Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Woyzeck]

You do not understand what the term engine means ? well an engine powers a car what powers macroevolution that is what i was asking.

It's a stupid question, because it's the same thing that "powers" micro-evolution. There's no reason to make the distinction of what "powers" macro-evolution.

Changing the subject are you.

You make a habit of this far more than I do.

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

It's a stupid question because there aren't any separate processes powering micro or macro. The two are simply the same thing on different time scales. It's what I've been telling you macro-evolution is all along, merely the compound of micro-evolution. There is no 'redefining science' in what I'm saying.

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

No, they are quite the same. The two differ in time scales. Micro is the immediate, macro is the long term buildup of micro-evolution. There's no place for a separate mechanism between the two to come in. There are large-scale changes if you compare the evolutionary history of an animal from the start to it's present state, but these large changes just don't magically appear at some point in the history. They are compounded gradually from micro-evolutionary changes.

 

[FurthurBB]

Even in the life cycle of the same species..some life forms make radical changes.

‪Time-lapse of Butterfly Lifecycle‬‏ - YouTube
‪time lapse: frog spawn‬‏ - YouTube

Evolution..baby.

Aging is not evolving, shitstain. A caterpillar is not a different species from a butterfly, and a tadpole is not a different species from a frog, any more than an infant is a different species from a senior citizen in a nursing home.

My God, are the rest of you liberals not even the LEAST bit ashamed to have this two-brain-cell drooler on your side of argument, or are you all really too ignorant to realize what an embarrassment he is?

I do not think politics have anything to do with this and although he has no idea what he is talking about at least he seems literate. Your posts are embarrassing, full of insults and nonsense.

 

[FurthurBB]

You do not understand what the term engine means ? well an engine powers a car what powers macroevolution that is what i was asking.

It's a stupid question, because it's the same thing that "powers" micro-evolution. There's no reason to make the distinction of what "powers" macro-evolution.

Changing the subject are you.

You make a habit of this far more than I do.

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

No, I believe I already told you that macroevolution is also small scale changes that build up over time. Ring species on islands that get geographically so far from their original breeding population and have a different evolutionary path that become so genetically diverse that they cannot successfully breed with their original breeding population is an example of macroevolution. There was no big change that caused this, just microevolution. Since there is no difference between the two there is no need to come up with a different mechanism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do i need to summarize the videos. I was just debunking your theory whether you watch them or not i could care less,but i know many viewing this thread will watch them .You being unwilling to view the videos just shows me no matter what is presented you would simply deny it and try to change the subject. But you expected me to look at your evidence posted and respond to it,do you remember that ? so once your true colors were revealed i just simply moved on and i will continue presenting arguments against your theory so people are not blindly accepting your absurd explanations.

Because an argument is not the same as an article that serves as evidence for arguments. You'll take any excuse you can to not have to look at actual science, hm? Well of course, that's usually the only response you have for actual science. That and not actually knowing what the science is about.



No matter how many times you repeat this bullshit mantra of yours, it still remains that I have in fact posted much observed evidence for evolution. I just posted some more a few posts ago. Why do you insist on constantly lying about it?

Also, actually I know what I do of modern biology from the biology section at my local library. I suggest you also take a trip and take a book out on the subject as well, you are in sore need of it.



See below. By the way, do you know why questions like "what drives macro-evolution" are stupid and pointless? It has to do with the differences between micro and macro. One represents a shorter period of time, the other a much longer period. The only thing that makes the two distinct is time. There's no proof that only variations can occur, and in fact the fossil record and existence of previous species on this planet heartily dispels that notion. If only variations can occur and if speciation is impossible than we should continue to find the same bones of organisms that we have today. But we don't, we find whole worlds of extinct species.

Where did the new information come from ?and what is your proof ?

Mutations. Errors in DNA. That's where the 'new information' comes from. Come now, this is basic biology. Please don't try that "new information cannot enter the genome" argument either, because I've debunked that several times now.

Every mutation comes at a loss of information and function ,so explain how you get a net gain of beneficial information that you need for macroevolution to occur ?

You do realize that is only theory that change within a group can happen in short periods of time but it takes many many years for mutations to cause macro-change. Do you realize a generation of bacteria can grow in just a few hours ? explain again why mutation change for macro takes thousands of years ? And with all the variations of bacteria why do they remain bacteria ?

Evolutionists say there are smaller organisms that have faster mutation rates, like the fruit flies, but why havn't they changed in to anything new ? or that matter any of the other smaller organisms with faster mutation rates ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's a stupid question, because it's the same thing that "powers" micro-evolution. There's no reason to make the distinction of what "powers" macro-evolution.



You make a habit of this far more than I do.

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

No, I believe I already told you that macroevolution is also small scale changes that build up over time. Ring species on islands that get geographically so far from their original breeding population and have a different evolutionary path that become so genetically diverse that they cannot successfully breed with their original breeding population is an example of macroevolution. There was no big change that caused this, just microevolution. Since there is no difference between the two there is no need to come up with a different mechanism.

Ok that is theory but yet to be proven. No you can think that if you like, but a member of a family is a member of a family and that is not evidence of macroevolution that is evidence of isolation from the family.

What you described was microevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's a stupid question, because it's the same thing that "powers" micro-evolution. There's no reason to make the distinction of what "powers" macro-evolution.



You make a habit of this far more than I do.

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

No, I believe I already told you that macroevolution is also small scale changes that build up over time. Ring species on islands that get geographically so far from their original breeding population and have a different evolutionary path that become so genetically diverse that they cannot successfully breed with their original breeding population is an example of macroevolution. There was no big change that caused this, just microevolution. Since there is no difference between the two there is no need to come up with a different mechanism.

Debunking evolution part 1 and 2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak]Debunking Evolution Part # 1 Variations in species - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21xxCkWELqc&feature=related]Debunking Evolution Part #2 Mutations Reproduction - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Woyzeck]

Because an argument is not the same as an article that serves as evidence for arguments. You'll take any excuse you can to not have to look at actual science, hm? Well of course, that's usually the only response you have for actual science. That and not actually knowing what the science is about.



No matter how many times you repeat this bullshit mantra of yours, it still remains that I have in fact posted much observed evidence for evolution. I just posted some more a few posts ago. Why do you insist on constantly lying about it?

Also, actually I know what I do of modern biology from the biology section at my local library. I suggest you also take a trip and take a book out on the subject as well, you are in sore need of it.



See below. By the way, do you know why questions like "what drives macro-evolution" are stupid and pointless? It has to do with the differences between micro and macro. One represents a shorter period of time, the other a much longer period. The only thing that makes the two distinct is time. There's no proof that only variations can occur, and in fact the fossil record and existence of previous species on this planet heartily dispels that notion. If only variations can occur and if speciation is impossible than we should continue to find the same bones of organisms that we have today. But we don't, we find whole worlds of extinct species.



Mutations. Errors in DNA. That's where the 'new information' comes from. Come now, this is basic biology. Please don't try that "new information cannot enter the genome" argument either, because I've debunked that several times now.

Every mutation comes at a loss of information and function ,so explain how you get a net gain of beneficial information that you need for macroevolution to occur ?

This isn't accurate. Mutations do not only result in a loss of genetic data. Every human born, for example, has about 30 mutations on their own DNA on average.

You do realize that is only theory that change within a group can happen in short periods of time but it takes many many years for mutations to cause macro-change.

Macro-evolution is the added difference of all of those tiny changes in those short periods of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're point here is.

Do you realize a generation of bacteria can grow in just a few hours ? explain again why mutation change for macro takes thousands of years ? And with all the variations of bacteria why do they remain bacteria ?

I've posted about this before. Bacteria (like E. coli) go through multiple generations within a single day. In a period of say, twenty years, they go through approximately 50,000 generations. In fact, I've often referred to the experiments of Richard Lenski on E. coli, which has shown definite macro-evolution change within 30,000 generations or so.

Your second question is quite puzzling. Why for all the variations do they remain bacteria? Evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, there is no 'optimized' or 'ideal' or what have you stage or goal. It's not a natural progression from simplicity single-celled organisms to more complex ones. There is no universal path of evolution. It falls in with how speciation occurs via two diverging lines.

Evolutionists say there are smaller organisms that have faster mutation rates, like the fruit flies, but why havn't they changed in to anything new ? or that matter any of the other smaller organisms with faster mutation rates ?

They are evolving, however. Due to their quick reproduction rates, fruit flies introduced to the Americas adapted quite quickly. It takes many, many generations however, to produce enough micro-evolution to form macro-evolutionary change. Two species of fruit flies for instance diverged 2.5 million years ago. 8 million years ago some fruit flies made it to Hawaii. Now there are 500 species there.

I don't really know enough about insect evolution to provide a specific example, but evolution does happen in fruit flies. There's no indication it's just stopped for them all of a sudden. Also keep in mind what I said above, there is not one direct progression of evolution. Looking for why flies haven't evolved from flies recently isn't actually going to prove anything.

 

[Meister]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.
The Flagellum organism has a perfect motor and prop that can start and stop in an instant. This could not have been created by chance, that would be like throwing all the parts that goes to a motor inside of a cement truck and turning it for 2 billion years and expecting it to be assembled and working at some point.
Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

 

[Woyzeck]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.

How?

The Flagellum organism has a perfect motor and prop that can start and stop in an instant. This could not have been created by chance, that would be like throwing all the parts that goes to a motor inside of a cement truck and turning it for 2 billion years and expecting it to be assembled and working at some point.

Except evolution doesn't work via random chance. Mutations are random, and they are then filtered by nonrandom natural selection.

Also, the so-called irreducible complexity of flagellum was proven wrong back in the '90s almost as soon as it was said. You can in fact reduce flagellum. Pathogenic bacteria inject 'toxins' into cells via 'syringes' so to speak. One of these is called type III secretory system, and the proteins that make it up are directly homologous to the proteins in the base of the flagellum. This gives us some insight on what good only the base portions of the flagellum is useful for, and entirely eliminates the argument of 'irreducible complexity' for it.

Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

Richard "The God Delusion" Dawkins attributes the creation of humans to a higher form of life? I find that extremely hard to believe, given we know much of our evolutionary history, and just how much Dawkins advocates evolution and a universe without a creator.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

And the point of this is...?

 

[Meister]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8]Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Every mutation comes at a loss of information and function ,so explain how you get a net gain of beneficial information that you need for macroevolution to occur ?

This isn't accurate. Mutations do not only result in a loss of genetic data. Every human born, for example, has about 30 mutations on their own DNA on average.



Macro-evolution is the added difference of all of those tiny changes in those short periods of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're point here is.



I've posted about this before. Bacteria (like E. coli) go through multiple generations within a single day. In a period of say, twenty years, they go through approximately 50,000 generations. In fact, I've often referred to the experiments of Richard Lenski on E. coli, which has shown definite macro-evolution change within 30,000 generations or so.

Your second question is quite puzzling. Why for all the variations do they remain bacteria? Evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, there is no 'optimized' or 'ideal' or what have you stage or goal. It's not a natural progression from simplicity single-celled organisms to more complex ones. There is no universal path of evolution. It falls in with how speciation occurs via two diverging lines.

Evolutionists say there are smaller organisms that have faster mutation rates, like the fruit flies, but why havn't they changed in to anything new ? or that matter any of the other smaller organisms with faster mutation rates ?

They are evolving, however. Due to their quick reproduction rates, fruit flies introduced to the Americas adapted quite quickly. It takes many, many generations however, to produce enough micro-evolution to form macro-evolutionary change. Two species of fruit flies for instance diverged 2.5 million years ago. 8 million years ago some fruit flies made it to Hawaii. Now there are 500 species there.

I don't really know enough about insect evolution to provide a specific example, but evolution does happen in fruit flies. There's no indication it's just stopped for them all of a sudden. Also keep in mind what I said above, there is not one direct progression of evolution. Looking for why flies haven't evolved from flies recently isn't actually going to prove anything.

Why do you think humans age and die,it is because the loss of information.Humans run a lifes cycle just like any other organism and we age and die. Because the origional information is lost,it's a copying error. And every gene performs a function. A mutation is a copying error that results from a loss of information or rearranged information either way the origional information is lost.

The engine of macro-evolution is according to evolutionist mutations + natural selection+ large spans of time. I forgot my line of thought maybe it will come back to me at a later time.

Yes,and that is why i asked you how come bacteria have never evolved in to anything new they're still bacteria ? you're not understanding whatever variations that are seen in bacteria are the result of adaptations and they remain bacteria. There are more bacteria then grains of sand on this planet and they have been here for a very long time but yet they're still bacteria nothing new.

In your attempt to explain you just showed the difference between macro and micro evolution one has been documented and the other has not. There is zero evidence proving macro evolution ever happened.

No , in fruit flies we have only seen variations never has a fruit fly became anything new, a fruit flie remains a fruit fly. This is the case with every family or group of organisms we see variations in all groups but we don't see new groups coming from the family. We see new breeds but not new families.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.

How?



Except evolution doesn't work via random chance. Mutations are random, and they are then filtered by nonrandom natural selection.

Also, the so-called irreducible complexity of flagellum was proven wrong back in the '90s almost as soon as it was said. You can in fact reduce flagellum. Pathogenic bacteria inject 'toxins' into cells via 'syringes' so to speak. One of these is called type III secretory system, and the proteins that make it up are directly homologous to the proteins in the base of the flagellum. This gives us some insight on what good only the base portions of the flagellum is useful for, and entirely eliminates the argument of 'irreducible complexity' for it.

Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

Richard "The God Delusion" Dawkins attributes the creation of humans to a higher form of life? I find that extremely hard to believe, given we know much of our evolutionary history, and just how much Dawkins advocates evolution and a universe without a creator.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

And the point of this is...?

I have explained before how evolutionists have failed to explain explain the lack of beneficial mutations. If you watched the video i posted you would see they also have not been able to explain Chirality. Chirality is a problem for your theory. Those are just a few things evolutionist have failed at.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

That is funny dawkins admitting to intelligent design but that intelligent design is not God.

 

[Woyzeck]

This isn't accurate. Mutations do not only result in a loss of genetic data. Every human born, for example, has about 30 mutations on their own DNA on average.



Macro-evolution is the added difference of all of those tiny changes in those short periods of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're point here is.



I've posted about this before. Bacteria (like E. coli) go through multiple generations within a single day. In a period of say, twenty years, they go through approximately 50,000 generations. In fact, I've often referred to the experiments of Richard Lenski on E. coli, which has shown definite macro-evolution change within 30,000 generations or so.

Your second question is quite puzzling. Why for all the variations do they remain bacteria? Evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, there is no 'optimized' or 'ideal' or what have you stage or goal. It's not a natural progression from simplicity single-celled organisms to more complex ones. There is no universal path of evolution. It falls in with how speciation occurs via two diverging lines.



They are evolving, however. Due to their quick reproduction rates, fruit flies introduced to the Americas adapted quite quickly. It takes many, many generations however, to produce enough micro-evolution to form macro-evolutionary change. Two species of fruit flies for instance diverged 2.5 million years ago. 8 million years ago some fruit flies made it to Hawaii. Now there are 500 species there.

I don't really know enough about insect evolution to provide a specific example, but evolution does happen in fruit flies. There's no indication it's just stopped for them all of a sudden. Also keep in mind what I said above, there is not one direct progression of evolution. Looking for why flies haven't evolved from flies recently isn't actually going to prove anything.

Why do you think humans age and die,it is because the loss of information.Humans run a lifes cycle just like any other organism and we age and die. Because the origional information is lost,it's a copying error. And every gene performs a function. A mutation is a copying error that results from a loss of information or rearranged information either way the origional information is lost.

Actually, we're really not sure why we age.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at in the rest of the quote.

The engine of macro-evolution is according to evolutionist mutations + natural selection+ large spans of time. I forgot my line of thought maybe it will come back to me at a later time.

That's how you differ from micro-evolution. If you wanted to describe micro-evolution, replace large spans of time with small ones. That's just a simplified version of it though, there are other factors in speciation.

Yes,and that is why i asked you how come bacteria have never evolved in to anything new they're still bacteria ? you're not understanding whatever variations that are seen in bacteria are the result of adaptations and they remain bacteria. There are more bacteria then grains of sand on this planet and they have been here for a very long time but yet they're still bacteria nothing new.

And I have explained to you, evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, or goal. Being single-celled is not necessarily disadvantageous to an organism. Many seem to live and thrive quite fine and in some cases they can ever overpower us. I don't see why you expect bacteria to evolve into something else. Is there any reason for current bacteria to evolve into something not-bacteria that I'm not aware of?

They are evolving though, just not to the extent you seem to expect. You see this in the 'superbugs' that strong enough not to be killed by current medicine. There's also nylon-eating bacteria, bacteria which have evolved to eat nylon. Before it, they couldn't process it.

In your attempt to explain you just showed the difference between macro and micro evolution one has been documented and the other has not. There is zero evidence proving macro evolution ever happened.

So all those fossils of previous species, that experiment of Lenski's that showed a new species in E. coli, all that's just for fun, not meant to be taken seriously at all?

I do wish you'd stop making blanket statements like "there is no proof at all for x, y, and z" because it says just how abysmally uneducated you are. It just looks bad on you too, when I've actually posted evidence to the contrary.

No , in fruit flies we have only seen variations never has a fruit fly became anything new, a fruit flie remains a fruit fly. This is the case with every family or group of organisms we see variations in all groups but we don't see new groups coming from the family. We see new breeds but not new families.

Do I have to repeat what I said about bacteria again? Because you don't seem to understand it. What on earth do you expect fruit flies to evolve into? Is there a certain reason we should expect them to evolve beyond fruit flies? Are there some environmental factors and so on which they are somehow ignoring so they don't have to evolve?

 

[Woyzeck]

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

 

[Woyzeck]

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.

How?



Except evolution doesn't work via random chance. Mutations are random, and they are then filtered by nonrandom natural selection.

Also, the so-called irreducible complexity of flagellum was proven wrong back in the '90s almost as soon as it was said. You can in fact reduce flagellum. Pathogenic bacteria inject 'toxins' into cells via 'syringes' so to speak. One of these is called type III secretory system, and the proteins that make it up are directly homologous to the proteins in the base of the flagellum. This gives us some insight on what good only the base portions of the flagellum is useful for, and entirely eliminates the argument of 'irreducible complexity' for it.



Richard "The God Delusion" Dawkins attributes the creation of humans to a higher form of life? I find that extremely hard to believe, given we know much of our evolutionary history, and just how much Dawkins advocates evolution and a universe without a creator.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

And the point of this is...?

I have explained before how evolutionists have failed to explain explain the lack of beneficial mutations. If you watched the video i posted you would see they also have not been able to explain Chirality. Chirality is a problem for your theory. Those are just a few things evolutionist have failed at.

There isn't a "lack." If chirality is such a blow to evolution as you claim, perhaps you could indulge me and say why it is.

 

[Meister]

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.
Your take of the flagellum is unconvincing....sorry, you haven't even changed my mind about a 1 cell organism and it's mechanics.
The building blocks of life with evolution just doesn't pass the litmus test with me. Your not going to be able to convince on the subject.....just as dawkins failed. There are a lot of flaws in Darwin's "theories", enough so that his studies are being questioned.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

 

[FurthurBB]

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

No, I believe I already told you that macroevolution is also small scale changes that build up over time. Ring species on islands that get geographically so far from their original breeding population and have a different evolutionary path that become so genetically diverse that they cannot successfully breed with their original breeding population is an example of macroevolution. There was no big change that caused this, just microevolution. Since there is no difference between the two there is no need to come up with a different mechanism.

Ok that is theory but yet to be proven. No you can think that if you like, but a member of a family is a member of a family and that is not evidence of macroevolution that is evidence of isolation from the family.

What you described was microevolution.

What I described is both micro and macroevolution as I have explained before. This is evolution above the species level.

 

[FurthurBB]

You don't need to provide a mechanism ? are you redefining science ?

Wrong it's not the same,micro-evolution are small scale changes and macro-evolution are large scale changes.

It is on you to prove the mechanism is the same that causes both.

No, I believe I already told you that macroevolution is also small scale changes that build up over time. Ring species on islands that get geographically so far from their original breeding population and have a different evolutionary path that become so genetically diverse that they cannot successfully breed with their original breeding population is an example of macroevolution. There was no big change that caused this, just microevolution. Since there is no difference between the two there is no need to come up with a different mechanism.

Debunking evolution part 1 and 2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak]Debunking Evolution Part # 1 Variations in species - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21xxCkWELqc&feature=related]Debunking Evolution Part #2 Mutations Reproduction - YouTube[/ame]

I do not watch youtube videos for evidence. Thank you anyway.

 

[FurthurBB]

Every mutation comes at a loss of information and function ,so explain how you get a net gain of beneficial information that you need for macroevolution to occur ?

This isn't accurate. Mutations do not only result in a loss of genetic data. Every human born, for example, has about 30 mutations on their own DNA on average.



Macro-evolution is the added difference of all of those tiny changes in those short periods of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're point here is.



I've posted about this before. Bacteria (like E. coli) go through multiple generations within a single day. In a period of say, twenty years, they go through approximately 50,000 generations. In fact, I've often referred to the experiments of Richard Lenski on E. coli, which has shown definite macro-evolution change within 30,000 generations or so.

Your second question is quite puzzling. Why for all the variations do they remain bacteria? Evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, there is no 'optimized' or 'ideal' or what have you stage or goal. It's not a natural progression from simplicity single-celled organisms to more complex ones. There is no universal path of evolution. It falls in with how speciation occurs via two diverging lines.

Evolutionists say there are smaller organisms that have faster mutation rates, like the fruit flies, but why havn't they changed in to anything new ? or that matter any of the other smaller organisms with faster mutation rates ?

They are evolving, however. Due to their quick reproduction rates, fruit flies introduced to the Americas adapted quite quickly. It takes many, many generations however, to produce enough micro-evolution to form macro-evolutionary change. Two species of fruit flies for instance diverged 2.5 million years ago. 8 million years ago some fruit flies made it to Hawaii. Now there are 500 species there.

I don't really know enough about insect evolution to provide a specific example, but evolution does happen in fruit flies. There's no indication it's just stopped for them all of a sudden. Also keep in mind what I said above, there is not one direct progression of evolution. Looking for why flies haven't evolved from flies recently isn't actually going to prove anything.

Not to mention there would be no benefit for bacteria to evolve to something else in the environment we live in today. Bacteria are among the most successful of all lifeforms on earth. There are very few open niches in the world today. A species would not survive long if it evolved to fill a niche that is already successfully filled.