I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

[serious] · Jun 17, 2017

Humble Servant of Christ said:
Which of the 3 seperates tenants of evolution would you like to debate. 1) Natural Selection 2) Micro Evolution or 3) Macro Evolution?

sfs said:
As I said, the evidence that one "kind" (whatever that is) can change into another is genetic data, which shows that one kind has changed into another. If there were some other way to explain the data, the evidence would be less persuasive, but no one has offered an alternative.

I'd actually approach this differently. Evolution only posits the change within kinds.

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

Kind after kind describes evolution just fine. In a nested hierarchy, each thing is just variation within the parent groups.

Kiwi Christian · Jun 18, 2017

There is ZERO evidence for evolution

[serious] · Jun 18, 2017

Kiwi Christian said:
There is ZERO evidence for evolution

How about the double nested hierarchy?

mark kennedy · Jun 18, 2017

Kiwi Christian said:
There is ZERO evidence for evolution

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, the philosophy of natural history you are talking about is Darwinism.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 19, 2017

Kiwi Christian said:
There is ZERO evidence for evolution

The above post was written by a human with a coccyx.

Smidlee · Jun 27, 2017

Kiwi Christian said:
There is ZERO evidence for evolution

Evolution often means just "trial and error". There is nothing new of trial and error as even the Egyptians use trial and error to learn how to build the Pyramids. The Wright Brothers used trial and error to learn which wing shape gives the most lift with less drag. Living systems can also use "trial and error" as there is nothing new under the sun.
Trial and error will only gets you so far even with computers. The major difference between creationist vs evolutionist is creationist sees the limits of evolution while evolutionist believes in unlimited evolution. Evolution end up explaining absolutely everything including the exact opposites. It even explains the evolutionist mind who think he's the product of evolution/nature.

mark kennedy · Jun 27, 2017

Smidlee said:
Evolution often means just "trial and error". There is nothing new of trial and error as even the Egyptians use trial and error to learn how to build the Pyramids. The Wright Brothers used trial and error to learn which wing shape gives the most lift with less drag. Living systems can also use "trial and error" as there is nothing new under the sun.
Trial and error will only gets you so far even with computers. The major difference between creationist vs evolutionist is creationist sees the limits of evolution while evolutionist believes in unlimited evolution. Evolution end up explaining absolutely everything including the exact opposites. It even explains the evolutionist mind who think he's the product of evolution/nature.

Evolution means change and with spontaneous, random change at a molecular level change is most often either neutral or deleterious, beneficial or the rarest of effects. Adaptive evolution on the other hand hasvpurpsefull design that can fabricate new proteins, sometime even brand new genes. The shifting of dominant and recessive traits, genes turning off and on, regulatory genes under certain circumstances developing specific traits and functions. To say nothing of gene expression and epigenetic traits.

One thing is for sure trial and error have nothing to do with adaptive evolution.

Smidlee · Jun 27, 2017

mark kennedy said:
Evolution means change and with spontaneous, random change at a molecular level change is most often either neutral or deleterious, beneficial or the rarest of effects. Adaptive evolution on the other hand hasvpurpsefull design that can fabricate new proteins, sometime even brand new genes. The shifting of dominant and recessive traits, genes turning off and on, regulatory genes under certain circumstances developing specific traits and functions. To say nothing of gene expression and epigenetic traits.

One thing is for sure trial and error have nothing to do with adaptive evolution.

Nothing? So a bacteria changing it's DNA randomly at hot spots has nothing to do with trial and error in order to find a new food source or resistance to antibiotic? Gene and epigenetic is part of the "information" just as a code is to a "trial and error" search engine software.

mark kennedy · Jun 27, 2017

Smidlee said:
Nothing? So a bacteria changing it's DNA randomly at hot spots has nothing to do with trial and error in order to find a new food source or resistance to antibiotic? Gene and epigenetic is part of the "information" just as a code is to a "trial and error" search engine software.

That is seemingly at random but there was always an actual molecular mechanism responsible for the change. Pardon the length of the quote but this is important:

SPECTER: CRISPR is actually an ancient bacterial defense system. It's like an immune system for bacteria, which is surprising because for a long time, scientists didn't think bacteria had adaptive immune systems. But in 1987, some Japanese scientists were looking for something in DNA, and they saw this weird group of nucleotides, pieces of DNA. They had no idea what they were doing and what they meant and what their function was. And in a piece they published in The Journal of Bacteriology, the last sentence literally was, and we saw this weird, crazy group of nucleotides, and we have no idea what they're doing there. And that was that. And that was not for a very long time. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life NPR)

Over time this 'weird, crazy group of nucleotides', has become one of the most important gene editing tools of our time. That's not hyperbole:

bacteria were seeing viral invaders, they were chopping them into little bits and incorporating them into their genome, which is something like what we do with a vaccination. And when they're in the genome, they're able to defend against another invasion. This is crazy. I mean, no one ever thought this was possible. But eventually, people realized - scientists realized that if nature could do it, we could do it, and that it was basically a programmable kind of a GPS for our DNA, a molecular-GPS system. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life NPR)

Bottom line, this is now called the KRISPUR gene. It seems like random changes but it's not, it's a molecular mechanism capable of changing a DNA sequence, even incorporating DNA from viruses:

You program CRISPR to go where you want. And when it gets there, it cuts the very pieces of DNA you want cut. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life NPR)

Trial and error, time and chance and even natural selection have very little to do with adaptive evolution. Adaptations happen by design. That's what I like about this whole creation/evolution controversy, the great equalizer is invariably, genetics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

JackRT · Jun 27, 2017

I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

You can't debate the evidence. You can only debate conclusions.

KWCrazy · Jun 27, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Well, I suggest we STOP SAYING one has to choose between accepting evolution and believing in God and LET PEOPLE ACCEPT EVOLUTION in our churches.

How about we simplify it?
The Bible very specifically states that God created the world in six days, confirmed by the finger of God on the stone tablets (Exodus 20:11).
Evolution very clearly states that life evolved over millions of years; that there was no Adam; that there was no flood; and that man shares ancestry with a daffodil.
One is the truth, one is a lie. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. Both cannot be true. Man cannot have had two origins. You cannot defend evolution without attacking the integrity of the Scriptures.
The speciation that we HAVE observed is consistent with the Great Flood in that there are variations within the species and it is a conservative process.

mark kennedy · Jun 27, 2017

KWCrazy said:
How about we simplify it?
The Bible very specifically states that God created the world in six days, confirmed by the finger of God on the stone tablets (Exodus 20:11).
Evolution very clearly states that life evolved over millions of years; that there was no Adam; that there was no flood; and that man shares ancestry with a daffodil.
One is the truth, one is a lie. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. Both cannot be true. Man cannot have had two origins. You cannot defend evolution without attacking the integrity of the Scriptures.
The speciation that we HAVE observed is consistent with the Great Flood in that there are variations within the species and it is a conservative process.

I think evolution happens starting with those who emerged from the Ark. The logistics aside the only explanation is adaptive evolution is the only way we get the diversity we see in all it's vast array. The only real difference between Darwinians and Creationists is the time line, Creationists when you think about it, are radical evolutionists. Depending on how you define the term.

KWCrazy · Jun 27, 2017

mark kennedy said:
The only real difference between Darwinians and Creationists is the time line, Creationists when you think about it, are radical evolutionists. Depending on how you define the term.

Certainly we see speciation in the world and that can be observed, but we also see that it is a conservative process where genetic information can be augmented or extinguished but never originated. Since repeated subtraction never accomplishes addition, speciation cannot ever advance a species with new characteristics. The whole notion of "nested hierarchies" is amusing, since biologists classify life into specific categories and then say, "Look; this proves common descent." They are classified by observed similarity of characteristics and similar characteristics would always indicate a similar genetic make-up. It's circular reasoning, but for those seeking a reason to deny the Scriptures, any reasoning is sufficient.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 28, 2017

Smidlee said:
The major difference between creationist vs evolutionist is creationist sees the limits of evolution while evolutionist believes in unlimited evolution. . . . .

Only you see those "limits" without any evidence for them.

LutheranGuy123 · Jun 28, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Certainly we see speciation in the world and that can be observed, but we also see that it is a conservative process where genetic information can be augmented or extinguished but never originated. Since repeated subtraction never accomplishes addition, speciation cannot ever advance a species with new characteristics. The whole notion of "nested hierarchies" is amusing, since biologists classify life into specific categories and then say, "Look; this proves common descent." They are classified by observed similarity of characteristics and similar characteristics would always indicate a similar genetic make-up. It's circular reasoning, but for those seeking a reason to deny the Scriptures, any reasoning is sufficient.

Mutation is genetic information being originated. We know know that genes are sometimes duplicated, which results in more genetic information being present in the offspring than in the parent.

Papias · Jun 28, 2017

mark kennedy said:
The only real difference between Darwinians and Creationists is the time line, Creationists when you think about it, are radical evolutionists. Depending on how you define the term.

Yep. mark and I agree on this (for the section of creationists who posit evolution after the ark). -Papias

Smidlee · Jun 28, 2017

mark kennedy said:
That is seemingly at random but there was always an actual molecular mechanism responsible for the change. Pardon the length of the quote but this is important:

SPECTER: CRISPR is actually an ancient bacterial defense system. It's like an immune system for bacteria, which is surprising because for a long time, scientists didn't think bacteria had adaptive immune systems. But in 1987, some Japanese scientists were looking for something in DNA, and they saw this weird group of nucleotides, pieces of DNA. They had no idea what they were doing and what they meant and what their function was. And in a piece they published in The Journal of Bacteriology, the last sentence literally was, and we saw this weird, crazy group of nucleotides, and we have no idea what they're doing there. And that was that. And that was not for a very long time. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life NPR)

A trial and error is used by engineers so of course it's not completely random. A chess program is a "trial and error" search engine to find the best possible move up to the plys it searches. The Wright Brothers wind tunnel was the mechanism they used to discover the best wing to provide the most lift with less drag. I have no doubt bacteria have built-in knowledge of how to use trial and error to find a solution to the problem.

Over time this 'weird, crazy group of nucleotides', has become one of the most important gene editing tools of our time. That's not hyperbole:

bacteria were seeing viral invaders, they were chopping them into little bits and incorporating them into their genome, which is something like what we do with a vaccination. And when they're in the genome, they're able to defend against another invasion. This is crazy. I mean, no one ever thought this was possible. But eventually, people realized - scientists realized that if nature could do it, we could do it, and that it was basically a programmable kind of a GPS for our DNA, a molecular-GPS system. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life NPR)

Bottom line, this is now called the KRISPUR gene. It seems like random changes but it's not, it's a molecular mechanism capable of changing a DNA sequence, even incorporating DNA from viruses:

You program CRISPR to go where you want. And when it gets there, it cuts the very pieces of DNA you want cut. (New Gene-Editing Techniques Hold the Promise Of Altering The Fundamentals Of Life NPR)

Trial and error, time and chance and even natural selection have very little to do with adaptive evolution. Adaptations happen by design. That's what I like about this whole creation/evolution controversy, the great equalizer is invariably, genetics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

trial and error is also by design. When a research team tries to find a cure they used trail and error until they find the answer. In evolutionary software has to be loaded with information in order to use trail and error to fine tune the answer.
Even evolutionist will quickly point out that evolution is not completely random.

Smidlee · Jun 28, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Only you see those "limits" without any evidence for them.

That's an evolutionist for you. They want the other person to prove their fairy tale didn't happen. There is no proof this actually happened .

LutheranGuy123 · Jun 28, 2017

Smidlee said:
That's an evolutionist for you. They want the other person to prove their fairy tale didn't happen. There is no proof this actually happened .

No, they want you to provide an alternative explanation for all of the evidence. Why was Tiktaalik where they thought it would be? Why don't we have anomalies where something doesn't seem to share common ancestry with another species? Why don't we have anomalies where something seems to share a common ancestor with two species that don't seem to share a common ancestor?

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 28, 2017

Smidlee said:
That's an evolutionist for you. They want the other person to prove their fairy tale didn't happen. There is no proof this actually happened .

There is lots of evidence that evolution happened.

Some of it has even been mentioned around here. Have you considered the fact that you share a broken gene for making vitamin c with other primates? Broken genes break randomly . . . but the defect is shared with the other primates. Evidence for our common ancestry with other primates.

There are other evidences. The evidence amounts to enough to provide proof according to legal court standards of proof.

I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Active Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Natura non facit saltum

Finally Old Enough

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

Newbie

Finally Old Enough

Active Member

Listening to TW4

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Finally Old Enough

Similar threads