Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's no answer to my point. Firstly almost all mutations observed in nature are negative.
Actually, most changes in genome are neutral in terms of producing survivable offspring, which is the yardstick we're using. But you're missing a piece of the puzzle - mutations increase or decrease survival rates much, much faster when a population is under evolutionary pressure. As long as conditions remain stable, there's no advantage to major genetic shifts. And so in the long intervals between timeframes withserious evolutionary pressure, the genotype for given population seeks equilibrium.
Quote:
Tell me about a positive mutation that has ever been observed.
The capability for certain bacteria to digest nylon. Useless dead-ends before the introduction of man-made nylon. Now a thriving little niche.
Quote:
Secondly, if mutations evolved species like you say they did the record in the fossils would be there to see. Small incremental changes in a species into another. It ain't there because it ain't so.
Fossilization is highly rare, and yet we do see gradual changes. Sadly, no species has been kind enough to leave us fossilized remains from each generation.
They have postulated that every 50 million years there is an event where species change into different species all at once.
They have? I'm reasonably well-read, but that's a first.
Quote:
Even that a far out as it may seem answers nothing about the orign of species because how, where and when did it originate in that faraway place?
A problem neatly solved by creationism, by declaring that all things are originated, except the prime originator who is special and doesn't have to originate from anything.
Actually, most changes in genome are neutral in terms of producing survivable offspring, which is the yardstick we're using. But you're missing a piece of the puzzle - mutations increase or decrease survival rates much, much faster when a population is under evolutionary pressure. As long as conditions remain stable, there's no advantage to major genetic shifts. And so in the long intervals between timeframes withserious evolutionary pressure, the genotype for given population seeks equilibrium.
The capability for certain bacteria to digest nylon. Useless dead-ends before the introduction of man-made nylon. Now a thriving little niche.
Fossilization is highly rare, and yet we do see gradual changes. Sadly, no species has been kind enough to leave us fossilized remains from each generation.
Fossilization is rare? I don't know about the rocks where you are from but where I was raised every rock was full of fossils. They are not rare at all and in fact they number in the trillions in the world. Darwin knew this and it gave him some problems with evolution. He was confedent that the fossil record would vindicate him in the future but it never has. Arguing with evolutionists is a very frustrating thing. Otherwise smart people just ignore the glaring problems that are completely inconsistant with evolution. If evolution were true we would see uncountable specimens that were slightly evoloved from other specimens of the same species. This is not observed at all. Darwin himself said {paraphraised} If evolution is true then why do we not see chaos in nature instead of the ordered way things are? Now that evolutionists have hit an absolutly dead end with plants and animals with no evidence to show for 200 years of searching they now attempt to prove their theory with the mutation of virus and bacteria. I would suggest that those organisms have always behaved in that manner and it is not evolution at all but rather the nature of those things.
Fossilization is rare? I don't know about the rocks where you are from but where I was raised every rock was full of fossils.
And you believe that this fossil rich environment in which you live is indicative of every other part of the earth? How strange.
Quote:
He was confedent that the fossil record would vindicate him in the future but it never has.
That will come as news to paleontologist.
Public Lecture: Donald R. Prothero - 1/10/2009 | New York City Skeptics (http://www.nycskeptics.org/lectures/prothero - broken link)
Quote:
Arguing with evolutionists is a very frustrating thing.
As I can imagine, all that science stuff to overcome.
Quote:
If evolution were true we would see uncountable specimens that were slightly evoloved from other specimens of the same species.
Not big on keeping track of the evolution of something as simple as retro viruses, I see.
Quote:
If evolution is true then why do we not see chaos in nature instead of the ordered way things are?
Now that's a new argument that I hope to read (briefly) a little more of.
Quote:
Now that evolutionists have hit an absolutly dead end with plants and animals with no evidence to show for 200 years of searching they now attempt to prove their theory with the mutation of virus and bacteria. I would suggest that those organisms have always behaved in that manner and it is not evolution at all but rather the nature of those things.
If evolution is true then why do we not see chaos in nature instead of the ordered way things are?
I think this needs to be cleared up. The anti-evolution camp have completely misquoted the second law of thermodynamics.
to paraphrase: the second law says that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time.
The point you seem to fail to realize is that we don't live in a closed system. We're being constantly bombarded with energy, which makes the second law irrelavant.
Yes, extremely so. More so for land-dwelling organisms. Even more so for macrofauna.
Quote:
I don't know about the rocks where you are from but where I was raised every rock was full of fossils.
Well, that's nice.
I highly recommend "In Search of Deep Time" (Henry Gee) for those interested in fathoming how rare fossilization is and how sparse some fossil evidence is. (And yes, I know he's been quote-mined by creationists. Don't try that, OK?)
Quote:
He (Darwin) was confedent that the fossil record would vindicate him in the future but it never has.
ToE has moved a bit since 1859. Darwin had the basic brilliant insight, but he lacked a lot of the supporting information.
Quote:
Arguing with evolutionists is a very frustrating thing.
It's a complex subject, and I perfectly understand the desire for a simpler world. Too bad the data doesn't support it.
Quote:
If evolution were true we would see uncountable specimens that were slightly evoloved from other specimens of the same species. This is not observed at all.
You're denying genetic variation within populations?
Quote:
Darwin himself said {paraphraised} If evolution is true then why do we not see chaos in nature instead of the ordered way things are?
Could you dig out the actual quote? There's a very good reason we don't see chaos, and Darwin, not being dumb, understood this. Species adapt to find forms with better survival chances in their niche. Unless the niche changes or new one opens up, evolution slows down.
Quote:
Now that evolutionists have hit an absolutly dead end with plants and animals with no evidence to show for 200 years of searching
Oh - a flat declaration. Here's something to ponder.
You, being human, can't synthesize vitamin C. Neither can any other primate. Most other animals can do so just fine.
So we look in the human genome and find that we have the genome for vitamin C synthesis - but it's broken. Intersting. This makes for a prediction: If we share a common ancestor with the other primates, they too will have the same gene, mutated in the same way. So we set out to map their genomes, and lo and behold: They too, have the broken gene - and it's broken in the exact same way.
DNA sequencing has provided more support for evolution than paleontology, with all due respect to the paleontologists.
Quote:
I would suggest that those organisms have always behaved in that manner and it is not evolution at all but rather the nature of those things.
Interesting hypothesis, but pretty much unfalsifiable. How do you test it? But sure, I'll play along: How do you account for the shared broken gene sequence, beyond "it's the nature of those things"?
Because we know, intelligent design. The facts and our faith tell us the true story.
I am always amazed that people can say "intelligent design" without breaking wind or breaking out in uncontrollable fits of laughing or some similar response.
Intelligent, you say, design.
Life is a hodge podge of vulnerabilites, deficiencies, errors etc. Let me give you a few examples, cancer, asthma, arthritis, gout, glaucoma, diabedes (sp), multiple schlerosis, shingles, tendonitus, appendicitus, heart murmors, enlarged hearts, water on the brain...
Go to a medical library or other source of medical references and read about pathologies of the human body. Then do the same thing for any animals you are interested in, say horses, or dogs.
After you have taken in all this imperfection, then come back and call it "intelligent design" without passing wind.
I call it "not very intelligent design", and if you could seperate yourself from your horrible fear of death and the nothingness that follows, you would to.
But I suspect you are so afraid of your existence ending, that you just can't let go of the pipe dream of existance post mortum (heaven etc.) and the religion that surrounds it, that you can't accept truth.
That's no answer to my point. Firstly almost all mutations observed in nature are negative. Tell me about a positive mutation that has ever been observed. There certainly is a lot of mutated examples born but they don't change the makeup of the species at all.
Secondly, if mutations evolved species like you say they did the record in the fossils would be there to see. Small incremental changes in a species into another. It ain't there because it ain't so.
Here's one recent trait that has evolved in humans:
A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.
Fossilization is rare? I don't know about the rocks where you are from but where I was raised every rock was full of fossils.
I don't dispute your description of the rocks where you were raised. I'm sure it seemed as though they were full of fossils, even though, in actuality, you probably saw only a few fossils each day.
If you could possibly imagine all the organisms that have existed in that same area, though, you would see that only a tiny fraction of them ever became fossils. Apply your own experience to it. One morning on your way to work you see a dead raccoon by the side of the road. It's not in the traveled portion, so it isn't run over until it's obliterated. Nevertheless, on your way home when you pass that same carcass you will notice several crows eating away at it. What you aren't seeing, of course, are the maggots, flies, and other small organisms that are also consuming it.
By the next day you may notice that much of the carcass is gone. Maybe a stray or feral dog or wolf has carried it away and eaten most of it. Maybe there are still crows at it. Maybe there's been a heavy rain storm and some of the pieces have been washed away.
Before you know it there is nothing left. That carcass is never going to be a fossil.
Repeat that billions of times a year and you will see that it takes a very unusual set of circumstances to create a fossil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
