Can an old earth be proven?

You shouldn't aggressively hold doubts in a topic where you are still learning.

Especially in this topic.

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).



All of this, is clear as day for most people. It is too logically sound to not consider biological evolution as a probable truth. DNA changes (we agree), DNA defines our morphology and so our morphology changes with our DNA (we agree). We even have a fossil succession that matches our DNA. God could not have made evolution more blatantly obvious (for those who take time to learn about it).

You can attempt to question or deny anything you want, your own research shows us tens of billions of mutations and subsequent variation of life. Your research papers demonstrate that evolution is true.

We have seen all of the above. And here we are, you still hold an aggressive doubt. Or so it seems. Without any mention that....maybe, just maybe, the theory of evolution is actually scientifically sound.

And your alternative? Who knows. You have all these questions about things we can see with our own eyes. Imagine how many questions the rest of us have about your alternative belief (which isn't even shared by other creationists).

You do not need to be lost. We know evolution has occurred. If it is a topic you are sincerely interested in, then join us in uncovering its details, rather than doubting and denying.

KomatiiteBIF said:

You shouldn't aggressively hold doubts in a topic where you are still learning.

Especially in this topic.

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).



All of this, is clear as day for most people. It is too logically sound to not consider biological evolution as a probable truth. DNA changes (we agree), DNA defines our morphology and so our morphology changes with our DNA (we agree). We even have a fossil succession that matches our DNA. God could not have made evolution more blatantly obvious (for those who take time to learn about it).

You can attempt to question or deny anything you want, your own research shows us tens of billions of mutations and subsequent variation of life. Your research papers demonstrate that evolution is true.

We have seen all of the above. And here we are, you still hold an aggressive doubt. Or so it seems. Without any mention that....maybe, just maybe, the theory of evolution is actually scientifically sound.

And your alternative? Who knows. You have all these questions about things we can see with our own eyes. Imagine how many questions the rest of us have about your alternative belief (which isn't even shared by other creationists).

You do not need to be lost. We know evolution has occurred. If it is a topic you are sincerely interested in, then join us in uncovering its details, rather than doubting and denying.

Click to expand...

Finally, someone who actually knows what they're talking about!

KomatiiteBIF said:

1. Changed "little" is a vague or even subjective term. This statement of yours is without meaning. Regardless though, changed "little" is not to say that something has not changed at all. And since you used the word "some", i suppose you could also state that "some" have changed more than just a little.
2. You're just talking.
3. I suggest you read the 2017 research paper, they talk about this.

You asked if I have a graph from the 60k research. Did you not recognize it when I posted it? Look at each image again, and tell me what you see.

1. The e.coli is still mutating, it has not reached peak fitness. However, as it approaches peak fitness, fixed mutations are decreasing. This is all outlined in the research.
2. Yes they are still mutating. Some are mutating faster than they were at the start of the experiment (as I pointed out before, when you told me I was wrong), some are mutating slower than they were at the start. These organisms would continue to mutate even if there were no more space. If there were not enough food, then i suppose they would starve to death.
3. Read the research, they discuss this.

Click to expand...

1. You are right on the little part, it is hard to define, basically there are ancient organisms with form that is very simlar to their current form. My other question to you is how do you if something actually changed a lot? Just by fossils?

2 and 3, unlike you, I don't have access to the research. But my question stands, Since there are enough food, other mutations should show up as well, since they can survive, just not in big number right?

And also yes I missed the 60k graph. I thought it is about fitness, but didn't notice b. From graph b it seems mutation changes is linear (but from c the rate drops so it is not totally linear). It is under high compression and I can't see clearly, what's the measure for the Y axis?

I don't deny that your point on actual tests occurred (i.e. fixation of beneficial mutations etc). But seeing the e.coli over 60k generations, with such an already diversified organism (God knows how long it has been in existence), all give me a different interpretation than you (key word is interpretation, since we are all just interpreting the data).

What I don't agree on is the action of stating "this must be true", i.e. humans must be evolved from some ancient primates without a repeatable, verifiable test (i.e. You saw some fossiles, they look similar, there for we must evolved from them).

The other answer you asked is very simple. God created them and God give them boundaries of how far they can mutate. The exact boundaries should be the topic of research (i.e. did God created the first RNA/DNA then let them evolve to our current world, or did God created specific items individually and used existing items as libraries).

I am joining in to discover the details. My day job does not allow me to do this full time and that is why I keep trying to read on those. I don't want to trust any so called scientific results that are not repeatable, verifiable and testable.

KomatiiteBIF said:

You shouldn't aggressively hold doubts in a topic where you are still learning.

Especially in this topic.

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).



All of this, is clear as day for most people. It is too logically sound to not consider biological evolution as a probable truth. DNA changes (we agree), DNA defines our morphology and so our morphology changes with our DNA (we agree). We even have a fossil succession that matches our DNA. God could not have made evolution more blatantly obvious (for those who take time to learn about it).

You can attempt to question or deny anything you want, your own research shows us tens of billions of mutations and subsequent variation of life. Your research papers demonstrate that evolution is true.

We have seen all of the above. And here we are, you still hold an aggressive doubt. Or so it seems. Without any mention that....maybe, just maybe, the theory of evolution is actually scientifically sound.

And your alternative? Who knows. You have all these questions about things we can see with our own eyes. Imagine how many questions the rest of us have about your alternative belief (which isn't even shared by other creationists).

You do not need to be lost. We know evolution has occurred. If it is a topic you are sincerely interested in, then join us in uncovering its details, rather than doubting and denying.

Click to expand...

DreadCthulhu said:

Finally, someone who actually knows what they're talking about!

Click to expand...

He may know what is he talking about, but we can't trust somone just because they seems to know what they are talking about, without been able to see tests that are repeatable and verifiable.

Einstein add the cosmological constant to his theory, later on removed it once he found it was a mistake. Now of course scientists are adding it back again due to new discoveries. Just remember, if some tests are not repeatable and verifiable, they are just hypothesis.

dcalling said:

1. You are right on the little part, it is hard to define, basically there are ancient organisms with form that is very simlar to their current form. My other question to you is how do you if something actually changed a lot? Just by fossils?

2 and 3, unlike you, I don't have access to the research. But my question stands, Since there are enough food, other mutations should show up as well, since they can survive, just not in big number right?

And also yes I missed the 60k graph. I thought it is about fitness, but didn't notice b. From graph b it seems mutation changes is linear (but from c the rate drops so it is not totally linear). It is under high compression and I can't see clearly, what's the measure for the Y axis?

Click to expand...

1. Perhaps I should just repeat myself.

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).

And I will add one more point. DNA phylogenies matching the fossil succession is also more than just a match.


See the above video. Often biologists will discuss the fact that, it isn't the similarities, its the differences. DNA not only matches the fossil succession, but its differences between species are a record of mutations that have occurred in the past, and these differences in DNA give the appearance as such. Phylogenetic differences between species are those that look just as they would, had they been a product of mutation.

So, every line of evidence points toward large scale evolution. The fossils, the DNA, the mutations, the phenotypic and genotypic changes, the appearance of accumulated mutations, the observed appearance of accumulated mutations, and honestly, there is much more more.

2 and 3. You do have access to research, just as everyone else does. You simply choose not to pursue it. Do you have 5 dollars? That is the cost to read the 2017 document.

dcalling said:

The other answer you asked is very simple. God created them and God give them boundaries of how far they can mutate. The exact boundaries should be the topic of research (i.e. did God created the first RNA/DNA then let them evolve to our current world, or did God created specific items individually and used existing items as libraries).

Click to expand...

This^ is just made up. Imaginary boundaries for which you have no evidence. You say these boundaries should be a topic of research, but there is nothing to research, as they are...fantasy.

Yet you claim to want rigorous testing...

You know what, im actually going to add on a few more points here.

So we have 1 through 7

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).


We have point #8, which is basically that, the genetic differences between lineages, look as if they are a product of mutations. If common descent were true, this is what our mutations would look like.

But, I'll add another point. Point #9

You have insertions of ERVs. Some young earth creationists suggest that there is reason for their location of insertion, associated with functions that they hold. But even if we didnt bother pulling up research to refute them, we still have yet another scenario where, this research could be used to refute common descent. Instead, yet again, we find more evidence for common descent in retroviral insertions that "just so happen" to insert into specific lineages at certain genomic locations, and not into any distant lineages as distant genomic locations. And again, it "just so happens" to match paleontologic and genetic phylogenies.

Coincidence? Of course not.

But I will go one step further, Point #10

Hernias, and nerves in our skull. These are just a couple topics in the book "your inner fish" by neil shubin.

Why do we have hernias? Why do nerves in our skulls travel out of their way from our brain to our inner ear, criss crossing, rather than more directly to our facial muscles or jaw? Why would our gonads begin up above our stomach and descend down to their regular position? It doesn't really make any sense if God simply created us in instantaneously in our current form. But it would make sense if nerves were aligned in our ancestors in more efficient ways, such as the order of nerves in the skull of a shark. It would make sense that our gonads began in our chest, and descended, if our chest was where our gonads historically had existed in a more efficient body plan.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, and fish had gonads in their chests, and if we have gonads near our groin, we might expect to find the development of gonads randomly and inefficiently in our chest, then a descent to our groins after birth. Hey, what do you know? There it is, it happens (see figure below). And it results in people getting hernias at an early age.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, where fish had nerves in an order moving from their jaws to their gills, we might expect middle ear nerves to be in place, inefficiently between our brain to our throats. As the middle ear nerves are anatomically comparable to the jaw nerves of a shark. Hey what do you know? We have nerves traveling to different portions of our face, they are splitting and coming back together, they are travelling to opposite sides of the head, nearly criss-crossing one anothers path in a seemingly confusing way. (see figure below)

Even in comparative anatomy, common sense indicates common descent of life and evolution over long long periods of time. Our development and inefficiencies in the design of our own bodies, are a visible product of our ancestral morphological traits. In more simple terms, its why we have a tail bone. Its why our wrists are so thin, its why we have spasms that cause hickups, its why we randomly get goosebumps and have wisdom teeth that dont fit in our mouths, its why many of us have to wear glasses etc. etc. Things that otherwise seem random or unnecessary, or bizarre, things that you would wonder why God would make, actually make sense if evolution occurred over a long period of time. As opposed to God simply deciding to create us with a tail bone just because He thought it would make for a good joke. Rather than God making us with wisdom teeth that dont even fit in our mouths, perhaps the truth is that, the reason we have too many teeth, is because we inherited too many teeth from our many toothed ancestors.

Even if someone could sit and question endlessly and argue and deny and close their eyes against 1 or 2 points, its just mind mindbogglingly obvious, that long term evolution has occurred, to anyone who is actually familiar with science. And this is why 99% of scientists who work with this stuff, like myself, recognize that evolution has occurred and that we are products of this process. Its stupidly obvious. And really only people with some form of stark religious denialism are opposed.

KomatiiteBIF said:

This^ is just made up. Imaginary boundaries for which you have no evidence. You say these boundaries should be a topic of research, but there is nothing to research, as they are...fantasy.

Yet you claim to want rigorous testing...

Click to expand...

You claim there is no boundaries, and yet the e.coli test shows fixation of beneficial mutations slows down.

It is just like your claim "without selection, mutations fixate at a lower rate", which does not make sense. When there is no selection (i.e. all variations live), fixation should pickup since all different strains survives (or the strain with the fastest reproduce rate should manifest more), don't you agree?

Here is my response:
1. Do we have any test that can show how ERV attach to any of the human specific genes?
2. for number 6, where some fails and some success, how do you know it is not just random?
3. The inner fish is a very cool one, I actually don't know about it. However, it is like God uses pre-existing DNA libraries to design humans. Remember in the Bible God created everything else then humans.

And last, I was thinking about it last night. If things are really evolved, for something to evolve to bird, it has to evolve its arm to wings, and it should be a long process, and a hard one too since those partial mutations will likely to be unsuitable for survive till their final stage. And just look how long it take intelligence humans to make flight possible and you will know without ID it will be a very long and pretty impossible process. Where are all the millions of different animal fossils that failed flight? Since it must be such a long process, there must be many many variaity of failed mutations that are in between the first success flight prototype right?

KomatiiteBIF said:

You know what, im actually going to add on a few more points here.

So we have 1 through 7

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).


We have point #8, which is basically that, the genetic differences between lineages, look as if they are a product of mutations. If common descent were true, this is what our mutations would look like.

But, I'll add another point. Point #9

You have insertions of ERVs. Some young earth creationists suggest that there is reason for their location of insertion, associated with functions that they hold. But even if we didnt bother pulling up research to refute them, we still have yet another scenario where, this research could be used to refute common descent. Instead, yet again, we find more evidence for common descent in retroviral insertions that "just so happen" to insert into specific lineages at certain genomic locations, and not into any distant lineages as distant genomic locations. And again, it "just so happens" to match paleontologic and genetic phylogenies.

Coincidence? Of course not.

But I will go one step further, Point #10

Hernias, and nerves in our skull. These are just a couple topics in the book "your inner fish" by neil shubin.

Why do we have hernias? Why do nerves in our skulls travel out of their way from our brain to our inner ear, criss crossing, rather than more directly to our facial muscles or jaw? Why would our gonads begin up above our stomach and descend down to their regular position? It doesn't really make any sense if God simply created us in instantaneously in our current form. But it would make sense if nerves were aligned in our ancestors in more efficient ways, such as the order of nerves in the skull of a shark. It would make sense that our gonads began in our chest, and descended, if our chest was where our gonads historically had existed in a more efficient body plan.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, and fish had gonads in their chests, and if we have gonads near our groin, we might expect to find the development of gonads randomly and inefficiently in our chest, then a descent to our groins after birth. Hey, what do you know? There it is, it happens (see figure below). And it results in people getting hernias at an early age.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, where fish had nerves in an order moving from their jaws to their gills, we might expect middle ear nerves to be in place, inefficiently between our brain to our throats. As the middle ear nerves are anatomically comparable to the jaw nerves of a shark. Hey what do you know? We have nerves traveling to different portions of our face, they are splitting and coming back together, they are travelling to opposite sides of the head, nearly criss-crossing one anothers path in a seemingly confusing way. (see figure below)

Even in comparative anatomy, common sense indicates common descent of life and evolution over long long periods of time. Our development and inefficiencies in the design of our own bodies, are a visible product of our ancestral morphological traits. In more simple terms, its why we have a tail bone. Its why our wrists are so thin, its why we have spasms that cause hickups, its why we randomly get goosebumps and have wisdom teeth that dont fit in our mouths, its why many of us have to wear glasses etc. etc. Things that otherwise seem random or unnecessary, or bizarre, things that you would wonder why God would make, actually make sense if evolution occurred over a long period of time. As opposed to God simply deciding to create us with a tail bone just because He thought it would make for a good joke. Rather than God making us with wisdom teeth that dont even fit in our mouths, perhaps the truth is that, the reason we have too many teeth, is because we inherited too many teeth from our many toothed ancestors.

Even if someone could sit and question endlessly and argue and deny and close their eyes against 1 or 2 points, its just mind mindbogglingly obvious, that long term evolution has occurred, to anyone who is actually familiar with science. And this is why 99% of scientists who work with this stuff, like myself, recognize that evolution has occurred and that we are products of this process. Its stupidly obvious. And really only people with some form of stark religious denialism are opposed.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

You know what, im actually going to add on a few more points here.

So we have 1 through 7

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).


We have point #8, which is basically that, the genetic differences between lineages, look as if they are a product of mutations. If common descent were true, this is what our mutations would look like.

But, I'll add another point. Point #9

You have insertions of ERVs. Some young earth creationists suggest that there is reason for their location of insertion, associated with functions that they hold. But even if we didnt bother pulling up research to refute them, we still have yet another scenario where, this research could be used to refute common descent. Instead, yet again, we find more evidence for common descent in retroviral insertions that "just so happen" to insert into specific lineages at certain genomic locations, and not into any distant lineages as distant genomic locations. And again, it "just so happens" to match paleontologic and genetic phylogenies.

Coincidence? Of course not.

But I will go one step further, Point #10

Hernias, and nerves in our skull. These are just a couple topics in the book "your inner fish" by neil shubin.

Why do we have hernias? Why do nerves in our skulls travel out of their way from our brain to our inner ear, criss crossing, rather than more directly to our facial muscles or jaw? Why would our gonads begin up above our stomach and descend down to their regular position? It doesn't really make any sense if God simply created us in instantaneously in our current form. But it would make sense if nerves were aligned in our ancestors in more efficient ways, such as the order of nerves in the skull of a shark. It would make sense that our gonads began in our chest, and descended, if our chest was where our gonads historically had existed in a more efficient body plan.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, and fish had gonads in their chests, and if we have gonads near our groin, we might expect to find the development of gonads randomly and inefficiently in our chest, then a descent to our groins after birth. Hey, what do you know? There it is, it happens (see figure below). And it results in people getting hernias at an early age.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, where fish had nerves in an order moving from their jaws to their gills, we might expect middle ear nerves to be in place, inefficiently between our brain to our throats. As the middle ear nerves are anatomically comparable to the jaw nerves of a shark. Hey what do you know? We have nerves traveling to different portions of our face, they are splitting and coming back together, they are travelling to opposite sides of the head, nearly criss-crossing one anothers path in a seemingly confusing way. (see figure below)

Even in comparative anatomy, common sense indicates common descent of life and evolution over long long periods of time. Our development and inefficiencies in the design of our own bodies, are a visible product of our ancestral morphological traits. In more simple terms, its why we have a tail bone. Its why our wrists are so thin, its why we have spasms that cause hickups, its why we randomly get goosebumps and have wisdom teeth that dont fit in our mouths, its why many of us have to wear glasses etc. etc. Things that otherwise seem random or unnecessary, or bizarre, things that you would wonder why God would make, actually make sense if evolution occurred over a long period of time. As opposed to God simply deciding to create us with a tail bone just because He thought it would make for a good joke. Rather than God making us with wisdom teeth that dont even fit in our mouths, perhaps the truth is that, the reason we have too many teeth, is because we inherited too many teeth from our many toothed ancestors.

Even if someone could sit and question endlessly and argue and deny and close their eyes against 1 or 2 points, its just mind mindbogglingly obvious, that long term evolution has occurred, to anyone who is actually familiar with science. And this is why 99% of scientists who work with this stuff, like myself, recognize that evolution has occurred and that we are products of this process. Its stupidly obvious. And really only people with some form of stark religious denialism are opposed.

Click to expand...

KomatiiteBIF said:

You know what, im actually going to add on a few more points here.

So we have 1 through 7

1. We have seen mutations occurring. Including beneficial ones which some deniers claim don't exist (e coli research).

2.We have seen mutations accumulating (e coli research).

3. We have seen organisms evolving new phenotypic and genotypic qualities (e.coli research).

In these 3 points, We have witnessed evolution.

4.We have a fossil succession (im a geologist, I suppose I can source myself).

5. Fossils morphologically align with present day DNA phylogenies (myself).

Fish are morphologically (and temporally in the fossil succession) closer to amphibians, which are closer to reptiles, which are closer to mammals. And in our DNA in present time, this same order exists. Is it a coincidence? Of course not.

6. We have even seen people examine DNA, and look at accumulated change in DNA and proteins, and use the accumulated change to predict the temporal location of fossils. In some cases, these trials have failed, however with certain methodologies, they have succeeded, rendering predictions with even more precision than paleontologists (sarich and Wilson).

7. We have also seen accumulated mutations used to predict mutation rates in organisms. (If you recall the C. elegans youtube video).


We have point #8, which is basically that, the genetic differences between lineages, look as if they are a product of mutations. If common descent were true, this is what our mutations would look like.

But, I'll add another point. Point #9

You have insertions of ERVs. Some young earth creationists suggest that there is reason for their location of insertion, associated with functions that they hold. But even if we didnt bother pulling up research to refute them, we still have yet another scenario where, this research could be used to refute common descent. Instead, yet again, we find more evidence for common descent in retroviral insertions that "just so happen" to insert into specific lineages at certain genomic locations, and not into any distant lineages as distant genomic locations. And again, it "just so happens" to match paleontologic and genetic phylogenies.

Coincidence? Of course not.

But I will go one step further, Point #10

Hernias, and nerves in our skull. These are just a couple topics in the book "your inner fish" by neil shubin.

Why do we have hernias? Why do nerves in our skulls travel out of their way from our brain to our inner ear, criss crossing, rather than more directly to our facial muscles or jaw? Why would our gonads begin up above our stomach and descend down to their regular position? It doesn't really make any sense if God simply created us in instantaneously in our current form. But it would make sense if nerves were aligned in our ancestors in more efficient ways, such as the order of nerves in the skull of a shark. It would make sense that our gonads began in our chest, and descended, if our chest was where our gonads historically had existed in a more efficient body plan.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, and fish had gonads in their chests, and if we have gonads near our groin, we might expect to find the development of gonads randomly and inefficiently in our chest, then a descent to our groins after birth. Hey, what do you know? There it is, it happens (see figure below). And it results in people getting hernias at an early age.

If hypothetically mammals evolved from fish, where fish had nerves in an order moving from their jaws to their gills, we might expect middle ear nerves to be in place, inefficiently between our brain to our throats. As the middle ear nerves are anatomically comparable to the jaw nerves of a shark. Hey what do you know? We have nerves traveling to different portions of our face, they are splitting and coming back together, they are travelling to opposite sides of the head, nearly criss-crossing one anothers path in a seemingly confusing way. (see figure below)

Even in comparative anatomy, common sense indicates common descent of life and evolution over long long periods of time. Our development and inefficiencies in the design of our own bodies, are a visible product of our ancestral morphological traits. In more simple terms, its why we have a tail bone. Its why our wrists are so thin, its why we have spasms that cause hickups, its why we randomly get goosebumps and have wisdom teeth that dont fit in our mouths, its why many of us have to wear glasses etc. etc. Things that otherwise seem random or unnecessary, or bizarre, things that you would wonder why God would make, actually make sense if evolution occurred over a long period of time. As opposed to God simply deciding to create us with a tail bone just because He thought it would make for a good joke. Rather than God making us with wisdom teeth that dont even fit in our mouths, perhaps the truth is that, the reason we have too many teeth, is because we inherited too many teeth from our many toothed ancestors.

Even if someone could sit and question endlessly and argue and deny and close their eyes against 1 or 2 points, its just mind mindbogglingly obvious, that long term evolution has occurred, to anyone who is actually familiar with science. And this is why 99% of scientists who work with this stuff, like myself, recognize that evolution has occurred and that we are products of this process. Its stupidly obvious. And really only people with some form of stark religious denialism are opposed.

Click to expand...

Okay. I am pretty sure we don't come from monkeys. We don't see one species forming into another species or kind. I also don't see any transitional fossils. It's all make believe because somebody does not want the explanation that the Bible gives.

dcalling said:

You claim there is no boundaries, and yet the e.coli test shows fixation of beneficial mutations slows down.

It is just like your claim "without selection, mutations fixate at a lower rate", which does not make sense. When there is no selection (i.e. all variations live), fixation should pickup since all different strains survives (or the strain with the fastest reproduce rate should manifest more), don't you agree?

Click to expand...

This shows a lack of understanding of the research. You judge it, yet for some reason, will not just spend 5 dollars to read it.

dcalling said:

Here is my response:
1. Do we have any test that can show how ERV attach to any of the human specific genes?
2. for number 6, where some fails and some success, how do you know it is not just random?
3. The inner fish is a very cool one, I actually don't know about it. However, it is like God uses pre-existing DNA libraries to design humans. Remember in the Bible God created everything else then humans.

And last, I was thinking about it last night. If things are really evolved, for something to evolve to bird, it has to evolve its arm to wings, and it should be a long process, and a hard one too since those partial mutations will likely to be unsuitable for survive till their final stage. And just look how long it take intelligence humans to make flight possible and you will know without ID it will be a very long and pretty impossible process. Where are all the millions of different animal fossils that failed flight? Since it must be such a long process, there must be many many variaity of failed mutations that are in between the first success flight prototype right?

Click to expand...

1. I am sure there is. There is a great deal of research behind them. You would have to ask biologists for that mechanism.

2. We know it isnt random because there are over a billion years worth of fossils, and hundreds of thousands of fossils. If it were random, nobody would ever stand a chance in acquiring accurate results because we would be all over the place in prediction. Like I said before, if things were random, cytocrome C mutation rates might have resulted in predicting a reptile to mammal split in the hadean. Also, cytocrome C was selected based on knowledge of its conserved mutation rate. Well, its unlikely that this is yet another coincidence that something like the mutation rate of cytocrome C would yield an accurate sequence of events.



3. You suggest alternatives, but you do not display evidence for alternatives.

And yes, birds evolved from reptiles. To answer the question of how wings might have formed, you have to ask yourself, what would the benefit of something like feathers be, if a an animal could not use them to fly? Well, many dinosaurs had feathers and could not fly (small theropods similar to archaeopteryx). Ostriches have wings and cannot fly. Actually many birds today have wings and cannot fly. So, wings are not just something strictly used for flying. Feathers provide warmth. Feathers are used in mating practices (like with peacocks). Some animals like chickens have their wings clipped so they dont fly away. Well, they can still glide, they can use their partial flight to help themselves up trees, etc. The better the partial wing, the quicker something can move up a tree, or the better it can glide through air. Before gliding, the more feathers it has, the warmer it can keep its eggs, or the more flashy it will be toward a mate.

There are many practical benefits to having "partial wings", what the specific environmental pressures were, we can only guess based on life living today.

And regarding fixation, you need environmental stresses to drive increases in fitness. Fitness is dependent upon an environment of stress. And fitness is a product of fixed mutations and fixed mutations a product of competition. So your fixation is also dependent upon environmental stresses.

If mutations do not fixate, then you don't get long term variation because the mutations go extinct.

In the e.coli experiment, there are dominant strains, but as they increase in fitness, there are beneficial mutations that are out competing others, thus there is a decrease in fitness improvement and a decrease in fixed mutations. They aren't fixating because there are less stresses driving them to do so, because the organism is adapting to a fixed environment.

Jason0047 said:

Okay. I am pretty sure we don't come from monkeys. We don't see one species forming into another species or kind. I also don't see any transitional fossils. It's all make believe because somebody does not want the explanation that the Bible gives.

Click to expand...

You're right, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor.

DreadCthulhu said:

You're right, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

You mean Adam & Eve, right?

DreadCthulhu said:

You're right, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

Praise the sun...I had to say it.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Praise the sun...I had to say it.

Click to expand...

sun bro?

1. To my question "Do we have any test that can show how ERV attach to any of the human specific genes?", you said "I am sure there is ... ask biologists...". Do you know it is an actual biologist (a professor) that told me human genes were perfect from the start when God created it, and that is why at ancient times you can marry your close relatives. It stuck me as makes perfect sense.

2. You said "We know it isnt random", if it is the design of God it is not random either. Just like software reuse.

3. The evidence is huge. How did all those elements form the first life that looks so simple but actually so complex? Have you looked at how cells split with such percession? To this day we can't form life from basic elements (we have to use existing life form), and we can't make a machine that can replate itself.

KomatiiteBIF said:

1. I am sure there is. There is a great deal of research behind them. You would have to ask biologists for that mechanism.

2. We know it isnt random because there are over a billion years worth of fossils, and hundreds of thousands of fossils. If it were random, nobody would ever stand a chance in acquiring accurate results because we would be all over the place in prediction. Like I said before, if things were random, cytocrome C mutation rates might have resulted in predicting a reptile to mammal split in the hadean. Also, cytocrome C was selected based on knowledge of its conserved mutation rate. Well, its unlikely that this is yet another coincidence that something like the mutation rate of cytocrome C would yield an accurate sequence of events.

3. You suggest alternatives, but you do not display evidence for alternatives.

And yes, birds evolved from reptiles. To answer the question of how wings might have formed, you have to ask yourself, what would the benefit of something like feathers be, if a an animal could not use them to fly? Well, many dinosaurs had feathers and could not fly (small theropods similar to archaeopteryx). Ostriches have wings and cannot fly. Actually many birds today have wings and cannot fly. So, wings are not just something strictly used for flying. Feathers provide warmth. Feathers are used in mating practices (like with peacocks). Some animals like chickens have their wings clipped so they dont fly away. Well, they can still glide, they can use their partial flight to help themselves up trees, etc. The better the partial wing, the quicker something can move up a tree, or the better it can glide through air. Before gliding, the more feathers it has, the warmer it can keep its eggs, or the more flashy it will be toward a mate.

There are many practical benefits to having "partial wings", what the specific environmental pressures were, we can only guess based on life living today.

Click to expand...

Your answer of fixation is still not satisfactory. You said "you need environmental stresses to drive increases in fitness", but if mutations are random, and selection pressure is low (i.e. enough food, as long as you can reproduce you are almost guaranteed survival), why can't more variation of mutations show up under conditions that don't have food source pressure? Look at humans, when it is time of war and famine, soliders and farmer survive (in simple terms), but when it is peace time, all sorts of careers prosper.

KomatiiteBIF said:

And regarding fixation, you need environmental stresses to drive increases in fitness. Fitness is dependent upon an environment of stress. And fitness is a product of fixed mutations and fixed mutations a product of competition. So your fixation is also dependent upon environmental stresses.

If mutations do not fixate, then you don't get long term variation because the mutations go extinct.

In the e.coli experiment, there are dominant strains, but as they increase in fitness, there are beneficial mutations that are out competing others, thus there is a decrease in fitness improvement and a decrease in fixed mutations. They aren't fixating because there are less stresses driving them to do so, because the organism is adapting to a fixed environment.

Click to expand...

Mutations do show up, they simply do not fixate.

With the e.coli, mutations continue to occur, they simply fixate less and less as the e.coli increases in fitness. Because as they approach peak fitness, beneficial mutations are out competed, more and more.

To try to make sense of your analogy, think of it like this.

<20,000 generations...

So lets say its WWII.

In times of war (times of stress), soldiers make primitive tanks (WWI tanks). They aren't very productive.

To compensate for the primitive tanks, innovative, creative and variable engineers are employed (mutations are fixated for more variation) and newer better tanks are made (fitness increases).

>20,000 generations...

As the war continues and tanks are made better and better,(we increase in fitness more and more), we no longer have the need for newer or different or innovative engineers (newer or different or innovative mutations) to help us make better tanks (to help us increase in fitness), because we are already strong. So the better and better we get, the less and less we need the engineers, so we fire them (the mutations do not fixate) more and more. the more and more we approach peak fitness, the less and less variation we need to thrive, because we are more fit.

So as we get stronger and stronger tanks, we are stressed less and less, because our tanks are better and better. So in times of lessening stress (in times of increasing fitness), we employ less and less innovative engineers. Because we do not need them.

So, with regards to e.coli, as the e.coli increases in fitness, and experiences less stress, fewer beneficial mutations are fixated (fewer creative engineers are employed), because they don't benefit the e.coli as much as they once did. And as there are fewer and fewer creative, innovative and variable engineers, there is less variation in those that are employed in making tanks.