Why evolution doesn't work.

[Micaiah]

Gotta go fellas. Get back to you on the different types of mutations. I understand NDT is built on single nucleotide substitution, and PE is based on changes to larger segments of the DNA as you'd get with the insertions and deletions. I better check that!

 

[seebs]

There is one explanation available which requires no faith at all: "I don't know."

Note that I'm Christian, and I still think the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. I can't comment on abiogenesis or the origins of the universe; I tend to assume God made the universe, but I don't know how, or when, or whether the thing we call "the universe" is a natural result of some process He created earlier. I don't *need* to know. I'm here, now, and that's good enough... but if I want to be healthy, I will need to rely on results that come from the study of evolution.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Gotta go fellas. Get back to you on the different types of mutations. I understand NDT is built on single nucleotide substitution, and PE is based on changes to larger segments of the DNA as you'd get with the insertions and deletions. I better check that!

Yeah I'm off to bed too.

NDT covers all mutations: single nucleotide, insertions, deletions, duplications, recombination, translocations, transpositions, etc.

PE has nothing to do with DNA, and everything to do with the fossil record.

Can I suggest a few links to get you more familiar with the subject?

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology

If you would rather read a book, I recommend the Pulitzer prize winning The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Micaiah
G'day Seesaw,

I'm just here for a small time. You got your question in before I finished my post.

Ahh... ok.

 

[Risen Tree]

Nice shift of goalposts. How about I ask you a similar question? Show me the complete unabridged pathway of your descent from Adam and Eve. Unless you can do that, there is no possible way for you to be their descendent.

FYI, that was not a shift of the goalposts, I was merely restating what I was attempting to say earlier.  Also, by the above logic, we cannot be related to Lucy, as we cannot trace our ancestry to her.

Mutation introduces new genes, I don’t know why you are bringing up selection here. Remember that thing I said about using scientific terminology correctly, perhaps you should start doing it. Macroevolution versus microevolution are not associated with specific evolutionary forces. Showing speciation and divergence is enough to demonstrate macroevolution.

This isn't a proof of macroevolution of life as we know it.  Everything that macroevolution stands for hinges on whether or not the appropriate amount of helpful mutations can occur and propagate themselves.

Unless you want to propose a biological mechanism for reuniting two significantly, genetically distinct populations after they have become incapable of interbreeding, their divergence is permanent.

How do you know for a fact that the two races of the mosquitoes will never be able to interbreed again?

Fine, then I tell you to go read about the make up of the fossil record from scientific sources, like the Journal of Paleontology.

Why don't I?  Because they compile arguments in a mumble-jumble fashion and make it look like they've got solid proof.  And don't even get me started on their tendencies to claim that microevolution proves macroevolution.

Ooo, the Gish gallop: Every found link produces two more missing ones.

Again, you're reading into something that I never said.  Many species have several fossils on record, and there is no evidence of macroevolution within and among the species.  If Darwinian evolution is correct, the fossils should show a continuous span of an extremely diverse spectrum of life.  Instead, the fossils align at discrete points.  The proximity of some of the points does not imply that the spectrum is continuous.

See my foram example for evidence of gradual speciation.

Where?  I must have missed it.

Ahh, so 2lot no longer disproves evolution, only abiogenesis. Then I quess you no longer have any problems with universal common descent.

I'm getting sick of hearing this.   The idea of order spontaneously arising out of disorder is contrary to the natural order of life and humanity.  Hasn't this been discussed around here before?

Prove what? You have yet to tell me what assumption of mine you are referring too. I suspect that there isn’t one, and you are being intentionally vague because you are desperate.

See below for an example--it a classic, unproven assumption that evolutionists commonly use.

It is the fact that supernaturalism is not part of science since science relies on the falsifiable.... I’m still waiting for you to propose a scientific theory. Your previous attempt failed because it relies on supernatural intervention as an explanation. “Goddidit” is not a scientific explanation.

Assumptions such as the above.  That is not an acceptable piece of evidence against creationism.

Good, so you agree that evolutionary biology is natural science since it does not fit into either other category.

Again, I never said that.  Paleontology is NOT lab science since (1) it cannot be reproduced in the lab, and (2) it is VERY closed-minded to any alternative mechanisms.  Don't counter point #1 with genetic engeneering projects; the mutations need to be random in order to count as evolutionary mutations.

I ask you for links to scientific journals and all that you can come up with is an Ayn Rand site and a rant about environmentalists. If this is what you think constitutes a scientific journal, then I got some prime swamp-front property to sell you.

Well then.  Peruse this site for some powerful scientific evidence against junk science/environmentalism.

That’s funny, considering that creationists are always claiming, via public polling, that people don’t want it to be.

Source?

What qualifies you to say it is not scientifically valid aginst the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community?

What qualifies the scientific community to assume what they are trying to prove AND to often times cheat while doing so?  Check this out.

Really? You wouldn’t happen to have a reference to where [Karl Marx] states that in his work. I suspect that you do not and are just blowing smoke.

 

As excerpted from this site, Karl Marx is quoted as saying, "Darwin's volume is very important and provides me with the basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."  This site quotes Marx as saying, "Darwin's book is very important and it suits me well that it supports the class struggle in history from the point of view of natural science."  In any case, Marx makes it clear that he based his economic and social theory on the scientific theory of evolution.

Neither matter. That range of rates is typical across biology.

Any statistics on the odds of a helpful mutation occurring on any given mutation?

We are just one of many possible outcomes of mutation plus natural selection, drift, and migration.

The biosphere is a delicate one, and the target that evolution has to hit is an extremely small one.  There are many possibilities of the result of evolution, if you believe in it, but it is almost impossible to get one that works.

target=_blank>The reports of evolution’s death have been greatly exaggerated for over a hundred years.

I admire the faith that the evolutionists have in the unseen.  I wish I had faith like that!

EDIT: I hit the "reply" button too soon.  All the evolutionists have to do to keep their theory alive is to concoct evidence supporting it faster than we can refute it.  Believe me, they know this.

 

[Micaiah]

There is one explanation available which requires no faith at all: "I don't know."

Note that I'm Christian, and I still think the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. I can't comment on abiogenesis or the origins of the universe; I tend to assume God made the universe, but I don't know how, or when, or whether the thing we call "the universe" is a natural result of some process He created earlier. I don't *need* to know. I'm here, now, and that's good enough... but if I want to be healthy, I will need to rely on results that come from the study of evolution.

Okay, point taken. Some Christians believe in evolution. I'd suggest though the driving force behind the theory is the need to find an explanation apart from God for how we came into existence. The Bible gives a clear description of origins, which gives a completely different picture than that painted by evolution. I don't think the two are compatible. Another thread?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
FYI, that was not a shift of the goalposts, I was merely restating what I was attempting to say earlier. Also, by the above logic, we cannot be related to Lucy, as we cannot trace our ancestry to her.

Remember it’s your logic not mine. Science is very clear on how we can trace ancestry even if we do not have a complete record of every living organism. For example, even if your parents are not alive it is still possible to tell who your siblings are.

This isn't a proof of macroevolution of life as we know it.

Actually it is. According to science, macroevolution is simply evolution apparent between species. (Remember that thing about using scientific terminology correctly.) Thus, in this case, the two populations of mosquitoes are reproductively isolated. Speciation has occurred. Therefore, the difference in the table I listed are macroevolutionary.

Everything that macroevolution stands for hinges on whether or not the appropriate amount of helpful mutations can occur and propagate themselves.

Fine, if that is what you think macroevolution is, please provide a mechanism that would prevent the accumulation of beneficial mutations past the “kind” threshold.

How do you know for a fact that the two races of the mosquitoes will never be able to interbreed again?

Because they cannot interbreed successfully now. There is no known evolutionary mechanism that could bring the populations back together. If you want to propose one, go right ahead. But I suggest that you familiarize yourself with genetics before hand.

Why don't I? Because they compile arguments in a mumble-jumble fashion and make it look like they've got solid proof. And don't even get me started on their tendencies to claim that microevolution proves macroevolution.

How would you even know this if you haven’t read it?

Again, you're reading into something that I never said. Many species have several fossils on record, and there is no evidence of macroevolution within and among the species.

Well first thing there will be no evidence for macroevolution within a species because macroevolution doesn’t happen within species. Second, you cannot claim there is no evidence if you refuse to read scientific journals. Proloquium ex ignoratia is no way to form an intelligent argument.

If Darwinian evolution is correct, the fossils should show a continuous span of an extremely diverse spectrum of life. Instead, the fossils align at discrete points. The proximity of some of the points does not imply that the spectrum is continuous.

No. You refuse to even read paleontological journals, yet propose to insist what the fossil record must show. There’s a phase for that, proloquium ex ignoratia. I already covered this in my first post, which I’ll repeat here incase you missed it.
No it must not, since fossilization is a rare event. Thus it is highly unlikely for every ancestor of organisms living today to be preserved. However, some evolutionary histories are well recorded. Take the gradual speciation found in Forams. In fact evolutionary theory derived for extant organisms explains why gradual speciation is not found in the fossil record. Most speciation events arise from subpopulations isolated from the main group. This is because gene pools of large groups act as buffers against significant change in the short term. Gould and Eldridge realized that large populations, which are less likely to show noticeable changes, are more likely to leave fossils. Thus their theory of the fossil record, punctuated equilibrium was form.

There is only one thing required in the fossil record on a broad scale if evolution is true. Younger fossils must be more similar to modern forms than latter fossils. And guess what? This is what we see.

I'm getting sick of hearing this. The idea of order spontaneously arising out of disorder is contrary to the natural order of life and humanity. Hasn't this been discussed around here before?

Good thing evolution is not a spontaneous process. What again is your beef with it?

See below for an example--it a classic, unproven assumption that evolutionists commonly use.

It is the fact that supernaturalism is not part of science since science relies on the falsifiable.... I’m still waiting for you to propose a scientific theory. Your previous attempt failed because it relies on supernatural intervention as an explanation. “Goddidit” is not a scientific explanation.

Assumptions such as the above. That is not an acceptable piece of evidence against creationism.

So, evolutionists only assume that “Goddidit” is not an appropriate scientific explanation. Okay, find me an example of a paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal, that uses supernatural causes to explain observations. After that, find me a single grant attempting submitted to a major science funding organization (NSF, NIH, etc) that got funded, while offering to provide supernatural explanations. Can you find me a single formulation of the scientific method from a science textbook or similar source, that allows for supernatural intervention. The reason why science does not consider supernatural forces is that the supernatural can explain any observation equally well. “Goddidit” can explain equally well why an experiment both succeeds or fails. As such it is no explaination at all. If you seriously think that supernatural explainations are acceptable in science, please disprove last-Thursdayism. (The world was created last Thursday by an invisible pink cat, with the appearance of age,) If you cannot disprove it then you must admit that biblical creationism is wrong.

Again, I never said that. Paleontology is NOT lab science since (1) it cannot be reproduced in the lab, and (2) it is VERY closed-minded to any alternative mechanisms. Don't counter point #1 with genetic engeneering projects; the mutations need to be random in order to count as evolutionary mutations.

When did I mention paleontology. I specifically said evolutionary biology. It amazes me how you think that paleontology involves genetics. If you don’t even know the difference between them, how can you expect to argue against them. BTW, paleontology is a lab science, fossils are not processed in the street you know. It is reproducible and falsifiable since every new fossil find tests previous paleontological ideas. How about you educate yourself about the science involved before you argue against? But if that is your strategy, I got a proof against Christianity using its worship of Judas.

Well then. Peruse this site for some powerful scientific evidence against junk science/environmentalism.

All I see is an unpublished paper against carbon dioxide and global warming, not the journals at the forefront of “junk science.” This is the second time you have failed to answer my question. Did you even read it? Do you not understand what a journal is?

Source? (For creation public opinion polls.)

AiG
FoF
DI

See, creationist organizations love to claim that public opinion is against evolution. You claim the opposite. Which one is true?

What qualifies the scientific community to assume what they are trying to prove AND to often times cheat while doing so? Check this out.

Ahh yes. Creationist lies about hoaxes. I addressed most of these in my first post to this thread.

• Recapitulation, does happen. Strict recapitulation does not. Every biology textbook I have ever see makes this distinction. This has been well known in the scientific community for over a hundred years. Recapitulation is evidence for evolution. Yet for some reasons creationists insist of disproving the strawman of strict recapitulation.
• The equine series is a great example of the branching nature of evolution. Yes when we had less fossils, it was thought to be a more linear progression. However, science is a self-correcting discipline and when more data was discovered, the nature of the equine fossil record changed. It amazes me how creationists, think error-correction is a flaw of science. Yet when you prefer the view the world how 2500 year-old goat-herders did it’s no surprise.
• Peppered moths are a great example of the evolutionary force of natural selection. It never pretends to be anything more. Creationists think they can dismiss it by claiming that it does. Sorry, but argumentum ex ignoratia is no argument at all.
• Archaeopteryx is a great example of a transitional fossil. Many creationists have tried to claim that it is a fake, to their folly. Others have tried to claim that it was 100% bird, despite the fact that it has teeth, claws, and looks nothing like a modern bird. It looks exactly what we’d expect of a creature that is descended from dinosaurs and related to organisms that gave rise to modern birds. That is why it is clearly a transitional fossil. If you disagree please list attributes that you would expect of a fossil representing some part of the transition between dinosaurs and modern birds.
• Inherit the Wind is a play, that was written during the McCarthy era, using the Scope’s Trial as its inspiration, but never pretend to be a documentary. It was nothing more than a thinly veiled commentary on the oppression of the Red Scare. We watched it in tenth-grade English class after reading the play.

Even if the comments on the site were accurate, they only address textbooks, and thus evolutionary biology is not affected at all. Only bad textbook publishers. Now, if you want to continue this, please provide references to scientific papers that offer up frauds to support evolution which were later corrected by published work done by creationists. You cannot claim that there is a conspiracy against publishing creationist works, unless you can provide evidence that the work was submitted to a scientific journal, along with the rejection letter the creationist received.

To be continued. . . .

 

[RufusAtticus]

Continuing from previous post. . . .

As excerpted from this site, Karl Marx is quoted as saying, "Darwin's volume is very important and provides me with the basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." This site quotes Marx as saying, "Darwin's book is very important and it suits me well that it supports the class struggle in history from the point of view of natural science." In any case, Marx makes it clear that he based his economic and social theory on the scientific theory of evolution.

Hmm. Only thing I see mentioned there is Marx’s ideas of class struggle, not his economic theory nor his social theory. You have made quite a leap here to go from “class struggle” to Marxist economic and social ideas. While I’m at it, you do realize that even if Marx did base his entire suite of ideas on Darwin, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of science. That is because the accuracy of science cannot be judged by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion, only science. Now will you please offer some scientific evidence, from scientific sources against evolution. Creationists love to claim that thousands of scientists are defecting from “Darwinism/Evolutionism” every year. Yet apparently they are unable to find any scientific work to support this “defection.” Will you be able to?

Any statistics on the odds of a helpful mutation occurring on any given mutation?

No, because such a statistic would be conditional. In other words, what constitutes a helpful mutation is dependent on the environment at the time. Beneficial mutations happen; why does it matter how often they happen? Also, most macroevolutionary differences, difference between species, are neutral. They’re neither beneficial nor harmful. If you want to see some evidence of the evolution of adaptation, read this paper.

The biosphere is a delicate one, and the target that evolution has to hit is an extremely small one.

Proloquium ex ignoratia. What is your source on this?

There are many possibilities of the result of evolution, if you believe in it, but it is almost impossible to get one that works.

Proloquium ex ignoratia. What is your source on this?

All the evolutionists have to do to keep their theory alive is to concoct evidence supporting it faster than we can refute it. Believe me, they know this.

Why should anybody believe you? You have firmly established that you know absolutely nothing about actual science. You have refused to actually learn about it. You have been unable to refute any evidence for evolution, probably because you don’t actually know what it is. You’re doing nothing here but regurgitating creationist websites.

Once again, find me a single scientific paper written to support evolution that was later overturned in the scientific literature by creationists. You insist that they are very common; then it shouldn’t be hard for you to find one.

 

[Micaiah]

Rufus

NDT covers all mutations: single nucleotide, insertions, deletions, duplications, recombination, translocations, transpositions, etc.

PE has nothing to do with DNA, and everything to do with the fossil record.

Had a browse through the site you gave . Thankyou. I did not see any specific references to the modes of mutation relating to types of evolution.

Many supporting NDT view point mutations as being responsible for evolution because they are the most flexible, and are random and spontaneous. Unfortunately for the theory, they are extermely rare (one error per 1-100 billion after proof reading per base pair copied).

Do you consider the insertion and deletion type mutations to be -
- Spontaneous and random?
- Do you consider that they can result in single nucleotide substitution?

Based on my understanding, my answer to both these question is no.

The implication of this from a Creationist point of view is to argue that yes genetic change does occur, and quite rapidly at times, but that this is an inbuilt response to a given set of conditions. It is the result of the latter types of mutations. The baby hemoglobin is a case in point. Another possible example is the changes to finches beaks.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Many supporting NDT view point mutations as being responsible for evolution because they are the most flexible, and are random and spontaneous. Unfortunately for the theory, they are extermely rare (one error per 1-100 billion after proof reading per base pair copied).

Unfortunate for the theory? You do realize that the size of the human genome is about 3.1 Gb (Giga bases or 3.1 billion bases), right?. At the low end of your error estimate this is three point mutations per cell division, at the high end we are talking one every 33 cell divisions or so. Just on the male side we have 400,000,000 sperm per [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], of which (based on your estimate) it seems that on the high end each has three mutations or on the low end 12,000,000 of the sperm have at least one point mutation. Sounds like there is an awful lot of posibility for point mutations just on the male side of fertalization.

Point mutations are rare, yes, but giving the shear number of bases per cell and the number of cells that are involved it's just about a sure thing.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Had a browse through the site you gave . Thankyou. I did not see any specific references to the modes of mutation relating to types of evolution.

Hi Micaiah, that's because there are no "types" of evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same force: evolution. The only difference between them is the scale at which we are looking, nothing more. The distinction is purely an artifact of history and the biases of human perception. Here is something I wrote at one time that talks about how we know that macroevolution is caused by the accumulation of microevolution.

Many supporting NDT view point mutations as being responsible for evolution because they are the most flexible, and are random and spontaneous.

NDT does not distinquish between the types of mutations. Where did you get the idea that it did?

Unfortunately for the theory, they are extermely rare (one error per 1-100 billion after proof reading per base pair copied).

Yes but humans have 3.3 billion bases. That translates into around 0.33 point mutation per cell per genome per division. (according to my undergrad genetics textbook.) When you take into account the number of cell divisions required to produce an ova or sperm from a zygote, this translates into around 50-150 point mutations from parents to offspring. Now, consider the millions of babies born every year. That's at least a billion of point mutations every year. Do you consider that a small number?

Do you consider the insertion and deletion type mutations to be -
- Spontaneous and random?
- Do you consider that they can result in single nucleotide substitution?

Yes they are spontaneous and random. No they do not cause substitution.

The implication of this from a Creationist point of view is to argue that yes genetic change does occur, and quite rapidly at times, but that this is an inbuilt response to a given set of conditions. It is the result of the latter types of mutations. The baby hemoglobin is a case in point. Another possible example is the changes to finches beaks.

Mutations are random. Organisms do not have the ability to chose to specifically mutate their DNA when they need to adapt. The baby hemoglobin example is not one of mutation. There are three different gene, each with it's own on and off cues. This trumvirate of genes is the result of duplication+mutation. But the type of hemoglobin we express during our life time is not governed by mutation. It is governed by regulation. Here is a page that explains how gene regulation occurs. The finch beak example is simply an example of selection. Existing varation in the population, due to mutation, is filtered by selection, producing a new makeup of the gene pool. The finches didn't experience selection pressures then mutate, the mutants were already there.

 

[Risen Tree]

Remember it’s your logic not mine. Science is very clear on how we can trace ancestry even if we do not have a complete record of every living organism. For example, even if your parents are not alive it is still possible to tell who your siblings are.

I can't prove that my brother is my sibling without proving that he and I have the same parents.

Actually it is. According to science, macroevolution is simply evolution apparent between species. (Remember that thing about using scientific terminology correctly.) Thus, in this case, the two populations of mosquitoes are reproductively isolated. Speciation has occurred. Therefore, the difference in the table I listed are macroevolutionary.

Let's assume for a moment that you're right, that this is indeed macroevolution.  This form of it does not introduce any new genes, something that must happen if macroevolution did occur.  This scenario gives no evidence of this phenomenon, and thus, no evidence for evolution.

Fine, if that is what you think macroevolution is, please provide a mechanism that would prevent the accumulation of beneficial mutations past the “kind” threshold.

Please restate the above in English.

Because they cannot interbreed successfully now. There is no known evolutionary mechanism that could bring the populations back together. If you want to propose one, go right ahead. But I suggest that you familiarize yourself with genetics before hand.

You gave a realistic argument to an idealistic question.  I said, is it at all possible for the two races to recombine?  I'll leave the details to the geneticists, because yes, those details are very complicated.

How would you even know this if you haven’t read it?

Have you ever heard the phrase, "New lies for old"?

Well first thing there will be no evidence for macroevolution within a species because macroevolution doesn’t happen within species. Second, you cannot claim there is no evidence if you refuse to read scientific journals. <I>Proloquium ex ignoratia</I> is no way to form an intelligent argument.

You're not going to like this, but I do not necessarily consider up-to-date scientific journals as reliable evidence for evolution.&nbsp; The reason is that they have not been given enough time to debate their validity.&nbsp; Does the alien fossil in Antartica incident ring a bell?

No. You refuse to even read paleontological journals, yet propose to insist what the fossil record must show. There’s a phase for that, <I>proloquium ex ignoratia</I>.

This argument is an assumption.&nbsp; You refuse to properly study the fossil record, yet propose to insist what it must show.

No it must not, since fossilization is a rare event. Thus it is highly unlikely for every ancestor of organisms living today to be preserved.

Take Mr. Archaeopteryx.&nbsp; This fossil was supposed to be the great, long-awaited missing between the dinosaurs and the birds.&nbsp; Well, IIRC, the evolutionists published their findings after discovering the FIRST fossil; this means that they conducted a test with a sample size of one.&nbsp; That is a dead giveaway that the principles of lab science are out the window.&nbsp; It only got worse when the number of fossils wormed its way up to seven, as the fossils showed no evidence of macroevolution among them.&nbsp; It was at this time that paleontologists realized that the fossil was 100% bird.

There is only one thing required in the fossil record on a broad scale if evolution is true. Younger fossils must be more similar to modern forms than latter fossils.

This only illustrates the time that the creatures arose, not the mechanism by which they did so.&nbsp; If this is as little evidence that paleontologists "need" to vindicate their theory, then I yet again question their methods of hypothesis testing.

So, evolutionists only assume that “Goddidit” is not an appropriate scientific explanation. Okay, find me an example of a paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal, that uses supernatural causes to explain observations.

Recant the former, unprovable assumption, and perhaps I will go digging for the latter.&nbsp; Why does a piece of evidence absolutely have to be a scientific journal?&nbsp; It makes no difference whether Jim Bob's Chemical Warehouse or the University of Florida discusses any sort of scientific evidence, as long as it is accurate.&nbsp; And by your own logic, talkorigins.com should not be referenced any more around here.

I'll be back later...I'm about to fall asleep at the keyboard. &nbsp; Happy New Year everyone!

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
I can't prove that my brother is my sibling without proving that he and I have the same parents.

Even though you don’t know who you’re parents are, you can still prove that you are siblings. This is done all the time in genetic counseling. Their called a full-sib (share both parents) and half-sib (share one parent) test. Similar genetic tests can be used to discover sister species and taxa. This is one reason that we know that chimps and bonoboes are our closest living ancestors.

Let's assume for a moment that you're right, that this is indeed macroevolution. This form of it does not introduce any new genes, something that must happen if macroevolution did occur. This scenario gives no evidence of this phenomenon, and thus, no evidence for evolution.

Nope, there are no requirements for macroevolution to include new genes. Please find a scientific resource that states otherwise. However, you keep claiming that no new genes were introduced into this population, but I have yet to see you provide any evidence for this. The fact that you have yet to read the paper I am referring too, cast extreme doubt on your competence to claim that there is no genetic novelty.

Please restate the above in English.

Okay. You have claimed that macroevolution requires a certain number of novel mutations to accumulate in a population. Novel mutations do occur and they do accumulate in populations. Now if you want to insist that macroevolution--as you have defined it--cannot occur, you must be able to provide a mechanism that limits the accumulation of mutations to a place below the threshold for macroevolution. The lack of such a barrier is a fundamental flaw in your position.

You gave a realistic argument to an idealistic question. I said, is it at all possible for the two races to recombine? I'll leave the details to the geneticists, because yes, those details are very complicated.

Well considering the fact that I am a geneticist, I guess you must concede my point.

You're not going to like this, but I do not necessarily consider up-to-date scientific journals as reliable evidence for evolution. The reason is that they have not been given enough time to debate their validity. Does the alien fossil in Antartica incident ring a bell?

Okay fine. How about reading older scientific journals? I’m sure that your local university has copies of the Journal, Evolution going all the way back to the fifties. You should have no problem covering information that has been thoroughly tested by the scientific community.

This argument is an assumption. You refuse to properly study the fossil record, yet propose to insist what it must show.

Actually, I am doing nothing but relaying to you the overwhelming consensus of paleontologists, the people who study and review the fossil record every day. I trust their professional judgment as they trust the judgment of the people in my field. You feel fit to disagree with the professionals, but you lack the appropriate experience, as demonstrated by your refusal to read scientific literature. When it comes to determining the best way to remove a tumor from my skull, I’ll trust the experience of a brain surgeon over the inexperience of an airplane mechanic. When it comes to keeping a 747 in the air, I won't be asking a brain surgeon for help. Likewise, when dealing with science, I'll trust the scientific professionals everyday.

Take Mr. Archaeopteryx. This fossil was supposed to be the great, long-awaited missing between the dinosaurs and the birds. Well, IIRC, the evolutionists published their findings after discovering the FIRST fossil; this means that they conducted a test with a sample size of one.

Yeah so what? It is very clear even from one specimen that it is evidence of an evolutionary transition from dinosaurs to birds.

That is a dead giveaway that the principles of lab science are out the window. It only got worse when the number of fossils wormed its way up to seven, as the fossils showed no evidence of macroevolution among them.

Of course not, since macroevolution would be apparent between species, not within it. Remember that thing I said about using scientific terminology correctly?

It was at this time that paleontologists realized that the fossil was 100% bird.

Really? Then how do you explain the un-birdlike features: teeth, claws on unfused digits, lack of a bill, etc. If it was 100% bird, why does it have so many reptilian features? What has happened here is that you have been lied to by creationists. Archaeopteryx is exactly what we would expect from a transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds. It has both reptilian and avian features. Here is the link I posted earlier, which explains what Archy is and exposes the creationist lies about it. Now if you will not trust that page, you can use its references and a local university library to confirm or deny its contents.

This only illustrates the time that the creatures arose, not the mechanism by which they did so. If this is as little evidence that paleontologists "need" to vindicate their theory, then I yet again question their methods of hypothesis testing.

Which theory? Evolution is a theory of biologists. Not a theory of paleontologists. The mechanisms for evolution come from the work of biologists. The fossil record is entirely consistent with the work of biologists and entirely inconsistent with biblical creation.

Recant the former, unprovable assumption, and perhaps I will go digging for the latter.

So you think I cannot show that science precludes supernatural explanations? From a pamplet issued by the federally funded National Science Foundation:

Aren't scientific beliefs based on faith as well?

Usually "faith" refers to beliefs that are accepted without empirical evidence. Most religions have tenets of faith. Science differs from religion because it is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world. Thus, scientific explanations are likely to be built on and modified with new information and new ways of looking at old information. This is quite different from most religious beliefs.

Therefore, "belief" is not really an appropriate term to use in science, because testing is such an important part of this way of knowing. If there is a component of faith to science, it is the assumption that the universe operates according to regularities—for example, that the speed of light will not change tomorrow. Even the assumption of that regularity is often tested—and thus far has held up well. This "faith" is very different from religious faith.

Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.

Now I'm sure you'll want to claim that it that too is only assuming that science percludes supernatural explainations. But if you won't trust the ability of one of the highest organizations of scientists in the country to say what science is and isn't, who's will you trust? If you want to disprove this, please cite an example of scientific work published in a credible journal, that explains a phenomenon with “goddidit.” I’m sure you can find all sorts of websites and kooks that claim to be practicing science with supernatural forces. But you will only be able to show that science accepts supernatural explanation is by citing primary scientific literature.

 

[sulphur]

What about orangatangs. I like them.

 

[Risen Tree]

Even though you don’t know who you’re parents are, you can still prove that you are siblings. This is done all the time in genetic counseling. Their called a full-sib (share both parents) and half-sib (share one parent) test. Similar genetic tests can be used to discover sister species and taxa. This is one reason that we know that chimps and bonoboes are our closest living ancestors.

Attempting to prove that my brother is my sibling is one thing.

Attempting to prove that a random Joe is my 15th cousin is a different story.

Please find a scientific resource that states otherwise.

I'm really growing tired of seeing this. &nbsp; Just because the scientific community accepts a theory does not automatically make it true.

Nope, there are no requirements for macroevolution to include new genes.

Very well, it looks like we have to redefine the word "macroevolution."&nbsp; Yet I still see zero evidence from the mosquito scenario that life as we know it, which would have required the evolution of new genes, evolved.

Novel mutations do occur and they do accumulate in populations.

That's an assumption that they occur as often as they do.&nbsp; Again I cite the Principle of Disorder (NOT NOT NOT the 2nd Law).

Well considering the fact that I am a geneticist, I guess you must concede my point.

ooh boy....

I’m sure that your local university has copies of the Journal, target=_blank&gt;<I>Evolution</I> going all the way back to the fifties.

Interesting idea.&nbsp; I was going to read an article or two from the website, but it only dates back to 2000.&nbsp; Maybe later, when I have the time....

I trust their professional judgment as they trust the judgment of the people in my field.

That's right, you have faith that the experts are correct.&nbsp; Need I get started on the number of times in history that the experts were dead wrong?

When it comes to keeping a 747 in the air, I won't be asking a brain surgeon for help. Likewise, when dealing with science, I'll trust the scientific professionals everyday.

Curiously, the 747-from-a-junkyard image just floated through my mind....

It is very clear even from one specimen that it is evidence of an evolutionary transition from dinosaurs to birds.

Working with a sample size of one is not good science.

Really? Then how do you explain the un-birdlike features: teeth, claws on unfused digits, lack of a bill, etc. If it was 100% bird, why does it have so many reptilian features? What has happened here is that you have been lied to by creationists. Archaeopteryx is exactly what we would expect from a transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds. It has both reptilian and avian features. target=_blank&gt;Here is the link I posted earlier, which explains what Archy is and exposes the creationist lies about it. Now if you will not trust that page, you can use its references and a local university library to confirm or deny its contents.

First of all, the evolutionists have lied more times that we can shake a stick at.&nbsp; Second of all, they're the ones who get billions of dollars for research, not creationists, so it only makes sense that our camp is going to mess up from&nbsp;time to time.&nbsp; Third, I just love this line because of what it means for our side:

During the eighty five years since publication of Beddard's book, no better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds than <I>Archaeopteryx</I> has appeared. Not a single intermediate with part-way wings or part-way feathers has been discovered.

I read the part about the part-way transitional fossils, and the point is worth repeating.&nbsp; What this article is attempting to do is a mistake that paleontologists commonly make.&nbsp; They assume if that two species are very similar, one must have evolved from the other.&nbsp; Similarity in no way establishes a chain of evolution unless the fossil record visibly shows this chain.

The fossil record is entirely consistent with the work of biologists and entirely inconsistent with biblical creation.

See above.

Usually "faith" refers to beliefs that are accepted without empirical evidence.

Beliefs such as (1) missing links will be found, (2) the Principle of Disorder can be overcome, etc.?

Now I'm sure you'll want to claim that it that too is only assuming that science percludes supernatural explainations. But if you won't trust the ability of one of the highest organizations of scientists in the country to say what science is and isn't, who's will you trust? If you want to disprove this, please cite an example of scientific work published in a credible journal, that explains a phenomenon with "goddidit."

I trust science, not politics.&nbsp; Evolution is politics.&nbsp; Do I need to get started on this one?&nbsp; BTW, I would be most surprised if any high-level scientific journal in America mentioned a pro-creation story, simply because of the overwhelming bias against creationism in the scientific community.&nbsp; In the meantime, here is an interesting article to ponder.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
G'day Seesaw,

Welcome to the forum. Oh sorry, you're supposed to say that to me!
I understand evolution is based on chance. What is your take on this?

Natural selection is the opposite of chance.&nbsp; It's pure determinism.&nbsp; The "take" is that you have been, ah, dissembled to by professional creationists.&nbsp; Dawkins addresses this specific issue:

"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance.&nbsp; Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard?&nbsp; Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion.&nbsp; One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation.&nbsp; Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process.&nbsp; It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not.&nbsp; Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random.&nbsp; It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. ...
One could imagine a theoretical world in which mutations were biased toward improvement.&nbsp; Mutations in this hypothetical world would be non-random not just in the sense that mutations induced by X-rays are non-random: these hypothetical mutations would be systematically biased to keep one jump ahead of selection and anticipate the needs of the organism ...
Darwinians wouldn't mind if such providential mutations were provided. It wouldn't undermine Darwinism, though it would put paid to its claims for exclusivity: a tailwind on a transatlantic flight can speed up your arrival in an agreeable way, and this doesn't undermine your belief that the primary force that got you home is the jet engine." R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82.

 

[lithium.]

Welcome back lucaspa! Happy New Year!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rising Tree Attempting to prove that my brother is my sibling is one thing.

Attempting to prove that a random Joe is my 15th cousin is a different story.

Same thing, and done. After all, using DNA to settle paternity suits is taking a random "Joe" -- a baby -- and seeing if that kid is your offspring.&nbsp;

I'm really growing tired of seeing this.&nbsp; Just because the scientific community accepts a theory does not automatically make it true.

But if you claim scientific evidence is there, then you should be able to cite a paper showing that the evidence is there. Also, remember that science falsifies. Theories are accepted as (provsionally) true because of the repeated attempts to falsify them have failed.&nbsp; You are claiming evolution is false. Therefore, you should be able to come up with scientific papers demonstrating this.&nbsp; Just as I can come up with papers showing that phlogiston, aether, and long term regeneration of cartilage with chondrocytes is wrong.

Very well, it looks like we have to redefine the word "macroevolution."&nbsp;... that life as we know it, which would have required the evolution of new genes, evolved.

Macroevolution is speciation and the evolution of "higher" taxa.&nbsp;
Microevolution is "changes within populations and species".&nbsp;
Macroevolution is "the origin and diversification of higher taxa".
"Many biologists consider the study of species and speciation to constitute the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution."&nbsp; Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 447, 1998

Remember, the only reality in nature is species. All&nbsp;"higher" taxa are simply groups of species.

New genes arise by several processes, all lumped under the general term of "mutation".&nbsp; Genes can be duplicated, translocation of parts of chromosomes make new genes, or duplication of&nbsp;whole chromosomes.&nbsp; All these (and others I didn't detail) give rise to new DNA/genes.&nbsp; Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&amp;DB=PubMed&nbsp;and look at the more than 90,000 papers I found searching under "new AND gene".

That's an assumption that they occur as often as they do.&nbsp; Again I cite the Principle of Disorder (NOT NOT NOT the 2nd Law).

Sorry, but there is no "Principle of Disorder".&nbsp; This so-called principle was developed by misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the 2nd Law.&nbsp; Decreased entropy (higher order) can arise by several mechanisms if energy is pumped into a system.&nbsp; The overall system -- including the system decreasing in entropy and the one supplying the energy -- will increase in entropy. And this happens.&nbsp; The sun-earth system is the one we are considering, and entropy does increase in this system even tho there is a decrease in entropy on earth due to life.

That's right, you have faith that the experts are correct.&nbsp; Need I get started on the number of times in history that the experts were dead wrong?

That doesn't apply in this case.&nbsp; The "experts" are studying evidence that is available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances -- including you, me, and everyone on the board.&nbsp; What happens is that we are --&nbsp;1) too lazy, 2) don't have the time, 3) don't have the equipment handy, or 4) don't want to spend the time getting the background information -- to repeat the information.&nbsp; What we&nbsp;do is take the state of&nbsp;knowledge and see what effect that has on our beliefs.&nbsp; If the state of knowledge&nbsp;changes, then we&nbsp;reevaluate the effect on beliefs.&nbsp; You do things the opposite. You take your beliefs and reject any&nbsp;knowledge you think challenges&nbsp;those beliefs.

Curiously, the 747-from-a-junkyard image just floated through my mind

Then you will be interested in examples of Darwinian (natural) selection making designs. There is a thread under that title on the board. Go back to page 5 or higher and look for it.&nbsp; Creationists never challenged the thread.&nbsp; I wonder why?


First of all, the evolutionists have lied more times that we can shake a stick at.&nbsp;

That's a convenient story, but not backed by data.&nbsp; Document those times, please.

Second of all, they're the ones who get billions of dollars for research, not creationists,

This ignores that creationism was the scientific theory before 1830.&nbsp; It was falsified.&nbsp; However, why don't creationists submit grants to NSF and NIH like everyone else?&nbsp; What is disturbing is not their lack of funding, but their lack of rejection slips.&nbsp; If you don't apply, how can you get money? And, if you don't apply, then you can't honestly use this argument, can you?

Third, I just love this line because of what it means for our side:

There are no "sides".&nbsp; This is not a debate. It's a search for truth.&nbsp; Debating points don't count.
I read the part about the part-way transitional fossils, and the point is worth repeating.&nbsp; What this article is attempting to do is a mistake that paleontologists commonly make.&nbsp; They assume if that two species are very similar, one must have evolved from the other.&nbsp; Similarity in no way establishes a chain of evolution unless the fossil record visibly shows this chain.

Two points:&nbsp;

1. What we show are intermediates between two supposedly separate groups. Remember creationism: organisms are created in "basic kinds" and there is no relationship between them. Therefore a deduction from this hypothesis is that there can't be a fossil of an intermediate between two "kinds".&nbsp; Finding such a fossil with characteristics of two different "kinds" falsifies creationism.

2. There are such fossil series.&nbsp; See the chapter by RJ Cuffey in Science and Creationism, 1983.&nbsp; However, there are also series of transitional individuals linking species and higher taxa.&nbsp; Here are some of those studies.&nbsp; Note that some are not readily available to the general public, but they do exist.
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.&nbsp; Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.&nbsp; (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.&nbsp; HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"&nbsp; and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406&nbsp;

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2.&nbsp; http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Reptiles to mammals
1.&nbsp; http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Speciation in the fossil record
1.&nbsp; McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.

&nbsp;BTW, I would be most surprised if any high-level scientific journal in America mentioned a pro-creation story, simply because of the overwhelming bias against creationism in the scientific community.&nbsp;

Not creationism, but creation.&nbsp; Remember, there is a difference.

1:&nbsp; Russell RJ. Did God create our universe? Theological reflections on the Big Bang, inflation,and quantum cosmologies.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:108-27.
2:&nbsp; Gingerich O. Scientific cosmology meets western theology: a historical perspective.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:28-38.
4:&nbsp; Miller JB. Cosmic questions and the relationship between science and religion.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:309-10.

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rising Tree Also, by the above logic, we cannot be related to Lucy, as we cannot trace our ancestry to her.

There are transitional individuals linking H. sapiens to H. erectus to H. habilis to H. afarensis.&nbsp; So yes, A. afarensis -- Lucy -- is a chronospecies with us.&nbsp; That is, we are the same species sampled at different points in our evolution.

Why don't I?&nbsp; Because they compile arguments in a mumble-jumble fashion and make it look like they've got solid proof.&nbsp;

This boils down to: 1) I don't understand what they are saying, 2) they show what I don't want to hear.&nbsp; Ever hear of burying your head in the sand, Rising Tree? This is what you are doing.&nbsp; Learn the terminology and then follow their logic and data to see if they do indeed demonstrate what they say they are.&nbsp; BTW, they had to convince 2 peer-reviewers that knew not only the terminology but the field. And that is difficult to do.

there is no evidence of macroevolution within and among the species.&nbsp; If Darwinian evolution is correct, the fossils should show a continuous span of an extremely diverse spectrum of life.&nbsp;

One should always be careful of saying "there is no evidence"&nbsp;in science. In fact, I did give you examples of such evidence of transitional individuals linking the species.&nbsp; Here is another:
&nbsp;"Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record"&nbsp; Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13, 1996.&nbsp; The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", pgs 1894-1897. Look at the picture on page 1843.&nbsp; You can find Science in your public library.

Now, this characterization of Darwinian evolution is a strawman.&nbsp; It confuses the mode and tempo of evolution with whether evolution happened at all.&nbsp; Darwin tended to concentrate on what was known as sympatric&nbsp;speciation -- where the entire population transformed.&nbsp; In the 1940s Mayr realized that most speciation that resulted in new species was allopatric -- the now-famous geographical isolation.&nbsp; Punctuated equilibrium was the hypothesis by Eldredge and Gould that the major mode of speciation was allopatric, in which case the fossil record should look just like it does.&nbsp; That is, relatively few transitional series and then gaps as speciation occurred in small isolated populations where we aren't digging for fossils.

The idea of order spontaneously arising out of disorder is contrary to the natural order of life and humanity.&nbsp; Hasn't this been discussed around here before?

Yes, I have a thread on the 2nd Law.&nbsp; And it shows that such does arise. For instance, DNA spontaneously forms a double helix: order out of disorder.&nbsp; For that matter, oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water.&nbsp; And water has more order than the combination of oxygen and hydrogen.&nbsp; The key is Gibb's free energy in chemistry.&nbsp; If the increase in enthalpy is greater than the decrease in entropy, the reaction is spontaneous.

Don't counter point #1 with genetic engeneering projects; the mutations need to be random in order to count as evolutionary mutations.

OK. let's counter #1 with this paper:
&nbsp;G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos.&nbsp; A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster&nbsp; Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

They got new species after placing populations on different diets and different temperatures for 5 years.&nbsp; "Random" mutations and new adaptations.&nbsp; Genetic analysis showed the new species differed by over 3% in their DNA. To remind you, humans and chimps differ in their DNA by less than 2%.&nbsp; The paper had dozens of other references to observed speciation in the lab and wild.



As excerpted from&nbsp;this site, Karl&nbsp;Marx is quoted as saying, "Darwin's volume is very important and provides me with the basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."&nbsp; This site&nbsp;quotes Marx as saying, "Darwin's book is very important and it suits me well that it supports the class struggle in history from the point of view of natural&nbsp;science."&nbsp; In any case, Marx makes it clear that he based his&nbsp;economic and social theory on the scientific theory of evolution.

Marx based his "theory" on a misconception of evolution, since he viewed evolution as a ladder of progress.&nbsp; Evolution doesn't say that.&nbsp; But all that aside, so what?&nbsp; Marx also committed the naturalistic fallacy.&nbsp; That is, he equated the "is" of nature to what "ought" to be.&nbsp; No connection. Non sequitor. Second, it doesn't matter what your theory is based upon, it then has to stand up to testing to see if it is valid.&nbsp; And Marxism has been tested and shown to be wrong.

Any statistics on the odds of a helpful mutation occurring&nbsp;on any given mutation?

There are statistics on whether any mutation is going to be harmful. Those odds are &nbsp;0.0026 or 2.6 harmful mutations per thousand. Since it has been pointed out that the mutation rate is a little over 1 per individual, that is pretty low.&nbsp;

Remember, whether mutations are "helpful" or not depends on the environment.&nbsp; Change the environment, and a previously neutral mutation becomes beneficial.&nbsp; So what this means is that there are constantly a huge number of neutral mutations (in the present environment) in a population.&nbsp; Change the environment, and you have good odds that one of those will be helpful in the new environment.&nbsp; And natural selection, with its determinism, guarantees that the beneficial mutation will spread thru all the population.

&nbsp;I hit the "reply" button too soon.&nbsp; All the evolutionists have to do to keep their theory alive is to concoct evidence supporting it faster than we can refute it.&nbsp; Believe me, they know this.

Even if this were true, it is irrelevant.&nbsp; What you acknowledge here, but don't realize, is that creationism has already been falsified.&nbsp; Happened 170 years ago.

Second, in order to refute a theory, you have to have data. And creationists have none. For instance, in all your posts I've read, you have no data.&nbsp; Your whole thesis is based on lack of data.&nbsp; Not on the presence of data that can't be there if evolution is true.&nbsp; It is the evidence that can't be there if evolution is true that you need. And it is that evidence that science provided to falsifiy creationism.&nbsp; We can go into that data falsifying creationism in as much detail as you would like.

 

[Risen Tree]

Same thing, and done. After all, using DNA to settle paternity suits is taking a random "Joe" -- a baby -- and seeing if that kid is your offspring.&nbsp;

Do you realize that I only share 2^-(15+1) = 0.00153% of my DNA with my 15th cousin, assuming no inbreeding along the way?

Also, remember that science <B>falsifies</B>. Theories are accepted as (provsionally) true because of the repeated attempts to falsify them have failed.&nbsp; You are claiming evolution is false. Therefore, you should be able to come up with scientific papers demonstrating this.

The first comment is true, and it's good to see that you can recognize this.&nbsp; This is what we're doing when we attack evolution on scientific grounds.&nbsp; The second part, I don't buy, for two reasons: (1) I'm not sure where to look, and (2) the scientific community is very hard-hearted to the theory of creation.

Thanks for the definitions, but the mosquito scenario implies that they may be out of date.&nbsp; This is truly a fascinating situation whereby two races, and arguably two species, arise solely from the processes of microevolution.&nbsp; The situation in no way implies that mutation-laden macroevolution actually occurs.

Go to target=_blank&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...h&amp;DB=PubMed&nbsp;and look at the more than 90,000 papers I found searching under "new AND gene".

Articles #1, #2, #3 look like harmful mutations to me.&nbsp; #4 and #5 don't even mention mutations.&nbsp; I have no clue what #6 and #7 are talking about.&nbsp; #8 looks like microevolution.&nbsp; etc.

Sorry, but there is no "Principle of Disorder".&nbsp; This so-called principle was developed by misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the 2nd Law.

Incorrect.&nbsp; The principle of disorder is a fundamental rule of our lives.&nbsp; Anything left unattended falls apart.

Then you will be interested in examples of Darwinian (natural) selection making designs. There is a thread under that title on the board. Go back to page 5 or higher and look for it.&nbsp; Creationists never challenged the thread.&nbsp; I wonder why?

Perhaps they didn't have the time of day to deal with all the arguments, or the evolutionists weren't listening to them.

That's a convenient story, but not backed by data.&nbsp; Document those times, please.

See the first post in this thread.

However, why don't creationists submit grants to NSF and NIH like everyone else?&nbsp; What is disturbing is not their lack of funding, but their lack of rejection slips.&nbsp; If you don't apply, how can you get money? And, if you don't apply, then you can't honestly use this argument, can you?

Are you kidding me?&nbsp; That is suicide for ones career in today's biased world.&nbsp; Don't get me started on the one-sidedness of today's colleges, where much of the research takes place....

And now, the most quoteable comment in&nbsp;this entire thread:

Debating points don't count.

LOL!!&nbsp; Need I say more?

Not creationism, but creation.&nbsp; Remember, there is a difference.

Define terms, then.

Do you have a species-by-species record of those evolutionary pathways, or are your sources just guessing? (again)