To the evolution deniers

[Almost there]

That was more than imprecision. It was incorrect, wrong, mistaken, misleading, in error. It reflected a basic misunderstanding of an important concept in science.

OK, I reread my offending statement. I stand by my defense of it being "imprecise". What I had said was "A theory is not reality until it is proven through experiment and observation. This is why gravity is still a "theory"..

I was not trying to make the point that a theory can be proven. Rather, I was trying to make the point that even if something is a theory it is not absolute. Frankly, I'm more disappointed in my use of the word "reality" than "proven".

Sorry, I was throwing out words as they hit my brain as I needed to get to a meeting.

I've been over this "theory" thing quite a bit over the last 30 years. How one approaches the word has a lot to do with the audience they are speaking with. I thought of this as a "non-scientific" site and was using my words accordingly. This is not the site I go to to discuss science.

 

[Almost there]

A surprising number of biologists have never read it. I'll see if I can find some supporting data.

I remember a Scientific American article back in the early 90's about DNA research. One of the scientists in the article said something along the lines of "The more we understand how it works, the more it looks like someone designed it."

That would be heresy today and he'd probably be fired, as would the editor that let that comment get in the magazine. And that is even considering that it looks far more complex and computer language-like today then it did then.

 

[BradB]

You say it in a different way than I would, but we are on the same page regarding how we both see this issue. My comment about how vs why is just pointing out that they science and Christianity are two different things with two different approaches. Christianity is about man's relationship with our Creator and, a subset, man's relationship with his fellow man. It is about WHY we exist and are made the way we are. Science is about man's attempt to figure out how things work. That is usually where I go when I debate this with those whose god is science. It misses the core point and focuses on the human intellect.

I see, my apology. Again as I said I am kind of hair triggered after years of running into fellow Christians who attack me for getting into discussions with non-believers about science. They chant "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," like a mantra which is really just an excuse not to "study to show themselves approved." I am quick to rebuke them only because I know the harvest is ready and white for harvest but the laborers are few. That kind of thinking just leaves the wheat to die in the fields.

And as I often say, even if you are really smart, it only makes you one of the smart ants. Big deal.

I love that. I am steeling it!

BTW, a strong argument can be made that gravity pushes.

I believe you are right. Perspective is everything. Another argument could be made for my ability to move the entire world and universe around me. From my point of perspective when I wake I just move my legs and they move the whole world until the kitchen coffee pot is within my reach.

 

[pitabread]

Evidence for this requires us to observe (in a controlled environment) a random mutation that adds new and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism.

Define "new and beneficial information". Preferably as it relates to genetics.

And why does it matter whether or not an organism is multi-cellular?

 

[pitabread]

My take is that all mutations are probably negative.

Based on what exactly?

I mean, you probably carry at least several dozen novel mutations alone. Do you think they are all negative?

 

[pitabread]

Show some that we observe today.

If I do, will you first promise not to move the goalposts? I've been down this road before and don't want to get into a tit-for-tat with sliding goalposts and handwaving.

 

[BradB]

Define "new and beneficial information". Preferably as it relates to genetics.

And why does it matter whether or not an organism is multi-cellular?

New as in information that didn't previously exist in the population. Beneficial as in aiding the organism to survive better than its relatives.

Single-celled organisms are unique to the living organism Spectrum. They do not have the ability to migrate therefore it is likely they were created to have novel ways to metabolize new food groups. For example they have a unique DNA system called plasmids which most multi celled organisms do not have. And most changes observed and single-celled organisms DNA occurred Within These plasmid DNA. Also it's been shown that these changes took place as a result of outside pressures rather than random mutation which As We Know is considered to be the driving engine for evolution.

 

[Almost there]

I don't know what your view is on wikipedia, but I believe this article captures well my understanding of "theory". It may help you to see my objection more clearly.

Already read it. I've been debating this since before the INTERNET and started debating it on the INTERNET in 1998. I don't usually get into these discussions much any more because they don't bear a lot of fruit. In the old days, people would really get wrapped around the axle about the difference between an hypothesis and a theory.

For me, they are all just words used to have a discussion on a subject and offer some common ground. Problem is, the ground shifts depending on the people you are talking with, so I try to get past the grammatical, spelling and other minor errors by either party and try to stay focused on the topic at hand, primarily because this is a Christian forum and not a term paper.

 

[pitabread]

New as in information that didn't previously exist in the population.

Just to expand on this further, what does "information" mean in this context?

 

[Ophiolite]

New as in information that didn't previously exist in the population. Beneficial as in aiding the organism to survive better than its relatives.

Single-celled organisms are unique to the living organism Spectrum. They do not have the ability to migrate therefore it is likely they were created to have novel ways to metabolize new food groups. For example they have a unique DNA system called plasmids which most multi celled organisms do not have. And most changes observed and single-celled organisms DNA occurred Within These plasmid DNA.

So we don't get at cross purposes, which single-celled organisms are you talking about? Prokaryotes exclusively, or prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and if prokaryotes, bacteria or archaea? Since plasmids are found in bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes, what is it you consider to be unique about them? (And if, as you seem to do, you acknowledge some multi-cellular organisms have them, then you seem to have a unique definition of unique.)

 

[Almost there]

Based on what exactly?

I mean, you probably carry at least several dozen novel mutations alone. Do you think they are all negative?

Well, based partly on things like the link I posted with my comment.

 

[pitabread]

Well, based partly on things like the link I posted with my comment.

I didn't see anywhere in the linked article where it claimed that all mutations are negative.

 

[redleghunter]

Obviously you have not followed the evolution of the Corvette.

The Corvette has a creator right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I always thought this sub forum was the result of chance and random selection.

Forums reproduce with variation while competing with peers for limited resources?

 

[redleghunter]

Forums reproduce with variation while competing with peers for limited resources?

Only by chance and a whole lot of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure we observe such in our modern society. None of the mutations seen today 'help' mankind to the next level.

"level"?

You think evolution is a ladder?

Mutations we observe today are negative.

Except the ones that aren't, off course.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Regarding the science of evolution: For something to be a theory it has to be testable.

And it is. Very easily. It is tested all the time. Every new genome sequenced, every fossil found, every body (or part thereof) that gets its anatomy analysed,... Every single one of them is a test for the model.

Most of what we call "evolution theory" is really evolution hypothesis.

lol no

 

[redleghunter]

"level"?

You think evolution is a ladder?




Except the ones that aren't, off course.




It could also mean that you have no idea what you are talking about while clearly not being interested in learning anything and just being content in your ignorance.

Mankind is either progressing or not.

On ignornace?

Perhaps you omit Divine Providence. Ignoring such seems to be the issue with materialists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What we are saying is what most honest evolutionary paleontologists will even admit to. That being their are large gaps between every major form.

Yet paleontologists don't consider that a problem for the evolutionary model, so why do you?

Dinosaurs said to be related jump from no back sail to suddenly a huge back sail. Creatures with no legs leap to suddenly having legs etc. We need at least one example of a finely graduated chain between any two major forms that doesn't depend on great imagination to link them as relatives.

You mean like a series of skulls that shows, for example, how the blowhole of a whale gradually moved from the front of the face, like a regular nose, in the ancestral land animal, to the top of the head in the present day sea-dwelling mammal?

I guess you completely ignore what people say right? I said "multi-celled."

Contrary to what you seem to think, genetics of single-celled life is subject to the exact same processes as any other kind of DNA based life.

Yes the result of already existing genes in the gene pool

As is always the case in gradual step-wise processes like evolution.


[quope]If Hitler would have killed off all brown and red headed people he would not have caused a new mutated gene of blondes. The blonde genes that already exist would have become the predominant genes.[/quote]

And how do the blonde genes come about, do you think?

Must insect populations that become "immune" return to normal again after just a few generations.

"normal"? And what does "return" mean, in that sentence?

That's neat. Now if you will just give me and example of what I asked for I can believe evolution is possible.

I just did and you handwaved it away.

Just observing "speciation" is not an example of observed "random mutation" and natural selection.

Except of course, that speciation is the result of mutation + selection.

I said we need an example of an OBSERVED random MUTATION adding new and BENEFICIAL information to the genome of a MULTIcelled organism.

CCR5-delta 32

CCR5 is a molecule (ab)used by HIV, and some other nasty deseases, to enter and infect cells. The gene responsible for coding for CCR5 is present in all humans.

There is a mutated version of this gene, which blocks HIV from entering. People who carry this mutation, are immune to HIV.

You may start your handwaving again.

The why did God do this or that game fails to take into account the fact that we live in a fallen creation where things that it says were once "good" are no longer so.

You mean, critical questioning of these baseless religious assertions are just handwaved away with that "get-out-of-jail" free card.....

Whenever it seems to fit, then "god dun it".
And when it doesn't fit, it's "well, we're in a fallen world!"

Isn't that convenient...

I could ask the same things...why would humans evolve to have more teeth than they need?

1. having teeth pains by the age of 20-25 does not impede on your ability to have children or survive to that point. I'm sure you're aware that life expectancy in prehistoric times was not 80-ish, like today. More like 20. 30 if you were really lucky. 40 if you were a leader, lucky and had the whole tribe protecting you.

2. our mouth grew smaller because our brain grew bigger. The advantage of having larger brains was much bigger then the disadvantage of having teeth pains after breeding age.

It seems the "agony" would make them less desirable by a mate and cause such a bad trait to die off.

That would be true if, and only if:
- not all humans had this problem
- it would be a problem to survive and reproduce, which it isn't. Even if the teeth pains manifest early in life... having teeth pain doesn't stop you, necessrily, from surviving and reproducing.

Evolution does not require creatures to become immortal all powerfull beings. Creatures in evolution just need to be "good enough" to survive and reproduce.

Etc... The fact is I am not God and can't say why He created things the way He did.

Then why are you making claims about it?

But this fact doesn't negate the possibility that He did.

I don't care much for "possibilities" that have no evidence and are unfalsifiable.
There's an infinite amount of such "possibilities", only really limited by your own imagination.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes they do occur all the time. I can whack my TV with a stick and maybe make you call it a mutated one that is all in shades of light or dark red. But someone else would just call it a broken TV set. Two headed snakes and frogs with five legs are not mutations that demonstrate the kind of random mutations needed to move a single celled organism out of the swampy goo to become me and you. Evidence for this requires us to observe (in a controlled environment) a random mutation that adds new and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism. A controlled environment in which we could be sure that the gene was not present in any of the population prior, and beneficial in the sense that it gives the organism an advantage over its distant relatives.

You mean like that one experiment where they started with 12 colonies of the exact same bacteria in the exact same environments, only to see that after a couple thousand generations, one of the colonies had a population explosion?

Upon investigating that growth, they found that that population evolved a new metabolic pathway to digest citrate. This substance was present in all 12 colonies, but only one evolved the means to metabolise it. They pinpointed the exact mutation that made it possible (if memory serves me right, the trait was actually the result of 2 distinct mutations) and were able to estimate the generation where it occured.

Plenty of examples like that.

If only you would inform yourself a bit....