Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[Loudmouth]

evolution is real as in small changes over time already stated by me. the theory that we all came from one ancestor is what not right. Speciation is evolution but will never go beyond the structure or sytems with in itself.

Can you show me the evidence that falsifies common ancestory?

Show me a bacteria that is a multicellular system.

You have some in every cell in your body. They are called mitochondria.

I said reptiles to mammals not amphibians, and this is a problem since you say reptiles came from amphibians so they deevolved this and then evolved it back. There is one egg laying mammal. and if this is true then what you believe to be reptile fossils could well be mammals, and this duckbill platypus could be the last of this type of mammal because they didnt adapt well after the flood.

This is all word salad. Could you separate your ideas a little and be more specific.

Why do i need to present this info when it is you that suggest that DNA gets new info When all you show is deletions duplicastion and lose ect. none which is new info just the same read different.

That is new info. Why should I present anything else? If that is not new info then show me what new info looks like at the DNA level.

 

[notto]

As I watch what evolutionist say in answer to creationists pointing out gaping holes in their "theory" I am reminded of a dance floor full of couples doing the waltz. When at full speed they come up to another couple doing a stationary sequence, they briefly stop , do a side shuffle, twirl around, then proceed at their original pace. I must say the side shuffle bit is impressive though.

What gaping hole has been pointed out.
Please be specific.

 

[WaZoO]

I think that's incorrect, mitochondria aren't cells themselves.

However, http://science.box.sk/newsread.php?newsid=5442

 

[MarkT]

So a bird with teeth then. We have fossils of those as well.

I think chickens have the genes for teeth don't they? Maybe what you've got is an ancient chicken.

In fact just about any graduation between dinosaur and bird has been found in the fossil record in just the order evolution would expect. No clear cut kinds between dinosaurs and birds.

So why call it a dinosaur? It could belong to the chicken family. See, it depends on how you interpret the evidence.

So far there is no evidence mutations add up to anything.

You always hear about things like a jaw moving forward or something becoming something else.

An "ancestor" might have a larger brain, a shorter nose, more forward facing eyes, a deeper jaw.

But this is just variation. Can variation explain evolution?

I guess not.

But the evidence for mutation is nonexistent. We don't think of these things as being mutations.

So far all you have is nylon eating bacteria, resistance to plague, etc.

No new characters. No deepening of the jaw, for example, caused by a mutation.

 

[MarkT]

Whenever a lineage is outlined, the assumption is evolution and descent.

 

[Tomk80]

Those people would be wrong. God created everything by His Word. His Word became one of us.

Jesus did not evolve from a jellyfish.

You are not God. With this statement you are making your interpretation of God's word into God, which would be called idolatry. Your incredulity is not an argument.

 

[Dale Martin]

A kind does refer to more than one species. Dogs and bears are a kind of animal.

However, it doesn't mean they are related as species. A species has to look alot like the parent population ie. the family it belongs to.

So a pool begins with a family and it ends with the species that come out of it.

That would be the way I see it.

So, you are saying that a bear and dog don't look enough alike but a chimp and a man does?

 

[Tomk80]

A kind does refer to more than one species. Dogs and bears are a kind of animal.

However, it doesn't mean they are related as species. A species has to look alot like the parent population ie. the family it belongs to.

So a pool begins with a family and it ends with the species that come out of it.

That would be the way I see it.

Yes, but what we would like to know from you is where you draw the line. We found a fossil which has both features of a bear and a dog. Now, is this a seperate 'kind' which is now extinct, making us have a bear-'kind', a dog-'kind' and a beardog-'kind', or are bears and dogs both part of the beardog-'kind'. Which of these is it, and why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Whenever a lineage is outlined, the assumption is evolution and descent.

No, whenever we look at the data they fit into a nested hiearchy. If the fossils and DNA did not fit into a nested hiearchy then the theory would be falsified. Lineage is not assumed, it is concluded from the data.

 

[A4C]

What gaping hole has been pointed out.
Please be specific.

You sound like you might have a side shuffle you would like to show us . If you want to look at "holes" go to AnswersinGenesis or similar. If you want to look at "shuffles" go to Talk Origins or similar. Life is really pretty simple isn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

You sound like you might have a side shuffle you would like to show us . If you want to look at "holes" go to AnswersinGenesis or similar. If you want to look at "shuffles" go to Talk Origins or similar. Life is really pretty simple isn't it?

So pick one and start a thread. Or are you going to do the Crater Can-Can? Perhaps the Sinkhole Shuffle?

 

[A4C]

So pick one and start a thread. Or are you going to do the Crater Can-Can? Perhaps the Sinkhole Shuffle?

Ok Lets go to one that exists and give us a look at your "soft shoe":
http://www.christianforums.com/t1178985-plutium-radiation-halos-proves-creationists.html

 

[gluadys]

Care to support that claim. Can you please show me the first bacterial species so that I can compare the two? Can you please show me why it is impossible for bacteria to form multicellular systems.

I don't think anyone suggests that bacteria per se became multicellular. But on the Eukaryote page Jay was referred to, there is a section on Symbiosis, Endosymbiosis and the Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell, to which bacteria did contribute:

The role of endosymbionts in the origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts is more convincing. The ancestors of these organelles were initially independent bacterial organisms which were acquired by or invaded early eukaryotes. It is believed that by enriching the array of metabolic processes available to the cell, the symbionts conferred a selective advantage to ancestral eukaryotes. The consortium was favoured, and the endosymbionts became integrated in the operations of the cell as organelles.

Emphasis mine.

 

[gluadys]

A kind does refer to more than one species. Dogs and bears are a kind of animal.

One kind? Or two kinds? Why?

So a pool begins with a family and it ends with the species that come out of it.

That would be the way I see it.

Ah, so since bears and dogs are in different families (Ursidae and Canidae) they each have their own pool, right? But what about the fossil bear-dog? From which pool did it come?

And since orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are all in the same family (Hominidae), we all share the same pool, right?

Now precisely why are families of the same order consigned to different pools? Why can there not be a single pool for an order?

Take frogs and toads, for example. If a pool is limited to a family, thats 30 different pools for various frog/toad families. Why can't they all share one pool for the whole order Anura?

 

[gluadys]

So far there is no evidence mutations add up to anything.

So mutations have no effect on species?

You always hear about things like a jaw moving forward or something becoming something else.

An "ancestor" might have a larger brain, a shorter nose, more forward facing eyes, a deeper jaw.

But this is just variation. Can variation explain evolution?

No, but evolution can explain variation. Can you describe how we get variation without evolution?

But the evidence for mutation is nonexistent. We don't think of these things as being mutations.

Just because you don't think of these things as mutations doesn't mean they aren't mutations. If you make up your own vocabulary, all you are doing is creating a strawman argument.

So far all you have is nylon eating bacteria, resistance to plague, etc.

No new characters. No deepening of the jaw, for example, caused by a mutation.

Being able to eat nylon when you couldn't before is a new character. Being able to resist a plague your neighbours can't is a new character. And they are caused by mutations, just like a deepened jaw.

All of these are examples of evolution in action.

 

[gluadys]

Whenever a lineage is outlined, the assumption is evolution and descent.

No, the conclusion is descent with modification aka evolution.

 

[william jay schroeder]

I don't think anyone suggests that bacteria per se became multicellular. But on the Eukaryote page Jay was referred to, there is a section on Symbiosis, Endosymbiosis and the Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell, to which bacteria did contribute:

Emphasis mine.

i finnally know that we supposidly evolve from eukaryotes since as i stated we couldnt come from bacteria. Though reading abnout this i read that they still need to answer 5 questions of how it did this evolve from bacteria or whatever, and then evolved form this form to whatever, since they are not sure, they have ideas, or theory on top of theory. So if i proved that Eukaryotic couldnt evolve the theory of evolution would be dead, since there is no other viable organism that could evolve upwards to something more complex. Am i getting it right. or am i still wrong. Of course i really dont need to do this since you all still havent proven it capable yet.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

Yes, but what we would like to know from you is where you draw the line. We found a fossil which has both features of a bear and a dog. Now, is this a seperate 'kind' which is now extinct, making us have a bear-'kind', a dog-'kind' and a beardog-'kind', or are bears and dogs both part of the beardog-'kind'. Which of these is it, and why?

Like I said, there is no line.

No it wouldn't be a separate kind. It would belong to the bear/dog kind. And I would think dogs and bears belong to this kind. A dog faced type carivore.

Theoretically the species that came out of the parent population would have more, genetically speaking, than a sub species; a species from a species.

So the earlier versions/species of bears and dogs would have more things in common with the other members of a kind; like a bear might have dog-like teeth, for example, and a dog might have a bear-like body.

But it doesn't mean dogs and bears are related to each other.

It depends on which fossil you're refering to.

I'd say if it moved like a bear, then it probably belongs to the bear family. And if it moved like a dog and made sounds like a dog, then I would put it in the dog family.

 

[gluadys]

i finnally know that we supposidly evolve from eukaryotes since as i stated we couldnt come from bacteria. Though reading abnout this i read that they still need to answer 5 questions of how it did this evolve from bacteria or whatever, and then evolved form this form to whatever, since they are not sure, they have ideas, or theory on top of theory. So if i proved that Eukaryotic couldnt evolve the theory of evolution would be dead, since there is no other viable organism that could evolve upwards to something more complex. Am i getting it right. or am i still wrong. Of course i really dont need to do this since you all still havent proven it capable yet.

We don't need to evolve from Eukaryotes. We are eukaryotes. Every cell in your body is a eukaryotic cell.

Of course, at first (for about a billion years) all eukaryotes were single-celled organisms. More complex than bacteria, but still unicellular. What they did was diversify into many different types of eukaryotes called Protista.

Some Protista became multicellular and that is the origin of the three great multicellular kingdoms: plants, fungi and animals. Unicellular green algae are most closely related to plants. They are more like plants than any other eukaryotes. Choanoflagellata are very closely related to animals. You can see choanoflagellate-type cells called choanocytes in Sponges.

 

[gluadys]

So the earlier versions/species of bears and dogs would have more things in common with the other members of a kind; like a bear might have dog-like teeth, for example, and a dog might have a bear-like body.

But it doesn't mean dogs and bears are related to each other.

Why not? I thought the point of a kind is that an original kind was the common ancestor of the various species in the kind? Wouldn't that make them all related?

Or do you have a different concept of kind than other creationists? I am really puzzled as to how species can come from the same gene pool and not be related.