Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-29-2007, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
85 posts, read 310,762 times
Reputation: 18

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino View Post
Your understanding of genetics is incomplete. "New genetic information" is not a technical term and covers a broad area. There are numerous ways in which novel genes can arise. Here are just a few examples:

1. DNA replication is error-prone. DNA polymerases, the enzyme that builds the new copies of DNA strands, are not perfect. Although there are many error-correction mechanisms in genetics, the chance that a genetic change occurs is nonzero.

2. Recombination - An individual inherits genes from both their mother and father. Due to the chromosomal crossover, changes in chromosomal structure may occur. Thus there is a chance that duplication, deletion, translocation, and/or inversion occurs - perhaps in the middle of a regulatory or coding sequence of DNA.

3. Transposons are DNA sequences which can jump around to various spots in the genome through a process called transposition. Cuts, copies, and insertions of transposon sequences may occur in the regulatory and/or coding sequences of genes. IIRC, Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize a few years ago for discovering that transposons can change the color of corn kernels.

Regarding the evolution of sight (photoreceptors / opsin proteins), read these research papers:
The opsins

Evolutionary analysis of rhodopsin and cone pigments: connecting the three-dimensional structure with spectral tuning and signal transfer

On a side note, I do not believe in evolution. Rather, I look at the enormous amount of genetic and fossil evidence (as well as my own experience in molecular biology) and accept the theory as valid. From a purely semantic perspective evolution is a fact since alleles frequencies change over time; every birth, death, and mutation is evolution.
Your quote still fails to meet the challenge...

Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed). To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing. (source)

The fact is macro-evolution from simple to complex creatures requires more than beneficial mutations and natural selection, it also requires the creation of NEW genetic information. The difference between a simple and a complex creature isn't just that the latter has more genetic materials than the other, it's that complex creatures have greater amounts of genetic information than simple creatures. Mutations and natural selections will not yield new genetic information. Go ahead, refute that.

Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created. All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.


Last edited by 4Pillars; 12-29-2007 at 02:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2007, 03:54 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
288 posts, read 915,908 times
Reputation: 147
Quote:
Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed). To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence.
Define "new". You fail to understand fundamental concepts in genetics. If you read and understand the articles I linked to, it traces the development of new functions derived from new proteins translated from new genes. How are the members of the opsin family of proteins not useful? This is just one of many possible examples. You may want to do a search on scholar.google.com or NCBI's PubMed for more information.

A protein does not have to be "new" in order to fulfill a function. Cell signaling uses highly conserved proteins.

Keep in mind that most organisms are diploid; if the other chromosome still contains "superman", then the individual's offspring may pass on the original gene. The new gene "sxyxvawtu", if transcribed, may or may not yield a new protein -- it depends on the sequence, of course.

Quote:
This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing. (source)
The information/complexity argument is irrelevant to the fact that genes will change, and that statistically some of them will yield new functions. Again, refer to the article on opsins.

Also please read this article:
Information Theory and Creationism


Quote:
The fact is macro-evolution from simple to complex creatures requires more than beneficial mutations and natural selection, it also requires the creation of NEW genetic information.
Beneficial mutations give rise to new genes.

You are again confusing terminology. Now you are arguing about speciation. In order to understand it, one must be able to define a species. This is no simple matter (look up "species concepts").

Here is a simple overview of the process of speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...eciation.shtml

Quote:
The difference between a simple and a complex creature isn't just that the latter has more genetic materials than the other, it's that complex creatures have greater amounts of genetic information than simple creatures.
Correct, more genes doesn't always mean a more "complex" organism. For example:
Rice (oryza sativa) is reported to have around 50,000 genes.
Humans have less than 25,000 genes.

The number of genes is not all that determines an organism; one must include all of the regulatory sequences and mechanisms, as well as the order, quantity, and timing of gene expression.

Quote:
Mutations and natural selections will not yield new genetic information.
Proof? Natural selection is a process by which certain genes are selected for; if through mutations or recombination a new gene arises and is beneficial, then the gene will likely be passed on an become prevalent in future organisms. This is a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology. See the opsin article.

Quote:
Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.
Facts? I don't see where you presented facts backed up by peer-reviewed research. How about the fact that all biotech and pharmaceuticals use biology which is built upon evolutionary theories to develop new drugs and cures?

Quote:
Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created
Examples like the ones you suggest do not occur overnight; they are extended processes that may take a long time. Look up molecular clock mechanisms and parsimony for an idea of how long such processes can take.

I strongly suggest you read a biology textbook to clear up your misconceptions and/or look up the articles from a reputable scientific source online. There are still many unknowns and holes to fill.

Bacterial antibiotic resistance is a clear example of developing new functions. The reason they acquired resistance traits so quickly is their short generation time (e.g. E. coli can duplicate itself every ~20 minutes) and ability to produce a huge amount of individuals. Each individual bacterium has a chance of obtaining resistance genes via mutation, recombination, or even resistance plasmids in some bacterial species. The rate of evolution in bacteria and viruses is very, very fast.

The problem with the biological sciences w.r.t the public is that most people simply lack the understanding of fundamental biological concepts to understand the details of evolution. Additionally, people tend to think that absence of evidence equates to the evidence of absence, and this is not the case at all. The impression I get from the public is that the majority simply do not understand the scientific method and the importance of theories, which as always being tested against new data, and if need be, updated. More importantly, they do not realize the impact and applications of science that validate the underlying ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2007, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
85 posts, read 310,762 times
Reputation: 18
Really? Could've fooled me...but maybe you've never heard of the General Theory of Evolution (a.k.a. macro-evolution)...

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " [note: micro-evolution] and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" [note: macro-evolution] and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960, p.157).


I see, you want reference? Here for your reading pleasure...

Mutations don't add information (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function, they have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, that is, building upon the existing DNA which must be required for evolution to advance. In other words there has never been a mutation that has increased or added to the genetic information of an organism.

The fact is that since mutations only scramble the existing DNA to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the enviroment, this cannot be evolution! In fact, within the observable science we have on mutations, it is creation that predicts the types of changes we see created by them.

Even if we go beyond that questionable ground of evidence for evolution, likewise science has not observed, as a result of these mutations, an organism changing into anything other than what the organism was before the mutation. The change or the, "massive changes resulting from little changes" that evolutionists allude to in trying to prove that evolution has been observed is in fact a great way to dismiss any other valid thinking on the subject. The important thing to keep in mind here is which side, evolution, or creation, stays within the realm of observable science.

I have literally asked evolutionists on message boards, "Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?" Keep in mind, that mutations alone cannot adequately explain the phenomonan of evolution, yet they constantly try to prove it through that avenue.

They, fully believing the evolution theory as scientific fact have claimed that a bacterium, called the nylon bug here on out by me, with its adaptation to consuming nylon waste is scientific evidence of evolution. But how you ask? You may be thinking, "To me it sounds like adaptation to its enviroment", and that is exactly right. Allow me to further explain the evidence presented and therefore known about this nylon bug.

Having this bacteria being able to have waste products of nylon as their only source of carbon and nitrogen is quite remarkable but let us focus on just two species of bacteria first, Flavobacterium K172 and Pseudomonas NK87. Three enzymes are responsible for this ability in Flavobacterium K172, which are: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. The genes for these enzymes are located on three plasmids. Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and pNAD2 and pNAD6 in Pseudomonas.

I will admit that this specific mutation is advantageous for the bacteria as it is able to use the broken down nylon as a new ‘food’ source but as far as added new functional genetic information to the gene pool, I don't think so. A frame-shift mutation being responsible for this change in the bacteria is when one base pair is deleted, so that all the bases after that one are ‘read’ differently.

Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:

ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CAT

The frame-shift would delete the first ‘T’ to shift over the letters after the word containing the 'T', the sentence becomes:

ONE FAF OXA TET HEC AT

Indeed this example doesn't make the frame-shifted DNA read-out mean anything, but in the case of the nylon-metabolising enzyme’s it worked. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes.

The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive changes needed because if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA it is limited to that DNA. That is why if they could produce some natural process that builds on, not scrambles the existing DNA to cause a new function they would have something. If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.

All we have is a fast mutating species, and after millions of generations of reproduction, it still retains the basic properties as originally described when discovered in 1889 and is still identifiable as itself. You may disagree, but I find it quite evident that the DNA genome can recombine in specific pre-programmed ways for specific purposes in relation to the enviroment. All the nylon bug displays is an example of this.

That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed. (source)

Nice try but no cigar.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2007, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,425,231 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Pillars View Post
Really? Could've fooled me...but maybe you've never heard of the General Theory of Evolution (a.k.a. macro-evolution)...

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " [note: micro-evolution] and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" [note: macro-evolution] and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960, p.157).


I see, you want reference? Here for your reading pleasure...

Mutations don't add information (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function, they have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, that is, building upon the existing DNA which must be required for evolution to advance. In other words there has never been a mutation that has increased or added to the genetic information of an organism.

The fact is that since mutations only scramble the existing DNA to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the enviroment, this cannot be evolution! In fact, within the observable science we have on mutations, it is creation that predicts the types of changes we see created by them.

Even if we go beyond that questionable ground of evidence for evolution, likewise science has not observed, as a result of these mutations, an organism changing into anything other than what the organism was before the mutation. The change or the, "massive changes resulting from little changes" that evolutionists allude to in trying to prove that evolution has been observed is in fact a great way to dismiss any other valid thinking on the subject. The important thing to keep in mind here is which side, evolution, or creation, stays within the realm of observable science.

I have literally asked evolutionists on message boards, "Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?" Keep in mind, that mutations alone cannot adequately explain the phenomonan of evolution, yet they constantly try to prove it through that avenue.

They, fully believing the evolution theory as scientific fact have claimed that a bacterium, called the nylon bug here on out by me, with its adaptation to consuming nylon waste is scientific evidence of evolution. But how you ask? You may be thinking, "To me it sounds like adaptation to its enviroment", and that is exactly right. Allow me to further explain the evidence presented and therefore known about this nylon bug.

Having this bacteria being able to have waste products of nylon as their only source of carbon and nitrogen is quite remarkable but let us focus on just two species of bacteria first, Flavobacterium K172 and Pseudomonas NK87. Three enzymes are responsible for this ability in Flavobacterium K172, which are: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. The genes for these enzymes are located on three plasmids. Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and pNAD2 and pNAD6 in Pseudomonas.

I will admit that this specific mutation is advantageous for the bacteria as it is able to use the broken down nylon as a new ‘food’ source but as far as added new functional genetic information to the gene pool, I don't think so. A frame-shift mutation being responsible for this change in the bacteria is when one base pair is deleted, so that all the bases after that one are ‘read’ differently.

Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:

ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CAT

The frame-shift would delete the first ‘T’ to shift over the letters after the word containing the 'T', the sentence becomes:

ONE FAF OXA TET HEC AT

Indeed this example doesn't make the frame-shifted DNA read-out mean anything, but in the case of the nylon-metabolising enzyme’s it worked. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes.

The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive changes needed because if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA it is limited to that DNA. That is why if they could produce some natural process that builds on, not scrambles the existing DNA to cause a new function they would have something. If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.

All we have is a fast mutating species, and after millions of generations of reproduction, it still retains the basic properties as originally described when discovered in 1889 and is still identifiable as itself. You may disagree, but I find it quite evident that the DNA genome can recombine in specific pre-programmed ways for specific purposes in relation to the enviroment. All the nylon bug displays is an example of this.

That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed. (source)

Nice try but no cigar.

I'm glad to see the author of this article cited empirical evidence to back himself up. Let me guess.... he was just 're-interpreting' the testing that had already been done?? Yeah... those silly Creationists... performing science without a lab...

Anyway, here's a little bit better response to your 'god did it' site. Unlike yours it has scientific references, assumptions backed by testing, etc... etc... Maybe if you'll read it you'll understand the fundamental error of what Meyer (the guy who most of your article is based on or thought of) wrote. Or, perhaps not, and you'll just keep believing in fairy tales.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html (broken link)

Last edited by GCSTroop; 12-29-2007 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2007, 05:07 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
288 posts, read 915,908 times
Reputation: 147
That source is incorrect. Evolution == change in allele frequency within a population over time. Abiogenesis == origin of life [from inorganic compounds].

Your article does not cite a valid scientific source(s). It makes no testable predictions, nor does it include empirical data.

Again, please seek education from qualified sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2007, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
85 posts, read 310,762 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I'm glad to see the author of this article cited empirical evidence to back himself up. Let me guess.... he was just 're-interpreting' the testing that had already been done?? Yeah... those silly Creationists... performing science without a lab...

Anyway, here's a little bit better response to your 'god did it' site. Unlike yours it has scientific references, assumptions backed by testing, etc... etc... Maybe if you'll read it you'll understand the fundamental error of what Meyer (the guy who most of your article is based on or thought of) wrote. Or, perhaps not, and you'll just keep believing in fairy tales.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html (broken link)
Another vain attempt at making evolution an "operational science"? Celestial mechanics does not deal with the ORIGIN of celestial motions, rather it deals with the observable mechanics of celestial bodies, hence it's an "operational science". Evolution on the other hand makes speculative claims about the ORIGIN of species (sounds familiar?), that's why its a "historical/origins science". That you can use "operational science" today to test the historical theories of evolution doesn't make evolution "operational science". Until you see that difference you simply will remain confused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2007, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
85 posts, read 310,762 times
Reputation: 18
The reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species.* Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have.* IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs.

So again, you want to use VERIFICATION as a litmus test on whether is something is “scientific” or not, well let’s apply it to macro-evolution.* Show us the verifications.* Or be prepared to call evolutionism non-science or change your criteria for judging what’s scientific and non-scientific.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,425,231 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Pillars View Post
The reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species.* Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have.* IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs.

So again, you want to use VERIFICATION as a litmus test on whether is something is “scientific” or not, well let’s apply it to macro-evolution.* Show us the verifications.* Or be prepared to call evolutionism non-science or change your criteria for judging what’s scientific and non-scientific.

Again... I ask... Have you ever shaken hands with someone who has 6 fingers?

Tell me... where did that 6th finger come from?

I'll give you a hint... it doesn't require 'new' genetic information based on what you propose. There's a little thing called autosomal-dominance. You should look it up.


I've also asked on this particular thread what scientific information you have to prove that a gene just 'stops'. It just says "Woah Pal, wait a second, if I mutate, I am crossing the interspecies barrier." Find me that genetic 'switch'.

The ORIGIN of species is the ORIGIN of how we classify creatures/animals. It's not like nature just says "Nah, I'm not going there because there's a line these humans made up that says I can't do that."

We've been 'classifying' animals for about two thousand years- long before Darwin's idea ever popped on the scene. We knew that dogs and wolves shared very similar characteristics and they are classified in the dog family along with hyenas if I'm not mistaken.

You really need to study up on genetics and how we organize species because until you understand that, than you will always 'move the goalpost' and say "No, that's not a transitional creature, that's not an example, that's just a bunch of baloney."

So... with that being said, I challenge you, rather invite you, to read this. It'll take about a week to read but maybe it'll give you some insight into how all of this ACTUALLY works instead of making false claims that evolution has never made. You seem to be wanting to put words into the theory's mouth that don't exist. In fact, you insist on doing so.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
85 posts, read 310,762 times
Reputation: 18
Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

PS: Either produce your evidence or stop pretending more than you know.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,425,231 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Pillars View Post
Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

PS: Either produce your evidence or stop pretending more than you know.




And you have also not answered where that 6th finger comes from and continued to make false conjectures as to what evolution really is. The link I posted was called "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". As I said, read it.

By the way, I'd also appreciate it if you could define for me what 'macroevolution' is. I think what you're asking for is something that evolution has never stated can occur. I think what you're asking for is something akin to a wolf giving birth to a chihuahua and evolution never claims that that will occur. Yet, we know that chihuahua's are descended from wolves. So... define for me... WHAT EXACTLY IS MACROEVOLUTION? I'm interested to see if this lines up with what evolutionary theory ACTUALLY states.

The link I posted is based on what evolutionary theory ACTUALLY is not what YOU want it to be.

So to answer your question... from what I gather, YOUR definition of Macroevolution is one that does not exist unless I am just not understanding.

No organ is just going to 'pop up' like you want it to. That's a misnomer that you seem to want to point out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top