Thread: Evolution

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337

If you wanna go by DNA analysis, we as humans are biologically more closely related to chickens than to our supposed evolutionary ancestor, the ape. Also, it doesn't take a genius to know that the fossil record is filled with gaping holes, and that many mistakes by scientists have been made regarding man's evolutionary descendants, such as Neanderthal, Lucy, cro-magnon, etc... And as far as Creationism goes, there is no viable way of putting evolution and God creating the world together.

And also, here are some mathematical probabilities of evolution happening:....

The first quote goes counter to all the current published papers I've seen on the 'Tree of Live' analysis. Do you have a link to a published scientific journal that backs up this statement... (In fact, researchers have been surprised how little difference there is in the DNA between Man and Chimps, the closest surviving relatives...)

Second, your assuming that Evolution is a 'Random' process. Obviously, you haven't read 'The Origin of a Species' as your completely ignoring the part about 'Natural Selection'. The protein sequences that "Don't Work" cause so many problems for the organisms that the genetic sequence is eliminated from the gene pool... Evolution will only choose among the sequences that 'Do Work' which is a far far smaller number...

And Yes, there has been some cases of fraud and manufactured evidence in the history of Science, just as there been cases of Fraud in Creationism research as well... (The case of the human footprint among Dinosaur footprints was eventually shown to be a Dinosaur heal print with toes chiseled around it...). But improvments in testing techniques, and a better understanding of the fossil record eventually exposed the frauds. Considering how rare the conditions are to create a intact fossil, it's not surprising at all that there are gaps in the fossil record...

And yes, Evolution Theory does contradict Creationism (which isn't good science to begin with. With little supporting evidence, and assumptions that can't be observed, measured, or tested...) But you have yet to explain why Evolution contradicts a belief in God...

as far as i'm concerned the evolotion theory is fact when you look at the amount of evidence supporting it, i think it should be taught in the way that it is, with the evidence not just saying that it's the truth, but giving a reason for why it's the truth.

Put simply, if Evolution counters the belief of Creationism, how can it support the creator that created? Anyways, as far as Darwin goes, all Darwin really explained was the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest (as illustrated with his moths). Besides, his theory on evolution was renounced and modified to create neo-Darwinism. As far as fraud goes, sure both are guilty, but at the same time evolutionists are guilty of not only that, but jumping to conclusions. But that's not the issue. Also, any mutation of any sort is for the most part 99.99% immediately fatal.

Modern scientists who propose this type of viewpoint [neo-darwinism] postulate that the combined effects of natural selection, mutations, and geologic time could account for organic evolution. New-Darwinists believe that mutations supply the needed variants from which nature can preferentially select over eons of time. They conced that neither mutations nor natural selection alone could account for the supposed evolutionary progression of life. Although this is the most modern theory of evolution, it too has major fundamental flaws, which also disqualify it as a plausible evolutionary mechanism. For example, if mutations are indeed instrumental in the presumed evolutionary progression of life, they should tend to increase the viability and systematization of the organism in which they occur. In reality, however, mutations are almost always (99.99%) harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate organism in which they occur. In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for survival. This fact directly contradicts the assumptions and hopeful expectations of the modern evolutionary theory. Mutations are not only harmful, but they are also very rare. They occur once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule! Furthermore, mutations are random, not directional. Thus mutations are unpredictable and do not follow any ordered design or plan, as would certainly be expected if the concept of organic evolution is to have any hope at all. Consequently, mere random mutations cannot account for organized directional evolution; they lack the all-important capacity for intelligent design.

And Miyata, you're assuming that evolution ISN'T random. You mean to tell me that DNA is "intelligent" enough on its own to be able to eliminate the problematic sequences and keep the rights? If that's true, why are there so many examples of bad mutations that occur still? Especially in organisms that are supposedly evolutionary ancestors of the humans and therefore should technically be full evolved. And why aren't we finding any half man half ape beings anywhere? If evolution is constantly moving upward, why is it that we still have fish? Shouldn't all of them evolved into land dwelling animals long ago?
And also, natural selection is only a conservative process that tends to insure the survival and perpetuation of fit organisms, while at the same time eliminating unfit organisms. It is not an innovative process that produces novel structures. Even from perfectly fit humans that have the better chance of natural selection, we don't see any new organisms evolving, and the only "new" things we get are mutations and genetic defects. And we all know that doesn't help the unfortunate child who has it, cause in the end it kills them.

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Boy, now where to start here...

Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337

Put simply, if Evolution counters the belief of Creationism, how can it support the creator that created?

So your saying that if you belive in God, then you MUST believe that the Universe was created in only seven days, that the earth must be a flat square (or a tetrahedron) so that God can hold domain over it's four corners, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337

Besides, his theory on evolution was renounced and modified to create neo-Darwinism.

Now when was the theory renounced? It's true that some proposals in the original 'The Origins of a Species' are not supported by the expanded knowledge of the fossil record, but renounced? This is just gobbly gook name calling.

Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337

As far as fraud goes, sure both are guilty, but at the same time evolutionists are guilty of not only that, but jumping to conclusions. But that's not the issue. Also, any mutation of any sort is for the most part 99.99% immediately fatal.

Modern scientists who propose this type of viewpoint [neo-darwinism] postulate that the combined effects of natural selection, mutations, and geologic time could account for organic evolution. New-Darwinists believe that mutations supply the needed variants from which nature can preferentially select over eons of time. They conced that neither mutations nor natural selection alone could account for the supposed evolutionary progression of life. Although this is the most modern theory of evolution, it too has major fundamental flaws, which also disqualify it as a plausible evolutionary mechanism. For example, if mutations are indeed instrumental in the presumed evolutionary progression of life, they should tend to increase the viability and systematization of the organism in which they occur. In reality, however, mutations are almost always (99.99%) harmful, if not lethal, to the unfortunate organism in which they occur. In other words, mutations produce organisms that are weaker and at a marked disadvantage; they are less able to compete for survival. This fact directly contradicts the assumptions and hopeful expectations of the modern evolutionary theory. Mutations are not only harmful, but they are also very rare. They occur once in about every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule! Furthermore, mutations are random, not directional. Thus mutations are unpredictable and do not follow any ordered design or plan, as would certainly be expected if the concept of organic evolution is to have any hope at all. Consequently, mere random mutations cannot account for organized directional evolution; they lack the all-important capacity for intelligent design.

So far, your mostly correct...

Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337

And Miyata, you're assuming that evolution ISN'T random. You mean to tell me that DNA is "intelligent" enough on its own to be able to eliminate the problematic sequences and keep the rights? If that's true, why are there so many examples of bad mutations that occur still? Especially in organisms that are supposedly evolutionary ancestors of the humans and therefore should technically be full evolved. And why aren't we finding any half man half ape beings anywhere? If evolution is constantly moving upward, why is it that we still have fish? Shouldn't all of them evolved into land dwelling animals long ago?

Now here your stating to have problems. In your previous example of the possible combination of DNA sequnces for a small you ignored the fact that the purpose of DNA is to contain the templates used to string amino acids into proteins. The properties of the individual amino acids determine the shape of the resulting protein molecule. If the protein is the wrong shape, it doesn't work. This explains why 99.9% of mutations are fatal. Now why does Bad (but not necessarily fatal) mutations persist in a population. One example would be genetic drift, where either most of a species population gets wiped out, or a small number of a species expand into new territory. If the survivors, (or originators) have the bad mutation, then it is passed in proportions to the following generations, and in greater numbers then would normally be expected. And unless the bad mutation gives a very bad disadvantage to it's carrier, it's going to take a long long time for it to dissapear from a species gene pool.

The second reason, is that the bad mutations may not be that bad after all. Take the case of Sickle Cell Anemia (which is caused by a single amino acid substitution in the hemoglobin protein). If you inherit the gene from both parents, chances are your going to be eliminated from the gene pool. If your a carrier, and inherit it from one parent, you will still have some problems. But, if you live in a region of the world where malaria is common, you actually have a much better chance to survive the disease then someone without the bad mutation...

Another reason why bad mutations exist, is that they don't effect the ability to contribute to the gene pool. Take for example, the genetic traits that are known to increase the risk of cancer, (which is known to run in families) Getting cancer at the age of 40 is bad (a no brainer) but if your going to have kids, chances are you'll allready have them before the age of 40. It's too late for cancer to elimiate you from the next generation gene pool...

Now as why fish are still fish, 'Survival of the Fittest' works only if the change is to the benefit of the species. So why would fish try to give up a perfectly good habitat and try to compete against land dwellers on land (which there not very good at) Now of course, this doesn't mean that Evolution no longer occurs in fishes. As an example, it was originally thought that dead end species that have shown no changes in appearnce in the fossil record must have limited variability in the species gene pool. But that was before they did a DNA analysis of the chambered nautilus (which dates back in the fossil record to before the existence of land dwelling animals). What they found was ENORMOUS DNA variability, like that of a young and rapidly evolving species. So evidently, something is still going on, such as changes in chemical protections, disease resistence, possible new habitats and prey species... Now all of these examples should be covered in any college biology text book, and even in the better High School texts...

And why we don't see any apemen walking around? Ideas have been proposed such as loss of habitat by global climate change, to being absorbed by other species, to simply being killed off by mankind as compitition for resources... These are still be debated...

Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337

And also, natural selection is only a conservative process that tends to insure the survival and perpetuation of fit organisms, while at the same time eliminating unfit organisms. It is not an innovative process that produces novel structures. Even from perfectly fit humans that have the better chance of natural selection, we don't see any new organisms evolving, and the only "new" things we get are mutations and genetic defects. And we all know that doesn't help the unfortunate child who has it, cause in the end it kills them.

Now your back to being correct. Evolution cannot create new structures where no structures exist before. That is the reason why the bones in your hand are of the same general structure as the bones in a lizards front feet. But it's not surprising at all that were not observing new organisms popping out of the wood work, because Evolution works on geologic time. The fossil record indicates that even in periods of explosive change in the type and number of organisms, the change scale is still on the order of hundreds of thousands of years...