Why do you reject evolution

[Paradoxum]

To those of you who believe in Evolution, answer me this question which has failed to receive a solid answer yet:

If evolution is correct, then by its reasoning, animals who have evolved or become extinct can never be reintroduced into the earth unless it implies survival. (so a green color in animals may go and come back based on survival needs, but an australian toad (just a random hypothetical animal if it doesn't exist) can never be "reintroduced" as the same species again. once gone, always gone, but the genes may be reintroduced.) Well, then if apes and humans have a common ancestor, why are there apes AND humans, didn't we evolve from the same ancestor? wouldn't look a little more the same considering only the slightest changes happen over the longest of billennia (billion's form of "millennia") needed for evolution? and please cite from a credible source.

A simple example would be the colonisation of America from England. England has its culture, but some English moved to America and in this new place the culture changed to fit its new environment, etc. English culture has also changed since that time, but not in the same way as America. So today you still have English culture, but also American.

 

[Aeneas]

Contradictory statements. First you say DNA mutations do not contribute to evolution. In your second post, you say it does. Which is it?

Mutations lead to evolution.

So what do you believe?

I've explained repeatedly.

I'm not trolling, but it feels like you are.

DNA mutations lead to evolution which is a change in allele frequencies in a population. I keep saying that and you keep insisting I am saying DNA mutations are not involved when this is quite obviously not the case.

I refer you back to the the second quote I posted on here. You gave an example of an individual organism evolving to have larger blood cells and therefore oxygenate the brain more. Therefore, you said that individual organisms evolve(maybe not in exact words, but your example screamed that).

Then maybe you should stop pretending I said something I didn't.

So far, you haven't shown me how an entire population evolves without any of the individual organisms evolving.

Mutations which give rise to variable fitness, which leads to change in allele frequencies in a population. I've explained this in excessive detail.

Mendelian inheritance- Plant 1 has big peas. Plant 2 has little peas. Mate plant 1 and plant 2 together, and whichever has the dominant trait is the offspring's trait. This can be seen through a Punnet Square. Wow, I do know my stuff!



Apparently, I have.

Yay, now lets see if you have the other half. If I dye a plant a different color, perhaps by giving it water with dye in it, will its offspring grow foliage the color of the dye given to its parent?

Exactly. So individuals have to evolve. While this may happen at a population level, individuals have to evolve.

There are no individuals at the level of a population. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Mutations lead to evolution.

Okay, I have been confused a lot. So you believe mutations lead to evolution. Got it.

Then maybe you should stop pretending I said something I didn't.

I didn't make you say anything. You were the one who said it in the first place, just in an example, not in exact wording. I just pulled one thing out of that explanation.

Yay, now lets see if you have the other half. If I dye a plant a different color, perhaps by giving it water with dye in it, will its offspring grow foliage the color of the dye given to its parent?

Obviously not, because the dye would not change its DNA coding.

There are no individuals at the level of a population. That doesn't even make sense.

How do you get a population? With individuals. Therefore, individuals are a part of population. Therefore, if a population evolves, the individuals making up that population have to evolve.

 

[chris4243]

Mutations create new information. Many of the new mutations are neutral, some are bad, and a few are good. To be clear, the bad mutations are the ones that reduce an organism's reproductive success, and the good mutations are the ones that increase reproductive success. Natural selection is the process whereby good mutations tend to become universal and bad mutations tend to become extinct. For example, those with fatally bad mutations die and are eliminated from the gene pool and the mutation becomes extinct.

Among multicellular organisms, individuals pretty much cannot mutate other than when they were first conceived. This is because the odds of the organism's millions of cells all getting the same mutation is pretty much impossible unless it had the mutation when it was still unicellular.Sure it's various cells can each mutate but the organism as a whole cannot. But bacteria can individually mutate and/or evolve as any mutation they receive will affect the whole organism and its offspring.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Okay, I am seeing your points, and I am starting to get it. Both of you are Christians, so I'm guessing you guys are theistic evolutionists. So I'm not gonna get into a bunch of scientific facts and such, I should have been doing this from the beginning. Let us look at the Genesis account of creation. I take it you guys don't believe in it. When does the Genesis account become fantasy?

 

[Aeneas]

Okay, I am seeing your points, and I am starting to get it. Both of you are Christians, so I'm guessing you guys are theistic evolutionists. So I'm not gonna get into a bunch of scientific facts and such, I should have been doing this from the beginning. Let us look at the Genesis account of creation. I take it you guys don't believe in it. When does the Genesis account become fantasy?

Fantasy? Who said it was fantasy?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Fantasy? Who said it was fantasy?

Well, the Genesis account disproves evolution. So I assumed you must think it is metaphorical. Maybe fantasy wasn't the best word to use. Sorry, couldn't think of a better one at the time.

 

[chris4243]

Okay, I am seeing your points, and I am starting to get it. Both of you are Christians, so I'm guessing you guys are theistic evolutionists. So I'm not gonna get into a bunch of scientific facts and such, I should have been doing this from the beginning. Let us look at the Genesis account of creation. I take it you guys don't believe in it. When does the Genesis account become fantasy?

Who said Genesis is fantasy? Now a question for you: do you believe in your heart that God is deceitful, that God specially created everything but did it so it looked like it evolved over billions of years, that God caused a global flood a few thousand years ago that killed land animals not on the ark and then hid all the flood evidence and the evidence of any genetic bottleneck? Do you worship the Greatest Deceiver, or a Holy God in whom no deceit is found?

 

[chris4243]

Well, the Genesis account disproves evolution. So I assumed you must think it is metaphorical. Maybe fantasy wasn't the best word to use. Sorry, couldn't think of a better one at the time.

You sure that what you couldn't do is pass up a chance to throw an accusation at your debate opponents?

The trouble with non-literal interpretations, of course, is that there are so many of them. Consider, for example, that the ten plagues Moses warned Pharaoh about were not random plagues, they were a personalized in-your-face to the Egyptian gods. It would be enough that the Creation account were simply reminding people that God was the Creator, and maybe it also was about showing the places for everything (with the day being the rank).

You should also note the prophetic elements in the Creation account. The obvious one is the one where God talks about the enmity between the serpent and the woman. Note that at the very least, the serpent and its seed cannot be literal. Then there's other bits, such as God making clothing out of skin (not plants, hint of blood sacrifice) to cover their shame (symbolic for sin). And prophetic stuff is seldom literal. Also, like Adam and Eve, each of us has chosen to disobey God.

It could be that the Creation account is packed full of far more truths than you are willing to give it credit for by limiting it to the strictest of interpretations.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Who said Genesis is fantasy? Now a question for you: do you believe in your heart that God is deceitful, that God specially created everything but did it so it looked like it evolved over billions of years, that God caused a global flood a few thousand years ago that killed land animals not on the ark and then hid all the flood evidence and the evidence of any genetic bottleneck? Do you worship the Greatest Deceiver, or a Holy God in whom no deceit is found?

Check my previous post. Couldn't think of a better word at the time for "fantasy".

There is a difference between "looking like" and "actually being". Sure, I can see how it would look like we evolved, but that doesn't mean it happened! And besides, there is a lot more to Noah's flood than I know. It seems most just assume that the world was like what we have now. Its been theorized there were no oceans or rain, no water cycle, back in Noah's day. I'm no expert, so I'm not going to debate this. I don't want to give false information and deceive anyone. I don't debate things I don't know.