[Capuchin]

and you call your self a science expert... :rolleyes:

I suppose I was asking too much to hope for an explanation.

[michealb]

I suppose I was asking too much to hope for an explanation.

God did it, duh. Why would you need more of an explanation?

[sassyT]

I decided it's not worth explaining that natural selection takes the place of your intelligent designer much the same way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes. I'm not explaining this because as with most creationist your not interested in science you just want to push your religion on the masses regardless of evidence or truth.

Like wise you are not interested in observabable testable and repeatable science. You are just interested in propagating your myth (in the guise of science) about a one cell creature from a soup which you claim is the mother of all living things. You continue to claim it is fact but I have failed dismally to give even one piece of conclusive evidence... lol
If you knew anything about science you would know that natural selection cannot and has never been observed produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.

[michealb]

Funny you should say I don't know anything about science since 95% of scientists agree with me. You arguing from ignorance to appeal to ignorance. If only you would apply half the standards for evidence that you require of evolution to your own religion we could stop this debate right now.

[asking]

If you knew anything about science you would know that natural selection cannot and has never been observed produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.

Welcome back, Sassy. :)

Mutation produces changes in genetic information. Selection selects for or against variants.

But it is not true that selection reduces information. Selection is, at heart, changes in the frequency of different combinations of genes. Changes in the proportions of different genes or combinations of genes from generation to generation IS selection, but selection does not necessarily reduce genetic variation. In fact, it's possible to select for increased mutation rates and therefore SELECT FOR increased information. For example, there's evidence that heat shock proteins, which are sensitive to stress, do this.

As for evidence for overall increases in information, that happens all the time when DNA multiplies. So a gene for a protein doubles or triples so that the next generation has two or three copies of the same gene. (Regulatory genes makes sure that not too much of the gene is expressed.) Then, over time, Copies 2 and 3 of the gene can mutate and eventually produce proteins that are different from the original Copy 1 and have different functions. So you can end up with three different proteins where you had one before. Happens all the time.

Same thing can even happen with whole chromosomes. Plants are famous for doubling and tripling their chromosome numbers, which is one reason potatoes have so much more DNA than we do. (What was God thinking? ;) )

This is not an obscure area of biology, but a well known phenomenon. Genetic information certainly increases through these kinds of mutations. So even if it were logical to object to evolution on the grounds that a mechanism is not yet known (which is NOT a legitimate argument), it would still be incorrect, because in this particular case, the mechanism for increasing genetic information is known.

What we know about the evolution of humans from bacteria is based on the overall pattern in the fossil record, as well as our genetic history (which we carry within us), not on mechanisms like natural selection.

I know the theater curtain went up; I don't need to know every detail of the ropes and pulleys that made that happen to know it went up. I can see it. In the same way, we can see the story of life in the fossil record and in the patterns of our own genes, which confirms the same story found in the fossil record.

[sassyT]

NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACRO EVOLUTION

Once again darwinist try to use false "evidence"... Natural selection cannot creat genetic information. It can create change within a species and even create a big enough change that the two different creatures cannot mate anymore, but there is still no new genetic information created. Usually the changes are a result of a genetic loss of information. The science of genetics proves this. Once you choose all the genes for small size in the dog population, you cannot get any smaller. And you can mate those small dogs with each other for an eternity and you will not be able to turn them back into collies. The genetic information has been lost forever.

Evolution requires a buildup of new previously non-existent information on the DNA strand. This cannot happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.

Darwin wasn't aware of the difference then but people today realize the difference. Evolutionists have now desparately moved to the position of mutations as being the primary source of information gaining mechanism. However, they have never found a single instant where a DNA strand has ever been built up by a mutation to arrive at new previously non-existent information.

[asking]

Nearly everything in this post is false. I don't know where to begin!

Really Sassy, anyone who has taken first year biology, either in high school or college, knows that mutation and selection are separate processes and that genetic mutation generates new information (both useful and not useful) while selection changes the proportions of different mutations in a group of individuals.

As for little dogs, if you interbreed a lot of unrelated small dogs--that is outbreed--you will certainly get some bigger dogs that are more wolflike--though probably not wolves, given that small dogs are purebreds--meaning inbred. If you just breed chihuahuas with chihauhaus--of course they are inbred and incapable of changing. You have bred all the variation out of them. But just because it's possible to do that doesn't mean that's normal.

In most organisms, there is ample genetic variation and selection does not reduce that. Reductions in population size and inbreeding reduce genetic variation, not selection per se. You have confused unrelated ideas.

Once again darwinist try to use false "evidence" ...Natural selection cannot creat genetic information. It can create change within a species and even create a big enough change that the two different creatures cannot mate anymore, but there is still no new genetic information created. Usually the changes are a result of a genetic loss of information. The science of genetics proves this. Once you choose all the genes for small size in the dog population, you cannot get any smaller. And you can mate those small dogs with each other for an eternity and you will not be able to turn them back into collies. The genetic information has been lost forever.

Evolution requires a buildup of new previously non-existent information on the DNA strand. This cannot happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.

Darwin wasn’t aware of the difference then but people today realize the difference. Evolutionists have now desparately moved to the position of mutations as being the primary source of information gaining mechanism. However, they have never found a single instant where a DNA strand has ever been built up by a mutation to arrive at new previously non-existent information.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Welcome back, Sassy. :)

Mutation produces changes in genetic information. Selection selects for or against variants.
But it is not true that selection reduces information. Selection is, at heart, changes in the frequency of different combinations of genes. Changes in the proportions of different genes or combinations of genes from generation to generation IS selection, but selection does not necessarily reduce genetic variation. In fact, it's possible to select for increased mutation rates and therefore SELECT FOR increased information. For example, there's evidence that heat shock proteins, which are sensitive to stress, do this



As for evidence for overall increases in information, that happens all the time when DNA multiplies. So a gene for a protein doubles or triples so that the next generation has two or three copies of the same gene. (Regulatory genes makes sure that not too much of the gene is expressed.) Then, over time, Copies 2 and 3 of the gene can mutate and eventually produce proteins that are different from the original Copy 1 and have different functions. So you can end up with three different proteins where you had one before. Happens all the time.
Same thing can even happen with whole chromosomes. Plants are famous for doubling and tripling their chromosome numbers, which is one reason potatoes have so much more DNA than we do. (What was God thinking? ;) )

This is not an obscure area of biology, but a well known phenomenon. Genetic information certainly increases through these kinds of mutations. So even if it were logical to object to evolution on the grounds that a mechanism is not yet known (which is NOT a legitimate argument), it would still be incorrect, because in this particular case, the mechanism for increasing genetic information is known.

Hello Asking, Thanks for welcoming me back! :)

Back to the debate... Once again you are confusing Micro with Macro evolution. When I say natural selection can not add "new" information what I mean is that it does not add information that was not already pre-existing for example take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses–big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization (or "adaptation", in this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the "environment"), the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively "thinned out" or depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.

What we know about the evolution of humans from bacteria is based on the overall pattern in the fossil record, as well as our genetic history (which we carry within us), not on mechanisms like natural selection.

I know the theater curtain went up; I don't need to know every detail of the ropes and pulleys that made that happen to know it went up. I can see it. In the same way, we can see the story of life in the fossil record and in the patterns of our own genes, which confirms the same story found in the fossil record.

As far as mutations go there is just no evidence for even 10, let alone the millions, or rather trillions of these literally miraculous information increasing mutations that must have occurred if evolution is really true. Why don't we observe this happening in the lab when we examine real live mutations? Which makes more sense? To believe in trillions of miraculous events happened by chance or to believe in the miracle of creation by an Intelligent Designer whose fingerprints are clearly seen in the design of every living creature? There is just no scientific evidence to support Macro evolution. Not even in fossil evidence.

[WVHiflyer]

For macro evolution to be feasible there has to have been a huge increase in genes "manufacturing" to go from amoeba to man. This increase in new genetic information has not been observed in Biology. So those who believe in the amoeba to man myth rely on faith not science.

Yet again you show your ignorance of science in general and evolutionary science in particular. Genes produce proteins. Protiens determine expression of the genes. Genes express different proteins at different times... etc, etc, etc.

[WVHiflyer]

asking> One of Darwin's major contributions to science was to emphasize the fallacy of that kind of thinking--to show that the very foundation of life is based on there NOT being an ideal form of any living organism, that every form is tentative, every individual a prototype. There is no ideal ideal wolf or hare, no ideal spreading oak tree or swaying grass plant. No ideal human.

Wonderful point no one had yet brought up.

[WVHiflyer]

cannot[/U] happen with natural selection since, for the most part, it involves a loss of information and evolution needs a gain of new information.

And YET AGAIN you show your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Natural selection does not, 'for the most part... involve a loss of info.' It's simply different info, frequently building on what was there. Selection 'decides' whether the change works ina given environment.

[WVHiflyer]

"cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore!"

So, Sassy, explain why some humans are born with tails - the ones their very distant ancestors had - if the info isn't still there?

Why is there still a species of bird with dino claws?

[Alty]

"cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore!"

So, Sassy, explain why some humans are born with tails - the ones their very distant ancestors had - if the info isn't still there?

Why is there still a species of bird with dino claws?

First I have to say that I am totally clueless when it comes to science, so I cannot form an opinion here. I'm posting to ask for more info.

Having said that, I will assume (yes I know what assuming does ;)) that you all are arguing whether God created man or science created man? Right?

Is it possible to believe in both? I don't know, once again, science, not my best subject.

I know, or I guess I believe, that dinosaurs existed, I believe that cromagnum man existed, does that mean that I believe more in science then in God? Confused here people, help me out. Am I completely off topic, or am I close?

If I'm totally off topic here then I'll leave, but if not, explanation would be greatly appreciated, in laymans terms please, remember, science, my worst subject. ;)

[WVHiflyer]

Alty - the main argument is because there are those here who deny evolution occurred - is occurring, at least what they call 'macro evolution.' Tho they try to deny it, their unacceptance of this fundamental biological science is religiously based with the arguments from many originating with the mis-named ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Because of that it becomes dificult for many to accept that a god might have had a hand in at the but then 'stepped back' (it's the last part they apparently can't accept). I simply cannot understand why there's so much hostility to science.

[Alty]

Alty - the main argument is because there are those here who deny evolution occured - is occurring, at least what they call 'macro evolution.' Tho they try to deny it, their unacceptance of this fundamental biological science is religiously based with the arguments from many originating with the mis-named ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Because of that it becomes dificult for many to accept that a god might have had a hand in at the but then 'stepped back' (it's the last part they apparently can't accept). I simply cannot understand why there's so much hostility to science.

Maybe because science and religion don't mix, at least not science and Catholicism (can't speak for all religions). Many scientists were jailed by the Catholic church because they had scientific proof of evolution, and other things, that contradicted the bible. Of course this was many, many years ago, at least, that's what I've read. Boy, I'm opening a can of worms here. :eek:

For me personally, I believe in both, there's too much scientific proof (even for an unscientific person like me) to believe that only God created the world, but I'd like to, yes, like to, believe that God had a hand in it.

Be it God, or science, or both, it's a pretty great world, so cudos to whoever or whatever created it, except for mosquitos of course, whoever, or whatever came up with that idea, well, they deserve a swift kick in the butt. ;)

Hope I'm not too far off topic here. Thanks Flyer for the explanation. :)

[WVHiflyer]

Alty - actually Catholics accept evolution - at least John Paul II did (the new guy is more old school so it's wait and see... here I am telling a Catholic... sorry). It's mostly fundamentalists that deny the separation of science and religion in the sense that sci is not anti-relig, but a-relig. The idea for them (as I've read) is that evolutionists must be 'godless atheists' (notice the slur in the redundancy). And it's not just Christian fundies.

Way back when I thought I believed in God I had no problem accepting science in gen and evol in particular. I guess that's why I can't understand why the hostility. Fear is the best answer I can come up with...

[Alty]

here I am telling a Catholic... sorry).

No need to be sorry, I'm not Catholic, I'm actually not anything, at least were organized religion is concerned. I also don't believe in the bible or church. Yup, I'm a very strange believer in God. :)

Cred did find a word that actually describes my beliefs very well, I guess I'm a deist, at least the description fits. :)

Thanks for explaining Flyer, where science is concerned, I am totally lost.

[WVHiflyer]

Alty - I'd forgotten you said you're a believer - just not in organization <G> Deist is the right word. Puts you in good company. T Jefferson's best described that way, for one.

I'm happy to explain science to anyone who will listen (and, as seen from this thread and others, even to those who won't). Part of it is the frustrated teacher in me, part the sorry shape of sci ed in this country...

[WVHiflyer]

Sassy- - since you keep denying it, here's another example of transitional fossils:

"Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaffe numerous times... During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary.

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found, the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus. Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

"... [S]everal important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles."

Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.


[from 29+ Evidence for Macroevolution] (bold emphasis added)

[Alty]

Alty - I'd forgotten you said you're a believer - just not in organization <G> Deist is the right word. Puts you in good company. T Jefferson's best described that way, for one.

I'm happy to explain science to anyone who will listen (and, as seen from this thread and others, even to those who won't). Part of it is the frustrated teacher in me, part the sorry shape of sci ed in this country.....

I'm afraid that explaining science to me might be quite frustrating to you. Where science is concerned I did the very least I could get away with in school.

I have to say that the science program in our school was great, or so I've heard. ;)

I've always been more geard towards English, writing, art and the like.

I am more than willing to listen, but if it's not simple I might need some help understanding. :)