Darwinism IS Design

[lucaspa]

In another thread All4Jesus posted this from a webarticle:

"Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine." It featured an interview with Gene Myers, who was the computer scientist at the Maryland headquarters of Celera Genomics, who actually worked out the genome mapping. Myers said, "We're deliciously complex at the molecular level...We don't understand ourselves yet, which is cool. There's still a metaphysical, magical element." He went on to say, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life...the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed."2 As to whether this implicated a designer Myers said, "There's a huge intelligence there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me."

Rememger, Myers is not a biologist. He's a computer scientist.

The system was "designed". Designed by natural selection. This is what trips people up all the time.

Natural selection is a process (algorithm) to give design. When creationists say "designed" they have an implied prepositional phrase there: "by an intelligence". It used to be thought that an intelligence was the only way to get design. However, now we know that natural (Darwinian) selection is also a way to get design. I submit that Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. That what "intelligence" does is use Darwinian selection in its mind.

What we need to remind Myers about, as a computer scientist, is genetic algorithms. I bet he has used some of these for designing computer programs. Genetic algorithms are Darwinian selection. What the programmer does is pick the environment. Then he turns Darwinian selection loose to design a program for that environment. Usually programmers use genetic algorithms when the design problem is too TOUGH for them! That is, Darwinian selection is smarter than people.

Also often, Darwinian selection produces designs that the humans can't figure out how they work!
A recent proof of the ability of Darwinian selection to design and be inteligent is the use of Darwinian selection to make new inventions that can get patents:
24. Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out [url]www.genetic-programming.com[/url]

The humans on the project didn't tell the Patent Office that the invention was made by Darwinian selection and they issued the patent thinking the inventor was human. So Darwinian selection passes the Turing test on being able to convince a human that it is also human (and thus intelligent).

 

[jbarcher]

Question: how is natural selection design?

And it appears....that you suggest chance occurances to produce design?

I'm new to this. But attack me if you please.

 

[seebs]

If you do genetic algorithms or similar work, you end up with things that *look* designed, but which we know weren't. Or, alternatively, we can call natural selection a kind of design.

 

[Bushido216]

Question: how is natural selection design?

And it appears....that you suggest chance occurances to produce design?

I'm new to this. But attack me if you please.

It's not design in the form of an intended result, but it's design in the form of having a result.

 

[jbarcher]

(I only have 3 hp. Thanks for sparing my life! )

So uh...this comes about from "non-intention" but ends up as if it was intended?

 

[rmills]

Gene Myers has a point that modern science would like to skip. Why? Because it puts implication where modern scientists do not want to go. The fact is that genetics are way to huge a concept for modern science to wrap its mind around. Sorry, this theory ended with the word theory. Until it is proven to be fact, only then does it become science. Fruit flys wont hack it for the bottom line "truth" behind Darwinism.

I have to add that a computer scientist is far more capable of understanding genetics than a geneticist. It should come as no surprise to modern science that off topic scientists allow for a designer easier than genetic scientists. The full directive for a genetic scientist is to test theory in genetics. A computer scientist will tend to base his understanding of genetic code on observed fact.

 

[TheSleepWalker]

Sorry, this theory ended with the word theory. Until it is proven to be fact, only then does it become science.

Sorry but a theory is based on observable facts. I think you are confusing theories with hypothesis. As an exemple, gravity is a fact and can be observed, but it is still "just" a theory. Theories are the base of scientific method and can be falsified by other theories.

I have to add that a computer scientist is far more capable of understanding genetics than a geneticist.

I will not comment this one but I think it speaks by itself.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Well, to give my opinion:


Yes, Evolution is design, however, it is not in the use of the word that the creationist theories prepose. The process of natural selection is by no means random. Although the diversification of a population through mutations is random in itself, the selection of which is favorable or not is based on the enviromental causes provided. For a simple example:

We have a world of white, black, and (mutant) grey/blue flowers. Now, the grey/blue color is given by a series of mutations which does make them seperate from the white and the black flowers (although they are still of the same species). Now, Mr. Enviroment comes in and kills off the white and the black flowers. The reason why the grey/blue flowers survived is because Mr. Enviroment only wanted to get rid of the non-grey/blue flowers. Thus, as the days pass, we have only grey/blue flowers. If the enviroment continues to pressure the species, we may eventually have a completely different species entirely (if we take things in the long scale terms).

The point is that natural selection in and of itself is not random chance. Enviromental factors become set in such a way that it is a better world for some, and not so much for others. The variety given is random, and in some cases may traditionally be harmful. However, it is the enviroment which inevitably gives the advantage to variant which has the best chance of surviving.

Good, I hope my simplistic explaination suits you.

 

[Bushido216]

(I only have 3 hp. Thanks for sparing my life! )

So uh...this comes about from "non-intention" but ends up as if it was intended?

No.

Natural Selection takes what it has (mutations and changes) and uses what it has to come up with the best possible result for the population. It designs populations given what it has. Remember, mutations are random, and Natural Selection takes those mutations which are beneficial to the organism in the here and now and tacks them on.

 

[lucaspa]

Question: how is natural selection design?

And it appears....that you suggest chance occurances to produce design?

I'm new to this. But attack me if you please.

I'm not going to "attack" you. I'm going to walk you thru the reasoning.

Here is natural selection:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

I've highlighted parts of it. Notice it is a deductive argument.
1. Variation among organisms.
2. Not all the variations/organisms can survive because there are too many individuals for the environment to sustain. So there is competition for survival.
3. Thus, the individuals with variations that do best in the competition will survive.
4. These individuals will have offspring which will have the variations.

Notice that 1 and 2 are the premises of the deduction, but they are supported by massive amounts of facts. 3 is the conclusion and 4 is also a fact.

So, what you have is that the environment sets a design problem for the population. Each individual is a potential solution to that design problem. Each individual is a design. There is a competition among the designs/indviduals and the best designs win. Those designs are preserved by inheritance and then you start the whole process over again in a new generation. An important part is that Darwinian selection is cumulative.

Now, you are hung up on the "chance". The variatios are random. Pay attention here: they are random with respect to the needs of the individual and the population. That is, in a climate turning colder, just as many deer will be born with shorter fur than longer fur. The length of fur is "random".

However, selection is NOT random. It is pure determinism. Only the individual deer with longer fur will be able to survive the cold weather. The shorter furred individuals will die or be weaker and won't have as many offspring. So in the next generation more of the deer will be descended from the longer furred deer and will thus have longer fur.

Now, among that generation some will have even longer fur, and those in turn will be selected. And thus, bit by bit, you get design built up.

Humans do the same thing but do it in their heads. That is, we throw up imaginary variations/designs in our heads and then test them against the "environment" of what we want to happen. Those variations that do better we keep and modify further.

As an example, look how a baby learns to talk. A baby starts out by making random sounds. Sooner or later it hits upon sounds, like "daddy" or "mommy" that get a very positive reaction from the environment. Those sounds are then selected and new variations on the sounds are made. Those new variations are again selected by the environment -- those giving a positive reaction are kept, those getting a negative or no reaction are discarded. Eventually this results in the design of sentences.

 

[lucaspa]

Gene Myers has a point that modern science would like to skip. Why? Because it puts implication where modern scientists do not want to go.

Not at all. Modern science deals with the possibility of God. What it does not do often is look for "gaps" to insert God into. But at this point modern science is only following Christian theology. See the quote at the end of the post. As evidence that science does consider that God created the universe, these are a few papers I gleaned from a PubMed search using "God" as the search term. Most of them come in papers published by the New York Academy of Science -- one of the more prestigious scientific societies:
1: Wood WJ. The stairway to recovery. An emerging worldview uncovers God's wisdom in nature.Health Prog. 1992 Mar;73(2):54-9.PMID: 10116506
2: Russell RJ. Did God create our universe? Theological reflections on the Big Bang, inflation,and quantum cosmologies.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:108-27.
3: Gingerich O. Scientific cosmology meets western theology: a historical perspective.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:28-38.
4: Leslie J. The meaning of "design".Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:128-38.

The fact is that genetics are way to huge a concept for modern science to wrap its mind around.

Not at all. It's just that we are only now starting to be able to easily sequence DNA. Every day new papers appear 1) sequencing more genes, 2) figuring out what those genes do, and 3) showing how changes to the gene changes the organism. Already enough has been found to show that Darwinism is correct.

Sorry, this theory ended with the word theory. Until it is proven to be fact, only then does it become science.

LOL! Ah, the old "it's only a theory" fallacy. Theories explain facts. Theories are always part of science. The question is whether the theory is going to be supported or refuted.

Fruit flys wont hack it for the bottom line "truth" behind Darwinism.

What do you feel is the "bottom line truth"? And what would hack it in your opinion?

I have to add that a computer scientist is far more capable of understanding genetics than a geneticist.

The question wasn't understanding genetics, but understanding how Darwinian selection works and what its results are. Myers didn't understand that Darwinian selection gives design. So yes, Myers saw design. Design by Darwinian selection and not design by direct manufacture by a deity. That is why Myers and Caplan can disagree. Caplan understands that Darwinian selection results in design.

A computer scientist will tend to base his understanding of genetic code on observed fact.

But the "observed fact" for a computer scientist is that Darwinian selection gives design! The computer scientist confirms that each and every time he uses genetic algorithms to write his program!

 

[lucaspa]

Sorry, but here is the theological refutation of the god-of-the-gaps Myers is invoking:

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."

Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

 

[lucaspa]

If you do genetic algorithms or similar work, you end up with things that *look* designed, but which we know weren't. Or, alternatively, we can call natural selection a kind of design.

seebs, I contend they are designed. Designed by natural selection. What we have to do is stop leaving off the prepositional phrase when we say "designed". When you use "design" here you mean "designed and built by an intelligent entity."

Since natural selection will also design, we can no longer simply use the word "design" as tho the only thing that can design is an intelligent entity. I won't dance around the issue like you are doing, saying "natural selection is a kind of design". It's not a "kind of". It is design.

Darwinian selection is a process that gives design. Whether that process runs in the "mind" of an intelligent entity or outside a mind as an unintelligent process, Darwinian selection is an algorithm that produces design.

 

[rmills]

What do you feel is the "bottom line truth"? And what would hack it in your opinion?

The fruit fly seems to be the basis for which all arguments stem. There is a distinct difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Now in as nice a way as possible, you seem like a smart person. How can one conclude that the fruit fly proves macro-evolution to any degree? What would hack it is any, ANY evidence that a genetic mutation has proven to be beneficial to any species through multiple generations. Theory may state yes, but observed fact says no.

 

[lucaspa]

The fruit fly seems to be the basis for which all arguments stem. There is a distinct difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Now in as nice a way as possible, you seem like a smart person. How can one conclude that the fruit fly proves macro-evolution to any degree? What would hack it is any, ANY evidence that a genetic mutation has proven to be beneficial to any species through multiple generations. Theory may state yes, but observed fact says no.

OK, fair enough.

Fruit flies are used because they are multicellular organisms with distinct parts that 1) can easily be grown in a lab and 2) have short generation times. Thus, we have the possibility of seeing changes resulting in a new species in a reasonable time frame. One that allows the scientist to publish and keep his job. However, other species, particularly microorganisms, are also used.

Now, there is no distinct difference between micro and macroevolution. This idea is only from creationists, not the evolutionary biologists actually doing the work. The key here is species. The only biological reality is species. Once you form a new species, you are done. Evolution. Because all the so-called 'higher taxa' are nothing but groups of species. The higher taxa are an inevitable result of multiple speciation events spread thru time. See the diagram in Origin here: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html and read Darwin's discussion. At the end of the post is a quote from Eldredge that also shows the connection of microevolution to macroevolution. Macroevolution = speciation.

Now, have we observed new species forming from the accumulation of microevolutionary changes, both in the lab and the wild? Yes! There are literally hundreds of examples. Some are fruit flies, some are plants, some are vertebrates, some are other invertebrates. I have a thread listing some of the examples. It's called "Speciation" and it is here http://www.christianforums.com/t79954 So yes, macroevolution has been observed.

Now, you wanted examples of where mutations have been observed to be useful to a species over generations. Again, there are hundreds of examples. Go to PubMed and do a search on "mutation, gain, function". But below are listed some. I trust, now that you have the information you wanted and specified, you will admit that evolution does "hack it" in terms of evidence.

4. Cooper VS, Lenski RE. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1802-4
AB - For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolution dynamics.
1. Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
2. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB904.html
3. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB101_2.html
4. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4661_issue_16_volume_5_number_2__4_10_2003.asp#New%20Proteins%20Without%20God's%20Help
[url="http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm"]http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm[/url]5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract6. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/12/18547. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/inf...ipoprotein.html8. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf9. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3485

3. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15). This one details a mutation in E. coli that allows it to live in acidic liquids such as apple juice. Also a mutation that causes the individuals with it to have more mutations! The ability to have mutations gives advantages sometimes.

1. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dup_favorable.html
Accelerated evolution
2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html New apo-lipoprotein mutation that adds antioxidant activity.
3. Sequence of favorable mutations in E. coli [url="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807"]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807[/url]
4. [url="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513"]http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513[/url] Mutation giving extra dense bones
5. Karl C. Diller, William A. Gilbert, and Thomas D. Kocher. Selective Sweeps in the Human Genome: A Starting Point for Identifying Genetic Differences Between Modern Humans and Chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19(12):2342–2345. 2002
6. Pardis C. Sabeti, David E. Reich et. al. Detecting recent positive selection
in the human genome from haplotype structure. Nature 419 24 OCTOBER 2002.
7 Hollox EJ, Poulter M, Zvarik M, Ferak V, Krause A, Jenkins T, Saha N, Kozlov AI,
Swallow DM. Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Jan;68(1):160-172. Epub 2000 Nov 28. Lactase haplotype diversity in the Old World.
8. Gilad Y, Rosenberg S, Przeworski M, Lancet D, Skorecki K. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 22;99(2):862-7. Evidence for positive selection and population structure at the human MAO-A gene.
9. Mundy NI, Cook S. Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Jun 27. Positive Selection During the Diversification of Class I Vomeronasal Receptor-Like (V1RL) Genes, Putative Pheromone Receptor Genes, in Human and Primate Evolution.
10. Swanson WJ, Nielsen R, Yang Q. Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Jan;20(1):18-20. Pervasive adaptive evolution in Mammalian fertilization proteins.
11 Zhang J, Webb DM, Podlaha O. Genetics. 2002 Dec;162(4):1825-35. Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example.
12. Torgerson DG, Kulathinal RJ, Singh RS. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Nov;19(11):1973-80. Mammalian sperm proteins are rapidly evolving: evidence of positive selection in
functionally diverse genes.

5: J Bacteriol 1999 Jun;181(11):3341-50. Isolation and characterization of mutations in Bacillus subtilis that allow spore germination in the novel germinant D-alanine. Paidhungat M, Setlow P

Bacillus subtilis spores break their metabolic dormancy through a process called germination. Spore germination is triggered by specific molecules called germinants, which are thought to act by binding to and stimulating spore receptors. Three homologous operons, gerA, gerB, and gerK, were previously proposed to encode germinant receptors because inactivating mutations in those genes confer a germinant-specific defect in germination. To more definitely identify genes that encode germinant receptors, we isolated mutants whose spores germinated in the novel germinant D-alanine, because such mutants would likely contain gain-of-function mutations in genes that encoded preexisting germinant receptors. Three independent mutants were isolated, and in each case the mutant phenotype was shown to result from a single dominant mutation in the gerB operon.

1. BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983. Also described at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html
These observe the restoration of biological activity by mutations after the original activity was destroyed by human intervention.

 

[lucaspa]

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

Now, let me translate. What you call microevolution Eldredge describes as "the process of natural selection going on within a species". As we said, macroevolution = new species. Because that is all there is -- species. So, once you demonstrate that natural selection and microevolutionary change results in a new species, you are done. Macroevolution. QED. And we have observed microevolutionary change resulting in new species. Lots of times.

So macroevolution is "proved".

 

[rmills]

Sorry, been busy trying to follow your bibliography.

Now, let me translate. What you call microevolution Eldredge describes as "the process of natural selection going on within a species". As we said, macroevolution = new species. Because that is all there is -- species. So, once you demonstrate that natural selection and microevolutionary change results in a new species, you are done. Macroevolution. QED. And we have observed microevolutionary change resulting in new species. Lots of times.

So macroevolution is "proved".

Without all the mumbo-jumbo linguistics and long lists of theory based quotes to confuse folks into believing that you may know what you are talking about, I would have to say that the above statement is false to degrees that are not even laughable anymore. I will gladly let you make science what you want it to be. Theory is theory until it is observed fact. Maybe you need to ask your father of evolution where the term “micro-evolution” came from. Just a bunch of creationists?

The above statement equates to a proposal that if dad has a bigger nose, and dad has a kid with a bigger nose, and kid has a kid with a bigger nose, that absolutely means that monkey turned into man at some point. Go ahead and whip out the videotape of the monkey turning into man and I will quit trusting the fact that the creator himself can better describe what he did and how he did it than Don Lindsay can.

BTW, I know who Don Lindsay is. You don’t want me to go there.

Read the Bible. It si the best science book ever written, and it is not even a science book.

The Creation/Evolution Controversy
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." - Psalms 19:1, 2.

This page assumes that you - the reader - are sort of wondering. Scientific Creationism. The books and videos seem so plausible. They score good points against evolution. They say that evolution is "in crisis".
But evolution is asserted pretty strongly in all the science books. And other areas of science keep coming up with useful stuff. How did science manage to screw up so badly over evolution? Could scientists really just cling to it out of pride, or atheism?
I've debated this for years. So, I am a pretty good person to lead you to further information from both sides. And the first thing to say is, there are more than two sides. It can be illuminating to see how different people approach the same questions.
Not everyone means the same thing when they say "evolution". So, for most people, it's important to start by skimming some definitions. And from there, it is possible to discuss many specific issues.

This statement "Not everyone means the same thing when they say "evolution". " quite obviously aplies to you. Micro-Evolution IS Macro-Evolution? Then what do you say that science is?

 

[Bushido216]

Sorry, been busy trying to follow your bibliography.



Without all the mumbo-jumbo linguistics and long lists of theory based quotes to confuse folks into believing that you may know what you are talking about, I would have to say that the above statement is false to degrees that are not even laughable anymore. I will gladly let you make science what you want it to be. Theory is theory until it is observed fact. Maybe you need to ask your father of evolution where the term “micro-evolution” came from. Just a bunch of creationists?

The above statement equates to a proposal that if dad has a bigger nose, and dad has a kid with a bigger nose, and kid has a kid with a bigger nose, that absolutely means that monkey turned into man at some point. Go ahead and whip out the videotape of the monkey turning into man and I will quit trusting the fact that the creator himself can better describe what he did and how he did it than Don Lindsay can.

BTW, I know who Don Lindsay is. You don’t want me to go there.

Read the Bible. It si the best science book ever written, and it is not even a science book.




This statement "Not everyone means the same thing when they say "evolution". " quite obviously aplies to you. Micro-Evolution IS Macro-Evolution? Then what do you say that science is?

The difference between you and lucaspa is that lucaspa actually provides sources.

Oh, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll walk you through this...

Micro-Evolution: Change in the Frequency of Alleles in a population (this includes mutations. They are, afterall, a changed gene. If that gene is beneficial, its frequency will go up).
Macro-Evolution: Successive change to the D.N.A. structure of two populations so that they can no longer reproduce. This could be for three reasons that I'm aware of. They don't want to, they physically can't, their offspring are sterile. The changes in the D.N.A. are due to Micro-Evolution!

Macro- and Micro-Evolution are the same thing, really, except they are used as short-hand ways of describing the same thing on two different time scales.

 

[rmills]

Let me walk you through this…

Mendel’s Laws state that genes are not mutated but rather “shuffled” from one generation of species to the next. We observe this because we see it in simple forms such as dog breeding. BTW, no one has managed to cross breed a dog with a monkey. Variant combinations are formed but different genes. This is also a simple way of showing that microevolution + time does not equal macroevolution. If this is not the case, simply show me the video tape.

Microevoultion does not cause the change or increase the structural or genetic properties of a biologic. Thus, Microevolution is NOT Macroevolution.

The Law of Biogenesis never has supported spontaneous generation or the creation of life from non-living matter. Once again, if this is not the case, just show me the video tape.

Fruit flies do not represent nor propose any level of change in complexity or viability. Needless to say, if we wanted to observe faster generations turn over time or simplicity of genetic structure added to faster generation time, we would study common bacteria that produce more of its own than any other species at a faster rate. Thus, according to your THEORY of macroevolution, the common bacteria should have long since been a flying cow. Or at least we should see multi-cellular organisms that bridge the gap between single celled life and more complex multi-cellular life, thousands or even millions of these bridges must exist! Where are they? Why have parasites not developed the ability to exist outside of a host structure?

To further the fruit fly debate, it is known and observed fact that the fruit fly that created offspring resistant to pesticides had a resistance to that particular chemical structure prior to being subjected to it.

Please explain for me the theory behind how intelligence that creates communication through speech happened. Why do no other species have Why does a monkey not communicate on the same level we do? If we as humans evolve, why have the complexities of linguistics not done the same? Why have our linguistics not exceeded the levels of 200 BC Latin, 800 BC Greek, or 1500 BC Vedic Sanskrit? If a child is raised secluded from human interaction, why does it not know how to communicate automatically with other species that it does come into contact with?

Why do the over 75 types of protein required to make DNA not create DNA themselves? I will stick them all (proteins) into a million scenarios and subject them to a million scenarios and still not get the proteins to cooperate on the level required to create one DNA strand.

Lets start with simple math. The odds of aligning by chance the simplest molecular structure (which would require over 650 protein molecules) with the proper amino acids and proper sequence is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 450th power according to the book Mathematical Proofs vs. Evolution
Extract from: The Collapse of Evolution, 2nd Edition by Scott M. Huse

Then move on to a complex being. The genetic info there exceeds a library of 4000 books of information, but the chances that it will all fall together is ONLY somewhere in the ball park of 10 to the 40,000th power.

Read Genetics, 2nd edition by Monroe W. Strickberger.

Quoted from Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species, “The distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”

A list of readings that would take way to long for me to quote from include,
James Marchant, “Letters and Reminiscences” regarding Mendel’s Law vs. Alfred Russel Wallace who eventually admitted to the fact that general characteristics of species remained within distinct boundaries. Hmmmm….
Raymond G. Bohlin, “The Natural Limits to Biological Change”
William J. Tinkle, “Heredity”
Norman Macbeth, “Darwin Retired, An Appeal To Reason”
Daniel Brooks, “A Downward Slope To Greater Diversity”
Soren Lovtrup, “Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth”
Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered” from Origins Research Volume 12.
W.R. Thompson, Introduction to the Origin of Species”
Pierre-Paul Grasse, “Evolution Of Living Organisms” which states that no matter how numerous, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
Michael Pitman “Adam and Evolution”

Really, I could go on and at some point I will, but the fact is that I quite obviously have no reason at all to say that evolution, either theistic or chance, is viable. It takes greater faith to believe the words of Darwin than the words of God, that is scientific and statistical fact!

 

[Chi_Cygni]

rmills,

learn something about proteins before positing ad hoc probability calculations that supposedly disprove things.

You are assuming by such calculations that changing one amino acid postion changes the functionality of the protein - NOT TRUE & you are assuming that proteins are assembled from (in your example) 650 separate amino acids into some given combination - AGAIN NOT TRUE.

These probability arguments creationists make are absurd.