So... Creation or Evolution?

[whois]

But still I want to ask, for you guys, without any complicated answers, do you think evolution is the overall truth and that explains everything without any kind of doubt?

no.
evolution, as you know it, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.

the robustness of DNA combined with epigenetics is showing that evolution is not a matter of gradual change.
the discontinuous nature of the fossil record supports that.

 

[SteveB28]

no.
evolution, as you know it, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.

the robustness of DNA combined with epigenetics is showing that evolution is not a matter of gradual change.
the discontinuous nature of the fossil record supports that.

It would appear, madam, that it depends very much on what you consider to be "gradual". Evolutionary change can be represented by several functions, with differing gradients. Different species, different environmental conditions, different rates of mutation all combine to produce these different gradients, if my readings serve me well.

 

[sandybay]

evolution, as you know it, is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.

This statement makes one wonder where creationists are getting their information from and why they would believe as they do in the face of such overwhelming evidence against what they are being told.

 

[Wryetui]

This thread has helped me change my view a little bit, while I cannot make a clear statemenet about my opinion about this particulary subject, I now know that evolution is not contradictory to my faith or the catholic one. After all, who really knows? It is not a matter of life and death to me, after all

 

[whois]

It would appear, madam, that it depends very much on what you consider to be "gradual". Evolutionary change can be represented by several functions, with differing gradients. Different species, different environmental conditions, different rates of mutation all combine to produce these different gradients, if my readings serve me well.
​

maybe you need to expand your reading horizons.

More broadly, analyses of fossil ranges across a wide range of taxa have led to increasing faith in the fossil record as an accurate record of tempo and mode of evolution (e.g., Benton et al., 2000).

The apparently sudden origin of animal phyla has contributed to the view that phyla represent a fundamental level of organization. In particular, phyla are held to be defined primarily by a set of discrete body plan characters, rather than simply differing at a large number of continuously varying traits.
Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion has been interpreted as the point at which Hox clusters formed, and were subsequently canalized so that no new body plans formed after that time (e.g., Valentine et al., 1999).
So these three observations—the sudden appearance of animal phyla in the fossil record, the discontinuity between animal body plans, and mutations that bring about discrete body-plan-like changes—have been combined in the hypothesis that the evolution of animal body plans did not occur by the gradual accumulation of small genetic differences, but by relatively few developmental changes with large phenotypic effects. Because this hypothesis offers a direct challenge to the Neodarwinian view of evolution (evolutionary change by the gradual accumulation of adaptive changes), the importance of these interpretations of the Cambrian explosion go beyond explaining a single evolutionary radiation.
​

 

[whois]

edit function isn't working,
source of my last post:
m.icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/148.long?view=long&pmid=21680419

 

[whois]

i guess you have heard it said "evolution integrates all of biology"
here is a doctors perspective:

Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery at Stony Brook
I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors -- nearly two-thirds according to national polls -- don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin’s theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame -- not advance -- to the medical field.
So ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’ I wouldn’t. Evolutionary biology isn’t important to modern medicine. Evolution News & Views March 9 2007

 

[SteveB28]

It would appear, madam, that it depends very much on what you consider to be "gradual". Evolutionary change can be represented by several functions, with differing gradients. Different species, different environmental conditions, different rates of mutation all combine to produce these different gradients, if my readings serve me well.
​

maybe you need to expand your reading horizons.

More broadly, analyses of fossil ranges across a wide range of taxa have led to increasing faith in the fossil record as an accurate record of tempo and mode of evolution (e.g., Benton et al., 2000).

The apparently sudden origin of animal phyla has contributed to the view that phyla represent a fundamental level of organization. In particular, phyla are held to be defined primarily by a set of discrete body plan characters, rather than simply differing at a large number of continuously varying traits.
Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion has been interpreted as the point at which Hox clusters formed, and were subsequently canalized so that no new body plans formed after that time (e.g., Valentine et al., 1999).
So these three observations—the sudden appearance of animal phyla in the fossil record, the discontinuity between animal body plans, and mutations that bring about discrete body-plan-like changes—have been combined in the hypothesis that the evolution of animal body plans did not occur by the gradual accumulation of small genetic differences, but by relatively few developmental changes with large phenotypic effects. Because this hypothesis offers a direct challenge to the Neodarwinian view of evolution (evolutionary change by the gradual accumulation of adaptive changes), the importance of these interpretations of the Cambrian explosion go beyond explaining a single evolutionary radiation.
​

Amazing. Why did you bother? Your source says effectively the same as I did - viz, that there are differing gradients evident in evolutionary change, depending upon environment, species, rate of mutation, etc.

How in any way does this constitute support for your ridiculous claim that "evolution is a fraud"?

Is this the standard of your desperation?

 

[whois]

Amazing. Why did you bother? Your source says effectively the same as I did - viz, that there are differing gradients evident in evolutionary change, depending upon environment, species, rate of mutation, etc.

How in any way does this constitute support for your ridiculous claim that "evolution is a fraud"?

Is this the standard of your desperation?

evolution has no explanations for the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

Much work remains to be done to arrive at an adequate explanation of the deep molecular divergence between animal phyla.

-from the same source.

 

[SteveB28]

evolution has no explanations for the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

Oh, I see.........

Rate of Evolutionary Change - Species, Rates, Mutation, and Characteristics - JRank Articles

http://www.genetics.org/content/162/3/1389.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12454082

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML

Please stop. I'm feeling embarrassed for you.

 

[whois]

i don't know man, my source comes from oxford.
i think oxford holds a little more respect than something called jrank.

 

[SteveB28]

i don't know man, my source comes from oxford.
i think oxford holds a little more respect than something called jrank.

Oh dear. Oh dear, dear, dear.

Your source, my dear woman, wasn't questioned! In fact, if you make the feeble effort of looking back a page or two, you will see that I agreed with your source! The point I made was to ask how that evidence supported your ridiculous charge.

Just stop.

 

[whois]

Oh, I see.........

Rate of Evolutionary Change - Species, Rates, Mutation, and Characteristics - JRank Articles

Different Types and Rates of Genome Evolution Detected by Comparative Sequence Analysis of Orthologous Segments From Four Cereal Genomes

Different types and rates of genome evolution detected by comparative sequence analysis of orthologous segments from four cereal genomes. - PubMed - NCBI

Molecular Evolution

Please stop. I'm feeling embarrassed for you.

there is no question that variation occurs.
these variation do not explain the discontinuous nature of the record.
diversity of life is not the result of slow, gradual change.
body plans are determined by HOX genes, and it's the body plans that are discontinuous in the record.

 

[SteveB28]

there is no question that variation occurs.
these variation do not explain the discontinuous nature of the record.
diversity of life is not the result of slow, gradual change.
body plans are determined by HOX genes, and it's the body plans that are discontinuous in the record.

CC201: Phyletic gradualism

Just stop.

 

[whois]

CC201: Phyletic gradualism

Just stop.

an anti religious agenda site.

just stop.

anyone that wants an objective opinion, i've presented the analysis from oxford.

evolution cannot explain the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

 

[PsychoSarah]

an anti religious agenda site.

just stop.

anyone that wants an objective opinion, i've presented the analysis from oxford.

evolution cannot explain the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

If you are going to accuse a scientific work of that kind of bias, you have to back that claim with evidence. Just because the paper disagrees with you doesn't make it biased or wrong. You HAVE to be willing to consider the possibility that YOU ARE WRONG if you are going into a scientific debate, otherwise your position will become stagnant with ideas people can easily disregard because you fail to express a scientific mindset. To be fair, any site that dedicates itself to the debate is likely to have bias, but not necessarily.

And no single source, not even one as good as Oxford, is enough to support a position by itself. Scientists within a field DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE and there are always a few on the fringes, even in prestigious positions.

 

[whois]

sarah,
i see you haven't even attempted to say anything about what the paper says.
like i said, it's there, an impartial analysis of the situation.
i realize the conclusion reached is hard to deal with, but you can't honestly deny it.
the conclusion is:

Much work remains to be done to arrive at an adequate explanation of the deep molecular divergence between animal phyla.

in other words, "gradual change" does not explain the record.

and it isn't a "single source", it's the collective effort of many scientist.
i also assume that these people know exactly what they are talking about.
it's also a safe bet they aren't creationists.

 

[sfs]

i guess you have heard it said "evolution integrates all of biology"
here is a doctors perspective:

Why would a surgeon's perspective matter? Surgeon's are skilled in cutting people and sewing them back up again. Very skillfully, to be sure, but they're not biologists. Unlike the surgeon, I actually do work in biomedical research, and my perspective is that evolutionary biology is crucial for a lot of what we do.

 

[sfs]

It would appear, madam, that it depends very much on what you consider to be "gradual". Evolutionary change can be represented by several functions, with differing gradients. Different species, different environmental conditions, different rates of mutation all combine to produce these different gradients, if my readings serve me well.
​

maybe you need to expand your reading horizons.

More broadly, analyses of fossil ranges across a wide range of taxa have led to increasing faith in the fossil record as an accurate record of tempo and mode of evolution (e.g., Benton et al., 2000).

The apparently sudden origin of animal phyla has contributed to the view that phyla represent a fundamental level of organization. In particular, phyla are held to be defined primarily by a set of discrete body plan characters, rather than simply differing at a large number of continuously varying traits.
Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion has been interpreted as the point at which Hox clusters formed, and were subsequently canalized so that no new body plans formed after that time (e.g., Valentine et al., 1999).
So these three observations—the sudden appearance of animal phyla in the fossil record, the discontinuity between animal body plans, and mutations that bring about discrete body-plan-like changes—have been combined in the hypothesis that the evolution of animal body plans did not occur by the gradual accumulation of small genetic differences, but by relatively few developmental changes with large phenotypic effects. Because this hypothesis offers a direct challenge to the Neodarwinian view of evolution (evolutionary change by the gradual accumulation of adaptive changes), the importance of these interpretations of the Cambrian explosion go beyond explaining a single evolutionary radiation.
​

Have you read the entire article you're quoting? What's being offered here is a hypothesis, a hypothesis that is then largely rejected in the rest of the article. E.g. "Whatever timescale this change in body plan characters occurred on, it suggests that body plans of metazoan phyla were not formed once then canalized, but were able to evolve in stepwise fashion from one body plan to another. Animal body plans are therefore not immutable."

 

[Loudmouth]

there is no question that variation occurs.
these variation do not explain the discontinuous nature of the record.

Darwin explained the discontinuous nature of the fossil record almost 150 years ago.

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]

diversity of life is not the result of slow, gradual change.

No one doubts that some mutations can produce more change than others.

body plans are determined by HOX genes, and it's the body plans that are discontinuous in the record.

HOX genes can mutate just like any other gene.