danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Radical Edward said in post #23 : Evolution works on a principle of inheritance, in that the offspring inherit the characteristics of the parent, with some minor modification. Then how did we get all the different types of animals if these restrictions are implaced?
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 descent with modification, that simple.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #22 :No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers. Yes, but life can come from all the enzymes, acids, and all those other chemicals necessary for life hitting each other. Then chemical processes made it dissolve something else and take some bits out of it. It is now a basic living thing.
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Radical Edward said in post #27 :descent with modification, that simple. I understand that it is easier to believe that than it is to believe that there is a God and He created all things And being that it is a "belief" and not a scientific fact I dont think it should be taught in public school. Ask yourself this, when was the first time the "theory" of Creation was ever introduced to you? My guess is that it was well after you were brainwashed into believeing Evolution.
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, you believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Is this correct?
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 speciation has been observed several times in plants and animals. There is a species of mosquito that exists only in the london undewrground, since being split off from the mosquitoes that live above ground. There are a number of plant species that have speciated, drosophila melanogaster has speciated in the lab. hence this has been observed. Furthermore there are examples of geographical speciation, such as the black backed gull, salamanders in the US, and the Israeli naked mole rat. will you please end the non-sequitir arguments? over time, the accumulation of mutations and natural selection as a result of the pressures of the environment can, and will and have created new forms of animals. We can see this in the fossil record, for example the evolution from mesonyx to the modern carnivorae. We can see it happening in the modern day, such as in the threefold increase in brain size in raccoons that live around cities. There are countless examples of both things that you are asking for.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 oh, I missed the York Groundsel - the hybridisation of the Common Groundsel and the Oxford Ragwort, which cannot breed with either of it's parent species.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 no problem. are you going to address any of the evidence then? It is quite substantial, and there is an awful lot more that I will provide if the conversation continues.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #29 : I understand that it is easier to believe that than it is to believe that there is a God and He created all things And being that it is a "belief" and not a scientific fact I dont think it should be taught in public school. Ask yourself this, when was the first time the "theory" of Creation was ever introduced to you? My guess is that it was well after you were brainwashed into believeing Evolution. When I heard about creation I was already doubting religion just as I doubted Santa Claus. danmoore80 said in post #30 :It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, you believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Is this correct? Depends on how you classify "new species". And it takes thousands of years for enough modifications to make it very different. Laboratories aren't around that long. And, according to the New Scientist 28 September 2002 if you stop the protein hsp90 mutations will start showing up. Naturally the protein stops doing it's job when there is a time of stress, making it's offspring have mutations (in flies at least) such as eyes on stalks, wings with different venation patterns and shapes, folded abdomens, different leg structure, like evolution speeded up. THAT is evolution.
blike Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 STOP RIGHT THERE Before we proceed, I ask that danmoore80 explain to us how the process of evolution works. Once he has demonstrated a working knowledge of evolution, then can we argue on the same level. Therefore this thread must come to a screaming halt for a moment.
JaKiri Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Just as an aside, blike Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #35 : Depends on how you classify "new species" Speciation has been observed duder. A kind of fish in the pacific.
newbie Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80, Evolution has been observed. One only needs to look at speciation. Evolution does not say one kind of creature can turn naturally into a completely different kind “Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it” . This is why speciation occurs with only pre-existing genetic information. To have a cat evolve into a dog would require new genetic information. That has never been proven or observed. As Radical Edward stated, I will explain a couple of his examples. The species of mosquito known as Culex pipiens , cut off from their diet they became an underground variety known as molest. The York Groundsel is another good example. Basically it is just a hybrid of the Common Groundsel and the Oxford Ragwort as Radical Edward stated; but it is only a reproductive isolation and not evolution in the sort of cats evolving into dogs. Too answer your question is no evolution does not allow one species to evolve into a completely different more complex species. __________________________________________________ Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute.
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Your "process of evolution" Evolutionists believe it is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line. The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection. As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between......or so you would have us to believe
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 newbie said in post #38 :danmoore80, Evolution does not say one kind of creature can turn naturally into a completely different kind “ Newbie.....I hate to brake it to you, but you sould understand your belief of Evolution a little better.....you see the Evolutionistic view of the begining says that "Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule" These "chemicals" all came from the SAME exact place, so indeed they are not indifferent. That is like saying for instance that a mother gives birth to two identical twins. One of them moves to the ocean, one moves to the moutains. Because the one who moved to the ocean his childrens childrens children will eventually develop webbed feet, and then probably gills. And the one who moved to the mountain, well his decendents will eventually develop hooves. Perhaps it is because I grew up in church, that I have such a hard time swallowing the "evolution theory"
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #39 :Evolutionists believe it is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line. Yep. The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection. Sort of. As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between......or so you would have us to believe It's all A CONSPIRACY!
fafalone Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 You try copying 3 billion pieces of information in a couple minutes using dozens of different enzymes without making a single mistake, then come explain why mutations can't happen.
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #41 : Newbie.....I hate to brake it to you, but you sould understand your belief of Evolution a little better.....you see the Evolutionistic view of the begining says that "Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule" These "chemicals" all came from the SAME exact place, so indeed they are not indifferent. That is like saying for instance that a mother gives birth to two identical twins. One of them moves to the ocean, one moves to the moutains. Because the one who moved to the ocean his childrens childrens children will eventually develop webbed feet, and then probably gills. And the one who moved to the mountain, well his decendents will eventually develop hooves. Perhaps it is because I grew up in church, that I have such a hard time swallowing the "evolution theory" That's a common fallacy.
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 I find alot of this stuff interesting......it is what appears to me to be a coverup, buy the people who insist that evolution, and not Creation actually took place. There is a story I read recently, and it was talking about Dinosarus of today....now I know that if indeed there were Dinosaurs still roaming the earth today then the theory of evolution would be seriously flawed. A couple of these stories talk about finding the carcus of what they believed to be a Plesiosaurus. What happened to them? Ahh...they were lost somehow in transport. Or could it be that a select group of people didn't want anyone to find out that in fact dinosaurs have been living with us all along? Just a thought.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #28 : Yes, but life can come from all the enzymes, acids, and all those other chemicals necessary for life hitting each other. Then chemical processes made it dissolve something else and take some bits out of it. It is now a basic living thing. That explains one thing... Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #35 : When I heard about creation I was already doubting religion just as I doubted Santa Claus. Depends on how you classify "new species". And it takes thousands of years for enough modifications to make it very different. Laboratories aren't around that long. And, according to the New Scientist 28 September 2002 if you stop the protein hsp90 mutations will start showing up. Naturally the protein stops doing it's job when there is a time of stress, making it's offspring have mutations (in flies at least) such as eyes on stalks, wings with different venation patterns and shapes, folded abdomens, different leg structure, like evolution speeded up. THAT is evolution. Did you happen to read these?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 :rant: danmoore80 said in post #45 :I find alot of this stuff interesting......it is what appears to me to be a coverup, buy the people who insist that evolution, and not Creation actually took place. There is a story I read recently, and it was talking about Dinosarus of today....now I know that if indeed there were Dinosaurs still roaming the earth today then the theory of evolution would be seriously flawed. A couple of these stories talk about finding the carcus of what they believed to be a Plesiosaurus. What happened to them? Ahh...they were lost somehow in transport. Or could it be that a select group of people didn't want anyone to find out that in fact dinosaurs have been living with us all along? Just a thought. Dinosaurs of today are not like the dinosaurs of yesterday. Scientists believe dinosaurs evolved (uh-oh!) into birds. They believe this because the hip structure and such is remarkably like dinosaurs. I also do not believe the people saying they found a Plesiosaurus, unless it is millions of years old. Saying it was lost in transport is a fancy excuse for "I'm lying and I don't have anything for you to see." Read our posts and CONSIDER THEM!! If you sit here and argue without noticing what we counter then it is not an argument! [/rant]
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. Genes are of a complicated designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently. This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.
fafalone Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 So you consider my example of mutations that confer resistance to antibiotics in bacteria to be mutations that decrease the chances of survival of the organism? lol
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #48 :Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. Genes are of a complicated designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently. This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected. And where did you get that idea? In the seventy years (unlike the millions for evolution) not much will happen. And, some changes may not appear genetic. Take giraffes, for example. It is believed they used to have short necks. Then, when they ate off the low branches of the trees, they couldn't eat much. When one was mutated and had a longer neck, it lived a lot longer than the others, and had loads of offspring. So over many generations they all got long necks. Very plausible.
Recommended Posts