Hello, Jurassic Park

[Rust]

If you know what I was getting at, and still didn't understand my point, you're a bigger idiot than I imagined Finawin


but for lyion

Macroevolution is nothing but a guess. It has merit, but it also is nothing more than a question mark. It tries to explain what science does not have the propensity to explain. There is ZERO real proof for macroevolution. That is a fact.

Let's take a step back and clarify a couple of things

Evolution does not explain the origin of life

Ding. 100% agree with Tikker.

It does attempt to explain how the original living organisms were able to change/evolve into multiple different species

Note that the first 'life forms' on earth were probably things we would probably not recognize as really alive, more like 'replicators'. Certainly something more simple than a single cell. But they're not anything that would have fossilized, so it's pure hypothesis. But once you have 'descent with modification' with errors, you get evolution.

Is it still possible that some higher power came along and jumpstarted life?
sure

agreed.

creationism and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive

Well, 'big-C' Creationism is generally used to describe the modern (primarily US-based) fundamentalist/literalist movement that used to call itself Scientific Creationism and now calls itself Intelligent Design. But clearly 'small-c' creationism that doesn't try to contradict physical evidence is compatible with science.

--R.

[Tikker]

If you'd understood, yet disagree'd you wouldn't have posted:

Human beings and most animals are too complex to compare in the same way to bacterium to be fair.

If you want an example that fits into your little mind's eye, look at horses


They're one of the few critters that have left a good fossil trail that allows you to see the slow change of evolution

quick google search popped this up, and a quick perusal showed what I'm trying to get at. this page in particular is good

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/ ... tml#part10

addition to showing that evolution has occurred, the fossil Equidae also show the following characteristics of evolution:

1.

Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.

Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

The view of equine evolution as a complex bush with many contemporary species has been around for several decades, and is commonly recounted in modern biology and evolution textbooks.

[Rust]

Yes, that's part of the talk.origins FAQ archives I keep telling people to read!

--R.

[Ganzo]

Everything you say here Rust does not disprove creationalism. To me all you doing with science is uncovering the way God created universe, not looking for alternative source

[Rust]

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the creation of the universe, or life for that matter. It's simply outside the area evolution deals with. So for what it's worth, I agree with you. It's wholly possible some supernatural being created the universe.

But it's also clear life has existed here for something over 3 billion years and that humans are evolved from earlier primates.

--R.

[Harrison]

It's clear?

lmao

[Lyion]

Wow, Rust. You read my entire post and yet didn't absorb a single thing. I absolutely used sources for my post, but it was hardly a reference for publication or copyright.

I made points you did not refute. I had items you ignored, and your entire post is complete rubbish pointing to referenced sites that solely empathise with your POV and a lack of understanding of the issues. What a pity. You cannot learn or debate, merely parrot. I blame the Canadian College system. It's not too late to head to a real college in America.

I've seen your type before. You are so intent on your point you lack the faculties tor rationally understanding different points and merely attempt to 'win'. It's comical in something as completely subjective and unproven as macroevolution. By all means continue to link people, and forgive me if I reference other write ups that provide my point, and plagarize to some degree, even if I reference before I'm doing so, like I did.

I've already referenced my debate material was from a Catholic web site. Perhaps in your zeal to link to things you can't comprehend nor discuss without linking to things i've already refuted you missed that. Feel free to sticking to the sole thing you do understand, editorializing.

It's my fault for engaging in 'google' fighting with you. I guess I should just go through sites with valid refutations to your silly assertions. To be honest, I have no desire to do so, and I'd rather engange in discussions with people who aren't parrots.

Tikker, they are not mutually exclusive. I absolutely agree micro evolution is proven and can coexist with religon. Macro could, even if its 100% completely unfounded, despite Rusts zeal to link to numerous sites that are again repeating exactly what I say.

I took some fascinating classes when I was Cal Poly and I wish I still had the materials.

I have no issues with evolution, save with the religous zealourty people like Rust push it with, despite the wholesale ongoing changes that seem to be occuring with it, and the misinformation of those who cannot understand that something that is todays logic and without a shred of proof is not law.

[Lyion]

Macroevolution is about massive changes over eons of time resulting in the formation of new and complex organs, body plans, and life-forms. This involves new organs, new genes, and new types of plants and animals, all the way up to humans. What we need to see proof of is not variation in kinds or even reproductive isolation (speciation). What we must see is the evidence that natural selection and chance have actually created new information. This has not been observed anywhere. But this is what the concept of macroevolution is based upon. Where is the scientific evidence for it? Can scientists actually prove that mutations or any other natural processes are capable of providing vast quantities of new genetic information that would result in all the various phyla? They haven’t done it, but they continue to tell the story anyway.

There is not one, specific example that can be given of an evolutionary process that is known to create mass amounts of new information. Again, when evolutionists cite their "examples" of evolution, they always cite examples of microevolution. That is what can be observed. But ask for an example of macroevolution, and you’ll get a speculative story based upon philosophical and methodological naturalism.

The problem is that showing cyclical variation does not demonstrate how you get specific kinds of plants and animals to begin with. Examples of observed evolution are always micro, but microevolution works on the premise that the organisms are already present with their gene pool. What macroevolution requires is proof that new organisms are actually created, and that this new genetic information is created by natural selection and chance mutation. And this is the proof that it is missing.

Natural selection "selects," but this process cannot create new information. Mutations are random, and seldom "good," but even these do not add the necessary information into the existing gene pool. Therefore, macroevolution is pure speculation without any real empirical basis. Evolutionists must rely only on micro and then extrapolate from that their macro theory without distinguishing the two. This information problem is a serious one for evolutionists. Macroevolution does not adequately explain how new organisms and body plans are created. For instance, where does the complex cell come from in the first place? Macroevolution cannot explain it.

Should one object, we ask this question: can you cite one, specific example of an evolutionary process that is known to create mass amounts of new genetic information? Citing an example of microevolution won’t do it. We need proof that new genetic information is created by the natural selection and chance mutation process.

To this point, it has only been assumed, not scientifically verified.

sourced from http://studywell.org/articles/evolutionism02.htm

We did not evolve from Apes. Thats just an opinion.

[Tikker]

no one said that either

human and apes share a common ancestor

end of story

[Tikker]

Everything you say here Rust does not disprove creationalism. To me all you doing with science is uncovering the way God created universe, not looking for alternative source

I'll try one more time


CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

[Harrison]

Rust got owned in a painful way.

We all knew that he is a google master already though.

[Lyion]

no one said that either

human and apes share a common ancestor

end of story

Since beneficial mutations are not at all proven, I would lean towards thinking this is not true. Again, this is a 'guess'.

[Donnel]

Beneficial mutations meaning the addition of new genetic material, not necessarily an advantagous mutation.

Beetles losing their wings so they can survive on windy islands is still a LOSS of genetic information and runs contrary to the purpose of chance mutation and natural selection: to add new viable characteristics to a species that did not already have them.

[Narrock]

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the creation of the universe, or life for that matter. It's simply outside the area evolution deals with. So for what it's worth, I agree with you. It's wholly possible some supernatural being created the universe.

But it's also clear life has existed here for something over 3 billion years and that humans are evolved from earlier primates.

--R.

ROFL Rust gets more funny with each subsequent post. What a tard.

[Langston]

You folks have forgotten the 11th commandment in the Bible:

Thou shalt not question.

[Donnel]

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the creation of the universe, or life for that matter. It's simply outside the area evolution deals with. So for what it's worth, I agree with you. It's wholly possible some supernatural being created the universe.

But it's also clear life has existed here for something over 3 billion years and that humans are evolved from earlier primates.

--R.

ROFL Rust gets more funny with each subsequent post. What a tard.

Way to contribute, clown.

[shiraz]

Can scientists actually prove that mutations or any other natural processes are capable of providing vast quantities of new genetic information that would result in all the various phyla? They haven’t done it, but they continue to tell the story anyway.

There is a branch of mathematical biology that looks at pattern formation (via reaction diffusion equations) to describe the process of development. One small mutation could result in a drastically different outcome in body plan (one of the characteristics of new phyla). If you look at the fossil record, it is filled with gaps: all of the sudden a new body plan appears from "nowhere" and then diversifies. One idea is that small genetic changes can result in big phentotypic changes. The idea is that once in a great while these changes aren't lethal and are actually quite benficial.

Anyhow, this is just an idea at this stage. A lot more advances need to happen in biology and mathematics before this idea can be tested. If you work with the reaction diffusion equations though, you can easily see that small changes in the "ingredients" can result in big changes in the outcome.

Some interesting reading: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.section.79

[Donnel]

Here's the problem though.

That single cell organism that started it all? Would have had to have the genes for every trait in existence today. No mutation has caused new genetic material to exist where it did not exist before. That's the simple matter of it.

So that single cell wasn't so single after all, or maybe there is some reason to think that someone designed it all.

[Harrison]

It's also probable that a number of different single celled organisms came about "quasi simultaneously" (within a couple hundred thousand years of eachother...a fart's measure in time when you think about it)

[Rust]

Here's the problem though.

That single cell organism that started it all? Would have had to have the genes for every trait in existence today. No mutation has caused new genetic material to exist where it did not exist before. That's the simple matter of it.

So that single cell wasn't so single after all, or maybe there is some reason to think that someone designed it all.

Um, gene duplications events exist. Chromosome polyploidy does too. Nothing stops new genes from arising. The statement about the first cell needing every gene in existance is simply silly. There are any number of organisms with more DNA than man. A significant amount of human DNA is non-coding as well... not to mention lateral gene transfer, viral DNA insertion into genomic DNA, etc. There's lots of garbage, pseudogenes, viral DNA, etc in human DNA.

I'm sorry but your claim above is basically gobbledigook. I'm not even a geneticist and I can recognize that it's garbage from my training in molecular biology.

--R.

[Rust]

no one said that either

human and apes share a common ancestor

end of story

Since beneficial mutations are not at all proven, I would lean towards thinking this is not true. Again, this is a 'guess'.

There are well described examples of beneficial mutations.What sort of clown source do you have for your biology education?

One example of a beneficial mutation in humans is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/informa ... otein.html

I mean, you can say 'beneficial mutations are not at all proven' and expect to get taken seriously in a discussion of biology?

Not to mention your ongoing misuse of 'proven' in relation to science continuing.

--R.

[Rust]

It's clear?

lmao

Yes. There are fossils from well over 3 Bya ago seen in cherts such as the Gunflint Chert in Ontario. Likewise the evidence showing humans are evolved from primates is simple and clear. It's not even debated in science.

For someone who didn't even finish high school, you seem to think you know more about biology than biologists do. Kinda humerous.

--R.

[Lyion]

Might want to reread the thread and check your facts.

Oh, wait. You just post links to sites that do not refute anything I've said.

Beneficial mutations meaning the addition of new genetic material, not necessarily an advantagous mutation.

There is a simple irrefutable fact you cannot overcome:

In all that site and evolutionary research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has ever been found.

None. Zip. Zero.

[Harrison]

Damn lyion you be quick with the delete key mon.

[Lyion]

Poking fun is fine. I can give and take. Do not cross the line too far, please.