What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[EnemyPartyII]

It's not "who" it comes from. It's that the evidence is not compelling enough to refute the creation of Genesis. Show me the evidence. Show me that evidence that PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that Genesis 1-11 is wrong. I don't want someone's "well because it is" proof. Keep it to yourself if that is all you have.

what would you accept as proof? Clarify your requirements and I'm sure someone will show it to you

 

[sfs]

Theres no good genes being created by mutations, what ever gave you that idea?

Probably the existence of good genes that resulted from mutation gave him the idea. That is, new copies of genes are created by gene duplication, and there is plenty of evidence that mutation sometimes causes the two copies of the gene to acquire different functions, which means that mutation has created two genes out of one. The historical evidence for this is strong, and it can also be seen happening in extant organisms (e.g. Mol Bio and Evol, 24:1056 (2007), "Independent Duplications of the Acetylcholinesterase Gene Conferring Insecticide Resistance in the Mosquito Culex pipiens).

Direct production of a novel gene more or less out of whole cloth is much rarer, though it may occur -- that seems to be how the one nylonase gene evolved in a bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon.

Case in point. Nothing is evolving as a result of mutation, theres just things escaping harm. No new functionality is coming from it.

The ability to escape harm from a particular source is a new functionality, and a very important one. In humans, obvious new traits that are the result of mutation followed by selection include malaria resistance, lactose tolerance in adults, and lightly pigmented skin at high latitudes.

Basically the widespread abundance of mutations in the
genome has been a known fact in biology for decades. Its surprising that you wouldn't be aware of it.

That mutations are common is indeed well known, although your number of 1000 per human birth is probably a good deal too high; 200 would be a better estimate, at least if you are interested in mutations that could contribute to the "deterioration of the genome". The mutation rate is fully consistent with differences observed between species, however, and fits very well into evolutionary explanations. I go into some detail about one class of mutations here. I don't know if that helps, since I'm having some difficulty in figuring out what this discussion is about.

 

[LittleNipper]

The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.

 

[Blayz]

It's been at least 20 posts since I last mentioned that if evolution wasn't true, the results I have obtained for the last 20 years working in life science research could not have been achieved and I would not have a job in drug discovery for a major pharmaceutical company.

It is truly a profound level of delusion to think that the sole purpose of evolution is to look back in time at ancestral states, when >90% of the research is actually about looking forward, at things like disease therapeutics. There has not been a single prescription drug made in the last 30 years which has not owed some if not all of its development to the truth of evolution, and it is the height of hypocrisy to disavow evolution and then turn around and avail yourself of those drugs.

And I yet again promise that if anyone could give me just one even remotely useful predictive tool based on creationism then I will go to my desk the very next day and use it.

 

[FishFace]

I was but making reference to your name Wiccan-"Child". I was wondering if we were to take that literal or not so I referred to the definition of "Child". I was merely pointing out the foolishness of your argument.

I would say that long ago the rules of no-flaming had been broken in this thread.

Why is it that you all can dish it out but you cannot take it.

Did Wiccan-Child ever claim that his name was metaphorical? You claimed that the entire Bible is literal. Something cannot be both literal and metaphorical. Although a metaphor uses the same grammar as a literal statement, it is not the same thing. To say that "I hold the key to your heart" does not mean, "I have a key which, if inserted into a hole in your chest, will unlock it allowing me to take your heart."

If the Bible is literal, Christ is literally a door. I.E. hole in a wall, piece of wood with a handle.

 

[Gracchus]

The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
[Latin volti, voltin-, from voltus, past participle of volvere, to unroll; see evolve.]
evo·lution·al, evo·lution·ary (-sh-nr) adj.
evo·lution·ari·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution


The weakness of evolution, LittleNipper, is all in your mind.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.

evolution has been pretty well defined... its the explanation of how biodiversity from common ancestry occurs

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, I agree with that definition of evolution, because I'm different than my father, mother, grandfathers and grandmothers, greatgrandfathers and greatgrandmothers. And while I'm different from them, we are all just as complex as all our ancestors ever were, and yet have been all different. SO creationists would have to agree with your statement.

 

[FishFace]

The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.

Basically, change in allele frequency over time.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well, I agree with that definition of evolution, because I'm different than my father, mother, grandfathers and grandmothers, greatgrandfathers and greatgrandmothers. And while I'm different from them, we are all just as complex as all our ancestors ever were, and yet have been all different. SO creationists would have to agree with your statement.

are you taking into account the difference between change due to genetic mixing, and difference due to change from new additions?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.

It has been defined countless times on this thread alone. To recap:

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population.

That is, if a population experiances a change in the frequency of it's allels, then that population has evolved. That is all the word means. I don't really see what the confusion is.

 

[Inan3]

Did Wiccan-Child ever claim that his name was metaphorical? You claimed that the entire Bible is literal. Something cannot be both literal and metaphorical. Although a metaphor uses the same grammar as a literal statement, it is not the same thing. To say that "I hold the key to your heart" does not mean, "I have a key which, if inserted into a hole in your chest, will unlock it allowing me to take your heart."

If the Bible is literal, Christ is literally a door. I.E. hole in a wall, piece of wood with a handle.

My my you guys do like to pick a point apart bit by bit don't you? Even when it is not necessary. What is your point? Do you think there is something here that I do not know.

Here's MY point. The Bible is the literal Word of God. Can't take from it! Can't add to it! Genesis 1-11 is literal no metaphors there, at least regarding the creation, but it is spiritual. And just because something IS metaphorical in the scriptures you STILL don't take it out because it doesn't FIT you idiology.

For the natural man (that would be you guys) cannot understand the scriptures because they are spiritual, and cannot be understood with the natural intellect. You MUST be born of the spirit, born from above, born again, to perceive or understand these things. The scripture says they are foolishness to the natural mind. That's why you think the way you do about it. That's why you interpret it incorrectly. You can't understand it. It is a spiritual book and there are truths in it that you will never see unless you are born again.

BUT as you have learned somewhere JESUS IS THE DOOR into it all. Accept that and you will be accepted of God. Reject it and you will be rejected of God. It's simple. You have to do it His WAY....Jesus!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And just because something IS metaphorical in the scriptures

I thought you just said "The Bible is the literal Word of God"... something can't be metaphorical AND literal at the same time... so if the Bible contains any metaphores, it isn't ALL literal, is it?

 

[Skaloop]

Here's MY point. The Bible is the literal Word of God. Can't take from it! Can't add to it!

Whether anything can be added or removed is irrelevant to whether it is literal or not.

Genesis 1-11 is literal no metaphors there, at least regarding the creation

So you do believe that the Universe was created in six days?

but it is spiritual. And just because something IS metaphorical in the scriptures you STILL don't take it out because it doesn't FIT you idiology.

Nobody is saying anything about taking it out. What we're saying is that if some parts are metaphorical (as you now seem to concede they are), then that leaves open the possibility that all of it is metaphorical. Or other parts are metaphorical. And if so, then interpretation is entirely subjective according to which parts one labels metaphorical and which are labeled literal.

For the natural man (that would be you guys) cannot understand the scriptures because they are spiritual, and cannot be understood with the natural intellect. You MUST be born of the spirit, born from above, born again, to perceive or understand these things. The scripture says they are foolishness to the natural mind. That's why you think the way you do about it. That's why you interpret it incorrectly. You can't understand it. It is a spiritual book and there are truths in it that you will never see unless you are born again.

Except for all those spiritual people who do understand the scriptures, better than you even, and reject them being wholly literal.

 

[LittleNipper]

are you taking into account the difference between change due to genetic mixing, and difference due to change from new additions?

What new additions? Two arms, two legs, a brain , that allows humans to work through problems. Two eyes, a nose, a mouth, fingers & toes. It would seem that we are like Adam, except we posess an inferior life expectancy. Perhaps he was physically stronger then we are (that sounds like a genetic defect has developed or evolved). I do not believe that makes us inferior to early man----exactly....

 

[Skaloop]

It would seem that we are like Adam, except we posess an inferior life expectancy. Perhaps he was physically stronger then we are

Adam was a Vulcan!

 

[LittleNipper]

It has been defined countless times on this thread alone. To recap:

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population.

That is, if a population experiances a change in the frequency of it's allels, then that population has evolved. That is all the word means. I don't really see what the confusion is.

And this allele frequency has been shown to happen when and do what exactly? I'd like to see it happen. Can you bring about one for everyone to see?

 

[LittleNipper]

Adam was a Vulcan!

Spock was a Vulcan, and don't you forget that, buddy!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And this allele frequency has been shown to happen when and do what exactly?
I'd like to see it happen. Can you bring about one for everyone to see?

Whenever a child is born, the allele frequency of the human species changes. When my baby sister was was born, she had brown eyes. Thus, when she was concieved, the frequency of brown eyes changed: there was one more. Thus, the human species evolved when my sister was concieved.
If you come to the UK, I'll even show her to you.

An allele is a trait of a member of the population, and is usually related to the member's genes. At any one time, there will be x members with the trait y. If x changes from time A to time B, then the population has evolved.
A change in x is the definition of evolution.
How, why, when, where, and to whom the change occurs is irrelevant. All that matters is that the change occured, period.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Spock was a Vulcan, and don't you forget that, buddy!

Spock has half-Vulcan, half-Human.