Microevolution

theoddamerican · Aug 15, 2006

http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_03.html

this is a good site that gives lots of info about "Evolution" and why it is wrong. I am curious about what people think of the site.

theoddamerican · Aug 15, 2006

Could anyone name one mutation that actually imporved the organism.

Mallon · Aug 15, 2006

theoddamerican said:
Could anyone name one mutation that actually imporved the organism.

Scientists induce mutations via UV in bacteria all the time that enable them to live on minimal media in the lab. That's just one example.

Brennan · Aug 15, 2006

theoddamerican said:
Also something that most people don't hear about is Darwins finches and what happened to them. After the rains returned and the drouts left, their beaks went back to normal. That is adaption or micro evolution. I think that Micro Evolution should be called something else because it is confused with macro too much. People try to use micro to prove macro and the only thing that can be observed is micro.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you go to the Galapagos today you will see the same populations of finches with the same variations in beaks. It has nothing to do with a drought (???) and everything to do with what they eat.

Evolution does not make creatures 'better' it makes them more able to survive - example: the legs on mammals that went back to the oceans did not need their legs any more... so they got gradually smaller until today whales and such like only have tiny vestigial legs. (just a clump of tiny bones)

theoddamerican · Aug 16, 2006

Mallon said:
Scientists induce mutations via UV in bacteria all the time that enable them to live on minimal media in the lab. That's just one example.

How is this beneficial to the bacteria? If you release it back into the wild so to say it would be the prime target to get eaten. All this proves is that you can manipulate genetic material but it had a limitation. It couldn't change it into something better. They just chose what areas to mess with and they did it.

Even with the fruit flies. They manipulated them enough and got flies with no wings, extra wings, curled wings, and stubby wings.

The one that is most pointed out as 'evolution' is the one with extra wings. The bad thing is that the fly could only survive in the lab, it couldn't fly due to the extra wings the extra wings were also useless since they had no muscles going to them, the females wouldn't mate with them and they would have been killed right away. (Survival of the fittest)

Besides, this doesn't prove evolution at all because from what I understand of evolution it is the process of one organism becoming better. The fruit flies already had the genetic material to make wings, they just added more wings.

theoddamerican · Aug 16, 2006

Brennan said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you go to the Galapagos today you will see the same populations of finches with the same variations in beaks. It has nothing to do with a drought (???) and everything to do with what they eat.

Evolution does not make creatures 'better' it makes them more able to survive - example: the legs on mammals that went back to the oceans did not need their legs any more... so they got gradually smaller until today whales and such like only have tiny vestigial legs. (just a clump of tiny bones)

I apologize I may have mixed something up with that one but if I can find what I was thinking I will post it.

In my opinion you just contradicted yourself with your definition of evolution. If something is more able to survive it is better. It has updated it has advanced it has upgraded to a better system.

You go around the oceans and find all the whales and cut off every one of those so called vestigial organs. You would kill the entire species. They use those little bones to mate. If you could be a whale during mating season imagine how hard it would be to mate with out any arms or legs. This is the same thing with snakes. They have two little claws in the same region and they use them for mating. It is not because they used to walk.

Brennan · Aug 16, 2006

theoddamerican said:
I apologize I may have mixed something up with that one but if I can find what I was thinking I will post it.

In my opinion you just contradicted yourself with your definition of evolution. If something is more able to survive it is better. It has updated it has advanced it has upgraded to a better system.

You go around the oceans and find all the whales and cut off every one of those so called vestigial organs. You would kill the entire species. They use those little bones to mate. If you could be a whale during mating season imagine how hard it would be to mate with out any arms or legs. This is the same thing with snakes. They have two little claws in the same region and they use them for mating. It is not because they used to walk.

Not 'better' - just 'more able to survive in a new environment'. Is a fish better than a rat? No; they have different habitats, and they are more able to survive in those habitats.

Fish never walked and guess what: they don't have those little bones, nor the little claws, and they do just fine thankyou. Whales could get by without legs, but they evolved a new use. Clever ain't it?

theoddamerican · Aug 16, 2006

Brennan said:
Not 'better' - just 'more able to survive in a new environment'. Is a fish better than a rat? No; they have different habitats, and they are more able to survive in those habitats.

Fish never walked and guess what: they don't have those little bones, nor the little claws, and they do just fine thankyou. Whales could get by without legs, but they evolved a new use. Clever ain't it?

But you or somebody else called them vestigial. The definition from that statement described vestigial as a useless organ. They are used for nothing. Also scientist only think that these bones are vestigial. They have no half whale or half something else. They only have assumptions.

Also the fish and rat thing. A fish is designed for water and a rat for dry land. They didnt evolve.

Is God stupid? Does God have to make a rough draft and then through a process make it right? Can God not make up his mind on what he wants to do? Is God a slave to science or is science a slave to God?

theoddamerican · Aug 16, 2006

Brennan said:
Not 'better' - just 'more able to survive in a new environment'.

This is the same thing but you are refusing to see this. Even the first definition at dictionary.com says this about evolution.

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form"

Is Dictionary.com wrong in this definition? Maby you should write them a letter of notice and have them change it. I am sure that people who devote their lives to better influence the rest of the world can be wrong.

Mallon · Aug 16, 2006

theoddamerican said:
How is this beneficial to the bacteria?

It's beneficial to the bacteria because it allows the mutated strain to live where it otherwise might not be able to. It doesn't require food supplement like the regular strain. This is beneficial.

Even with the fruit flies. They manipulated them enough and got flies with no wings, extra wings, curled wings, and stubby wings.

Fun fact: winglessness is a beneficial mutation on islands. Why? Because islands tend to have high winds, and flying insects tend to get blown off to sea in those high winds. Those insects incapable of flying therefore tend to do better on islands.
Just goes to show that a "good" or "bad" mutation is relative to the environment.

Besides, this doesn't prove evolution at all because from what I understand of evolution it is the process of one organism becoming better. The fruit flies already had the genetic material to make wings, they just added more wings.

I'm sorry to say, but your understanding of evolution is just plain wrong. "Better" is not a term thrown around by scientists when discussing evolution. That would be a judgment call, and is non-scientific. What evolution does is weed out those organisms ill adapted to their environment and leaves behind those organisms that are well adapted. But the minute the surrounding environment changes, what was once "good" may become "bad". Again, good vs. bad mutations are relative to the environment.
In any case, this is a discussion for the OT forum. I've only been posting here since you've been asking questions. If you want to keep this up, please start a new thread in the OT forum.
And for what it's worth, "vestigial" =/= "useless". That's a whole topic of its own.

Brennan · Aug 16, 2006

Well said Mallon.

theoddamerican · Aug 17, 2006

I have heard that the scientist concluded after they received no result for advancement of the fruit fly that the fly has evolved as far as it can. Still, I say it again that even the definition at dictionary.com concludes that evolution makes something better. Why would something move down the food chain? That's like saying, hey! I think I will lose both of my arms so they can't handcuff me. This may be helpful for the moment but what happens when a wild animal attacks that guy. Is he going to kick it and hope for the best. Although, a mutation may seem helpful in a lab, when released back into its natural environment, it will become the skinny weak kid that everyone wants to pick on.

theoddamerican · Aug 17, 2006

What is the Universal Probability of evolution. It says that anything over 150 is impossible.

Mallon · Aug 17, 2006

theoddamerican said:
I have heard that the scientist concluded after they received no result for advancement of the fruit fly that the fly has evolved as far as it can.

Can you cite a science paper in which the authors made this conclusion? Otherwise, what you have heard is baseless heresay.

Still, I say it again that even the definition at dictionary.com concludes that evolution makes something better.

And I would argue that the definition at dictionary.com is wrong. Yes! I said it! An internet-based dictionary is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't agree with their definition of "God", either. This discussion has come up on this very forum before. If you want a scientific definition of evolution, look in a science textbook. Scientists get to define the terms they use; not laymen.

Why would something move down the food chain?

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but "moving down the food chain" could be highly beneficial to an organism. For each step you move down the chain, about 10x more energy is available to you in the form of food. This is a well-studied aspect of ecology.

theoddamerican, without sounding too high-horsed, your understanding of evolution is quite obviously sub-par. That's not a judgment call on your intelligence, for we all have our strengths and weaknesses. But I would suggest that you do more reading of science texts to learn about evolution, rather than getting your info from online dictionaries. There's A LOT more to it than you think, and I think that by educating yourself on the subject that little bit more, you would stop making such elementary mistakes like thinking evolution makes an organism "better".

rmwilliamsll · Aug 17, 2006

Why would something move down the food chain?

awkward way to word it, however the answer is parasites.

oops.
only noticed where this is after posting.
however it is instructive and not argumentative so i don't think it necessary to blank it out (no delete functions appear available)

to be informative i'd add:

By one estimate, parasites may outnumber free-living species four to one. Indeed, the study of life is, for the most part, parasitology.

from: http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-00/cover/

The sheer number of genuses which contain a free living and a parasitic form is estimated in the 100's of thousands.

this article is a nice intro to the enormous numbers of parasitic species. most people are simply unaware of how many there are.

theoddamerican · Aug 18, 2006

Mallon said:
And I would argue that the definition at dictionary.com is wrong. Yes! I said it! An internet-based dictionary is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't agree with their definition of "God", either. This discussion has come up on this very forum before. If you want a scientific definition of evolution, look in a science textbook. Scientists get to define the terms they use; not laymen.

Mallon said:
Not sure what this has to do with anything, but "moving down the food chain" could be highly beneficial to an organism. For each step you move down the chain, about 10x more energy is available to you in the form of food. This is a well-studied aspect of ecology.

theoddamerican, without sounding too high-horsed, your understanding of evolution is quite obviously sub-par. That's not a judgment call on your intelligence, for we all have our strengths and weaknesses. But I would suggest that you do more reading of science texts to learn about evolution, rather than getting your info from online dictionaries. There's A LOT more to it than you think, and I think that by educating yourself on the subject that little bit more, you would stop making such elementary mistakes like thinking evolution makes an organism "better".

Then the definition of evolution is also wrong in pretty much all the online dictionaries and my own personal one. Could it possibly be that your definition is wrong?
Maybe you should tell them that the definition that they have is misleading.

The definition of God from a secular source should be obviously disagreeable upon by a Christian if that secular source has never experienced God.

"Well studied" How can they study it when they have no evidence of evolution? Make sure you separate simple adaptation with evolution. The only observable form of 'evolution' is adaptation. Maybe something will get bigger or smaller have less or more hair have a better resistance to some illnesses, be able to digest food better and so on but all that is, is adaptation.

"There's A LOT more to it than you think''

Yes there is. I am pretty sure we both need to learn more about it. I have been giving you simple questions expecting simple answers. I told you that all of the ape men have been disproved and had no reply. This is a known fact and has been disproved not by creationist but by evolutionist. So with saying that my point is that man has no "evolutionary timeline." Evolutionist try to use the fossil record to explain what happened but could it be that it never happened. Could it be that when Christians first heard about this evolution thing they tried to match it up to the bible and didn't trust GOD with the way he inspired it. They also didn't trust GOD for his path of salvation. The bible says repeatedly that death came into the world because of mans sins. Not because GOD is some idiot who wanted billions of years of death and blood. I have no idea how someone can believe in the GOD of the Holy Bible and evolution, because the Bible does not match up with the word of GOD.
Tell me how if you can and I will try to show you why it doesn't. God continually warned his children that there would be strong delusions 2 thes 2:11 God also said that because we disobeyed him in the garden we now face death.

Another theistic evolutionist told me the story of genesis was only figurative and from what I understand I would think you would have to believe this also, other wise you can't fit in evolution.

If this is all a figurative story on how God started this place then how do you trust the rest of the Bible? I truly want an answer to that question. I could care less about the rest, but I really want to know how you can believe this

Mallon · Aug 18, 2006

I will have to reply to your post a little later today, theoddamerican. Look for it in the OT forum, since our musings are obviously becoming debative.

theoddamerican · Aug 21, 2006

Actually, I think I am done Mallon. You might really examine were your ultimate authority comes from. Is it the bible or is it a science book. The bible is simply a book that talks about one guy that can save you because of your sin. Your view contradicts the bible. Sorry to say but I need to stop talking to you. The reason I even talked was because I don't want people to believe in a lie. You can't have it both ways. You can't believe in Jesus Christ and believe in evolution. The main job of jesus was to bring redemption. Sin entered into the world becaused of man. the same with death. So either believe in the bible or evolution, don't go half way.

Peace and love man

rmwilliamsll · Aug 21, 2006

oops

moved to right place

Mallon · Aug 21, 2006

theoddamerican said:
Actually, I think I am done Mallon. You might really examine were your ultimate authority comes from. Is it the bible or is it a science book. The bible is simply a book that talks about one guy that can save you because of your sin. Your view contradicts the bible. Sorry to say but I need to stop talking to you. The reason I even talked was because I don't want people to believe in a lie. You can't have it both ways. You can't believe in Jesus Christ and believe in evolution. The main job of jesus was to bring redemption. Sin entered into the world becaused of man. the same with death. So either believe in the bible or evolution, don't go half way.

Peace and love man

Thanks for your peace, love and fellowship, theoddamerican. It really shone through, despite the fact that you do not wish to speak with me anymore. I am sorry that you do not wish to continue our discussion in the OT forum. You've said many things that I would like to address.

Microevolution

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency