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.
zing! yes, i realized my mistake, i corrected it. you dont wanna talk about them dinosaurs? i realized it is one of those greatest science fiction ever written. you may or may not change my opinion on that well based on what you say about the fossils and what not.
Perhaps my earlier post was a little too obscure for you to grasp.
Allow me to clarify:
I REJECT EVOLUTION - whether or not you refer to microevolution or macroevolution.
I accept that kinds (which may very loosely be described as species and in some cases subgenus or genus or even higher order) have the ability to respond to changing matter and energy with their environs. HOWEVER, what is being observed is precoded potential for variation, within defined limits, in response to changing external factors.
These observable phenomena give the illusion of evolution. However, all that is occurring is heritable changes within the bounds of a kinds genetic potential.
The most significant piece of research in this area has been an ongoing project at Michigan State University. They have just passed 50,000 generations of mixed populations of the organism Escherichia Coli, being observed to detect and measure changes in key categories such as relative fitness to the ancestor, size changes, protein sequencing changes etc. During this time there have been several observed mutations (some defined as successful, others unsuccessful). At 20,000 generations an observed evolutionary (as reported by the research team) event occurred. From this point forward there was a dramatic increase in varietals, before which there was only insignificant change.
So what did we learn?
Was there evidence of polymorphism? – Yes, we learned that there was a massive degree of polymorphism from 20,000 generations onward.
Did we see functional changes? – More than likely changes (some progressive, others regressive) in cell walls, respiration, ribosome, regulation and acetate production.
Did we see a new kind evolve – No. We started with Escherichia Coli and ended with Escherichia Coli.
Why didn’t we observe a new kind evolve? Because new kinds simply don’t evolve. There isn’t an ounce of observable evidence to confirm evolution. Even after 50,000 generations of mixed populations still no evolution. I would stake my life that after 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 generations they will still end up an organism of the same kind.
Friends, don’t be fooled by Darwinian alchemy. It has never been observed.
I’ll make a statement here. If anyone can produce a single piece of real evidence of Darwinian evolution as it relates to a demonstrable change of a kind (not simply the false taxonomical framework of speciation), I will revert to my pre-enlightened position and once again become Dawkin’s bulldog.
So you accept that DNA (from the 4 ATGC) change (micro evolution)
I ask you. In DNA, what part of this polymer can not be change and thus, the organism, will not change into another species? That's right NONE. Every part of the DNA is susceptible to changes.
Prokaryotics are some of the oldest living things on this planet. One of the best suited living organisms. For it not to change under the same environmental pressure, is EXACTLY what the theory of evolution predicts.
Perhaps my earlier post was a little too obscure for you to grasp.
Allow me to clarify:
I REJECT EVOLUTION - whether or not you refer to microevolution or macroevolution.
I accept that kinds (which may very loosely be described as species and in some cases subgenus or genus or even higher order) have the ability to respond to changing matter and energy with their environs. HOWEVER, what is being observed is precoded potential for variation, within defined limits, in response to changing external factors.
These observable phenomena give the illusion of evolution. However, all that is occurring is heritable changes within the bounds of a kinds genetic potential.
The most significant piece of research in this area has been an ongoing project at Michigan State University. They have just passed 50,000 generations of mixed populations of the organism Escherichia Coli, being observed to detect and measure changes in key categories such as relative fitness to the ancestor, size changes, protein sequencing changes etc. During this time there have been several observed mutations (some defined as successful, others unsuccessful). At 20,000 generations an observed evolutionary (as reported by the research team) event occurred. From this point forward there was a dramatic increase in varietals, before which there was only insignificant change.
So what did we learn?
Was there evidence of polymorphism? – Yes, we learned that there was a massive degree of polymorphism from 20,000 generations onward.
Did we see functional changes? – More than likely changes (some progressive, others regressive) in cell walls, respiration, ribosome, regulation and acetate production.
Did we see a new kind evolve – No. We started with Escherichia Coli and ended with Escherichia Coli.
Why didn’t we observe a new kind evolve? Because new kinds simply don’t evolve. There isn’t an ounce of observable evidence to confirm evolution. Even after 50,000 generations of mixed populations still no evolution. I would stake my life that after 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 generations they will still end up an organism of the same kind.
Friends, don’t be fooled by Darwinian alchemy. It has never been observed.
I’ll make a statement here. If anyone can produce a single piece of real evidence of Darwinian evolution as it relates to a demonstrable change of a kind (not simply the false taxonomical framework of speciation), I will revert to my pre-enlightened position and once again become Dawkin’s bulldog.
The problem with your stance is this.You are far,far too short sighted.You are the modern equivalent of a man 1500 years ago standing on the earth deciding it is flat because it certainly looks flat to you.And it isn't moving,because it certainly doesn't feel like it's moving to you.And so since it isn't moving,and yet the sun and stars change locations in the sky,it is the sun and stars that move around a stationary earth because,again,the earth you are standing still on just isn't moving.You have all the proof you need to confirm this.After all,you can look across the land on flat surfaces like plains and tell it is flat,can't you?And certainly you are not being thrown around like you would be if the earth were spinning,are you?So your conclusions,based on the info you have within your reference frame,supports your conclusions in your mind.Nevermind that science proves all of them wrong.But you have to see beyond the immediate horizon to learn this.This is where you fail.You look for proof of macroevolution within the speck of a time frame that occurs in lab experiments,and fail to see the enormous amount of time being referred to in evolution.
On a lighter note,I don't see how anyone who considers the penguin can argue with evolution.You have a bird that has given up flight and adapted to swimming underwater.Is it really so hard to imagine a penguin evolving into a porpoise like mammal over hundreds of millions of years?Why would God make a bird that can't fly, has vestigial wings, and yet not true flippers?Is a penguin the cousin of a house sparrow,or closer to a porpoise,adaptively speaking,not taxonomically.
You are free to believe as you wish,cephus.Just don't expect rational people to agree with you.
ok even if the penguins want to fly, they don't have wings to flap. their "wings" look like flippers actually fit for swimming. it is not a matter of adaptation it is a matter of using what you have and where it fits.
ok even if the penguins want to fly, they don't have wings to flap. their "wings" look like flippers actually fit for swimming. it is not a matter of adaptation it is a matter of using what you have and where it fits.
You seem not to grasp the point that penguins are first of all BIRDS.Birds,almost by definition,FLY.With only a very,very few exception.But flight is a very energy consuming task,and so,WHEN environmental conditions have allowed,a few species of birds have given up the energy draining art of flying.Penguins have adapted from flight in the air to swimming under the water,and their bodies have adapted to fit this.It is NOT a matter of using what you have,except with an individual penguin.You are missing,or just not grasping,the point.Individually a penguin "uses what it has".Species wise the penguin has adapted what it has to fit the ecological niche that nature left open for it.But they are birds that swim and have extra fat to protect them from the extreme cold.WHY?
And yes,I know that this is still considered adaptation within a species.But my point is that you see an animal adapting,over eons of time,from living in the air to living underwater.Penguins are functionally closer to porpoises than they are to sparrows and cardinals.You want an example of how one species can turn into another?Look at penguins,who are in the process of making the transition from bird to marine mammal.
Or,to do a paint by the numbers picture for all the 6th graders out there,try this.Dove to duck,duck to cormorant,cormorant to penguin,penguin to .... porpoise?.Throw in hundreds of millions of years into the picture.
Last edited by lifertexan; 06-09-2010 at 08:07 AM..
How about the FACT that anything other than speciation has NEVER been observed? There is NO evidence to prove anything other than birds evolving into other kinds of birds and cats evolving into other kinds of cats. This grand scale macro evolution shindig has never been proven and is merely speculative.
yes like ostrich who has wings to flap. maybe too lazy to try to fly? you ask me why? as i believe in God, they were CREATED that way to protect them from the extreme cold. as is all the animals we see today and the environment they live in.
Moderator cut: off topic and insulting. Creationists and Evolutionists both have the same dirt and the same fossils. It's all a matter of the view they choose to see the world through. Fortunately for us... we've got plenty of history to back us up... aka the Bible.
Sorry but the bible is not factual, it is faith based so that can be even more deluding than evolution, I can't speak for creationist since they are what they are
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.
