Evolution Lesson

[HitchSlap]

We also have no idea how evolution works for that matter.

Incorrect.

Nothing that has been tried in lab experiments works, and they've been at it over 100 years.

Hovind has yet to make a crocoduck in the lab.

Anyhow, it all ties together. That is how the universe went from hundreds of millions of years old to billions of years, when they found that evolution within the old time frame was impossible. The problem it's impossible within any time frame, and more time just makes things worse.

And you're qualified to contradict 150 years of biology, why, exactly?

 

[Shemjaza]

We also have no idea how evolution works for that matter. Nothing that has been tried in lab experiments works, and they've been at it over 100 years.

We have a very good idea how evolution works, and we have demonstrated in labs many times.

During reproduction small random changes called mutations occur. Mutations can both improve and reduce the chances of an organism breeding. Statistically varying by how advantageous and disvantageous the traits are they will become more common in the population.

Anyhow, it all ties together. That is how the universe went from hundreds of millions of years old to billions of years, when they found that evolution within the old time frame was impossible. The problem it's impossible within any time frame, and more time just makes things worse.

Also incorrect. The expansion of the age of the Earth and universe to billions of years came from the evidence found in radioactivity, geology and astronomy.

The majority of evolution that people care about happened in less then 100 million years.

 

[pat34lee]

Incorrect.
Hovind has yet to make a crocoduck in the lab.
And you're qualified to contradict 150 years of biology, why, exactly?

When you have an actual thought that deals with the subject at hand, try again.

 

[pat34lee]

During reproduction small random changes called mutations occur. Mutations can both improve and reduce the chances of an organism breeding. Statistically varying by how advantageous and disvantageous the traits are they will become more common in the population.

Also incorrect. The expansion of the age of the Earth and universe to billions of years came from the evidence found in radioactivity, geology and astronomy.

The majority of evolution that people care about happened in less then 100 million years.

Mutations are too limited and too deadly to lead evolution. They only lead to sterility or death. They do not, and cannot combine with other mutations for anything positive, as they are more likely to be overwritten during reproduction or repaired by the cells.

We know that evolution as proposed works too slowly for any of the larger and slower reproducing animals to have evolved to the point they are today.

 

[HitchSlap]

Mutations are too limited and too deadly to lead evolution. They only lead to sterility or death. They do not, and cannot combine with other mutations for anything positive, as they are more likely to be overwritten during reproduction or repaired by the cells.

We know that evolution as proposed works too slowly for any of the larger and slower reproducing animals to have evolved to the point they are today.

Wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

Mutations are too limited and too deadly to lead evolution. They only lead to sterility or death. They do not, and cannot combine with other mutations for anything positive, as they are more likely to be overwritten during reproduction or repaired by the cells.

Demonstrably untrue. The majority of mutations are neutral, and even if the proportions were different then the advantageous would be even more favored. The recent study of a nylon eating bacteria shows the development of a new trait from a mutation which was advantageous and spread through a population.

What is the mechanism you are proposing for preventing mutations from stabilizing in a population?

We know that evolution as proposed works too slowly for any of the larger and slower reproducing animals to have evolved to the point they are today.

Untrue again. The fossil and radiometric evidence shows millions of years for large scale transitions, and with an average 40 mutations per individual that leaves plenty of potential diversity to create the species we see today.

 

[Shemjaza]

Mis post

 

[USincognito]

That is how the universe went from hundreds of millions of years old to billions of years, when they found that evolution within the old time frame was impossible. .

I wish I could lie without a sense of shame like this. The age of the universe was based on astronomical observations and analysis of photographic plates by women at Harvard 100 years ago. It had nothing to do with evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Mutations are too limited and too deadly to lead evolution. They only lead to sterility or death. They do not, and cannot combine with other mutations for anything positive, as they are more likely to be overwritten during reproduction or repaired by the cells.

We know that evolution as proposed works too slowly for any of the larger and slower reproducing animals to have evolved to the point they are today.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the difference between somatic cells and gametes.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is how the universe went from hundreds of millions of years old to billions of years, when they found that evolution within the old time frame was impossible.

Scientists will move that decimal place to the right as many times as necessary if it gets in the way.

 

[Speedwell]

Scientists will move that decimal place to the right as many times as necessary if it gets in the way.

Yes, it's all a vast satanic conspiracy devoted to doing you out of the shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis you are so fond of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it's all a vast satanic conspiracy devoted to doing you out of the shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis you are so fond of.

No argument there.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[crjmurray]

We also have no idea how evolution works for that matter. Nothing that has been tried in lab experiments works, and they've been at it over 100 years.

Why would you say something that is just untrue? For the amount of time you've been here asking ridiculous questions, it is impossible for you to truly hold that opinion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We also have no idea how evolution works for that matter. Nothing that has been tried in lab experiments works, and they've been at it over 100 years.

-_- Google be your friend. Not only have thousands of evolution experiments been conducted and been successful, but there is an entire island dedicated to the study of bird evolution. Every bird on this island for decades has been tagged, had their bill shapes and sizes measured, their feather colors, etc., recorded, and change over time has been observed in the various populations of species over time.

Anyhow, it all ties together. That is how the universe went from hundreds of millions of years old to billions of years, when they found that evolution within the old time frame was impossible. The problem it's impossible within any time frame, and more time just makes things worse.

The evidence for the Earth being old was found decades before the theory of evolution even existed. In fact, it was already accepted widely within the scientific community that the Earth was old by that point. The theory of evolution was built around the Earth being old, not the other way around.

But I remind everyone: this thread isn't about debating, it is about having a friendly format for creationists to ask questions about evolution. Emphasis on them asking questions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problems with TOE and thermodynamics don't begin with life or evolution, but long before that, if you believe in the big bang and all the rest of the naturalistic explanation for the universe.

You can't waltz in here as a creationist talking about evolution, let alone thermodynamics. This is a thread for creationists to politely ask questions about evolution, and get polite responses in return. Frame your posts as questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problems with TOE and thermodynamics don't begin with life or evolution, but long before that, if you believe in the big bang and all the rest of the naturalistic explanation for the universe.

I have yet to find a creationist who properly understands what entropy is, what a thermodynamic system is, or why a refrigerator is impossible according to the creationist misapplication of thermodynamic laws.

 

[Loudmouth]

We also have no idea how evolution works for that matter.

Random mutations filtered through natural selection. We've known this for a long time now.

Anyhow, it all ties together. That is how the universe went from hundreds of millions of years old to billions of years, when they found that evolution within the old time frame was impossible.

That is simply not true. Like many have noticed over the years, there are only 9 Commandments in the Creationist Bible. Somehow, the one about bearing false witness didn't make it into the Creationist Bible.

 

[FredVB]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

Fair enough, I will try sticking with that approach, phrasing this to have answers.

Random mutations filtered through natural selection. We've known this for a long time now.

I don't know how it is known. I know of the theory of it working that way. Mutations are rare indeed, the ones found are not advantageous, generally they are harmful to those with mutations, and so very often fatal. For enough mutations to come up with something advantageous for coming to new species, there would be so many mutations it would kill off the population. That is a realistic view that I can see. This is one way how I see trusting there was creation to be more believable.

 

[Skreeper]

I don't know how it is known. I know of the theory of it working that way. Mutations are rare indeed, the ones found are not advantageous, generally they are harmful to those with mutations, and so very often fatal. For enough mutations to come up with something advantageous for coming to new species, there would be so many mutations it would kill off the population. That is a realistic view that I can see. This is one way how I see trusting there was creation more believable.

You have been misinformed. Most mutations are neutral, not harmful and are not that rare.
See here for more information: CB101: Most mutations harmful?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know how it is known. I know of the theory of it working that way. Mutations are rare indeed, the ones found are not advantageous, generally they are harmful to those with mutations, and so very often fatal. For enough mutations to come up with something advantageous for coming to new species, there would be so many mutations it would kill off the population. That is a realistic view that I can see. This is one way how I see trusting there was creation to be more believable.

There are several different topics to unpack, so let's go through them one by one:

1. We observe that mutations are random as shown by experiments in the field and in the laboratory. The classic experiments are the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment and the Lederberg plate replica experiment. In these experiments, they were able to show that mutations conferring antibiotic or bacteriophage resistance occurred in the absence of either antibiotics or bacteriophage. The bacteria didn't need these mutations, and yet they were still being produced. Since these experiments were done in the 1940-50's we have a much better understanding of the molecular mechanisms that cause mutations, and we now understand that there is no meaningful connection between the mutations that an organism needs and the mutations that actually occur. It is very much like a machine giving out random lottery numbers where the machine has no clue what the winning numbers will be.

2. By comparing genomes between species we can determine that random mutations were occurring in the past. As you mention, some mutations are going to be deleterious. Those mutations will be selected against. Therefore, if mutations are random and they were filtered through natural selection what we should see when we compare functional DNA is that there are fewer changes in functional DNA as compared to junk DNA (and yes, the evidence still demonstrates that the vast majority of the human genome does not have sequence specific function). This is exactly what we see. Even within functional DNA we can look at the ratio of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations. Non-synonymous mutations are mutations that change the amino acid sequence of the resulting protein. Due to multiple codons coding for the same amino acid in most cases, some mutations do not change the amino acid sequence of the resulting protein and are called synonymous mutations. What we see is that there are fewer non-synonymous mutations than we would expect, which shows that mutations were random and were selected against.

3. Are there beneficial mutations? Simple logic requires that they exist. The physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA differences in our respective genomes. The beneficial physical adaptations in humans are found in the mutations that separate humans and chimps. Again, logic requires that this is true. If it was impossible to change DNA in a way that was beneficial, then there would only be one species where all the members of that species had identical genomes. Obviously, this isn't the case. DNA can change, and some of those DNA changes are obviously beneficial in all species.