Let's review the facts of evolutionary theory.

ProScribe · Dec 26, 2011

Hello,

If you're a serious evolutionist, explain the proven facts of evolutionary theory I will explain my OEC points.

AV1611VET · Dec 26, 2011

ProScribe said:
Hello,

If you're a serious evolutionist, explain the proven facts of evolutionary theory I will explain my OEC points.

If evolution doesn't work, then I have two questions that need answered:

Why does my Roundup need to be stronger each year?
Why do we have different breeds of dogs?

Miami Marlins 2012 · Dec 26, 2011

If evolution is not true, then explain the existence of Flavobacterium. How do you explain the fact that a bacteria has evolved to digest byproducts of nylon, when these byproducts dis not exist prior to 1936? What did this bacteria eat prior to 1936 when it's sole food source had not been invented by man? Either this Bacteria ate nothing for 4.6 Billion years waiting for man to come and invent nylon, or you have to accept that a mutation in its genes allowed a previously existing bacteria to evolve to digest and process a substance that did not exist in nature prior to 1936.

And what about the plastic-eating bacteria that scientists recently found? How is it that this bacteria only eats plastic, a substance that was not introduced in mass into the environment until the 20th century? Surely a mutation had to occur that allowed a bacterium who previously ate natural materials to eat man-made materials, and due to natural selection the mutation has proven so beneficial that a whole new species of bacteria has arisen from the mutation of that single bacterium.

That right there is more proof of evolution than Creationists have of creation. And I have not even begun to list 0.000001% of all the evidence there is for evolution.

Nabobalis · Dec 26, 2011

Miami Marlins 2012 said:
If evolution is not true, then explain the existence of Flavobacterium. How do you explain the fact that a bacteria has evolved to digest byproducts of nylon, when these byproducts dis not exist prior to 1936? What did this bacteria eat prior to 1936 when it's sole food source had not been invented by man? Either this Bacteria ate nothing for 4.6 Billion years waiting for man to come and invent nylon, or you have to accept that a mutation in its genes allowed a previously existing bacteria to evolve to digest and process a substance that did not exist in nature prior to 1936.

And what about the plastic-eating bacteria that scientists recently found? How is it that this bacteria only eats plastic, a substance that was not introduced in mass into the environment until the 20th century? Surely a mutation had to occur.

That right there is more proof of evolution than Creationists have of creation. And I have not even begun to list 0.000001% of all the evidence there is for evolution.

The only issue with that is, someone is bound to then go on about that is only micro evolution and not macro evolution and why haven't we seen cats given birth to dogs etc etc etc

Miami Marlins 2012 · Dec 26, 2011

Nabobalis said:
The only issue with that is, someone is bound to then go on about that is only micro evolution and not macro evolution and why haven't we seen cats given birth to dogs etc etc etc

The Creationist argument over micro-evolution is silly. Yes, a dog and a wolf can mate, but only because dogs only recently evolved from wolves due to selective breeding by man. Since the divergence of dogs from wolves is very recent (only a few thousands of years) there hasn't been enough genetic mutations yet to affect breeding between dogs and wolves.

But if you look at a horse and a donkey, the common ancestor is more distant than in the case of the dog and wolf, and enough mutations have occurred in the genes since the two species diverged from their common ancestor that any offspring is sterile. Eventually so many mutations will build between the horse and the donkey that no offspring, not even a sterile one, will be possible, and both species will be completely distinct and separate species.

Therefore, when I look at the dog/wolf and horse/donkey, I see perfect examples of how macro-evolution works through micro-evolution. The dog/wolf serve as examples of a recent divergence of two species from what was once a single one, and the horse/donkey show what happens in the ability of the two species to reproduce as the time from divergence becomes greater and different mutations occur in both species (interbreeding becomes less successful until it eventually becomes impossible.) And humans/apes show us what happens when our common ancestor is millions of years in the past. We are still mammals, we are still primates, but we can no longer mate with each other and are starting to look extremely different from each other as time passes. Eventually the differences between primates could be so great that our future descendant species may be grouped in separate and new categories. But that will take millions of years more.

And that's evolution in a nutshell, broken down and simplified into its most basic form. So watered down that even someone who hates science can understand!

Miami Marlins 2012 · Dec 26, 2011

AV1611VET said:
If evolution doesn't work, then I have two questions that need answered:

Why does my Roundup need to be stronger each year?

Why do we have different breeds of dogs?

AV1611VET, I thought you said that evolution was a fraud? So why are you asking questions when the OP wants questions from "serious evolutionists" and not fellow creationists?

It's not nice to troll!

AV1611VET · Dec 26, 2011

Miami Marlins 2012 said:
AV1611VET, I thought you said that evolution was a fraud? So why are you asking questions when the OP wants questions from "serious evolutionists" and not fellow creationists?

QV please:

Jade Margery said:
Jade Margery said:

I am curious, AV--if I find you some poetic metaphor in the Bible that can be translated to support the theory of evolution, will it help you accept what science tells you?

Click to expand...

I already believe in evolution (to a point), but thank you anyway --

AV1611VET said:

I'll subscribe to limited evolution, but that's as far as I'll go.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Even I believe in evolution --- to a point.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I believe in limited evolution (microevolution, adaptation) -- not complete evolution (macroevolution).

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I believe evolution runs just so far, then can't go any further; something I like to call limited evolution, for lack of a better term.

Click to expand...

I believe in microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution.

Miami Marlins 2012 said:
It's not nice to troll!

Who's trolling?

mathetes123 · Dec 26, 2011

AV1611VET said:
If evolution doesn't work, then I have two questions that need answered:

Why does my Roundup™ need to be stronger each year?

Why do we have different breeds of dogs?

That would be micro evolution, or change within species. The weeds do not cease being weeds as the dogs do not cease being dogs. The evolution in question is macro-evolution or evolution from one created kind (or species) to another, as from from the goo, through the zoo, to me and you.

AV1611VET · Dec 26, 2011

mathetes123 said:
That would be micro evolution, or change within species. The weeds do not cease being weeds as the dogs do not cease being dogs. The evolution in question is macro-evolution or evolution from one created kind (or species) to another, as from from the goo, through the zoo, to me and you.

Okay -- I was just wondering --

Welcome to CF!

Jazer · Dec 26, 2011

Miami Marlins 2012 said:
That right there is more proof of evolution than Creationists have of creation. And I have not even begun to list 0.000001% of all the evidence there is for evolution.

So if evolution were falsified would all your evidence go up in a puff of smoke or would they just call it something else. Actually evolution is falsified all the time. They just make up something to replace it with. So we go from Darwinism, to NeoDarwinism, to PostNeoDarwinism. What are they going to call it next?

CTD · Dec 26, 2011

Fact 1: atheism needs origin myths to replace legitimate history
Fact 2: if you don't accept the myths, no matter how absurd, whatever can be done to you and gotten away with shall be done to you
Fact 3: the myths are so indefensible and offensive to the intellect, half the time you'll be told they amount to nothing more than "allele frequencies change over time"
Fact 4: thousands of myths have been composed, and an argument-from-spam strategy is universally employed. Debunk one lie? So what? They have more & can invent new stories on the fly. Their idea of defending: that you must debunk every last lie. ...to their satisfaction.

CabVet · Dec 27, 2011

Jazer said:
So if evolution were falsified would all your evidence go up in a puff of smoke or would they just call it something else. Actually evolution is falsified all the time. They just make up something to replace it with. So we go from Darwinism, to NeoDarwinism, to PostNeoDarwinism. What are they going to call it next?

Hey Jazer, I am curious, could you please explain what you think evolution is?

ProScribe · Dec 27, 2011

AV1611VET said:
If evolution doesn't work, then I have two questions that need answered:

Why does my Roundup need to be stronger each year?

Why do we have different breeds of dogs?

A) That's something you ask the clerk at the store you get Roundup from, then the clerk will take you to the manager.

B) If you look at dog chart ~ different dogs have different genes from which ever country breeds them. You would start with 2 male and female Purebreeds then have a small set of puppies eventually the puppies become of age are selected by by different people then taken migratorially to different regions. Occassionaly, the is the male mutt that mates with a different breed of female and that female has own set of puppies and so on. So, top choice dog breeders start with the male and female Purebreed
and it just happens that spots and different dog hairs are . . . .

ProScribe · Dec 27, 2011

CabVet said:
Hey Jazer, I am curious, could you please explain what you think evolution is?

I think evolution is theology of aliens and something like that Predator character. And no, those neanderthal skulls and ape fangs do not match with my skull.

AV1611VET · Dec 27, 2011

Jazer said:
So if evolution were falsified would all your evidence go up in a puff of smoke or would they just call it something else.

That's a very good question, Jazer.

I asked the same thing of these guys as to what would happen to all that other evidence about our moon, should one of the six theories be found to be the correct one, and it was like inviting these guys to play verbal Twister.

Freodin · Dec 27, 2011

AV1611VET said:
That's a very good question, Jazer.

I asked the same thing of these guys as to what would happen to all that other evidence about our moon, should one of the six theories be found to be the correct one, and it was like inviting these guys to play verbal Twister.

So what about all these "theories" on the creation?

[serious] · Dec 27, 2011

ProScribe said:
Hello,

If you're a serious evolutionist, explain the proven facts of evolutionary theory I will explain my OEC points.

All life we know of fits into a nested hierarchy. Humans and other great apes, great apes and other monkeys, monkeys and other eutheria, eutheria and montremes (the two broad types of mammals), Mammals and other cordates, cordates and other animals with bilateral symmetry. Bilateria, and animals with radial symetry. animals with complex organizations and sponges. Animals and single celled eukaryotes. Eukaryotes and bacteria. At each level there are phenotypic similarities which do not cross phyla. There are absolutely no plants or animals that lack a nuclear envelop. None, not a single example. This is because these groups are both contained in a broader category of Eukaryotes. There are absolutely no placental mammals that lack bilateral symmetry, spinal cords, warm blood, etc.

This very specific grouping of animals would be an absolute monsterous coincidence. To just happen to have unrelated things group so neatly into lineages like that would be insane.

It gets better though. With the advent of genome analysis, we have a second way of grouping organisms, By checking stuff like remnants of viral DNA in genomes, we can determine lineages independently of any physical traits.

Now, when we analyze the genomic data, we find that we can build a nested hierarchy from it. Here's the kicker though, the nested hierarchy from phenotypes matches the nested hierarchy from the genomic analysis.

This is called the dual nested hierarchy. I know of no explanation for it other than common decent.

Miami Marlins 2012 · Dec 27, 2011

[SERIOUS]....don't bother. This thread has turned out just as I suspected, 3 Creationists having a gloat fest against science due to pure ignorance, while ignoring serious scientific debate.

It's a waste of time to argue science with these people. They will either (1) ignore you, (2) twist what you say, (3) make up something to discredit science or bolster their mystical beliefs, etc.

[serious] · Dec 27, 2011

Jazer said:
So if evolution were falsified would all your evidence go up in a puff of smoke or would they just call it something else. Actually evolution is falsified all the time. They just make up something to replace it with. So we go from Darwinism, to NeoDarwinism, to PostNeoDarwinism. What are they going to call it next?

Kind of, The facts we have amassed need to be explained by any subsequent model. Evolutionary biology doesn't have many cases where there was a fundamental shift, but we can take a look at "neo-darwinism" vs "darwinism". First, we have to explain the terms. when people speak of neodarwinism, it isn't so much in contrast with "darwinism" as "Lamarckism" which suggested that changes to organisms during their life would show to some degree in their offspring. However, as information was found that somatic cells were independant of germ line cells, Weisman proposed that only natural selection impacted the germ line. This was the start of "neo-darwinism". It explained all the previous data and all the new data. Now, Weissman's theory did not challenge the idea of inheritance of traits being responsible for changes in populations of organisms through means of natural selection. Rather, it refined that central idea and overturned the theory of inheritance of acquired trait which was a mechanism by which evolution might happen.

Now, "postneodarwinism" is I term I've never heard before. I'm assuming you are talking about modern synthesis which effectively merged Mendelian genetics with evolutionary biology. Again, it didn't overthrow the idea that there was a germ line independant from the somatic cells, it just refined the understanding of it as a diploid genome with discrete genes resulting in phenotypes.

As to whatever comes next, I don't know what it will be called, but I feel reasonably confident that it will not overturn the idea that traits are inheritable, that there exists an independant germ line through which traits are passed, or that that germ line has discrete genotypes in a diploid system.

We can see the same sort of evolution of scientific thought (pun not intended) in other areas like atomic structure.

[serious] · Dec 27, 2011

Miami Marlins 2012 said:
[SERIOUS]....don't bother. This thread has turned out just as I suspected, 3 Creationists having a gloat fest against science due to pure ignorance, while ignoring serious scientific debate.

It's a waste of time to argue science with these people. They will either (1) ignore you, (2) twist what you say, (3) make up something to discredit science or bolster their mystical beliefs, etc.

I'm sure there are those here that will act exactly as you say, however, thus far the OP seems to be asking an honest and respectful question so I feel compelled to answer him honestly and respectfully.

Let's review the facts of evolutionary theory.

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A critical thinker in a world of superstition

Nabobalis

Guest

A critical thinker in a world of superstition

A critical thinker in a world of superstition

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

Question everything

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Devout believer in a theologically different God

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

A critical thinker in a world of superstition

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency