Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

Novo mutations i have to read up on.

But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?

If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two. You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two? Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?

Word play ? you really don't understand there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

If there is no difference between the two then why would one focus on trying to produce evidence for macroevolution.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87

Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: June 19, 2007]
Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Now look at the critique of those evidences.

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Yes ,he only cut out the ones that were before darwin, here are the rest.

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
■600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

■150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

■Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

■John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

■George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

■D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

■Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

Yes you did a very good job of blindly copying and pasting again. Perhaps you missed GTH's response which definitively shot down this list. Here's a video that points out why it's wrong:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/ame]

It's deceitful. Dishonest. And you are the same for propagating it. If you disagree, just point out which of the people on that list are biologists who were alive since the structure of DNA was discovered 50 years ago. Your list, as the above video points out, contains people who were dead before the genetic evidence of evolution even came to light, or have nothing to do with the field of biology. But hey, I'm so glad you think the opinion of an astrophysicist from the 1800s is meaningful in a discussion of evolution.

NEVERTHELESS, as GTH also pointed out, if you want to make this a match about who has more smart scientists supporting evolution, let alone trained and educated biologists in the actual field who are alive today, you will find you are greatly outnumbered.

But this little lesson greatly parallels your "computer education". You read two articles, one for and one against evolution, and think they are representative. Similarly you see a small list of people, regardless of credentials, and somehow believe they are equal to actual scientists who believe in evolution. It's laughable.

You're are either misunderstanding me or you refuse to show how this is macroevolution.

Because bacteria adapt does not show macroevolution.

The bacteria do not adapt. You're still not getting this point. You are making the connotation that bacteria genetically react to their environment, when such does not happen. Not for any type of evolution. Ever.

The bacteria is still bacteria.

This is where the confusion comes in from your side by trying to define the newly adapted bacteria as a new species of bacteria and say here is macroevolution. They are of the same kind just with a different ability.

And what would make it more than a bacteria? The reason you are so confused is because you yourself cannot define the words you yourself propose. What does "at the species level" mean? What separates one species from another? You make up these words like macroevolution, and contrive some arbitrary definition for them regarding changes in species, yet you can't actually tell me what separates one species from another, even though it is an integral if not the ONLY major aspect of your definition for macroevolution. What would make a bacteria somehow be a different species? There are countless species of bacteria. You tell me what defines them as different, and therefore how one could become different from its parent.

The term microevolution refers to a few mutations which create few changes in organisms. The term macroevolution refers to LOTS of mutations which create lots of changes in organisms. If you already agree that a few mutations can happen, then why do you think it impossible for lots of mutations to happen, given time? In your usual fashion, you still haven't answered this fundamental tenant behind your own argument.

Not only are you uneducated in my side of this topic, but you seem to lack knowledge about your own points as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes ,he only cut out the ones that were before darwin, here are the rest.

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
■600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

■150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


■Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
■Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

■Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

■Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

■Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

■Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

■Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

■Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

■Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

■David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

■Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

■Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

■Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

■Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

■Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

■Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

■Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

■Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

■Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

■Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

■Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

■John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

■Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

■William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

■George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

■D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

■James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

■Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

■John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

■Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

■Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

■Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

■Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

■Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

■James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

■Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

■Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

■Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

■Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

■Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

■Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

■William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

■John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

■Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

■Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

■James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

■Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

■George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

■Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

■William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

■Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

■Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

■Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

■A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

■A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

■John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

Yes you did a very good job of blindly copying and pasting again. Perhaps you missed GTH's response which definitively shot down this list. Here's a video that points out why it's wrong:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/ame]

It's deceitful. Dishonest. And you are the same for propagating it. If you disagree, just point out which of the people on that list are biologists who were alive since the structure of DNA was discovered 50 years ago. Your list, as the above video points out, contains people who were dead before the genetic evidence of evolution even came to light, or have nothing to do with the field of biology. But hey, I'm so glad you think the opinion of an astrophysicist from the 1800s is meaningful in a discussion of evolution.

NEVERTHELESS, as GTH also pointed out, if you want to make this a match about who has more smart scientists supporting evolution, let alone trained and educated biologists in the actual field who are alive today, you will find you are greatly outnumbered.

But this little lesson greatly parallels your "computer education". You read two articles, one for and one against evolution, and think they are representative. Similarly you see a small list of people, regardless of credentials, and somehow believe they are equal to actual scientists who believe in evolution. It's laughable.

You're are either misunderstanding me or you refuse to show how this is macroevolution.

Because bacteria adapt does not show macroevolution.

The bacteria do not adapt. You're still not getting this point. You are making the connotation that bacteria genetically react to their environment, when such does not happen. Not for any type of evolution. Ever.

The bacteria is still bacteria.

This is where the confusion comes in from your side by trying to define the newly adapted bacteria as a new species of bacteria and say here is macroevolution. They are of the same kind just with a different ability.

And what would make it more than a bacteria? The reason you are so confused is because you yourself cannot define the words you yourself propose. What does "at the species level" mean? What separates one species from another? You make up these words like macroevolution, and contrive some arbitrary definition for them regarding changes in species, yet you can't actually tell me what separates one species from another, even though it is an integral if not the ONLY major aspect of your definition for macroevolution. What would make a bacteria somehow be a different species? There are countless species of bacteria. You tell me what defines them as different, and therefore how one could become different from its parent.

The term microevolution refers to a few mutations which create few changes in organisms. The term macroevolution refers to LOTS of mutations which create lots of changes in organisms. If you already agree that a few mutations can happen, then why do you think it impossible for lots of mutations to happen, given time? In your usual fashion, you still haven't answered this fundamental tenant behind your own argument.

Not only are you uneducated in my side of this topic, but you seem to lack knowledge about your own points as well.

Bacteria do adapt to their enviornments in some cases correct ?

And what would make it more than a bacteria?
You tell me you're the one who believes in the theory.

What does "at the species level" mean? What separates one species from another?
populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. genus.

Biologists classify species differently there is sometimes confusion on defining a new species. But you know that right ?


If you already agree that a few mutations can happen, then why do you think it impossible for lots of mutations to happen, given time?
Since beneficial mutations are so rare why do you believe enough would have happened to bring about macroevolutuion for every living organism ?
So what you're saying is because you can imagine how it happened it must of happened,right ? because the universe is so vast surely there must be life out there besides on earth ,right ? yeah you're a naturalist.


Oh no a propaganda video. Most scientist do believe in evolution just not the evolution you're are being indoctrinated with.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Merry Christmas one and all.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Bacteria do adapt to their enviornments in some cases correct ?

Ah you're asking good questions now, which shows you're willing to learn. Excellent. The answer is no. There are never times when any bacterium or any other organism can genetically react to its environment. When I say genetically react, I am specifically referring to changing its genetic material in some way to give it an adaptive survival advantage. It is impossible, and as such that is NOT how micro or macro evolution works.

If you are wondering at this point how we get bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, including newly man made antibiotics that no bacteria has seen before, you would be starting to think the right way, and need only ask the question.

And what would make it more than a bacteria?
You tell me you're the one who believes in the theory.

What does "at the species level" mean? What separates one species from another?
populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. genus.

Biologists classify species differently there is sometimes confusion on defining a new species. But you know that right ?

People had historically classified animals into species based on appearance, and sometimes citing the ability to produce viable offspring as the cutoff between species. As you can imagine, there were some gray areas like lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys, as these pairs can mate with each other to an imperfect degree. As you can imagine, outward appearance should not define a species, else every different looking dog breed would be its own.

When genetics came to humanity, we began to appreciate a deeper understanding of this topic. What we found is that defining animals into different species was arbitrary. So even though lions and tigers are still considered different species to this day, it's clear genetically that they're not too different, and can still mate. Again, this goes back to lots of mutations. The more differences, the "farther away" one organism is from another. Many many mutations means the organisms are very far and it's easy to say "these are different species" but there's no actual cutoff as to how many differences there needs to be before we say they are different species.

I repeat: there is no actual cutoff as to how many genetic differences there needs to be before they are classified as different species.

So when I ask you about YOUR ideas regarding MACROevolution, a creationist concept, it does not surprise me that you are incapable of actually telling me what biological or genetic property actually differentiates things at the species level, and therefore what the actual difference is between micro and macro evolution. The reason you can't is because there is no such property.

The lines of speciation blur heavily in bacteria especially, as they do have the ability to pick up outside genetic material. There are E. coli strains that act just like Shigella. So we use terms like strains and breed instead of species. Truth be told though, there's no real defined cutoff at the genetic level to distinguish between them.

Since beneficial mutations are so rare why do you believe enough would have happened to bring about macroevolutuion for every living organism ?
So what you're saying is because you can imagine how it happened it must of happened,right ? because the universe is so vast surely there must be life out there besides on earth ,right ? yeah you're a naturalist.

Your first question there is excellent. The rest are misguided. Beneficial mutation is not some distant but unlikely possibility. It is not only possible, but probability.

Take for example the mega-lottery of your state. Odds of winning usually sit slightly over 1 in 100 MILLION. Now just because it's POSSIBLE for you to win the lottery, doesn't mean you will. It's highly unlikely. Improbable. Perhaps you could call it impossible. So therefore no one would ever win the lottery, right?

Well, no. That's silly. Despite the ridiculous odds for any one person, millions of people play and SOMEONE always wins. Even if no one wins today, someone will certainly hit the jackpot by next week. Similarly, the odds for any one bacteria of hitting the "antibiotic resistance jackpot" are low, but one of them will still hit it because so many are "playing" the game. How many? Well, the human body has more bacteria in it than human cells, weighing in at approximately 100 TRILLION bacteria per person. That's 100,000 times more than the actual odds of winning the state lotto, and bacteria have the chance to play every 20 minutes.

Still think beneficial mutations are impossible?

 

[geauxtohell]

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.

I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.

Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

 

[geauxtohell]

They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.

And where did the stolen genetic information come from? Bacteria that had mutated and developed resistance. You are jumping over the most crucial point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.

And where did the stolen genetic information come from? Bacteria that had mutated and developed resistance. You are jumping over the most crucial point.

You're assuming this. I assume that the information to adapt are merely adapted mutations as Dr Lee Spetner claims.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.

I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.

Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And where did the stolen genetic information come from? Bacteria that had mutated and developed resistance. You are jumping over the most crucial point.

And yet you once again ignore easy to prove facts that isolated bacteria grown in an otherwise sterile environment with no exogenous genetic information still acquire new traits. How do you explain that? You can't, so you pretend it doesn't exist. Such is ignorance.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

Well, generally yes. If you take a slice of all people educated in biology, less than 1% reject evolution. When you expand that to any science related field outside of biology, data from 20 years ago showed it jumped to 5%. Regardless it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of educated people find evolution to be correct, and that those most likely to find it incorrect are uneducated people.

. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

While there is evidence in many fields, genetics is the overwhelming one, and can offer the proof of evolution alone.

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

Both are scientific theories, meaning they have equal weight in their factual nature. Make what you will of that.

7. Natural selection is evolution

You still don't understand natural selection. Perhaps you should avoid making comments regarding its relation to evolution, which is another concept you don't understand.

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

Well, verification by several forms of radiometric dating methods verify aging.

10. Mutations drive evolution

Yet another concept you don't understand.

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

You've already gotten most of those wrong, and have consistently shown yourself to not understand the basic concepts of mutation, evolution, and genetics, even in the microevolution that you believe exists.

You have two options at this point: You can either take the hint, acknowledging that you really don't understand where all those smart scientists are coming from, and try to learn a bit, or you can continue to cover your eyes and ears int he ignorant service of your religion, most likely ending with you leaving the thread under some childish excuse.

Education of what we're discussing, or ignorance. The choice is yours, but know that in your current state, you do not understand these concepts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

10. Mutations drive evolution

Yet another concept you don't understand.


Let's finish up here before we move on.

Almost all mutations show a loss of information, Consider the morse code.

If someone wanted to call for help using Morse code, for instance, he or she would send the letters SOS (which is the international distress signal). Morse code for SOS is:

S is dot dot dot [• • •] or three short sounds.
O is dash dash dash [– – –] or three long sounds.
S is dot dot dot [• • •] or three short sounds.

Therefore, it would be [• • • – – – • • •], or three short sounds followed by three long sounds, followed by three short sounds.

A mutation would be like changing a dot to a dash in Morse code. If we tried to spell SOS in Morse code, but changed the first dot to a dash, it would accidentally read:

[– • • – – – • • •]

Dash dot dot is the sequence for D, not S; so it would now read:

D [– • •]
O [– – –]
S [• • •]

So, because of the mistake (mutation), we now read DOS, instead of SOS. If you sent this, no one would think you needed help. This mutation was significant because it did two things to your message:

1.The original word was lost.
2.The intent/meaning was lost.
The DNA strand is similar to, but much more complicated than, Morse code. It uses four letters (G, A, T, C) instead of dashes and dots to make words and phrases. And like Morse code, mutations can affect the DNA strand and cause problems for the organism. These DNA mistakes are called genetic mutations.

Theoretically, genetic mutations (that are not static) can cause one of two things:
1.Loss of information1
2.Gain of new information
Virtually all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function. Some mutations can cause an organism to lose genetic information and yet gain some type of function. This is rare but has happened. These types of mutations have a beneficial outcome. For example, if a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn’t get blown out to sea and killed. Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was helpful to the beetle. Thus, it was a beneficial outcome.


Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information. There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations. However, if a mutated DNA strand were built up with a group of base pairs that didn’t do anything, this strand wouldn’t be useful. Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function.

Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the ?Engine? of Evolution? - Answers in Genesis

How many positive mutations whould it take to make up the differences between our so called nearest ancester to what humans are today ? going against the fact that beneficial mutations are rare in nature. The majority of mutations show a loss and or are harmful to the organism.

 

[konradv]

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.

I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.

Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

Why? Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions? If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.

 

[Youwerecreated]

10. Mutations drive evolution

Yet another concept you don't understand.

[/QUOTE]

This is a very interesting give and take on this issue.

Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

© 2001 L.M. Spetner. All Rights Reserved.

After I posted my critique of Edward E. Max’s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses. The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue. The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments. I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon. My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS".

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.



Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

Why? Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions? If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.

Is this like your first post in this thread ?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.



I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.



I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.

1.) The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.

2.) While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory. You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.

The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.

But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.

 

[geauxtohell]

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution.

I never said this. Rejecting evolution doesn't equate to accepting creationism.

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution.

This is a true statement.

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

Also true.

11. The scopes trial

Why not? It's a perfect example of how the legal system and public opinion can be 100% wrong on a scientific manner. Again, this is why popular public opinion doesn't drive scientific consensus.

12. Science Vs. religion

You should take your own advice as all of your objections to evolution are based on religious doctrines you believe in. This debate is very much about science v. religion to you. When pointed out that, this doesn't have to be the case and that many people who accept evolutionary theory are also religious, you reject that notion.

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

At least we are original. Are you going to formulate your own thoughts and arguments on this matter, or are you going to just keep copy and pasting us to death?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution.

I never said this. Rejecting evolution doesn't equate to accepting creationism.



This is a true statement.



Also true.



Why not? It's a perfect example of how the legal system and public opinion can be 100% wrong on a scientific manner. Again, this is why popular public opinion doesn't drive scientific consensus.

12. Science Vs. religion

You should take your own advice as all of your objections to evolution are based on religious doctrines you believe in. This debate is very much about science v. religion to you. When pointed out that, this doesn't have to be the case and that many people who accept evolutionary theory are also religious, you reject that notion.

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

At least we are original. Are you going to formulate your own thoughts and arguments on this matter, or are you going to just keep copy and pasting us to death?

I am off with the family, in the morning i will give my thoughts on each argument. In the meantime you should read this http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.



I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.

1.) The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.

2.) While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory. You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.

The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.

But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.

Most evolutionists believe the big bang was what caused the natural process.,it's just a matter of time before it comes up because they have no explanation for non-living matter resulting in living organisms.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Let's finish up here before we move on.

Almost all mutations show a loss of information, Consider the morse code.

Let's NOT consider morse code, as it is a HORRIBLE analogy for evolution and misses most of the larger concepts you still don't understand. In fact, why don't we avoid all misleading and otherwise inaccurate analogies used by creationists to confuse the topic instead of addressing the actual evidence of evolution.

Why? Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions? If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.

Is this like your first post in this thread ?

While it is his first post, it is spot on accurate. You have ignored EVERY SINGLE QUESTION asked of you from me regarding irrefutable evidence supporting evolution. You can't face it. At all. So you propose ridiculous non-congruent examples like morse code as a replacement because of your shortcomings. He's right: if you aren't actually going to address the evidence supporting evolution, why are you still here?

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.

No. Wrong in so many ways.

Most evolutionists believe the big bang was what caused the natural process.,it's just a matter of time before it comes up because they have no explanation for non-living matter resulting in living organisms.

Evolution STILL has nothing to do with the big bang. It's sad that you still haven't figured out the scope of the concept despite being proven wrong so many times on that point.

Do you still question the value of education on this topic, or believe yours can compare to mine?