Intelligent Design

[Loudmouth]

I am asking you to show me organisms that are going through the
evolution you proposed. Or is it yet another assumption?

Every single species is evolving in every single generation.

 

[EternalDragon]

Every single species is evolving in every single generation.

That is a statement. Not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is a statement. Not evidence.

We observe that mutations occur in every generation. We observe that natural selection is acting on every generation, such that beneficial mutations are selected for and deleterious mutations are selected against. We observe that adaptations stay within lineages which causes lineages to further diverge with each generation.

Which of these three do you really need evidence for?

 

[DerelictJunction]

I am asking you to show me organisms that are going through the
evolution you proposed. Or is it yet another assumption?

That's nice.

The discussion was about naturally increasing complexity, which you said is impossible. I have shown that it is possible using the same mechanisms and resources that are used by organisms to reproduce.

You say that biological complexity in organisms is reducing more than it is increasing according to "research". You wouldn't just make up a blanket statement like that out of thin air, would you? You must have gotten that information from somewhere. So where's the research documentation?

I said I would provide an example after you provided evidence for your decreasing-complexity statement. However, since that doesn't appear to be happening in the near term:

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or, for that matter, any other bacteria), and not effective on any material other than the man made nylon byproducts.​

A species of bacteria mutates to include another food source additional to what it could already ingest. It had to have added some enzymes to process those chemicals while retaining the enzymes to process its normal food. Looks like an increase in complexity to me.

I await the inevitable sound of hollow steel tubes scraping the ground as you relocate the field goal target.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is a statement. Not evidence.

No. It's a fact.

Every newborn has a set of mutations.
Every newborn either lives to see another day or it doesn't.
Every newborn survives till breeding age or it doesn't.
Every newborn ends up reproducing (and passing on its own mutations) or it doesn't.

The mechanism of evolution is active in every generation of every species.

 

[justlookinla]

Keep going. What else did you say?

And that they're the result of chance mutations acting on a single life form of long long ago.

That's the part that no scientist agrees with.

UC - Berkley doesn't agree with you.

"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak tree"​

"
All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation—that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change."​

"Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism’s DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology—all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism’s DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.

Mutations are random.
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."​

Evolution 101

Yes they do.

Notice that they include natural selection over multiple generations. You had mutations alone in a single generation.

No, UC - Berkley does not agree with you. The article points out that "all life on earth shares a common ancestor" and that "through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak tree"

No new life forms were created without "modification", according to the article, and only random/chance mutations is the modifying impetus, again, according to the article.

Yes, that all of life we observe today is the result of chance mutations acting on a single life form of long long ago does have scientists agreeing with the view, assuming of course that there are real scientists at UC - Berkley producing such articles.

 

[EternalDragon]

No. It's a fact.

Every newborn has a set of mutations.
Every newborn either lives to see another day or it doesn't.
Every newborn survives till breeding age or it doesn't.
Every newborn ends up reproducing (and passing on its own mutations) or it doesn't.

The mechanism of evolution is active in every generation of every species.

Yes, things are increasingly getting muddled up and going downhill.
You don't have to point out the obvious but it has nothing to do with
one species miraculously morphing into another. Quite the opposite.

 

[Split Rock]

I am asking you to show me organisms that are going through the
evolution you proposed. Or is it yet another assumption?

Ring species like the Greenish Warbler are good examples.
Greenish warblers

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, things are increasingly getting muddled up and going downhill.

Define "downhill" with respect to life on Earth.
Assuming you are correct, this doesn't really support Intelligent Design.

You don't have to point out the obvious but it has nothing to do with
one species miraculously morphing into another. Quite the opposite.

So you believe that the theory of evolution claims that miraculous morphing takes place?

Do you have a reply to my post regarding increasing complexity through natural mechanisms?

 

[EternalDragon]

Ring species like the Greenish Warbler are good examples.
Greenish warblers

Characteristic changes (plumage) and song changes are not
examples of the kind of evolution that leads back to a common
ancestor. You will have to do much better than that.

 

[EternalDragon]

Define "downhill" with respect to life on Earth.
Assuming you are correct, this doesn't really support Intelligent Design.


So you believe that the theory of evolution claims that miraculous morphing takes place?

Do you have a reply to my post regarding increasing complexity through natural mechanisms?

Sure. It's an assumption unless you can show me it, reproduce it and test
it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Sure. It's an assumption unless you can show me it, reproduce it and test
it.

Looks like you make a habit of only responding to the last line in someone's post. I will limit my requests for information to one line at the end of my post.

I did show you. Remember the bacteria that evolved to ingest nylon byproducts as a food source? Why is that not an increase in complexity?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Sure. It's an assumption unless you can show me it, reproduce it and test
it.

Why must the event be reproduced in order to draw conclusions about the event?
Does the forensics expert have to kill someone else in order to be sure of his findings regarding cause of death?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am asking you to show me organisms that are going through the
evolution you proposed. Or is it yet another assumption?

You cannot physically witness evolution in nature when it takes longer than a human lifetime to occur. Do you require seeing a moutain emerge from a mole hill before your very eyes to believe they form rather than simply always being there?

 

[Linuxgal]

You cannot physically witness evolution in nature when it takes longer than a human lifetime to occur. Do you require seeing a moutain emerge from a mole hill before your very eyes to believe they form rather than simply always being there?

We can't see the Juan de Fuca plate slide under the North American plate, but we know it does from the geological record, in the same way that we know evolution occurs from the fossil record and DNA studies.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We can't see the Juan de Fuca plate slide under the North American plate, but we know it does from the geological record, in the same way that we know evolution occurs from the fossil record and DNA studies.

Exactly.

 

[lasthero]

Sure. It's an assumption unless you can show me it, reproduce it and test
it.

Let's say you have a dog that's been known to tear up furniture. You've seen him do this before. You come home one day and find that your couch has a bunch of gashes in it and your dog has fluff in his mouth.

Now, you didn't see your dog tear up this counch. You can't reproduce the event and you can't test it. So are you assuming that your dog tore up your couch? Does the possibility that, say, someone broke into your house and slashed up your furniture and stuffed fluff into your dogs mouth hold equal weight with the possibility that your dog just messed up the furniture?

I've asked you this a few times, but I don't think I've ever gotten a response.

 

[justlookinla]

We can't see the Juan de Fuca plate slide under the North American plate, but we know it does from the geological record, in the same way that we know evolution occurs from the fossil record and DNA studies.

What do you mean by "evolution"?

 

[Linuxgal]

I did show you. Remember the bacteria that evolved to ingest nylon byproducts as a food source? Why is that not an increase in complexity?

It's not an increase in complexity, it is simply optimization to the current food supply. If we stopped producing nylon and went to some other polymer, bacteria would adapt to that one too, leaving the "more complex" nylon-eaters to twist in the wind. Complexity doesn't help all that much if it doesn't match what's for dinner.

 

[DerelictJunction]

It's not an increase in complexity, it is simply optimization to the current food supply. If we stopped producing nylon and went to some other polymer, bacteria would adapt to that one too, leaving the "more complex" nylon-eaters to twist in the wind. Complexity doesn't help all that much if it doesn't match what's for dinner.

Not true. The nylon eating bacteria can still utilize their original food sources. They developed an enzyme that breaks down nylon manufacture by products.

Since they have added an enzyme to their repertoire of enzymes, their complexity is a slight bit greater than their non-nylon-eating cousins.

Do you think I am misrepresenting the idea of complexity or do you have information to show that complexity did not increase due to the addition of a food source?