I would like to debate the evidence for evolution!

Smidlee said:

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.​

Click to expand...

We some times forget that Genetics is still a fairly young science. From Chromosome theory to the DNA double helix model one of their best method was 'knock out genes'. You figured out what a gene did by taking it out, the protein coding gene was demonstrated in this way at a molecular level. The fact is it's not random variation can lead to adaptive evolution but that has more to do with gene pools and triggers then any random process. These bacteria had a molecular mechanism that could edit the DNA sequence, a process that had long been thought to be the result of spontaneous mutations. We now know that is simply wrong.

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.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a phenomenon in nature pure and simple. The cause is molecular and while seemingly random we know more now about how it really works. The long walk over half a century was just to identify the genomic sequences. Since then they have been discovering amazing functions and purposes within genomics. The Darwinian dogma of mutations plus selection is fundamentally flawed and now that paradigm is contrary to known molecular function. It should be abandoned.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, the GULO gene, it's broken so it doesn't produce vitamin C anymore. Yet another evidence that the effect of mutations is ultimately deleterious. Evolution actually happens more then the only other alternative, which is stasis.

Now they do share some anecdotal mutational hotspots but it just means they broke, because the were breakable, in some of the same places.

mark kennedy said:

​

We some times forget that Genetics is still a fairly young science. From Chromosome theory to the DNA double helix model one of their best method was 'knock out genes'. You figured out what a gene did by taking it out, the protein coding gene was demonstrated in this way at a molecular level. The fact is it's not random variation can lead to adaptive evolution but that has more to do with gene pools and triggers then any random process. These bacteria had a molecular mechanism that could edit the DNA sequence, a process that had long been thought to be the result of spontaneous mutations. We now know that is simply wrong.

Click to expand...

Bacteria don't "know" what mutation to effect to change their DNA. But they can increase the mutation rate so that random mutations occur more frequently, allowing the beneficial mutation to come along.

Evolution is a phenomenon in nature pure and simple. The cause is molecular and while seemingly random we know more now about how it really works. The long walk over half a century was just to identify the genomic sequences. Since then they have been discovering amazing functions and purposes within genomics.

Click to expand...

Well, duh . . .

The Darwinian dogma of mutations plus selection is fundamentally flawed and now that paradigm is contrary to known molecular function. It should be abandoned.

Click to expand...

You talk as if "mutations plus selection" isn't a molecular function. It is.

mark kennedy said:

Oh yes, the GULO gene, it's broken so it doesn't produce vitamin C anymore. Yet another evidence that the effect of mutations is ultimately deleterious. Evolution actually happens more then the only other alternative, which is stasis.

The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. (The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy)
​

Now they do share some anecdotal mutational hotspots but it just means they broke, because the were breakable, in some of the same places.

Click to expand...

The inactive gulo gene, shared among primates, is actually evidence of evolution.

Pseudogenes

L-gulonolactone oxidase - Wikipedia

Your creationist sources routinely exaggerate the DNA differences, ascribing a single point mutation to a whole group of genes, thereby exaggerating the percentage differences.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Bacteria don't "know" what mutation to effect to change their DNA. But they can increase the mutation rate so that random mutations occur more frequently, allowing the beneficial mutation to come along.

​

Well, duh . . .



You talk as if "mutations plus selection" isn't a molecular function. It is.

Click to expand...

Actually it's not, it's a molecular dysfunction. It's a failure of DNA repair.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

The inactive gulo gene, shared among primates, is actually evidence of evolution.

Pseudogenes

L-gulonolactone oxidase - Wikipedia

Your creationist sources routinely exaggerate the DNA differences, ascribing a single point mutation to a whole group of genes, thereby exaggerating the percentage differences.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal mutations at mutational hotspots are not proof of much either. I thought we were talking about adaptive evolution, random mutations is something else.

mark kennedy said:

Actually it's not, it's a molecular dysfunction. It's a failure of DNA repair.

Click to expand...

? so ? How the mutation arrives doesn't matter to the evolutionary process, as long as it does arrive . . .

mark kennedy said:

Anecdotal mutations at mutational hotspots are not proof of much either. I thought we were talking about adaptive evolution, random mutations is something else.

Click to expand...

Still obfuscating? mark, you might remember that shernren, splitrock, and AEA explained to you how the GULO pseudogene is strong evidence for primate evolution over a decade ago. Yet you still throw out the same misleading lines as if you didn't learn anything.

It's sad to see, and worse, makes it a lot harder for our Christian witness.

Not that you'll take the time to review and learn from it, but here is the thread from 2006 when the GULO pseudogene, it's nested hierarchy of mutations, and the reason why "hotspots" doesn't come close to explaining them.

GULO Pseudogene as evidence for common ancestry among primates

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Paul of Eugene OR said:

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.

Click to expand...

Evolutionist are still trying to use the junk DNA as evidence which ignore what we learn in the last 10 years, DNA-R-US theory appears to be false. Also the DNA contains codes within codes.
Broken genes is not evolution. So you believe if you break enough genes it turns apes into scientist?

LutheranGuy123 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Tiktaalik is some of the best evidence against evolution. It's called confirm bias. A study was done a long time ago that shows scientist found what they looking for 97% of the time.
As Do-white Jones wrote " If one politician is running a negative campaign against another politician, and the most damning thing he can say is that the other guy got one parking ticket 28 years ago, the weakness of the charge is better evidence of innocence than guilt. If the best transitional form evolutionists can come up with is Tiktaalik, then the weakness of their claim is better evidence against evolution than for it."

Papias said:

Still obfuscating? mark, you might remember that shernren, splitrock, and AEA explained to you how the GULO pseudogene is strong evidence for primate evolution over a decade ago. Yet you still throw out the same misleading lines as if you didn't learn anything.

Click to expand...

I learned their presuppositional foregone conclusions had virtually no substantive or empirical basis.

It's sad to see, and worse, makes it a lot harder for our Christian witness.

Click to expand...

My real problem is the lack of one, biting personal remarks is not only fallacious, it's divisive and contentious.

Not that you'll take the time to review and learn from it, but here is the thread from 2006 when the GULO pseudogene, it's nested hierarchy of mutations, and the reason why "hotspots" doesn't come close to explaining them.

Click to expand...

Calling them a nested hierarchy doesn't explain much either.

GULO Pseudogene as evidence for common ancestry among primates

In Jesus' name-[/quote]

Read it before, along with several papers on the subject.

Smidlee said:

Evolutionist are still trying to use the junk DNA as evidence which ignore what we learn in the last 10 years

Click to expand...

Scientists are trying to use mutations shared among different species as evidence for common descent. We focus mutations in pseudogenes because there's no functional reason for these sequence features to be shared except for common descent. Invoking the findings of the last ten years is pretty rich, since we're the ones who been making those discoveries, while you guys are the ones who do your best(*) not to learn what we're finding and what it means.

(*) Which is pretty darn good, I must say.

Smidlee said:

Evolutionist are still trying to use the junk DNA as evidence which ignore what we learn in the last 10 years, DNA-R-US theory appears to be false. Also the DNA contains codes within codes.
Broken genes is not evolution. So you believe if you break enough genes it turns apes into scientist?

Click to expand...

Broken genes aren't evolution, all right . . . the broken vitamin c gene in our DNA is no longer part of the evolution of our species. Rather, it is a vestige of a previous species that DID USE it to make vitamin C, something that hasn't happened EVER in the species Homo Sapiens.

Smidlee said:

Evolutionist are still trying to use the junk DNA as evidence which ignore what we learn in the last 10 years, DNA-R-US theory appears to be false. Also the DNA contains codes within codes.
Broken genes is not evolution. So you believe if you break enough genes it turns apes into scientist?

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes. Although you seem to be missing the part where some genes get duplicated before they break. For example, a snake's salivary enzyme gene can duplicate and then one copy breaks, so now it has both that salivary enzyme and a venom.

Smidlee said:

Tiktaalik is some of the best evidence against evolution. It's called confirm bias. A study was done a long time ago that shows scientist found what they looking for 97% of the time.
As Do-white Jones wrote " If one politician is running a negative campaign against another politician, and the most damning thing he can say is that the other guy got one parking ticket 28 years ago, the weakness of the charge is better evidence of innocence than guilt. If the best transitional form evolutionists can come up with is Tiktaalik, then the weakness of their claim is better evidence against evolution than for it."

Click to expand...

Scientists can sway their data to show what they want, yes. But they cannot make up where they found something. The fact of the matter is scientists determined where they should be able to find a fossil with certain characteristics, then looked there and found it. You can either claim that it was luck or that their predictions were accurate. You can't say that they were nearly guaranteed to find it wherever they look.

That's like some guy saying he has magic oil-detecting abilities, then going to a place not currently known to have oil and finding it exactly where and how deep he said he would. Would you say "Well DUH he found oil there!" or would you say "Wow, how did he know the oil was there?" Or I guess you could say he got lucky, but what are the odds of that?

MetalGreymon said:

I don't find the acceptance of evolution to be incompatible with belief in God but there are many who do.
I would like to speak to them. I will be providing evidence for evolution and you will be responsible for providing a superior explanation of that evidence from a creation perspective.

We'll begin with the fossil record.
Using an evolutionary model we would expect to see life on earth going from less complex to more complex as adaptations compound. If we look at the fossil record, this is exactly what we see. Simple invertebrates to fish to reptiles to mammals and so on. And while we do of course see simple organisms coexisting with complex ones ( just look at an earth worm) we never see something like a ichthyosaur in a fossil bed with trilobites. Nowhere. Ever.

From a creation standpoint where the animals were created at around the same time we would expect to see animals at all stages of complexity mixed together. And yet we find these fossil beds with exclusively “simple” organisms.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true.. You are going on a foundation of false information. The fact is that all species are found in every layer of the earth all together. There are no separate layers with only simple life forms.. that is a total lie and fabrication of evolutionists. It is not true that there are layered fossil records. In fact, the fossil record goes right along with the Biblical account of the flood. How do you think fossils are even formed? They are formed for example when an animal is buried fast and deep, and then water must rush through it in order for a fossil to form. That's why when a life form is randomly buried it does not turn into a fossil. Furthermore, Fossils of fish are found on MNT. Everest along with many other types of fossils. Just in 2016 a "dragon" dinosaur fossil was found in China by men who were digging in order to build a building. Don't you think if Dinosaurs are as old as evolutionist say, that people would have to dig a lot deeper in order to find a fossil of one? Not to mention there are numerous accounts of dinosaurs living alongside humans, not just fossils and human remains found together; although, that is also true. Additional evidence for this can be found all around the world. Paintings of dinosaurs long before they were called dinosaurs exist in every continent on artifacts, walls, buildings etc... Many famous people even wrote about dinosaurs describing them perfectly long before so called scientist stared this evolution insanity. Marco Polo was one of them. Look it up, the information is all public, it's just that public schools have done a good job of hiding truth and brainwashing all of us. It is a deliberate lie and cover-up. If you really want to know the truth, the answers are very obvious. In order to believe in evolution, you pretty much have to ignore every single piece of evidence.

Smidlee said:

Tiktaalik is some of the best evidence against evolution. It's called confirm bias.

Click to expand...

Its there. Its good evidence. People like you think that merely saying its evidence against evolution is all they have to do. That is called denying evidence.

A study was done a long time ago that shows scientist found what they looking for 97% of the time.

Click to expand...

Some of us think that might . . just might . . . mean they know what they are doing.

christina Pickle said:

That is simply not true.. You are going on a foundation of false information. The fact is that all species are found in every layer of the earth all together. . . .

Click to expand...

What happened to the creationist canard that the layers are dated by the fossils, if there are no differering layers?

See, when you ideas depart from reality, its really hard to keep your ideas consistent.

Go ahead, show us a mammal - any mammal - in a strata from the Cambrian era. Should be easy, since you assert all species are found in every layer of the earth.

Oops, another falsehood from a creationist uncovered . . .

sfs said:

Scientists are trying to use mutations shared among different species as evidence for common descent. We focus mutations in pseudogenes because there's no functional reason for these sequence features to be shared except for common descent. Invoking the findings of the last ten years is pretty rich, since we're the ones who been making those discoveries, while you guys are the ones who do your best(*) not to learn what we're finding and what it means.

(*) Which is pretty darn good, I must say.

Click to expand...

I would disagree since we know it's possible for a mutations to break things even twice but no way to prove if mutation could lead an ape to become a scientist. Evolutionist claims eyes evolved over 40 times with no evidence that's even possible yet act as if it impossible for a number of creatures to happen to have the same "pseudogenes by chance. This is clearly confirm bias.
We already know it a lot easier to break something than to create it. It's more possible a explosion destroys two building exactly the same way than an explosion creating a building.
I see your argument the best evidence against evolution as I find your claim is extremely weak.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Its there. Its good evidence. People like you think that merely saying its evidence against evolution is all they have to do. That is called denying evidence.

Some of us think that might . . just might . . . mean they know what they are doing.

Click to expand...

The fossil record is one of the best evidence evolution is false. You can cherry pick a fossil here and there and claim it's evidence but you are denying the over all pictures of stasis.
What I see is confirm bias.