Evolution, why so many believe?

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

So I was just reading some posts around here and there was alot of "wondering" as to why some people don't believe in evolution. Most of what I saw was "people don't want to be descendants of a monkey" or "becuase of religion" or "literal interpretation of Gensis", etc.

Well maybe some people. But let me shed a little more light on this topic.

One reason someone might not believe in evolution is because they know what TRUE science is. Science is not cooking up some wild idea and saying "the fossil record will support it". Science is not taking one of these wild ideas that suits you personally and then going to to purposely try to find evidence for it. Science is finding evidence before you even know its evidence and then making ideas based on that.


One problem alot of people have with evolution is that it has:

NO MECHNISM There has been no way for evolution to occur. Single cell organisms, reptiles, etc do not have the genetic coding in their DNA to make a mammal. The common domesticated cat does not have the genetic coding to make a horse, etc. In order for evolution,to occur at any magnitude, there would have to be a method for nature to add constructive and functional genetic coding to the DNA of an organism.

I've only heard that adaptation and mutation could have caused it. Well lets look at those. (feel free to mention additional methods if they exist)

What are some examples of ADAPTATION? Well, an animal shedding its hair/fur/coat when moving into a warmer climate. An animal storing more body fat when moving into a colder climate. There are alots of examples of adaptation (feel free to add more PROVEN adaptation that occurs today).

But what do these adaptations do? How do they occur? How could they cause evolution?

Well in every case of adaptation I've studied, horomones and negative feedback have been the cause of adaptation. Adaptation involves no additions to the genetic code of an organism. Any animal or human that "adapts" to a situation, climate, etc, already has the ability to do so in their genetic coding. It involves no change of DNA to "adapt".

Therefore adaptation does not cause evolution.

Now the other is MUTATION. Mutation does involve the change of DNA or genetic coding. What are some examples of mutation? Well, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, etc. Cancer is probably the most common form of mutation. Todate, in my studies I have not come across one beneficial form of mutation. In 100% of the cases I've seen, mutation has been either nuetral, as in the poor creature developed a growth on its neck but it didn't directly die from it, or, the mutation has completely killed the organism.

Therefore, most people have a hard time believing breast cancer eventually turned an ameboid into a hump back whale. Remember, somewhere down the line, every single thing about the hump back whale that is not identical to the ameboid, had to be added into the genetic code of the lesser organism. Did cancer do that? I doubt it, no matter how long it had.

 

[Bushido216]

Think of evolution as alot of micro-evolutions, which even the most basic YEC's agree with.

Essentially, a species will, by a process of minor little adaptations over time, become so far removed from it's parent species taht it can no longer reproduce with that species, it will become reproductively isolated.

That's why you don't see cats making horses right away, or a reptile making a mammal, right away. Evolution takes alot of time, or rather, evolution across species takes alot of time, micro-evolution might not take as long, so it's hard to see it in action.

As well, your definition of adaptation is flawed. Take giraffe's for instance. The reason they have long necks is so that they can reach into the tops of trees for leaves. Now, say for some reason a giraffe is born with an unusually long neck. He will be able to survive better than his fellows, so he'll pass on the genes requisite for a longer neck. Some of his offspring will have longer necks, and will survive better, and pass on those genes.

Evolution is fueled by the need to survive. Those who survive better will make up a significantly larger part of the gene pool.

I don't know who told you this, but they either didn't understand what they were talking about, or were misleading you.

BTW, don't ever listen to Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino), the man is a con-artist.

Hope this helps, if I got anything wrong I'm sure Nathan Poe, Jet Black, Troodon, lucaspa, etc, will correct me.

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

So what are some other problems people have with evolution?

NO EVIDENCE. And this one could have its own book. But I'll make it as short as possible.

For one, the fossil record does not support evolution. The different species appear in the fossil record abruptly, and suddenly, with no "middle man" to link them. Ever hear of the missing links? The keyword there is missing.

There is no excuse for so much evidene to be missing. Lets look at how the fossil record would look if evolution did occur.

For example, you have the frog, and lets say it was the ancestor for the wooly mammoth. Lets say it took 10 generations for this frog to turn into a mammoth.

You have 2 fully formed frogs that are the beginning point of the transition to mammoth. They have 4 kids, then their 4 kids have 4 kids, etc, which would lead to the slow transition to a fully formed mammoth. So the lineage of the mammoth would look like this.

100 % frog to (2 original parents)
90% frog /10 % mammoth (4 children)
80% frog / 20 % mammoth (8 grandchildren)
70% frog/30 % mammoth (16 great grandchildren)
60/40 (32 great great grandchildren)
50/50 (64)
40 % frog /50% mammoth (128)
30 % frog /70 % mammoth (256)
20/80 (512)
10/90 (1024)
100% wooly mammoth (2048)

As you know, population grows with offspring. Thats how an organism multiplys, 2 parents have a litter of 5, those 5 have litters of 5 of their own, and the population grows.

So what do we have in the fossil record today? We have 100% frogs and 100% wooly mammoths. (as an example) So what happend to all the missing links? Looking at steps 2 through 9, where the organism was a "missing link", you'll see that missing links are nearly as abundant as the final product (wooly mammoth). 2044 missings links vs 2048 fully formed wooly mammoth. So how is it that all these missing links just happened to not fossilize? Why does the fossil record show a sudden change of organisms? Why do you go straight from one to the other if it took such a long slow evolutionary process to go from one to the other?

The nuetral scientific mind would say because it never happened.

 

[Jet Black]

One reason someone might not believe in evolution is because they know what TRUE science is. Science is not cooking up some wild idea and saying "the fossil record will support it". Science is not taking one of these wild ideas that suits you personally and then going to to purposely try to find evidence for it. Science is finding evidence before you even know its evidence and then making ideas based on that.

well evolution falls under science by that definition then.

One problem alot of people have with evolution is that it has:

NO MECHNISM There has been no way for evolution to occur.

there is actually, gene dubplication, chromosome duplication, mutation of numerous sorts, sexual reproduction and so on.....

Single cell organisms, reptiles, etc do not have the genetic coding in their DNA to make a mammal.

and one would expect this, evolutionarily. actually if you found say, a crocodile with all the genetic info in ot to make a human, you would disprove evolution.

The common domesticated cat does not have the genetic coding to make a horse, etc.

fortunetely for evolution....

In order for evolution,to occur at any magnitude, there would have to be a method for nature to add constructive and functional genetic coding to the DNA of an organism.

there is, I outlined them above.

I've only heard that adaptation and mutation could have caused it. Well lets look at those. (feel free to mention additional methods if they exist)

What are some examples of ADAPTATION? Well, an animal shedding its hair/fur/coat when moving into a warmer climate. An animal storing more body fat when moving into a colder climate. There are alots of examples of adaptation (feel free to add more PROVEN adaptation that occurs today).

are we talking about a particular animal, or the whole group of animals over time adapting? this is indeed part of evolution, this is the mechanism of natural selection in action.

But what do these adaptations do? How do they occur? How could they cause evolution?

different alleles.

Well in every case of adaptation I've studied, horomones and negative feedback have been the cause of adaptation. Adaptation involves no additions to the genetic code of an organism. Any animal or human that "adapts" to a situation, climate, etc, already has the ability to do so in their genetic coding. It involves no change of DNA to "adapt".

oh right, well you are getting confused then, because that is just the individual's ability to survive in different environments.

Therefore adaptation does not cause evolution.

not by your definition, but that is okay becaus your definition is wrong anyway.

Now the other is MUTATION. Mutation does involve the change of DNA or genetic coding. What are some examples of mutation? Well, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, etc. Cancer is probably the most common form of mutation.

I thought you might do this..... no, these are the most noticeable sorts of mutation. there are many more.

Todate, in my studies I have not come across one beneficial form of mutation.

vancomycin resistance in bacteria, nylon eating in bacteria, HIV immunity in humans. there are three. want more?

In 100% of the cases I've seen, mutation has been either nuetral, as in the poor creature developed a growth on its neck but it didn't directly die from it, or, the mutation has completely killed the organism.

no no, these are the wrong sorts of mutations. those are mutations of a single cell somewhere in the body, the important mutations evolutionarily are mutations to the gametes. granted not all of these will be beneficial either, but if one is, it gets selected for and preserved by the environment.

Therefore, most people have a hard time believing breast cancer eventually turned an ameboid into a hump back whale.

that just illustrates your lack of understanding about evolution.

Remember, somewhere down the line, every single thing about the hump back whale that is not identical to the ameboid, had to be added into the genetic code of the lesser organism. Did cancer do that? I doubt it, no matter how long it had.

but that is because canver has nothing to do with this. besically what you have just done, is construct some bizarre strawman version of evolution. I say bizarre, because it is the least accurate strawman I have ever seen.

before carrying on this kind of debate any further, I strongly suggest you learn what evolution is:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

 

[Pete Harcoff]

One of these days I'm going to make an animated GIF of a person beating a strawman to death... It would go well in this thread...

 

[MartinM]

...what the hell are you talking about?

Edited to add: I think we all know who that was directed at, and why. The previous two posts weren't there when I hit submit.

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

"As well, your definition of adaptation is flawed. Take giraffe's for instance. The reason they have long necks is so that they can reach into the tops of trees for leaves. Now, say for some reason a giraffe is born with an unusually long neck. He will be able to survive better than his fellows, so he'll pass on the genes requisite for a longer neck. Some of his offspring will have longer necks, and will survive better, and pass on those genes"

Thats fine and all theoratically but you haven't explained how a animals DNA gets that change. Again adaptation does not cause a change in DNA. In order for evolution to occur a change in DNA has to occur.

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

"there is actually, gene dubplication, chromosome duplication, mutation of numerous sorts, sexual reproduction and so on....."

Why don't you show the scientist who don't know this then lol.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Thats fine and all theoratically but you haven't explained how a animals DNA gets that change. Again adaptation does not cause a change in DNA. In order for evolution to occur a change in DNA has to occur.

That's what a mutation is. A change in DNA.

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

Yeah a harmful change. Show me one mutation that could turn a snake into a whale over any number of years? Show me a mutation that can reproduce to identical bilateral flippers on an organsim? Unless you think all the one flippered whales died out, just happend to never fossilize.


"Quote:
The common domesticated cat does not have the genetic coding to make a horse, etc.




fortunetely for evolution...."

Actually unforunately for evolution. Because the modern day horse in that example, does not have the genetic coding for the cat, its ancestor.

So now not only does evolution have to explain how the DNA of a horse got into a cat, but how the DNA of the cat was lost when it became a horse.

"are we talking about a particular animal, or the whole group of animals over time adapting? this is indeed part of evolution, this is the mechanism of natural selection in action."

We're talking about micro-adaptation that is the supposed cause of evolution. Micro-adaptation causes no change in DNA. Which is required for evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yeah a harmful change. Show me one mutation that could turn a snake into a whale over any number of years? Show me a mutation that can reproduce to identical bilateral flippers on an organsim? Unless you think all the one flippered whales died out, just happend to never fossilize.

You just keep beating that strawman... When you get tired and are willing to learn, then we'll talk.

 

[Jet Black]

So what are some other problems people have with evolution?

NO EVIDENCE. And this one could have its own book. But I'll make it as short as possible.

well there is evidence actually. alot of it, both in the fossil record and our DNA.

For one, the fossil record does not support evolution. The different species appear in the fossil record abruptly, and suddenly, with no "middle man" to link them. Ever hear of the missing links? The keyword there is missing.

actually the fossil record does support evolution. granted there are many missing links between species, but there are also many actual fossil sequences too. It important to know that fossilisation is a pretty rare process, and so there will not be many examples.

There is no excuse for so much evidene to be missing.

yes there is, the rarity of fossilisation. I seem to be answering your points before you make them.

Lets look at how the fossil record would look if evolution did occur.

is this going to be a strawman?

For example, you have the frog, and lets say it was the ancestor for the wooly mammoth. Lets say it took 10 generations for this frog to turn into a mammoth.

yes it is.

You have 2 fully formed frogs that are the beginning point of the transition to mammoth. They have 4 kids, then their 4 kids have 4 kids, etc, which would lead to the slow transition to a fully formed mammoth. So the lineage of the mammoth would look like this.

100 % frog to (2 original parents)
90% frog /10 % mammoth (4 children)
80% frog / 20 % mammoth (8 grandchildren)
70% frog/30 % mammoth (16 great grandchildren)
60/40 (32 great great grandchildren)
50/50 (64)
40 % frog /50% mammoth (128)
30 % frog /70 % mammoth (256)
20/80 (512)
10/90 (1024)
100% wooly mammoth (2048)

but you see it is much, much much slower than that. could you come up with a better example? actually, i will find some for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

As you know, population grows with offspring. Thats how an organism multiplys, 2 parents have a litter of 5, those 5 have litters of 5 of their own, and the population grows.

but you do know that not all of the offspring survive... it is this that causes the information to increase mathematically.

So what do we have in the fossil record today? We have 100% frogs and 100% wooly mammoths. (as an example) So what happend to all the missing links? Looking at steps 2 through 9, where the organism was a "missing link", you'll see that missing links are nearly as abundant as the final product (wooly mammoth). 2044 missings links vs 2048 fully formed wooly mammoth. So how is it that all these missing links just happened to not fossilize? Why does the fossil record show a sudden change of organisms? Why do you go straight from one to the other if it took such a long slow evolutionary process to go from one to the other?

well look at those examples of mine, basically all the previous paragraph is, is hacking down your strawman.

The nuetral scientific mind would say because it never happened.

no, the neutral scientific mind would say you constructed another horrific strawman and haven't actually looked any further than Hovind's 4th seminar.

 

[Jet Black]

"there is actually, gene dubplication, chromosome duplication, mutation of numerous sorts, sexual reproduction and so on....."

Why don't you show the scientist who don't know this then lol.

well as a scientist, I know this.

 

[Jet Black]

Yeah a harmful change. Show me one mutation that could turn a snake into a whale over any number of years? Show me a mutation that can reproduce to identical bilateral flippers on an organsim? Unless you think all the one flippered whales died out, just happend to never fossilize.

you do know that a whale sequence exists don't you?

Actually unforunately for evolution. Because the modern day horse in that example, does not have the genetic coding for the cat, its ancestor.

the cat isn't the horses ancestor though......

So now not only does evolution have to explain how the DNA of a horse got into a cat, but how the DNA of the cat was lost when it became a horse.

no it doesn't, because the cat isn't the horses ancestor, though they do share a very very ancient common ancestor. carnivorae themselves are tens of millions of years old, and the common cat/horse ancestor would have existad long long long before mesonyx did.

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

"no it doesn't, because the cat isn't the horses ancestor, though they do share a very very ancient common ancestor. carnivorae themselves are tens of millions of years old, and the common cat/horse ancestor would have existad long long long before mesonyx did."


Uh yea, is this the part where you take something that looks like a cat, and something thats smaller than a modern day horse, and tell me to look at how similiar they are and how its obvious they have a common ancestor lol?

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

Uh yea talkorigins is nothing new. Actually is an old laugh. Heres why:

GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene" says Carroll (1988). But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy. There is a group of Paleocene primitive primate-like animals called "plesiadapids" that may be ancestral to primates, or may be "cousins" to primates. (see Beard, in Szalay et al., 1993.)

GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap mentioned above in the timescale. Very few primate fossils are known between the late Eocene and early Oligocene, when there was a sharp change in global climate. Several other mammal groups have a similar gap.

GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids:

The list goes on and on.

"no it doesn't, because the cat isn't the horses ancestor,"

Thats a cowardly cop out. It doesn't matter what two animals you use, if one is the ancestor and one is the predecestor then evolution has to explain why the predecestor has gained DNA and lost old DNA.

 

[Steve_Graham]

I have a brand new 1.9 mhz computer sitting in front of me now. It's extremely fast and runs window xp. It's amazing what this computer will do. Do you know how I got it? Well, there was a huge storm that roll through last night. The winds were very high and even tornadic at times. This morning when I got up and went outside --there it was. A brand new computer that was whipped up out of nothing but the matter in the air. This computer is not the product of Intelligent design but rather a big bang. All the particles in the air came together at the right time last night and whipped up this extremely complex computer. And it could not have happened with the Big bang Theory.


Think I'm nuts?

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

Not as nuts as I would if you said it made a living organism lol.

 

[Criosdaidhlaoch]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by: Criosdaidhlaoch




"there is actually, gene dubplication, chromosome duplication, mutation of numerous sorts, sexual reproduction and so on....."

Why don't you show the scientist who don't know this then lol.



well as a scientist, I know this."

Well why don't you show us then.


Uh you do know that whale sequence steps all over evolution don't you?

"Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body. "

From the website you posted. So you want to explain to me what MECHANISM caused a whales legs to get smaller and smaller and smaller lol? Was that mutation?

 

[Jet Black]

Uh yea, is this the part where you take something that looks like a cat, and something thats smaller than a modern day horse, and tell me to look at how similiar they are and how its obvious they have a common ancestor lol?

huh, but you were saying we were saying that the cat is the horses ancestor.