Evolution true or false?

[Natman]

I don't have evidence of a turtle evolving into a fish. But here's a land animal evolving into a whale: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html

This is typical "evolutionist" propoganda. I can create any number of sequences of sketches of seemingly similar transitional creatures to give the appearance that one evolved into the other. I could make a sketch that shows a turtle transitioning into a 747. So what!

These are merely "artistic" renderings of what someone thinks something might have looked like. The only real evidence would come in the form of DNA evidence, which is impossible except in fossils that have been preserved with DNA intact, such as ants or mosquitos found in amber.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[ForeRunner]

explain please, and if it wasn't bakced up scientificly I suggest you contact the scientist who descovered it and tell him that.

Give us the source then

 

[Nathan David]

explain please, and if it wasn't bakced up scientificly I suggest you contact the scientist who descovered it and tell him that.

I'll explain using your own words:

Yes acualy I will. There was an article in times not to long ago that explained that scientist found that certian states of mind release certian chemicals in the brain that are harmfull to your body. For instance they found that poeple with cronic depresion release a chemical that couses arthrightes(can't spell sorry) thus destoying joins including the knee joint.

Nothing in there says anything about DNA changing.

 

[kedaman]

No, but if you have children before you die some of your DNA will be passed on. If you die before reproducing you are an evolutionary dead end.

If all my children die, then I am sort of dead already. But my memes could live on could they not?

 

[Nathan David]

These are merely "artistic" renderings of what someone thinks something might have looked like.

Based on copius fossil evidence.

Isn't there a commandment against bearing false witness? Do you really expect to win converts by lying?

 

[Ondoher]

There are two types of changes commonly referred to by the term "evolution". One is "micro-evolution" - change within a species, and the other is "macro-evolution" - change that results in a new species.

Macro evolution, when used by science, generally refers to accumulated change leading to speciation. Sometimes it is used to refer to common ancestry in general.

We see all kinds of examples of "micro-evolution" around us constantly. Examples are the various breeds of dogs, cats, horses etcetera. Although a great dane is physically substantially different from a chihauha, they are both "dogs" and, though difficult, capable of interbreeding to possibly produce third breed of dog. Also, as segments of an established species move about geographically, charactersitics that enhance it's survival become more promenant, such as long hair in colder climates and shorter hair in warmer climates. This produces a wide, but limited variation of characteristics within a species (Mendell's Law), but not new species.

Speciation has been observed. Once you have speciation, further divergence will just widen the gulf between populations.

However, we can not breed a cat and a dog to produce a "cog", "cag","dat" or a "dot". The reason, we have learned in the last 30 odd years, is because of differences in their DNA. A single pair difference in the length of a multi-milliion-pair DNA molecule, like a zipper missing a tooth, can prevent a successful replication.

Speciation is not caused by a single mutation. Species inclusion is not a simple boolean function. It is the accumulation of genetic or phenotypic differences that leads to populations no longer interbreeding. See ring species for examples of this in action.

The only tool available for "macro-evolution" to work is "mutation", the adding or removing of DNA information. In the natural world (outside of the lab), this is a totally random occurance. The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself), there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

As stated above, this is not how speciation works. Allopatric speciation occurs due to geographical separation, sympatric speciation occurs due to behavioral separation. Both lead to noninterbreeding populations that geneticaly diverge over time.

As far as life on Earth coming about sponaniously from the "primordial slime" (biogenesis), one must consider it's extreme improbability from a mathematical standpoint, as well as conflicting conditions required for life to begin and continue in earths atomsphere, even millions of years ago (the Miller-Urey controversy).

Scientists consider odds of 1 in 10 to the 50th (1 followed by 50 zeros) to be "statistically impossible". Mathematician Emile Borel calculated the odds of randomly assembling a 100-amino-acid-string, under perfect conditions, to be 1 in 10 to the 125th. He also calculated the odds of producing a 227-amino-acid-string (the smallest known string for a living organism) at 1 in 10 to the 119,000th. This does not include any of the machinery necessary for replication and cell function.

Strawmen of abiogeneis, although facinating, are irrelevent to a discussion of evolution.

Based on these points, I consider "macro-evolution", "Darwinian evolution", "neo-Darwinian evolution", "punctuated equalibrium" and even "theistic evolution" to be scientifically defunct.

Based on your misconceptions I can understand why you might. In general, scientists tend to disagree with you.

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion). We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

The Cambrian period was 54 million years long. That's hardly sudden. It was also not the first occurence of of complex life, that was in the Ediacaran period. It was certainly not the first appearance of all extant species, just some basic body plans, like segmentation and bilateralism.

I believe that all of the evidence, when considered as a whole, points to an "Intelligent Designer".

The commonality of organisms (the knee example) point to a "common designer" rather than to a common ancestor, in a similar manner that a hammer might resemble a mallet or a sledge, parts of a car might resemble similar parts on a baby carrage or a jet airliner.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Intelligent design does not forward a testable, predictive model. Until it does so, it cannot be considered valid science, nor a suitable replacement for evolution.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I just realized that I could debate this for years and have a blast doing it, but even if I managed to get every person in here to agree that evolution is a theory so full of holes that swiss cheese wouldn't reconize it, I will have gotten nowhere in my journy as a christian. I have an answer to your reply but I'm going to back out now. Yes I'm backing out not because I'm intimidated but because I can be doing, writing, saying, or praying somthing so much more usefull than this. I only started this tread to get the poeple on this topic in an unrelated thread off the topic there and come here. I still don't believe in evolution, adaptation using tools that already exist yes, but certianly not evolution, Sorry for the bother.

 

[Zen_Woof]

Greetings again.

If folks would kindly click on the link I provided, you would see very well how evolution works. I don't understand what the problem is! Has anyone scientific proof ... and I'm talking peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted proof ... of intelligent design?

Thank you.

With metta,
Zenda

 

[ForeRunner]

I still don't understand... do people with little to no scientific training think that they are better in areas than people that have PhDs? Where does this type of arrogance come from?

 

[Split Rock]

If evolution is the explination of life from one single cell organism, Than what I wrote does not support that, I was refering to how every diffrent spiecies has the capability to adapt to the point where they look different. That would mean that there was a vast amount of diffrent spiecies from the beggining, all having the equpment to stay the same spiecies and yet survive wordly changes.

Unfortunately, the fossil record does not support the idea that all different species were created at the same time (in the beginning). We do not find mammals or flowering plants in the earliest strata. Mutation provides continuing supply of new variation, which allows populations to become drastically different than their ancestors of many generations past.

I don't belive that every living creature came from one organism. If you do how do you explian plants?

The evidence suggests that plants evolved from green algae. Animals evolved from a different single-celled ancestor. Both of these ancestors had a common single-celled ancestor that was not photosynthetic.

 

[ForeRunner]

I just realized that I could debate this for years and have a blast doing it, but even if I managed to get every person in here to agree that evolution is a theory so full of holes that swiss cheese wouldn't reconize it, I will have gotten nowhere in my journy as a christian. I have an answer to your reply but I'm going to back out now. Yes I'm backing out not because I'm intimidated but because I can be doing, writing, saying, or praying somthing so much more usefull than this. I only started this tread to get the poeple on this topic in an unrelated thread off the topic there and come here. I still don't believe in evolution, adaptation using tools that already exist yes, but certianly not evolution, Sorry for the bother.

The sad part is, that whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. You still benefit from the huge advances made since we came to undertand biology, most notably in the medical field, but also in the protection of our enviroment. I merely ask that you open your eyes and realize this.

 

[kingreaper]

There are two types of changes commonly referred to by the term "evolution". One is "micro-evolution" - change within a species, and the other is "macro-evolution" - change that results in a new species.

An das evidenced by ring species speciation does occur

We see all kinds of examples of "micro-evolution" around us constantly. Examples are the various breeds of dogs, cats, horses etcetera. Although a great dane is physically substantially different from a chihauha, they are both "dogs" and, though difficult, capable of interbreeding to possibly produce third breed of dog. Also, as segments of an established species move about geographically, charactersitics that enhance it's survival become more promenant, such as long hair in colder climates and shorter hair in warmer climates. This produces a wide, but limited variation of characteristics within a species (Mendell's Law), but not new species.

A) define a "cat"

B) explain how ring species do not prove speciation

However, we can not breed a cat and a dog to produce a "cog", "cag","dat" or a "dot". The reason, we have learned in the last 30 odd years, is because of differences in their DNA. A single pair difference in the length of a multi-milliion-pair DNA molecule, like a zipper missing a tooth, can prevent a successful replication.

The hoow does that microevolution occur?

how can a black person and a whiote person breed?

it takes large genomic differences, which do exist between cats and dogs, to cause speciation

The only tool available for "macro-evolution" to work is "mutation", the adding or removing of DNA information.

This is also the only mechanism to allow for micro-evolution, which involves the production of genes non-existant in the original subspecies

In the natural world (outside of the lab), this is a totally random occurance. The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself),

And entirely unneccesary, as only one germ cell, which goes on to produce offspring, must mutate

there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

No, a person with the gene for blue eyes can mate with one with the gene for brown, so a difference in one gene will not result in an inability to mate

As far as life on Earth coming about sponaniously from the "primordial slime" (biogenesis), one must consider it's extreme improbability from a mathematical standpoint,

Only if you ignore the natural laws that are involved, and assume that a bacterium must spontaneously form

as well as conflicting conditions required for life to begin and continue in earths atomsphere, even millions of years ago (the Miller-Urey controversy).

Other conditions than those used in Miller-Urey could still allow abiogenisis

Scientists consider odds of 1 in 10 to the 50th (1 followed by 50 zeros) to be "statistically impossible". Mathematician Emile Borel calculated the odds of randomly assembling a 100-amino-acid-string, under perfect conditions, to be 1 in 10 to the 125th.

However the assumption that only one possibility will do, and that the formation must be random make this statistic meaningless

He also calculated the odds of producing a 227-amino-acid-string (the smallest known string for a living organism) at 1 in 10 to the 119,000th. This does not include any of the machinery necessary for replication and cell function.

Once again the assumptions involved make this statistic meaningless

Based on these points, I consider "macro-evolution", "Darwinian evolution", "neo-Darwinian evolution", "punctuated equalibrium" and even "theistic evolution" to be scientifically defunct.

Well you're arguments seem that way to me

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion).

So you are willing ton claim cats have been found in the cambrian?

this is a bigger misconception than most have

We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

Most species are only found after a certain point in the fossil record, evidence on them having formed

I believe that all of the evidence, when considered as a whole, points to an "Intelligent Designer".

Well when you find some real evidence, tell me

The commonality of organisms (the knee example) point to a "common designer" rather than to a common ancestor, in a similar manner that a hammer might resemble a mallet or a sledge, parts of a car might resemble similar parts on a baby carrage or a jet airliner.

If a submarine was found with suspension from a car, would that be a sensible thing for a designer to do

 

[Zen_Woof]

Well folks, in the interest of being fair, here is a peer-reviewed article about intelligent design:

Pro Intelligent Design: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

Article about this article, with links to rebuttals: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04/

Have fun!

With metta,
Zenda

 

[Natman]

Speciation has been observed. Once you have speciation, further divergence will just widen the gulf between populations.

Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically).

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[h2whoa]

Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically).

Well on another thread there's a link to this post by a nice man called lucaspa, who did this some time ago (before my time on these boards). It seems pretty good.

h2

 

[Nathan David]

Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically).

You have already been given several: salamanders that are descended from a common ancestor that can't mate with each other; the gull species that cannot interbreed with their neighbors; the ancestors of whales.

 

[AirPo]

Where does this type of arrogance come from?

Ignorance.

 

[llDayo]

There are two types of changes commonly referred to by the term "evolution". One is "micro-evolution" - change within a species, and the other is "macro-evolution" - change that results in a new species.

Which are both still considered evolution by science.

We see all kinds of examples of "micro-evolution" around us constantly. Examples are the various breeds of dogs, cats, horses etcetera. Although a great dane is physically substantially different from a chihauha, they are both "dogs" and, though difficult, capable of interbreeding to possibly produce third breed of dog. Also, as segments of an established species move about geographically, charactersitics that enhance it's survival become more promenant, such as long hair in colder climates and shorter hair in warmer climates. This produces a wide, but limited variation of characteristics within a species (Mendell's Law), but not new species.

29+ evidences for macro-evolution.
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

However, we can not breed a cat and a dog to produce a "cog", "cag","dat" or a "dot". The reason, we have learned in the last 30 odd years, is because of differences in their DNA. A single pair difference in the length of a multi-milliion-pair DNA molecule, like a zipper missing a tooth, can prevent a successful replication.

Don't disagree here, evolution never states that different species breed.

The only tool available for "macro-evolution" to work is "mutation", the adding or removing of DNA information. In the natural world (outside of the lab), this is a totally random occurance. The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself), there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

First of all, that's not exactly what mutation is. A single nucleotide "letter" might be changed to another, or a segment of DNA might be deleted entirely, flipped end-to-end or added where one did not previously exist. These changes are mutations. Since cell mutation is so great at copying a mutation has a high probability of being copied into other cells. If the mutation is beneficial to the organism, natural selection will keep it.
ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html

As far as life on Earth coming about sponaniously from the "primordial slime" (biogenesis), one must consider it's extreme improbability from a mathematical standpoint, as well as conflicting conditions required for life to begin and continue in earths atomsphere, even millions of years ago (the Miller-Urey controversy).

Scientists consider odds of 1 in 10 to the 50th (1 followed by 50 zeros) to be "statistically impossible". Mathematician Emile Borel calculated the odds of randomly assembling a 100-amino-acid-string, under perfect conditions, to be 1 in 10 to the 125th. He also calculated the odds of producing a 227-amino-acid-string (the smallest known string for a living organism) at 1 in 10 to the 119,000th. This does not include any of the machinery necessary for replication and cell function.

No, the chances are not that high. They're MUCH better than that when you consider an entire planet filled with material required for replicating cells as well as billions of years for it to take place, and a billion trillion places (star systems) in which it could possibly happen.
talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-misconceptions.pdf

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion). We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

No, the "Cambrian Explosion" happens over millions of years. By evolutionary terms, it's an "explosion" but they didn't suddenly appear.
Here's some information for the CE: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

I believe that all of the evidence, when considered as a whole, points to an "Intelligent Designer".

The commonality of organisms (the knee example) point to a "common designer" rather than to a common ancestor, in a similar manner that a hammer might resemble a mallet or a sledge, parts of a car might resemble similar parts on a baby carrage or a jet airliner.

Without a sample universe that IS designed to compare to there's no way to determine if our's was also. Just looking at it and seeing that it's complex does not consitute design.

 

[Split Rock]

This is typical "evolutionist" propoganda. I can create any number of sequences of sketches of seemingly similar transitional creatures to give the appearance that one evolved into the other. I could make a sketch that shows a turtle transitioning into a 747. So what!

These are merely "artistic" renderings of what someone thinks something might have looked like. The only real evidence would come in the form of DNA evidence, which is impossible except in fossils that have been preserved with DNA intact, such as ants or mosquitos found in amber.

Why do you write about "propaganda??" If you disagree with evolution, we can discuss it. Where does all this hostility come from?

All because you have no training in paleontology does not mean that it is all bunk as you claim. The fact is that we can reconstruct exinct organisms based on their fossilized remains. Muscles leave scares and ridges on bones where they were attached. This allows us to reconstruct what the muscles (and therefore flesh) looked like.

In the case of whale evolution, if all we had was some intermediates in the fossil record, it may not be very convincing. However, when this evidence is taken together with OTHER evidence, there really is no other logical conclusion. For example:
1. Some whale species have vestigial pelvic bones that are not attached to the skelton

2. Whale embryos produce leg and tooth buds that are reabsorbed. The nasal openings start at the snout and MOVE to the forehead during development.

3. Occasionally, a whale is recovered with legs (indicating they have the genetic information to make them).

4. Genetically, whales are more similar to cows and hippos than to other aquatic mammals.

None of this evidence is predicted by creationism... it is instead consistant with evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals. So much for "propaganda.."

 

[Natman]

I just realized that I could debate this for years and have a blast doing it, but even if I managed to get every person in here to agree that evolution is a theory so full of holes that swiss cheese wouldn't reconize it, I will have gotten nowhere in my journy as a christian. I have an answer to your reply but I'm going to back out now. Yes I'm backing out not because I'm intimidated but because I can be doing, writing, saying, or praying somthing so much more usefull than this. I only started this tread to get the poeple on this topic in an unrelated thread off the topic there and come here. I still don't believe in evolution, adaptation using tools that already exist yes, but certianly not evolution, Sorry for the bother.

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

Son-cerely,
Nate