Is this for real?

[USincognito]

Sorry but there isn't a professor of paliontology who will go on record to say that fosil 'prove' evo;ution.
In fact it is the reverse. They are on record saying there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and creationist are accused of quote mining when they quote them.

...until we read them in context. But to be honest since science is evidence, not authority, based it doesn't matter what people say. The fossils exist and they are a powerful line of evidence.

Mutation is evidence only of a loss of information.

Not only does that not make sense in the context of genetics, it's simply wrong. Shh/Hand2 pathway in cetaceans led to a loss of function, but but the genes are still there and briefly turn on in utero so no loss of information. Whole genome duplication led to a variety of vertebrate globin genes including 4 versions of the hemoglobin gene in humans.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry but there isn't a professor of paliontology who will go on record to say that fosil 'prove' evo;ution.

But just about every one of them will confirm that all those independent lines of evidence converge on the conclusion of evolution.

In fact it is the reverse. They are on record saying there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and creationist are accused of quote mining when they quote them.

It seems you need to learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence".

Mutation is evidence only of a loss of information.

lol

Nevermind all the observations where mutation did the opposite.

 

[eleos1954]

Genetics, geographic distribution of species, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, the fossil record,....



Mutation.



As you can see, it's not "blindly saying", but rather concluding from evidence.

Classification of Living Things:

Classification of Living Things

Species

"Species are as specific as you can get. It is the lowest and most strict level of classification of living things. The main criterion for an organism to be placed in a particular species is the ability to breed with other organisms of that same species. The species of an organism determines the second part of its two-part name."

What God says about living things:

He made them male and female ... with the ability to reproduce after their kind ....

 

[USincognito]

Classification of Living Things:

Classification of Living Things

Species

"Species are as specific as you can get. It is the lowest and most strict level of classification of living things. The main criterion for an organism to be placed in a particular species is the ability to breed with other organisms of that same species. The species of an organism determines the second part of its two-part name."

What God says about living things:

He made them male and female ... with the ability to reproduce after their kind ....

I'm curious as to what this has to do with Dogmahunter's post.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm curious as to what this has to do with Dogmahunter's post.

He cited "distribution of species" as part of "evidence" ..... well what are "species" . if species are as specific as you can get in regard to living things .... then what is the definition of species.

 

[sfs]

He cited "distribution of species" as part of "evidence" ..... well what are "species" . if species are as specific as you can get in regard to living things .... then what is the definition of species.

Does the exact definition really matter for his point? Under any reasonable definition (including the one you quote), it is a fact that species tend to be most similar to other species that are geographically near them.

 

[USincognito]

He cited "distribution of species" as part of "evidence" ..... well what are "species" . if species are as specific as you can get in regard to living things .... then what is the definition of species.

Yes, biogeography is one line of evidence for evolution (it goes beyond just individual species), and your definition came from a source for school children. Some species have been recognized as having subspecies for decades now. Still not sure why you think a definition of species is germane to biogeography however.

 

[Tolworth John]

Who are you quoting here?

Read post 1 tas8831's signature by line.

 

[Tolworth John]

Given that evolution isn't a religion and atheism is really a lack of religion, the failure of your conclusion does not bode well for your premise.

And atheists are being appointed as chaplins means athism is being recognised as a 'faith'.

Ask any atheist to prove that there is no God and the question is dodged so a belief that there is no God is just that a faith based belief.

 

[Tolworth John]

Well, given that evolution doesn't propose being A "turning into being B, that's not an issue. Evolution is about population A splitting into population A.1. and A.2., etc.etc. And the process by which new information" forms in genomes has been understood for decades - mutation and subsequent selection.

What you are saying then is that single celled creatured did not become multi celled creatures which divided into other creatures and again devided into every species that exists on earth.
Darwin was in fact wrong.

 

[USincognito]

And atheists are being appointed as chaplins means athism is being recognised as a 'faith'.

Ask any atheist to prove that there is no God and the question is dodged so a belief that there is no God is just that a faith based belief.

I'm not interested in discussing atheism as it's not the topic of the thread. My point about calling evolution a religion being inane stands.

What you are saying then is that single celled creatured did not become multi celled creatures which divided into other creatures and again devided into every species that exists on earth.
Darwin was in fact wrong.

1. Darwin wasn't an apostle and Origin wasn't an epistle.
2. That is not what I am saying. It would have been nice to get a hypothetical example of what you meant beforehand, but every time I ask Creationists tend to defer and divert instead of answering.
3. We might need to have a discussion about common descent before continuing. Descendants, no matter how much they change, never stop being what their ancestors were. Multicellular eukaryotes are still eukaryotes. Birds are still theropod dinosaurs and archosaurs. Snakes are still terrestrial tetrapods and lobe-finned fish.

 

[tas8831]

"Evolution is the evidence for evolution."

If that is the standard of evidence, there is no hope you will accept real evidence.

Funny you mention that - you see, it is a parody of a creationist claim that I saw on this very forum, written by a creationist that boasts of having a high IQ. He had written that 'creation is the evidence for creationism'.


Do you agree with that standard of evidence?

Regarding my acceptance of 'real evidence', what is your real evidence that supports the quote in the OP?

thanks

 

[tas8831]

Source?

The usual suspect.

 

[tas8831]

from google:- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So for evolution something that demonstrats that creature A has turned into creature B, or a process that demonstrates how new information appears in a creatures genetics.

To blindly say evolution is the evidence for evolution is to belief that evidence is not required.

That is nice.

Do you think the quote in the OP has any merit or relationship to any real body of knowledge:

"[re: alleles] NEVER has a new gene or alleles been produced, merely the sequence of what already existed copied in a new format, almost always consisting of loss of function and weakening of the overall viability.

We are not talking reproduction, where genes from different creatures are brought together to produce a multitude of variation, but mutation of what already exists within a creatures genome."


Do you agree that alleles are just "the sequence of what already existed copied in a new format"? And if so, what 'new format' do you suppose is produced?

And if alleles are really "mutation of what already exists within a creatures genome", how does that differ from the legitimate definition of what an allele is?

thanks.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry but there isn't a professor of paliontology who will go on record to say that fosil 'prove' evo;ution.
In fact it is the reverse. They are on record saying there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and creationist are accused of quote mining when they quote them.

Then surely you can provide some clear-cut quotes that support your assertion?

Mutation is evidence only of a loss of information.

Please define "information" in the context of biology/genetics, then explain, exactly, how mutations are only a "loss" of information.

And since you know so much about this topic, perhaps you can answer these questions that I have asked a few times and that all creationists on here have ignored:

And since you mention information - tell me about the information flow in this documented event:

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

Science 27 Sep 2002:
Vol. 297, Issue 5590, pp. 2253-2256
DOI: 10.1126/science.1074170

ABSTRACT
... Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis ofCyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5′ end of the Cyp6g1 gene.


This indicates that the ability to resist DDT in fruit flies was caused by a mutation - an insertion of an Accord element (a type of transposon) in a gene that alters its expression.

The protein itself was not altered, just the amount produced, yet this keeps the flies alive in the presence of DDT.

Clearly, this is a beneficial mutation, allowing the flies to adapt to a hostile environment.


Show us that your claims regarding 'information' are not just paraphrased sound bites that you gleaned from YEC/ID websites, rather that you actually understand enough biology and information theory to address a real example of adaptation via mutation.

Explain it - was this an increase in information or not? Why or why not? Was this beneficial? Why or why not?

Lets see you put your money where your mouth is.​

 

[tas8831]

Classification of Living Things:

Classification of Living Things

Species

"Species are as specific as you can get. It is the lowest and most strict level of classification of living things. The main criterion for an organism to be placed in a particular species is the ability to breed with other organisms of that same species. The species of an organism determines the second part of its two-part name."

What God says about living things:

He made them male and female ... with the ability to reproduce after their kind ....

What is a "kind"?

 

[eleos1954]

What is a "kind"?

within it's own species

 

[eleos1954]

Does the exact definition really matter for his point? Under any reasonable definition (including the one you quote), it is a fact that species tend to be most similar to other species that are geographically near them.

Well, yes it does, there are mammals, birds, insects etc. and these are not confined by geographics and then beyond that .... within mammals .... well we know a bear don't mate with a mouse ... so beyond the classes ... then we look at what is within the classes and those are called species.

"it is a fact that species tend to be most similar to other species that are geographically near them."

Now you could say they tend to .... but it is not a "fact" that they all do.

 

[sfs]

Well, yes it does, there are mammals, birds, insects etc. and these are not confined by geographics and then beyond that .... within mammals .... well we know a bear don't mate with a mouse ... so beyond the classes ... then we look at what is within the classes and those are called species.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. How is what you just wrote relevant to biogeography?

"it is a fact that species tend to be most similar to other species that are geographically near them."

Now you could say they tend to .... but it is not a "fact" that they all do.

Yes, I could say that they tend to. (In fact, I just did say that they tend to.) In lots and lots and lots of cases. That's the fact, and it's a fact that is explained by common descent and that is not explained by special creation. That's why it's evidence for common descent.

 

[eleos1954]

Yes, biogeography is one line of evidence for evolution (it goes beyond just individual species), and your definition came from a source for school children. Some species have been recognized as having subspecies for decades now. Still not sure why you think a definition of species is germane to biogeography however.

came from a source for school children - thought I'd start with the basics

Subspecies - A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common criterion for a subspecies is its ability of interbreeding with a different subspecies of the same species and producing fertile offspring. In the wild, subspecies do not interbreed due to their geographic isolation and sexual selection.