Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
What gets me is that, while in the coccon the larva dissolves all its organs, nerve tissues, etc. in order to recreate itself as a whole new organism. I don't see how evolution can accredit for something like that.

Where do you get the idea that it dissolves itself?? It doesn't. I am not a Drosophila expert (fruitfly), but I can bet with you that these experts have very good knowlegde and understanding about the genes that are involved of going from a pupa to a fly. Infact, the process of metamorphosis is not all that different from the process of embryonic development. Have you ever seen a human/mouse/fish embryo? They all look the same at an early stage of development, indicating the common ancestor that we have had.

Just because you don't know the pathways, doesn't mean it is a miracle and thus has to be accredited to an 'almost awesome God'.

morphing embryos: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/clips/

 

[Monique]

http://www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg

An example of fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, human embryonic developmental stages. So you explain to me why they all look the same.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by Miyu

I feel that if evolution exists, we can just go out into the streets and kill thousands and thousands of people and claim that you're doing the world a justice. You see, if you believe in evolution, you believe in the survival of the fittest. Which means if you have the potential to kill people, they are weaker than you are and hence Man in general should not let weak blood continue into the next generation, isn't it?

If a young bird in the nest is starved of food, he will push his sibling out of the nest. If there is plenty of food he will not, b/c it does him no good. However, if there was an unrelated bird, also, in the nest - that bird would be the first to go.

We, humans, do not kill our neighbors b/c, it serves us no purpose at least not in countries where food is not an issue. However, we do kill thousands of people, people who we feel are different, whether it be race, color, creed, religion ect... Could this be due to survival of the fittest? Most certainly.

Nautica

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Mentat:

A quick look on google shows that cro magnon fossils have been dated to at least 30,000 years old.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

Cromagnon? Interesting. I had always thought the oldest specimen was dated at almost 9,000 years ("Cheddar man")...sure these weren't homo sapiens neandertalensis? Well, maybe I should read the link and see for myself [b(] .

 

[O Great One]

similarity proves evolution?

http://www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg

I believe they look the same in the early stages of development because the designer used a "common blueprint" for many different types of animals: head, with two eyes and two ears, a nose and mouth, a mid-section or body, with four appendages attached to it which we call arms and legs, with five smaller appendages attached to each of those, which we call fingers and toes. We don't look at a chimpanzee and find that it's a cyclops with three arms and four legs. We look at differently created organisms and find many similarities. But the DNA is very specific for each type of organism and only allows for the development of THAT organism.

 

[thunderfvck]

I am not a Drosophila expert (fruitfly), but I can bet with you that these experts have very good knowlegde and understanding about the genes that are involved of going from a pupa to a fly.

They may have a good understanding of the genes involved but they don't question the nature of the genes. They're discovering how it takes place biologically as a result of the genes. They can't find a purpose for the animal doing this, other than the fact that that'ss the way the genes are programmed.

Infact, the process of metamorphosis is not all that different from the process of embryonic development.

It may not be different, but for what advantage would an animal do it again for a second time? Think about it, once it's born, and it's fighting through life why would it even risk its life to wrap itself in a coccon for a few weeks? It can easily just die at any moment, it's completely defenseless. Then, after metamorphosis, a butterfly emerges, with completely different characteristics. Explain to me how evolution can account for the series of genetic accidents involved in making this amazing creature.

And a butterfly does dissolve itself while in its coccon. http://www.sccf.org/Education/butterflybiology.htm.

Something else.

Okay. So a cell develops from a whole bunch of crap, you know, the stuff that makes up stuff. SO. This cell is useless without it's DNA. What's the chemistry involved in forming DNA? Not just any DNA of course but DNA with a specific code and purpose?
So, by CHANCE of course because the early Earth had nothing but molecules and water and all that stuff, life just emerges. Then why can't we synthesize life? You'd think we'd be able to by now. There's millions of scientists out there working on evolution, thinking evolution, breathing evolution, but they can't figure out how life was actually synthesized. That's because life is NOTHING unless it's a cell with specific organs and specific tissues and specific blah blah, a cell is nothing without its DNA. ANd this DNA is extremely complex. No one can figure it out, the coding of it. THey don't understand the patterns, well they understand certain patterns yes but they can't just read the nitrogenous base sequence and tell you what exactly is happening in the organism. So DNA is a very specific code, yes, so how could probability create something so complex and exact in its function? So there must have been a creator. Look at any DNA template and you HAVE to admit it. It's a freaking code. Why would probability just come up with something like that? Okay, yes, under the given circumstances blah blah DNA formed and developped a cell. Can DNA be isolated like that and then it develops into something? I don't know if it can but I don't think so. So not only does DNA have to be encased in a membrane, or a cellular membrane (in the case where there is no nuclear membrance), but the DNA has to be able to transmit messages to the developing cell through genetic codes. THis all has to work perfectly, this whole system, and I can see probability having trouble putting this together all so well.
I'll believe in evolution when life is synthesized.

I want to make a note that most of the information I talk about here are not my original ideas (OBVIOUSLY!).
www.creationscience.com

You should all read some of that, WITH AN OPEN MIND, and then make your decision as to what you believe.

 

[thunderfvck]

ANd again.

Achaeopteryx was a fraud.
Did you know that?
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html

From examining the specimen in the British Museum and from photographs which they took of it they argue that the impressions of feathers in the stone were faked. They claim that someone must have made a cement like matrix which was applied to the stone into which chicken feathers were then pressed in order to leave the impressions of plumage! They further claim that the sedimentary textures of the slab and counterslab are different and that on a fine scale these two slabs do not fit 'hand-in-glove' they way in which they ought.

Note that this is the original archaeopteryx in the British Museum. Scientists replied:

Archaeopteryx Is Not a Forgery. Their arguments are technical and detailed but in essence they show that there is no evidence of such 'doctoring' of the slab; that mineral-filled hairline fissures extend from the feathers and into the bones of the animal rpoving that they are from one and the same source; that minerological evidence conclusively shows that the slab and counterslab connect together and that differences in sedimentary texture between the two are perfectly in keeping with such deposits and the ways in which they are created. They point out that in addition there are remains of five Archaeopteryx discovered at different times and places and under well documented conditions. In only one of these specimens is the state of preservation such that the presence of feathers cannot unequivocally be established.

SO, in perspective, some dudes decided to look at the archaeo and noticed there was something fishy about it. Tell me, people who are familiar with bones can often spot a fake fairly easily, why would they be wrong? They have experience, they've seen fossils before. I might be wrong here but it's worth mentioning.

ISn't this archaeo thing a fill in for the gap between reptiles and birds? Or is there some other explanation, besides archeao, that explain the evolution, I'd be interested.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
www.creationscience.com

You should all read some of that, WITH AN OPEN MIND, and then make your decision as to what you believe.

I have read through it and I would hope, for your sake, that you would find a new source of information.

Just one quote, I would like to point out to you, which after reading this, you should realize that this guy is a complete idiot and has no understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or he does understand it and is has tweaked it in order to make it fit to his beliefs.

"55. Second Law of Thermodynamics
If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning.a

A further consequence of the second law is that when the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory"

I believe it was in 3rd grade when I was taught about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and was taught that a while a system will move toward disorder, parts of that system can move toward order so long as the net movement is toward disorder. If this "preacher" would take just one look up in the sky he would see our sun, which provides the energy source (Q hot) which allows the Earth to move toward order, but much more is lost to waste energy b/c we are not a perfect engine.

Like I have stated many times before: Science people will play the science game and religous people should play the religion game. A scientist would look like a complete idiot trying to prove, through religion, his belief in "The Big Bang". Just like a religous person
looks like a complete idiot when he uses science to prove his belief in God. Religion needs no proofs, it is based on faith, yet some preachers think it is necessary to prove through science, maybe it will improve their funding?

Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by nautica
I have read through it and I would hope, for your sake, that you would find a new source of information.

Just one quote, I would like to point out to you, which after reading this, you should realize that this guy is a complete idiot and has no understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics or he does understand it and is has tweaked it in order to make it fit to his beliefs.

And another case where a .com URL proves to be a bad link..

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
And a butterfly does dissolve itself while in its coccon. http://www.sccf.org/Education/butterflybiology.htm

It says nowhere that it dissolves itself, but it DOES say it 'almost entire breakdown' it mentions nothing about getting rid of all its internal organs etc. A conservatory website is also a bad source for scientific information.

What happens is remodeling through apoptosis, the same has happened to you when you were in the womb. Your hand first develops into a disk without digits. After a while parts of your hand starts to 'dissolve' to 'break down'. In fact it is a well understood process where apoptosis (programmed cell death) is induced and the space between the forming digits dies off, giving you your five fingers.

The fingers do not grow out of your hand, rather they sculted out of your hand. The same happens in a pupa.

 

[thunderfvck]

Why must you evolutionists always assume that when creationists talk about creationism they're somehow preaching about god. OH LOOK! No capital in god. I'm terrible. You see I don't follow religion. And I don't think I'm the only creationist who feels that way. JUST because I believe in creationism does NOT MAKE ME religious. I'm sorry but I had to repeat myself because it seems that most of you evolutionists like to dwell on something that you can preach with. I'm not trying to prove that god exists and that we should all abandon science and pray, I'm trying to disprove evolution. There's a difference. One way or another you have to believe in a god, because if there was a big bang, who prompted that?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
One way or another you have to believe in a god, because if there was a big bang, who prompted that?

..

*lost for words*

 

[thunderfvck]

Okay, so I'm wrong about the dissolving thing, I can accept that. The damned thing is still hanging upside down and it seems that it's open for a nice attack by some kind of other animal. Natural selection should have put this one on the black list. Besides which, it's just way too complicated. How do you go from something that doesn't form a pupa or whateevr to something that does. THe genetic code must have been altered PRETTY INTELLIGENTLY for something so crazy to happen, and work beautifully.
It's a crazy world we live in folks, with crazy people. ANd they're all out to get you. I'm probably just rambling because it's pretty late, and I smoked quite a bit of marijuana earlier (OH NO, he's a stoner?! *audience grumbles*...we should reconsider every word he says, he's a DRUG USER...grumble grumble*).
One day Darwin let's the world know about evolution. It puts an end to religious babble and sets the stage for science. 150 years later (something like that) evolution is a part of our society. Cavemen, history musuems, books (so many books), and a whole bunch of other examples that I can't grasp; our society is CAKED with the theory of evolution. Countless hours are spent developing ideas and experiments and the books (so many books), people's LIVES are based upon this one theory, well there jobs anyway. What I'm trying to say is that our society is built on evolution and at this point it's impossible to reject it, it would be an embarrassment and would disturb everything. So it's so much easier to remain ignorant and make our children learn the "right" things in life, excluding whatever falsifies this theory, and expect the minority to die down.

Is this plausible?
I've seen Hitler do it, Ghandi probably did something like that, the media does it on a daily basis, that guy on the telephone commerical with the hair and the microphone-dildo...
give something to the people that they like, and they'll believe it. Especially if they're so high on their "i'm too human to have been created" horse.

 

[Monique]

So you aren't convinced either that the Earth is not flat? I mean, how would you know it is round? You look at the horizon and its a line, but still everyone is tought it is round.. ..

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
Why must you evolutionists always assume that when creationists talk about creationism they're somehow preaching about god. OH LOOK! No capital in god. I'm terrible. You see I don't follow religion. And I don't think I'm the only creationist who feels that way. JUST because I believe in creationism does NOT MAKE ME religious. I'm sorry but I had to repeat myself because it seems that most of you evolutionists like to dwell on something that you can preach with. I'm not trying to prove that god exists and that we should all abandon science and pray, I'm trying to disprove evolution. There's a difference. One way or another you have to believe in a god, because if there was a big bang, who prompted that?

If your statement was not directed toward me, then you can ignore this. If so - here is my reply.

First of all I never said I was an "evolutionist" or a "creationist" and I believe that the two are not mutually exclusive, but that is besides the point.

If you can read the site, which was pointed out, and not be convinced it was for religous purposes, then you are less intelligent than I originally thought. The website was "real cool" in that it cleveraly disquised a religous website with a scientific package. I guess it fooled some of its readers.

And as far as me saying it makes you "religous". I don't remember that being the case.

One last thing - if you believe that there was a creator or designer, then yes you do believe in God b/c they are one and the same and I think that is great. I have my personal beliefs, which I hold close to my heart and am very proud of, but I would never confuse them with science.

Nautica

 

[thunderfvck]

If you can read the site, which was pointed out, and not be convinced it was for religous purposes, then you are less intelligent than I originally thought. The website was "real cool" in that it cleveraly disquised a religous website with a scientific package. I guess it fooled some of its readers.

Again, who ever said that creationism is about religion? I just explained to you that creationism is not about religion, it is about disproving evolution. If you had actually read through the site you would have noticed that rather than preaching about some all powerful god, the author tries to convince the reader that evolution is false. I don't see how this is religious.

One last thing - if you believe that there was a creator or designer, then yes you do believe in God b/c they are one and the same and I think that is great. I have my personal beliefs, which I hold close to my heart and am very proud of, but I would never confuse them with science.

Confuse them with science? I'm sorry but that makes me very mad. I love science. Just because I believe in creationism you somehow think that all my evidence is a misconception? It's funny because that's how I feel about your evolutionary theory. But of course, you can't confuse evolution with science, they're one and the same, evolution was born through science. But when I use science to disprove evolution, and insinuate the presence of a higher intelligence, it's blasphamy, right? How is it different from what you're saying and doing?

So you aren't convinced either that the Earth is not flat? I mean, how would you know it is round? You look at the horizon and its a line, but still everyone is taught it is round.. ..

Please, this is really very different. We know it's round because we can travel around the world, because we have so much scientific and factual evidence, it has to be round. We have pictures of the earth, round. If you don't believe in this simple fact of life you'd be wrong, but when you don't believe in evolution, which is NOT a fact and just a theory, you can be right or wrong. And yes I am saying that even I could be wrong, who knows, maybe evolution did happen, I don't know. But it's unlikely as far as I'm concerned.
No one posted a reply to my earlier argument. About the complexty and coding of DNA, I wanted to know how probability could account for such an elaborate code. Dazzle me with an argument.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
That's a fallacy. If that was true, then all religious people who believe in an afterlife would kill themselves too, since life is just a preparation for a better, eternal one after death.

Some do of course, but that's just evolution on display.

Have you ever seen a human/mouse/fish embryo? They all look the same at an early stage of development, indicating the common ancestor that we have had.

I've always thought that was pretty cool - its a microcosm of evolution.

I believe they look the same in the early stages of development because the designer used a "common blueprint" for many different types of animals...

Such a belief is fine for the sake of religion, but you must understand that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

It may not be different, but for what advantage would an animal do it again for a second time? Think about it, once it's born, and it's fighting through life why would it even risk its life to wrap itself in a coccon for a few weeks?

Does it have a choice?

JUST because I believe in creationism does NOT MAKE ME religious...

...One way or another you have to believe in a god...

Confused [?] [?] It almost looks to me like you don't even know what the word "religious" means.

 

[nautica]

"Again, who ever said that creationism is about religion? I just explained to you that creationism is not about religion, it is about disproving evolution. If you had actually read through the site you would have noticed that rather than preaching about some all powerful god, the author tries to convince the reader that evolution is false. I don't see how this is religious."

If you will do some research on the arthor of the site as well as the sponsors of that site, I am sure you will find that there is a religous aggena.

"Confuse them with science? I'm sorry but that makes me very mad. I love science. Just because I believe in creationism you somehow think that all my evidence is a misconception? It's funny because that's how I feel about your evolutionary theory. But of course, you can't confuse evolution with science, they're one and the same, evolution was born through science. But when I use science to disprove evolution, and insinuate the presence of a higher intelligence, it's blasphamy, right? How is it different from what you're saying and doing?"

"My evolutionary theory" Thank you, I will take that as a complement, as I am sure that Mr. Darwin would, also.

You might want to explain your definition of both creationism and evolution, then maybe I can fully understand what you mean. As far as science goes, it has no place in creationism. Creationist have a great story, which they have been trying to fit evidence into for 1000's of years. This is completely backwards as to what science is about. One should take years of evidence and come up with a theory based on that evidence. Do you fully understand the steps of the scientific method - they are actually quite simple.

Also, like I have stated before - I do not believe that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, maybe with your deifintions they are, maybe they are not.

Nautica

 

[thunderfvck]

Does it have a choice?

No it doesn't have a choice. But how could of have arisen via evolution? Genetically speaking of course. This creature goes from one that doesn't form a pupa to one that does, okay? So, it MUST have received all the genetic coding in one step (I don't see any half-pupas or anything, it either forms one or not). It seems like that that is QUITE A LOT of information to be just an accident. Genetically, there has to be a signal to tell the catterpillar it's time, then it has to know how to go into its pupa stage, then it has to do all that funny stuff inside consequently remaking the organism into a whole new creature with new characteristics, then it has to break free, hang upside down while it unfolds its wings, then it will migrate a few hundred miles away to mate or whatever butterflies do. If the catterpillar is missing ONE TINY part of this genetic information, it's a failure and it dies. So you're telling me that to go from the catterpillar ancestor, to this incredibly sophisticated creature is possible via the probability of mutation?

Confused It almost looks to me like you don't even know what the word "religious" means.

When I speak of religion I am referring to this definition (according to dictionary.com):
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I believe in a god, fine, that's dandy. But I don't believe in any of his beliefs, his values, etc that make the religion what it truly is. I persoanlly think that god doesn't give a **** about any of us, he created us, him and the other gods or whatever (there could be more than one, outside of time) for whatever purpose he saw fit and we're just living through it. I don't want to get all philosphoical here but you get the idea. I don't believe in heaven in hell, I don't believe in Satan, all I believe is that there is an intelligent life out there that started our reality.

 

[O Great One]

Evolutionists are religious

Actually, the only reasons one has for believing in evolution are religious, not scientific. Living organisms are far too complex to have arisen through random chance. It is merely a factual observation. But, of course that's not acceptable to people, so they have no choice but to believe in that which is not true. All evolutionists are very religious people, they can't accept the truth. It's merely based on feeling and not reality.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by O Great One
Actually, the only reasons one has for believing in evolution are religious, not scientific. Living organisms are far too complex to have arisen through random chance. It is merely a factual observation. But, of course that's not acceptable to people, so they have no choice but to believe in that which is not true. All evolutionists are very religious people, they can't accept the truth. It's merely based on feeling and not reality.

That just went way over my head. Start from the beginning and explain to me how believing that evolutionary theory is based on evidence has anything to do with religion.

I don't think I have ever stated beliefs on this site, b/c this is a "science" site not a "religous" site, but I can assure you that my belief that evolution is a fact has nothing to do with my religous beliefs and I in no way sit down and pray or worship toward an "Evolutionary God"

Based on the definition of religion - I can not see how anyone can be religous in their studies of evolution. Although some may spend too much time studying evolution - it still would not fit the definition of religion.

Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
This creature goes from one that doesn't form a pupa to one that does, okay? So, it MUST have received all the genetic coding in one step (I don't see any half-pupas or anything, it either forms one or not). It seems like that that is QUITE A LOT of information to be just an accident.

Here your limited knowledge of biology is tricking you. The ONLY reason it becomes a pupa is to EAT! The embryo could've happily stayed in its egg and have become a butterfly, but that apparently takes too many resources, so it hatches and starts eating. After a while it has build up enough resources and is able to continue its development.

 

[thunderfvck]

Oh I see. So the only reason for the whole pupa stage is to eat in preparation for becoming a butterfly. That makes sense.
In order for this animal to have evolved its ancestors must have undergone some extreme changes. Changes that will only work in the offspring provided every last detail of the genetic code is correct. So it's a one shot deal, either you have it all 100% at the beginning or you don't. If you don't have it all you have some failed births and a dead species. How could genes from one ancestral species mutate sufficiently to form a genetic basis for a species with two different forms. How could genetics get so much extra information just by accident? Think about it. You start with an insect who don't undergo metamorphosis, or do any of the cool things that catterpillar/butterflies can do, and its offspring mutates to form an insect with a completely new life cycle. Where did all the information come from?
I was reading about butterflies and it turns out that the Monarch, once developed into its adult stage migrates something like 2000 miles to avoid winter. Where did they get that information from? I guess you can argue that all animals have a sense of direction, even if they spend their entire lives on the ground, they can still manage to give their mutant offspring the directions to florida.


And for me, creationism basically is the anti-evolutionary science. We may not perform rigorous experiments, or study things as intently as you do. Instead what we do is look at evolution and try to break it down into everything that it relies on. Then we pick at it and reshape this whole puzzle of life by rejecting the assumptions made by evolution (earth is so many years old, universe started with a big bang, etc). The evolutionists have done so much work already to put their picture of life into focus, and we're just trying to tear it down. We're basically double checking your assumptions and discovering that they're false. You really should do some serious reading on www.creationscience.com. There's so much information, things I really don't want to have to summarize.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
And for me, creationism basically is the anti-evolutionary science. We may not perform rigorous experiments, or study things as intently as you do.

 

[thunderfvck]

Oh that was cute.
Thank you for giving me an erection mr. wood, I won't spoil this moment. Look, all I'm saying is that evolution is flawwed. Creationism explains why its flawwed scientifically and then explains the alternative view which in no ways is religious mumbo jumbo.
All this really has no point on the arguments I've made anyway.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
Changes that will only work in the offspring provided every last detail of the genetic code is correct. So it's a one shot deal, either you have it all 100% at the beginning or you don't.

What makes you think biology works in such a way? It is not all or nothing, gradual changes over time become major changes. Just because you can't see the intermediate steps, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Butterflies are not the only organism who behave in such a way, how about frogs?

Evolutionary the organism used to sit inside an egg and undergo the whole development, then mother nature decided that it is more economical to let the organism hatch early (so that the eggs could be smaller for instance, smaller load on the mother).. thus a pupa could evolve. The pupa wouldn't have been a pupa at that time, but then mother nature decided that it is more economical to let the pupa rest so that the development can take place at a higher pace. The pupa then got the need to disguise itself and the ones who started using their excretions to cover themselves survived, thus a cocoon evolved.

All based on logic..

 

[nautica]

You prove creation through the flaws in evolutionary theory? I am not sure where to begin criticizing this statement other than the fact that you obviously do not understand science.

It is, also, very obvious that you can not think for yourself or form your own conclusions. Your rely completely on a website, which has a hidden agenda, solely b/c it is wrapped in such a neat little package.

I guess you are like most creationist. You believed in creation so you decided to search the web. Not for the truth but for a site that made you feel good about not understanding evolution. You disprove evolution only through your lack of understanding and knowlegde and are much too lazy to educate yourself - so you take the easy way. Which, I guess, is fine, but don't try to defend yourself and act like you have studied the subject by pointing out one example, which you do not understand, or by pointing out a website that is either full of ignorance or lies.

One other question for you. I pointed out earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how that site used it to disprove evolutionary theory. With you great knowledge and understanding of science, you can surely enlighten me, in your own words, how this is so.

Thanks
Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
We're basically double checking your assumptions and discovering that they're false. You really should do some serious reading on www.creationscience.com. There's so much information, things I really don't want to have to summarize.

OK, I had a look.. how about this statement from the site:

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term ¡°organic evolution.¡± Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory¡ªor macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 6.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves only changes in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of ¡°just right¡± mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as ¡°horizontal¡± change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an ¡°upward¡± and beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. [micro + time ¡Ù macro]

That statement that micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is just outright wrong. The author restricts his thinking by stating that macro-evolution occurs in an all or non fashion, which is just not true. I'd recommend him taking up a genetics course and actually educate himself on some principles of genetics (he has a PhD in mechanical engineering, not biology).

And why the distinction between micro and macro-evolution? These processes are based on the same mechanism and YES time IS the determining factor.

You tell me when looking at the following image http://www.creationscience.com./onlinebook/webpictures/transitionfossil.jpg what the difference is between the horizontal and vertical lineages. They are all caused by mutations.

 

[Jeebus]

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ...
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

1. Fossil animals are different from living animals (Cuvier, 1708)

2. Living organisms are organized in nested heirarchies of form (Linneaus, 1758)

3. Geological processes are uniform and many sedimentary features are very old (Hutton, 1788)

4. Domestic animals are changed through artificial selection and nature seems to do the same thing to wild ones (Darwin, 1859)

6. Organisms pass on genetic material through reproduction (Mendel, 1865)

7. Microevolution proven in captive fruit fly experiments (Dobzhansky, late 1920's)

8. DNA discovered (Watson and Crick, 1953)

9. Radiometric dating developed and actual rock ages are shown to correspond to fossil ages predicted by evolutionary morphology (Macroevolution) (Evernden, Savage,Curtis and James, 1964)

10. Human and Chimp genomes are compared in detail and are very, very similar (about a week ago)

 

[nautica]

Good info, except for the fact that Watson and Crick did not discover the DNA molecule. It was discovered by Rosalin Franklin and "stollen" by Watson and Crick. The reason she too was not recognized with a Noble was due to the fact that she had passed before it was given.

Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by nautica
Good info, except for the fact that Watson and Crick did not discover the DNA molecule. It was discovered by Rosalin Franklin and "stollen" by Watson and Crick. The reason she too was not recognized with a Noble was due to the fact that she had passed before it was given.

Nautica

very sharp!

 

[agnostictheist]

RE: monique

I know been a while, sorry

"I've done the calculation before myself...it does indeed appear that Adam was born/created in 4026 BCE (see All Scripture is Inspired of God and beneficial, published by Jehovah's Witnesses if you want to see exactly what proofs there are for this), and this would put man at about 6000 years (the site said 6175, so I'll go with that) old. Well, that could easily refer just to Cromagnon man, so there needn't be any dispute there with evolutionary theories, right?"

has FZ stated cro-magnon man is bones go futher back than this... say for a rought ball point figure...30,000

But what seems to have not been picked up is that cro-magnon man while is essentianlly physically identical to modern "man" with the minor exception of slight bigger bone size, cro-magnon is not really a "species", nor really found in the proper scienfic papers, its more of a pop-grouping for seprating them from neaderthals.


I think around 9,000 - 6,000?(dont qoute me on this date) yes cro-mangon man was supplanted (around places like Italy, fantastic place, being italain and all) and replaced with a closer looking modern human, but that's NOT saying there is really any difference between cro-mangon and us.

finally:

"And why the distinction between micro and macro-evolution? "

the reason is thus:

micro-evolution is evolution within a species, macro is outside... the point is a creationist whom assumes that God created all the species "directly" will only go part way - has a theist and a scientist that's idiotic, without scaraficing one for the other.

has you say time is a factor, but there are evolutionary effects that can change a species very rapid indeed, I would say change has a result of the chraprone genes? and even mirco-organism evolution has good examples.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
micro-evolution is evolution within a species, macro is outside... the point is a creationist whom assumes that God created all the species "directly" will only go part way - has a theist and a scientist that's idiotic, without scaraficing one for the other.

The (most obvious) flaw in the belief that all species were created at the same time of course is extinction.

 

[Monique]

[?] the last few posts have been incomprehensible ..

the flaw in simultanious creation is extinsion?

 

[agnostictheist]

what bits don't you "understand"?



Russ, I don't think that all mirco-evolutionist (creationists) hold that all creatures were created at the same time, to these people all it means is that God created one species then anther etc, and most reject the notion that one species changes into anther. rather God created them in turn.

So the fundermental note is that they hold the evolution does happen, but within very strict limitations.