Is evolution real?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To few mutations and to many places for them to occur.

So, how do all of your mutations add up...can you explain?

Positive mutations add up because they are kept in the gene-pool for a population because of the positive benefits they give to the population of animals. As the population continues to mate and reproduce, those mutations are then passed on to the offspring they bare. Then, when a selective process is introduced (climate or environmental changes, introduction of competing animals, new predators, etc), any mutations that are already in the gene-pool that then prove to be advantageous are brought to the fore, thus allowing the animals with those mutations to continue surviving, having offspring and keeping the gene-pool.
And that process is repeated again and again and again, until micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution.

Did you never play with LEGO as a child? It's not too far from the same principal as building a house with LEGO from a random box of bits.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I really don't think you can claim correctness here.

And why not?

 

[pitabread]

The flood model is a much, much better explanation...rapid deposit of the strata via a flood. OE'rs lose another.

What were you saying earlier about unsupported assertions?

(I notice, like every creationist, you just skip right past the issue of basic physics and the global flood.)

 

[pitabread]

Good thing you didn't post that on Face Book as they would have removed it for posting fake news.

I'm going by a couple decades of experience here. I can count the number of creationists that showed an active interest in science education on one hand.

 

[-57]

Positive mutations add up because they are kept in the gene-pool for a population because of the positive benefits they give to the population of animals. As the population continues to mate and reproduce, those mutations are then passed on to the offspring they bare. Then, when a selective process is introduced (climate or environmental changes, introduction of competing animals, new predators, etc), any mutations that are already in the gene-pool that then prove to be advantageous are brought to the fore, thus allowing the animals with those mutations to continue surviving, having offspring and keeping the gene-pool.
And that process is repeated again and again and again, until micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution.

Did you never play with LEGO as a child? It's not too far from the same principal as building a house with LEGO from a random box of bits.

Typically a second mutation must occur and occur in a fashion in which it changes the DNA or portion of DNA in a way in which it adds to the previous mutation.

Now the evos tell me beneficial mutations are extremely rare and the number of places for the mutation to occur is several billion depending on the animal.

How does a random mutation accomplish this feat? Of course we all know that it takes many mutations to morph a particular animal feature into another...fin to legs..then legs to flipper...is one example where many mutations are required. As you said..."And that process is repeated again and again and again"

How did evolutionism overcome these emense odds...especially to the point of the variation we see in the animal kingdom today?

What you presented is what was considered as the coloring book version.

 

[sjastro]

Since the subject of a global flood has appeared in this thread, let me resurrect a past post that was met with the thunderous sound of crickets.

Here is a geological cross section map of the region where I live.

The yellow region labelled Qpe and Qpt is a sedimentary layer composed of coalluvial and alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, clay and silt.
The pinkish region labelled Qvn is a basalt layer.

If the sedimentary layer is the result of a "global flood" then why does it not cover the entire basalt layer?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Typically a second mutation must occur and occur in a fashion in which it changes the DNA or portion of DNA in a way in which it adds to the previous mutation.

Now the evos tell me beneficial mutations are extremely rare and the number of places for the mutation to occur is several billion depending on the animal.

How does a random mutation accomplish this feat? Of course we all know that it takes many mutations to morph a particular animal feature into another...fin to legs..then legs to flipper...is one example where many mutations are required. As you said..."And that process is repeated again and again and again"

How did evolutionism overcome these emense odds...especially to the point of the variation we see in the animal kingdom today?

What you presented is what was considered as the coloring book version.

Well, since it's clear that you have no real intention of learning about theory of evolution, as was clearly shown by you referring to it as 'fraudulent', the 'colouring book' version is really all you're going to get since I have a very distinct feeling that you'll dismiss anything else out of hand.

And I'm having a major sense of deja vu that, if not I, then someone else has had this discussion with you before.

 

[-57]

Did you never play with LEGO as a child? It's not too far from the same principal as building a house with LEGO from a random box of bits.

Even your LEGO have problems...Here's why it fails.


Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.

Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked "Why the perplexed look Lenny?"

In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.

Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct LEGO animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the LEGO animals all but proved we’re all related. He said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendents of an original Lego organism.

Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each LEGO animal had the same type of feet. Each LEGO animal had the same square blocky head, each LEGO block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.

Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of LEGO people when Lenny blurted out with "Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common LEGO block?"

In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first LEGO man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the LEGO cow and the LEGO fish. No matter what is build from the LEGO blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember LEGO legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle

Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even your LEGO have problems...Here's why it fails.

Cute story. Doesn't really prove me wrong.

 

[-57]

What were you saying earlier about unsupported assertions?

(I notice, like every creationist, you just skip right past the issue of basic physics and the global flood.)

You didn't prove your physics..you simply mentioned them.

 

[pitabread]

Typically a second mutation must occur and occur in a fashion in which it changes the DNA or portion of DNA in a way in which it adds to the previous mutation.

Evolution is a recursive process. That means that by definition, ever single mutation that occurs in a new generation will be building on what came before it.

 

[pitabread]

You didn't prove your physics..you simply mentioned them.

I pointed out that all creationist models (that I've seen) for a global run afoul of basic physics (and I linked an example). It's not a problem you can just handwave away.

The fact that creationists do handwave such problems away is precisely why nobody uses creationist geological ideas for anything.

Now if you think you have a global flood that doesn't run into such issues, then let's see it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

 

[-57]

Since the subject of a global flood has appeared in this thread, let me resurrect a past post that was met with the thunderous sound of crickets.

Here is a geological cross section map of the region where I live.

The yellow region labelled Qpe and Qpt is a sedimentary layer composed of coalluvial and alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, clay and silt.
The pinkish region labelled Qvn is a basalt layer.

If the sedimentary layer is the result of a "global flood" then why does it not cover the entire basalt layer?

My first thought is..why should it have too?

 

[-57]

Evolution is a recursive process. That means that by definition, ever single mutation that occurs in a new generation will be building on what came before it.

The odds say that a neutral or harmful mutation will effect whatever advantage a previous beneficial mutation provided..as there are many, many more of them occuring in the animals progeny's DNA.

 

[-57]

I pointed out that all creationist models (that I've seen) for a global run afoul of basic physics (and I linked an example). It's not a problem you can just handwave away.

The fact that creationists do handwave such problems away is precisely why nobody uses creationist geological ideas for anything.

Now if you think you have a global flood that doesn't run into such issues, then let's see it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

All you're doing is hand waving.

 

[pitabread]

All you're doing is hand waving.

The "I know you are, but what am I" defense doesn't work here.

You're just avoiding addressing the issue because you know you don't have an answer. Just like I predicted earlier in the thread.

 

[JIMINZ]

Even your LEGO have problems...Here's why it fails.


Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.

Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked "Why the perplexed look Lenny?"

In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.

Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct LEGO animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the LEGO animals all but proved we’re all related. He said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendents of an original Lego organism.

Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each LEGO animal had the same type of feet. Each LEGO animal had the same square blocky head, each LEGO block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.

Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of LEGO people when Lenny blurted out with "Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common LEGO block?"

In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first LEGO man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the LEGO cow and the LEGO fish. No matter what is build from the LEGO blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember LEGO legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle

Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.

 

[Speedwell]

Even your LEGO have problems...Here's why it fails.


Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.

Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked "Why the perplexed look Lenny?"

In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.

Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct LEGO animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the LEGO animals all but proved we’re all related. He said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendents of an original Lego organism.

Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each LEGO animal had the same type of feet. Each LEGO animal had the same square blocky head, each LEGO block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.

Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of LEGO people when Lenny blurted out with "Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common LEGO block?"

In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first LEGO man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the LEGO cow and the LEGO fish. No matter what is build from the LEGO blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember LEGO legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle

Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.

Ah, Lenny Lego. You really need some new material, 57. But you are right, of course, a creator could use common building blocks. But all that shows is that common building blocks are possibly just as consistent with special creation as with evolution. If you want creationism to succeed as a scientific theory, you are going to have to show how it makes a successful prediction that evolution doesn't make. Unfalsifiable assertions just won't cut it.

 

[pitabread]

A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.

Except there is no reason that a creator would necessarily be bound by such constraints. Whereas with biological evolution and inheritance we would expect such constraints.

It's always odd to me how creationists insist that a creator was bound by the same constraints as biological evolution, yet can never explain why that must be the case.

At the end of the day, creationists can't offer anything beyond arguing that life has the appearance of biological evolution.

 

[sjastro]

My first thought is..why should it have too?

Try giving it a second thought by answering the question.