes over millions of years would produce a new species from an existing species then we would be able to see some intermediatory forms in the fossil record.

I'll post them later.

So the eveolutionist now suggests that the changes occurred in small, isolated populations so that it would be highly unlikely that the intermediatary forms would be found! This is simply a red herring! An attempt to suggest something that could never be proven one way or the other.

How do you think scientist would feel when you say things like that? They study for years and do research to save our lives and help make them better and now your all mad at them when it comes to evolution.

The huge variety of life on the Earth would suggest that there would have to be many hundreds of thousands of small, isolated populations of creatures, all undergoing change during the same period of time. The Earth would have to be very stable with no extreme weather conditions, earthquakes, floods etc for many millions of years in order for all of the creatures that we see now to have evolved.

It's called Natural or Artificial selection.

Another difficulty for the Evolutionist is that mankind is finding more and more creatures, insects and plants that are unchanged from the fossil records of million of years ago! Why would evolutionary forces be working on some creatures and not on others? Surely all creatures would be changing to better and improved forms in order to survive?es,

A creature dosen't make it self evolve. It's Artificial or Natural selecion. If a bear hunts all the fish from a lake they will have nothing else to eat so they must move on and when thay find a new place to eat fish (Alaska) Over time their boddies become white because of the less radiation it recieves. Thats why there are Polar Bears in the artic circle.

some creatures have died out. Scientists talk about ice ages, volcanos, earthquakes etc. (So the Earth was not very stable over this period!) But if the claims for millions of years of evolution to have taken place for the modern day man, animals, plants, etc to be as they are, then it must be impossible for any creatures not to have changed at all! If scientists dropped the idea of millions of years then they would have to give up the concept of evolution. But they would be able to explain the current global situation with very few issues; but they would have to accept the concept of a designer!

What are you talking about! Where are you getting this information from? whoever told you this or whatever you were reading please stop it now!

 

[stumpjumper]

If scientists dropped the idea of millions of years then they would have to give up the concept of evolution.

Actually the earth was believed to be much older than six or ten thousand years well before Darwin's theory came along.

Christian geologists also found evidence that disproved a global flood long before evolution as well...

The evidence for a very old earth comes from geology and cosmology not biology (the field which studies the scientific mechanisms concerning the diversity of species....)

 

[Mallon]

Evolution just an unsubstantiated hypothesis .

I guess all that time and hard-earned money you and I both spent in university learning about and studying the intricacies of evolution have gone to waste then, eh?

 

[busterdog]

I guess all that time and hard-earned money you and I both spent in university learning about and studying the intricacies of evolution have gone to waste then, eh?

Many a parent would tell you so. My Dad is convinced I never recovered from the excessive liberal influence of my college.

Do I sound like a liberal to you?

 

[Mallon]

Many a parent would tell you so.

I'm tellin' ya, the more I hear ignorant comments like the one that started this thread, the less inclined I feel to defend evolution, because the more I think correction will fall on deaf ears. Whether those comments come from parents or not, I don't feel a tremendous amount of obligation to entertain the ideas of person without some basic, high-school level knowledge of science and evolution.
People can attack evolution 'til they're blue in the face. But the fact remains that it has proven itself as a valuable explanatory tool, and until someone comes along with a better scientific model, it's here to stay. No amount of whining or complaining or political appeal is going to change that.

 

[busterdog]

Natural selection is incapable of producing a life form to a higher order. It may seem logical that small changes over millions of years could produce, say, a man from an ape. But the details required for this to happen make it inconceivable that this could happen. Can a mutation create a new species ?A mutation could not result in a different species. In fact it is more likely to cause an animal (or human) to be damaged or to be sick.Where are the intermediate stages ?If evolution's claims that small changes over millions of years would produce a new species from an existing species then we would be able to see some intermediatory forms in the fossil record. So the eveolutionist now suggests that the changes occurred in small, isolated populations so that it would be highly unlikely that the intermediatary forms would be found! This is simply a red herring! An attempt to suggest something that could never be proven one way or the other. The huge variety of life on the Earth would suggest that there would have to be many hundreds of thousands of small, isolated populations of creatures, all undergoing change during the same period of time. The Earth would have to be very stable with no extreme weather conditions, earthquakes, floods etc for many millions of years in order for all of the creatures that we see now to have evolved. Another difficulty for the Evolutionist is that mankind is finding more and more creatures, insects and plants that are unchanged from the fossil records of million of years ago! Why would evolutionary forces be working on some creatures and not on others? Surely all creatures would be changing to better and improved forms in order to survive?es, some creatures have died out. Scientists talk about ice ages, volcanos, earthquakes etc. (So the Earth was not very stable over this period!) But if the claims for millions of years of evolution to have taken place for the modern day man, animals, plants, etc to be as they are, then it must be impossible for any creatures not to have changed at all! If scientists dropped the idea of millions of years then they would have to give up the concept of evolution. But they would be able to explain the current global situation with very few issues; but they would have to accept the concept of a designer!

THis is kind of a shock to the system to see such an affirmative statement. Its like you come in with all this polished, shiny armour on while the rest of us creationists are all nicked up and battled hardened.

When you speak generally on such issues, you open up this enormous pandoras box of qualifications and exceptions. Then comes the question of whether the exception is in fact the rule.

Speciation generally seems to happen when mutations, as in flowers, create distinc sexual traits. Whether or not reproduction is possible is a question of sexual morphology. But, it does seem to happen. There are also changes in olfactory cues that affect the abilty to reproduce as a distinct species. But, generally, while a chihuahua cannot mount a mastiff, they seem to be the same species.

That is not the same as seeing something that looks like a rhodent evolve into a primate, much less a man. A series of different size primate skeletons is a long way from making that case. The attempt to make this argument with comparison of chromosomes seems circular.

Helen Setterfield is a science writer who reviewed lots of research on mutations in single celled organisms. The trend over time was toward reduced vigor and genetic variety. Lots of factors can affect the vigor of a species, and make it appear that natural selection is at work. TE and YEC acknowledge that the peppered moth was one such mistake. However, mutation does not seem to provide an experimental confirmation that species evolve into something better over a sufficiently representative number of generations.

As for all those unchanged species, I am not sure whether anyone has explained how a species could remain unchanged over many millions of years.

 

[Melethiel]

I guess all that time and hard-earned money you and I both spent in university learning about and studying the intricacies of evolution have gone to waste then, eh?

I'm spending the state's money.

 

[Mallon]

I'm spending the state's money.

I'm trying to, but my last grant application missed the boat by a hair's width.
Next time...

 

[Dannager]

Natural selection is incapable of producing a life form to a higher order.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "higher order". No such concept exists in evolution, which leads me to believe that you don't understand what you're talking about.

It may seem logical that small changes over millions of years could produce, say, a man from an ape. But the details required for this to happen make it inconceivable that this could happen.

Hardly. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly supports it.

Can a mutation create a new species?

No. One mutation will not result in a new species. Mutations must accumulate and become common genetic traits of a population in order for speciation to occur. Why don't you know this?

A mutation could not result in a different species.

But many mutations can!

In fact it is more likely to cause an animal (or human) to be damaged or to be sick.

Well, no, it's far more likely that the mutation will be neutral, having no effect on the organisms survivability.

Where are the intermediate stages?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

If evolution's claims that small changes over millions of years would produce a new species from an existing species then we would be able to see some intermediatory forms in the fossil record.

And, lo and behold, we do!

So the eveolutionist now suggests that the changes occurred in small, isolated populations so that it would be highly unlikely that the intermediatary forms would be found!

"now suggests"? Isolated populations were always a part of evolutionary theory. You really don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

This is simply a red herring!

No, it's not.

An attempt to suggest something that could never be proven one way or the other.

On the contrary, since we have found countless transitional fossils, it has been shown to be true.

The huge variety of life on the Earth would suggest that there would have to be many hundreds of thousands of small, isolated populations of creatures, all undergoing change during the same period of time.

Yes, that would be correct.

The Earth would have to be very stable with no extreme weather conditions, earthquakes, floods etc for many millions of years in order for all of the creatures that we see now to have evolved.

Er...no. That's not true at all.

Another difficulty for the Evolutionist is that mankind is finding more and more creatures, insects and plants that are unchanged from the fossil records of million of years ago!

Yep. Some creatures are very well-adapted to a niche that they've filled, and thus evolution hasn't had a lot of room to work with.

Why would evolutionary forces be working on some creatures and not on others?

Because evolution works on fitness, and fitness depends on environment. If the creature is already very well-suited to its environment, there is very little selection pressure on it.

Surely all creatures would be changing to better and improved forms in order to survive?

No.

es, some creatures have died out. Scientists talk about ice ages, volcanos, earthquakes etc. (So the Earth was not very stable over this period!)

Stability of the sort you discuss here is not a requirement. You don't know what you're talking about. Why are you pretending that you do?

But if the claims for millions of years of evolution to have taken place for the modern day man, animals, plants, etc to be as they are, then it must be impossible for any creatures not to have changed at all!

That was a very oddly-worded sentence, but no. Also not true. And even the ones who do not appear to have evolved much still have changed in extremely minor ways.

If scientists dropped the idea of millions of years then they would have to give up the concept of evolution.

And geology. And cosmology. And about four other fields of science.

But they would be able to explain the current global situation with very few issues;

On the contrary, throwing out the concept of an old earth creates way way way more problems than it solves. Also, there's no evidence that compels scientists to do so, so it's really a non-issue.

but they would have to accept the concept of a designer!

The concept of a designer is not one supported by evidence. It lies in the minds of creationists alone, who feel uncomfortable having their preconceived closely-held religious beliefs challenged.

And creationists, yourself included, have a nasty habit of condemning evolution in drawn-out diatribes like the above that demonstrate nothing except that the author doesn't know anything about evolution.

EDIT: The OP's name says a lot about her attitude, I'm willing to bet.

 

[Jadis40]

If you want an example of an isolated population evolving to fit changing environmental conditions, I refer you to exhibit A - the Icefish of the Antarctic Oceans:

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/fishtales/what/what_icefish.htm

This fish has no hemoglobin and no myoglobin. It literally has an "antifreeze"-like substance for what would be blood.

Different species might have myoglobin, and scientists are currently working to figure out which ones:

http://www.gma.org/onlocation/past.html

I'd also refer you to two freely available journal articles:

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/206/1/131

and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/95/15/8670.pdf

 

[busterdog]

If you want an example of an isolated population evolving to fit changing environmental conditions, I refer you to exhibit A - the Icefish of the Antarctic Oceans:

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/fishtales/what/what_icefish.htm

This fish has no hemoglobin and no myoglobin. It literally has an "antifreeze"-like substance for what would be blood.

Different species might have myoglobin, and scientists are currently working to figure out which ones:

http://www.gma.org/onlocation/past.html

I'd also refer you to two freely available journal articles:

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/206/1/131

and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/95/15/8670.pdf

You can also see speciation in Wall Street lawyers and Washington politicians, who also have adapted to a cold-blooded, anti-freeze like circulatory system.

 

[Angelwarrioress]

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Now, if you could please show me how my information is misguided I would gladly like to hear it !

 

[Angelwarrioress]

Thanks, Jadis40 for the info.

 

[Angelwarrioress]

I think I posted this in the wrong thread. This should be moved to the creation,evolution thread.

 

[KTatis]

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Now, if you could please show me how my information is misguided I would gladly like to hear it !

Re-read the first couple of post.

 

[Angelwarrioress]

Thank you, KTatis I will ! My eyes are getting blurry for being on the net to long. All this reading, lol ! Any moderators around I meant this for the debate and discussion section, under creation and evolution, if you could move it that would be great !

 

[Angelwarrioress]

Many good arguments here, but I still feel Evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis not a theory.
However, even though I consider myself at this point and time a creationist I would like to hear others ideas so I will try to be more considerate.

 

[Angelwarrioress]

I just do not feel there is enough substantial evidence, but from a another angle. I feel if Evolution was true, than there should be no moral code and everything should be accepted.

 

[Melethiel]

Why? Morality is not connected to biology.