What Good Is Darwinian Evolution?

[JacksBratt]

I keep hearing of Darwin evolution as being old and there now being a new evolution theory..

what is the difference? honestly.

 

[Delphiki]

I keep hearing of Darwin evolution as being old and there now being a new evolution theory..

what is the difference? honestly.

The vast accumulation of genetic, geological, and other evidence.

 

[JacksBratt]

The vast accumulation of genetic, geological, and other evidence.

What I mean is, a theory has a base or thesis. What changed? Not what caused it but what is the new basic theory.

In my research I keep seeing more and more fossil data coming in and the "theory" keeps being revised and revised and still again, revised.

Seems that "they" have a theory, then new fossil, then change the theory to fit the new find. Seems to be a fluid thesis..

Darwin laid it out pretty straight forward. Do I take it that now He was wrong and there is a new theory different than his?

When does this stop? They keep finding older and older skulls and such that has man existing as "man" earlier and earlier.

Just seems kind of flakey to me.

 

[EternalDragon]

Please explain why human DNA still contains all the information required to grow a tail? The only thing that prevents it is that the sequence has been turned off. There are many people born with tails amd vestigal tails every year.

This falls exactly in line with evolutionary theory but is totally at odds with intelligent design. Why would ID put the coding for tails in human DNA?

I have heard of people having fatty tissue (benign lesion) growing from the tail bone area but never a tail. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with an ancestral tail.

I have also never heard anything about human DNA containing genes for a tail or that it is simply "turned off". Could you link some scientific papers on it?

 

[Oafman]

Is this a thread about whether or not understanding the world around us benefits us?!

Perhaps we should all move back into caves?

 

[JacksBratt]

Is this a thread about whether or not understanding the world around us benefits us?!

Perhaps we should all move back into caves?

Who knows. With the middle east on the verge of exploding, caves may be the only place left for some.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The more we learn about junk DNA, the less 'junky' it becomes.

Yes, the more genes we find hidden away in it, but that doesn't mean we don't have any junk DNA.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I keep hearing of Darwin evolution as being old and there now being a new evolution theory..

what is the difference? honestly.

Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA, Darwin didn't understand most of how heredity worked, Darwin made bad conclusions in regards to the fossil record. Basically Darwinian evolution is evolution minus more than 100 years of evidence and improvements. Like comparing the first commonly seen vehicle to the newest model we have.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have heard of people having fatty tissue (benign lesion) growing from the tail bone area but never a tail.

Here is one. It has caudal vertebrae and everything.

Which, by the way, has nothing to do with an ancestral tail.

Then this is a case of macroevolution, the appearance of a new feature in humans where it didn't exist before.

Take your pick.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's what one would expect to see from an intelligent designer who uses common building blocks in the design of a creation.

No, it isn't. We observe that intelligent design does not produce a nested hierarchy. Complex life falls into a nested hierarchy. We do observe that evolution produces a nested hierarchy.

Also, an intelligent designer could produce different organisms with different codon usage. Therefore, there is no expectation of shared codon usage with intelligent design.

Intelligent design fails.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are thousands and thousand of years from the original creation event. You do realize that, right?

Where is your evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is also an observation predicted by ID theory.

No it isn't. We observe that intelligent design does not produce a nested hierarchy, and can change building blocks willy-nilly.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, the more genes we find hidden away in it, but that doesn't mean we don't have any junk DNA.

Alleged junk DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it isn't. We observe that intelligent design does not produce a nested hierarchy. Complex life falls into a nested hierarchy. We do observe that evolution produces a nested hierarchy.

Also, an intelligent designer could produce different organisms with different codon usage. Therefore, there is no expectation of shared codon usage with intelligent design.

Intelligent design fails.

Of course intelligent designer could produced a nested hierarchy. Why couldn't he? Shared codon usage is simply more evidence for common building blocks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Alleged junk DNA.

Some of which we know is just remains of viral DNA, so we know for a fact it isn't going to code for anything useful.

 

[Loudmouth]

Alleged junk DNA.

About 90% of our genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with genetic drift. How can DNA have function when that function can not be changed by any mutation? How can 90% of our genome be immune to deleterious mutations?

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course intelligent designer could produced a nested hierarchy. Why couldn't he?

Intelligent designers don't produce nested hierarchies. That is what we observe.

Shared codon usage is simply more evidence for common building blocks.

Yes, common building blocks that were inherited from a common ancestor.

 

[justlookinla]

Some of which we know is just remains of viral DNA, so we know for a fact it isn't going to code for anything useful.

They knew 'for a fact' that junk DNA was junk DNA....until the error was corrected.

 

[justlookinla]

Intelligent designers don't produce nested hierarchies. That is what we observe.

Intelligent designers produce nested what ever they wish nested.

, common building blocks that were inherited from a common ancestor.

Or an intelligent designer used them in the design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They knew 'for a fact' that junk DNA was junk DNA....until the error was corrected.

Not all junk DNA turned out to be useful you know