Creationists Explain Evolution

[justlookinla]

Pick one! (I'll give you a hint.)

“ev·o·lu·tion n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

Yes. Here's an example of evolution.....

This....

'Changed into' this....

 

[Smidlee]

Yes. Here's an example of evolution.....

Now you understand. Mutation plus natural selection caused people who flew in the jet plane to be more likely to fly across world and pass on their genes (and viruses) than those who flew in the Wright Brother's plane. The jet plane also help spread virus like Ebola to help natural selection to remove the weak. In the back of everything we do is evolution leading us to be more successful at passing around our genes (as well as NS remove the weak). Evolution is even the cause of Dawkins to write "The Selfish Gene" so we know without a doubt "evolution did it".

Note: Intelligent design is the enemy of evolution and natural selection as ID drugs are stopping NS from eliminating the weak. This is resulting in the overpopulation of people which is the root cause of global warming.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you consider yourself superior to other animals?

A simple Yes/No response will suffice.

YES.

 

[juvenissun]

I am not insulted. I am sure your dog can make more sense than you do! And he is almost certainly more likeable.

Don't laugh. You should cry.

 

[EternalDragon]

Pick one! (I'll give you a hint.)

“ev·o·lu·tion n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
[Latin volti, voltin-, from voltus, past participle of volvere, to unroll; see evolve.]
evo·lution·al, evo·lution·ary (-sh-nr) adj.
evo·lution·ari·ly adv.”


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I don't think you have been paying attention.

This explains how we got a variety of birds. A variety of monkeys. A variety of beetles, bees, spiders, etc. from the first created kinds.

No Christians here are disputing this variation due to natural selection which is
observable, repeatable and testable. I believe the problem here is that there
are varying definitions of "evolution" and lots of guesses added in to the
basic theory.

 

[USincognito]

subbing

 

[Gracchus]

Yes. Here's an example of evolution.....

This.... (picture of Wright brothers' plane)

'Changed into' this.... (picture of jumbo jet)

How sad! Even with the correct definition bolded as a clue, you got it wrong. This is about biological evolution. Try to follow along.

 

[Gracchus]

Don't laugh. You should cry.

Strange as you may find this, I do not feel impelled to act or react as you think I should.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution theory is basically that species populations are able to adapt and change certain characteristics in response to various environmental conditions.

This is wrong. Mutations are random with respect to fitness. For example, mutations leading to antibiotic resistance occur at the same rate whether antibiotic is present or not.

We can observe it, we can test it and we can repeat it. It has resulted in species variety as in birds, insects, canines, people, etc.

But not mammals?

Everything else thrown into the theory beyond that and attempted to also be taught as fact, is mere speculation.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

This explains how we got a variety of birds. A variety of monkeys. A variety of beetles, bees, spiders, etc. from the first created kinds.

Created kinds are not a part of the theory of evolution.

No Christians here are disputing this variation due to natural selection which is
observable, repeatable and testable. I believe the problem here is that there
are varying definitions of "evolution" and lots of guesses added in to the
basic theory.

There is just one theory of evolution in biology.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Created kinds are not a part of the theory of evolution.



There is just one theory of evolution in biology.

Correction, only one version of the theory that has the support in modern times. There were other versions of it even before Darwin. And they are hilarious

 

[Loudmouth]

The different theories (sub-theories) of evolution
1) Neo-Darwinism - it's mutation plus natural selection. It's gene-centric. But problems with the gene-centric view is starting to add up so many scientists are looking at different ideas. It doesn't deal with epigenetics like the suger code.

Epigenetics is a part of neo-Darwinism. The mechanisms controlling epigenetics are as evolved as any other genetic system.

2)Neutral evolution - it's main engine is genetic drift where natural selection is extremely weak or nonexistence. Luck plays a bigger role than NS.

Neutral evolution is also a part of neo-Darwinism.

3) Evo-Devo- Majors changes in body plans are the result of mutations of Hox genes and other development regulatory genes. The problem the body plan is already establish before Hox genes becomes a factor. Also dGRN is interconnected so that mutations are very harmful. Another problem is Hox genes doesn't change epigenetic information.

Also a part of neo-Darwinism.

4) Facilitated Variation - It's very similar to Evo-Devo. This idea major changes to body plans were the result of unknown "toolkits". After these toolkits were done building all those body plans they were no longer useful so discarded. These "toolkits" I named "Thomas and Friends" toolkit; they wanted to be useful engines but with time steam engines fading into history. Then the problem if these toolkits did exist where did they come from since "toolkits" doesn't have any intelligence.

I don't think that is a part of anyone's research.

5) Neo-Lamarckism - this is changes are inherited from epigenetics. This is more epic-genetic centric. These changes so far doesn't seem to be permanent which are needed for macro-evolution.

Also a part of neo-Darwinism. Phenotypic plasticity has always been a part of neo-Darwinism.

6)Natural Genetic Engineering - This is Shapiro's theory of genetic engineering without an engineer like magic without a magician. He claims no mutation is truly random that somehow life has the ability to engineer itself yet admits he has no idea how life could have gain this ability. (no doubt life has this ability to react to it's environment; plasticity)

Fully a part of neo-Darwnism. These are still random mutations with respect to fitness. I am familiar with his work if you want to start a separate thread. To use an analogy, NGE is similar to poor people buying more lottery tickets than rich people. In these conditions, the results of the lottery are still random.

7)Self-organization - this idea the life is like a snowflake which believe some unknown nature law was responsible for all known life. Hawking believes the universe created itself just by the law of gravity on it's own. (So far it's just another magic without a magician theory.)

That is abiogenesis which is a separate theory from evolution.

8)Context driven Actualization of Potential (CAP)- They seem to try to uses quantum mechanics to explains away life. It's the belief that "quantum mechanics did it".

That is not a theory of how life changes.

 

[driewerf]

Correction, only one version of the theory that has the support in modern times. There were other versions of it even before Darwin. And they are hilarious

Do I interpret you correctly that you consider Lamarckism and Cuvier's theory of the scala naturae as hilarious?
Scala Naturae - Online Biology Dictionary

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do I interpret you correctly that you consider Lamarckism and Cuvier's theory of the scala naturae as hilarious?
Scala Naturae - Online Biology Dictionary

Lamarckism specifically. "Giraffes get long necks by stretching and reaching, with the progress passed down to the next generation"

 

[Smidlee]

Epigenetics is a part of neo-Darwinism. The mechanisms controlling epigenetics are as evolved as any other genetic system.

Not from what I've read. Epigenetics are interconnected so it requires major "rewiring" so small steps doesn't work. Neo-Darwinism is random mutation of the genome not epigenetics.

Neutral evolution is also a part of neo-Darwinism.

Yet Neutral evolution is opposite to natural selection role more than Neo-Darwinism. This is a conflict since as times evolutionist need NS to be a strong while at the same time needs to be weak. In reality NS is not even a force but is just the end result.

Also a part of neo-Darwinism. [/quote it does have the same flaw and Neo-D as it's too gene-centric.

I don't think that is a part of anyone's research.

The theory of facilitated variation

Also a part of neo-Darwinism. Phenotypic plasticity has always been a part of neo-Darwinism.

Phenptypic plasticity is not the results of random mutation nor natural selection. These other theories are the result of Neo-Darwinism failures.

Fully a part of neo-Darwnism. These are still random mutations with respect to fitness. I am familiar with his work if you want to start a separate thread. To use an analogy, NGE is similar to poor people buying more lottery tickets than rich people. In these conditions, the results of the lottery are still random.

You seem to be mistaken here since Shapiro is not fan of Neo-Darwinism nor random mutations. So much so Shapiro had to make it clear he didn't support ID.

That is abiogenesis which is a separate theory from evolution.

This is referring to evolution not abiogenesis. Both have the same "information" problem so there is a strong connecting between the two.

That is not a theory of how life changes.

Evolution as Context-driven Actualization of Potential

These theories are trying to fill in the Neo-Darwinism big hole but all of them put together can't fill in Darwinism Grand Crayon size hole.
Here's another one

9) Symbiogenesis -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhW12dGfFk

 

[Dizredux]

Lamarckism specifically. "Giraffes get long necks by stretching and reaching, with the progress passed down to the next generation"

But at the time, Lamarckian evolution was not unreasonable with the evidence available. If memory serves, Darwin bought into at least some of Lamarckism.

To the surprise of many, epigenetics has turned out to have some aspects of Larmarck's biology.


Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Not from what I've read. Epigenetics are interconnected so it requires major "rewiring" so small steps doesn't work. Neo-Darwinism is random mutation of the genome not epigenetics.

That is just a mish-mash of unconnected words.

Epigenetics is just DNA methylation and histone ubiquitination. Why do the mechanisms that methylate/demethylate DNA and modify histones need major rewiring? You need to explain your points instead of just blurting out sciencey sounding words.

Yet Neutral evolution is opposite to natural selection role more than Neo-Darwinism. This is a conflict since as times evolutionist need NS to be a strong while at the same time needs to be weak. In reality NS is not even a force but is just the end result.

How can we detect selection without first understanding neutral evolution? It is a fact that reproductive success is determined by heritable traits, whether you want to admit it or not.

it does have the same flaw and Neo-D as it's too gene-centric.

We need more than empty assertions.

The theory of facilitated variation

And? Where do the authors back your claims?

Phenptypic plasticity is not the results of random mutation nor natural selection. These other theories are the result of Neo-Darwinism failures.

Evidence for these claims?

You seem to be mistaken here since Shapiro is not fan of Neo-Darwinism nor random mutations. So much so Shapiro had to make it clear he didn't support ID.

Like I said, start a thread and I will gladly contribute. Find a peer reviewed paper where Shapiro demonstrates the mechanisms that cause mutation. Show how specific mutations, and only those mutations, are triggered by specific environmental stimuli.

Both have the same "information" problem so there is a strong connecting between the two.

Again, empty claims. We need evidence, not evidence-free mantras.

These theories are trying to fill in the Neo-Darwinism big hole but all of them put together can't fill in Darwinism Grand Crayon size hole.

More propoganda on your part.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm still waiting on that elephant-pine tree link and evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created them from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm still waiting on that elephant-pine tree link and evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created them from a single life form of long long ago.

Polly want a cracker?

 

[justlookinla]

Polly want a cracker?

Depends on evolution.