Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Gurdur]

Perhaps, Biochemist, you could answer the following questions please ?

 

1) Do you think speciation occurs or not ?

 

2) If you think speciation occurs, what do you think is the driving force(s) or base(s) for speciation ?

 

3) if you wish to deny mutation as a base for speciation, how would you explain that mutation sets up the genetic variance that later results in speciation driven by things like population isolation ?

 

4) You seem to think the scarcity of observed evidence means something. Why do you think that paucity means much, when we all know mutation & selection -driven evolution takes such a long time ?

 

5) Why do you seem to discount DNA heritage evidence ?

 

6) And why do you think most "evolutionists" are setting themselves up as anti-religion ?

In my own experience, most theists I know have no trouble accepting speciation, mutation as a prerequisite, nor evolution.

 

Yes, you've said that you've reviewed the evidence, but it would take wading through several hundred posts or so to find it, so could you please summarize it for us here ?

And BTW, my own background is sufficient to understand the basics, though I might well err here and there. Thanks in advance.

[Biochemist]

1) Do you think speciation occurs or not ?

Of course. There is pretty good evidence for allopatric speciation via genetic drift, for example.

2) If you think speciation occurs, what do you think is the driving force(s) or base(s) for speciation ?

it is fair to suggest that the primary mechanism is unknown. The primary mechanism (that is, the one that occurs most often) is really a mystery. I have my own pet theories on it, but that is fundamentally irrelevant.

3) if you wish to deny mutation as a base for speciation, how would you explain that mutation sets up the genetic variance that later results in speciation driven by things like population isolation ?

You are postulating that mutation sets up the genetic variance. The evidence is that we have a genetic variance. Not that mutation caused it.

4) You seem to think the scarcity of observed evidence means something. Why do you think that paucity means much, when we all know mutation & selection -driven evolution takes such a long time ?

You are doing it again. How exactly do we know this? Because we repeat it often enough? Even if there were evidence for occasional mutation-driven speciation events (which there is not) it does not explain the generation of 100 phyla relatively quickly during the Cambrian explosion. Not only do we have an absence of evidence in support of it, we have a significant amount of evidence against it. And that is without going into the probabilisitic problems associated with serial mutation creating complex enzyme systems before they had any opportunity to be "selected" based on phenotypic expression.

5) Why do you seem to discount DNA heritage evidence ?

You are doing it again. There is no "heritage" evidence. We have common DNA elements across species. Correlation does not imply causality. Every time someone brings up that we are 98% in common with chimps, you should recall that we are 99% in common with mice. Make that fit the "tree of life".

6) And why do you think most "evolutionists" are setting themselves up as anti-religion ?..In my own experience, most theists I know have no trouble accepting speciation, mutation as a prerequisite, nor evolution.

Mine as well. Most folks tend to "trust" the experts.

... you've said that you've reviewed the evidence, but it would take wading through several hundred posts or so to find it, so could you please summarize it for us here ?

I will come back later and give it a shot. Got to run now.

[geokker]

3) if you wish to deny mutation as a base for speciation, how would you explain that mutation sets up the genetic variance that later results in speciation driven by things like population isolation ?

 

this makes the most sense to me. Variation through mutation then geographic separation = speciation.

[Biochemist]

this makes the most sense to me. Variation through mutation then geographic separation = speciation.

It certainly could make sense. There just is a dearth of evidence in support of it.

 

Every significant step forward in our understanding of genetics and biochemistry makes the biochemical systems more complicated. Every step up in complexity results in a higher probabilistic hurdle to overcome with respect to mutations in genes causing a benefial outcome.

 

Rather than debate the algebra here, I just want to point out:

 

1) The evidence in support of speciation via mutation is very weak

2) Evidence that throws the gradualism model into doubt (most notably the paleontological evidence in support of Punctiated equilibrium) is strong and getting stronger every year.

3) The probabilistic hurdles for production of a beneficial mutations (or, more specifically, a mutation that increases information load) are strikingly high

4) The longer this status exists, the more non-science-like it seems.

 

I do not mean to suggest that scientists are in some sort of conspiracy. They are not. But they do tend to accept ideas as a herd, and often those ideas are fundamentally based on assumption, not fact. Speciation by mutation is an assumption, and (in my opinion) it is a poor one.

[Biochemist]

..I will come back later and give it a shot. Got to run now.

I glanced through part of the Puntuated equilibria Theories thread, here:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2756&page=1&pp=10&highlight=punctuated

 

And I suggest that you scan posts, 9,12,25, 35, 38, 40, 43, 44 and 47.

 

Post 44 is the one that walks through the probabilistic hurdles for a mutative mechanism. The earlier posts are debating the meaning of some of the evidence that is often posited as support for mutation. There is more later in the thread, but the thread is long.

[Gurdur]

Of course. There is pretty good evidence for allopatric speciation via genetic drift, for example.it is fair to suggest that the primary mechanism is unknown.

Now pardon me, and forgive me if I err, but it seems to me this is exactly where you send out a confused and mixed message.

For example, I noted one mechanism --- population isolation --- as helping to produce speciation, and you note another --- genetic drift.

Yet neither of these could actually work without different alleles in the populations --- and the best explanation for that that we have is mutation, and we can readily observe mutation actually happening.

So may I ask --- what do you have against mutation ?

Pardon me if I misunderstand you.

The evidence is that we have a genetic variance. Not that mutation caused it.

Really ? Mutation, which is observable, is the best explanation we have that fits all the data. We have lots and lots and lots of competing theories, which we compare; we can compare competing theories such as Von Däniken's aliens, Raelians, ID, mutation, etc., and see which of the theories fits the most facts in the most elegant way.

You are doing it again. How exactly do we know this? Because we repeat it often enough?

Really ? No. You misjudge me severely. We don't know anything at all for absolutely sure, we pick which of the theories fits the most facts in the most elegant way.

Even if there were evidence for occasional mutation-driven speciation events (which there is not) it does not explain the generation of 100 phyla relatively quickly during the Cambrian explosion.

Pardon me ? Hasn't there actually been some reviewal of that Cambrian explosion, resulting in less phyla than thought ? And just how is it not supposed to explain the generation of new phyla at a time when life itself had not been in existence that long ?

And I believe I see another confusion here; you think the Cambrian explosion rules out later speciation on a base of mutation somehow; I can't quite see the connection.

. And that is without going into the probabilisitic problems associated with serial mutation creating complex enzyme systems before they had any opportunity to be "selected" based on phenotypic expression.You are doing it again.

You assume selection based only on phenotypic expression ? Why ?

And this seems to be argument from increduality, as well as an argument that ignores all the different selective mechanisms; ´plus, what you really are tackling here is abiogenesis, not speciation on a basis of mutation, and that's a whole 'nother argument.

For a start, complex chemical structures can arise on crystalline support structures, or in primordial soups, and are subject to selection mechanisms of other kinds.

There is no "heritage" evidence. We have common DNA elements across species. Correlation does not imply causality.

Repeated and strong correlation demands an explanation, and does not rule out causuality.

Most folks tend to "trust" the experts.

Not me.

 

I looked through the thread and posts you mentioned, and I see more of your arguments; yet shall we simply stick with these points outlined and quoted above, since they serve to form pretty much the whole discussion ?

[Gurdur]

Couple more things:

.....2) Evidence that throws the gradualism model into doubt (most notably the paleontological evidence in support of Punctiated equilibrium) is strong and getting stronger every year.

The punctuated equilibria model does not counterpose speciation on a basis of mutation, and Gould and others promoting that model never once denied the role of mutation as motor.

3) The probabilistic hurdles for production of a beneficial mutations (or, more specifically, a mutation that increases information load) are strikingly high

Really ? This again ignores selective mechanisms at work, which affects the probabilities rather much.

I do not mean to suggest that scientists are in some sort of conspiracy. They are not. But they do tend to accept ideas as a herd,

Hmmm ? My own experience with scientists is rather different.

Speciation by mutation is an assumption, and (in my opinion) it is a poor one.

Actually, it's a theory, rather than an assumption, in fact it's a theory with quite a complex model.

[Boerseun]

Every time someone brings up that we are 98% in common with chimps, you should recall that we are 99% in common with mice. Make that fit the "tree of life".

This argument is a new one. You should keep in mind that the volume of genetic material doesn't equal the information content. Genes that were actually expressed in chimpanzees correlate more with those expressed in humans as to those in mice. It's obvious. Otherwise, a chimpanzee would've looked more like a mouse than a human. If you compare genetic mass to usable genetic information, you're on the wrong track. The amount of genetic garbage is an indicator of how susceptable a certain species is to mutation. Every now and then a piece of genetic garbage finds an expression, by accident, and every now and then this erroneous expression is usable, and selected for, and propagated through the species, eventually, either through geographic isolation, seperating it from the rest of the species, causing (after many, many moons) a new, seperate species.

It's called mutation. Why there's a problem with this, I can't see.

[Southtown]

Evolution happens. My chihuahua and my neighbour's Great Dane is family. For how long, until their differences are so enhanced that they justify two seperate species? We have done wonders with dogs in the last couple of hundred years with intended, albeit artificial, breeding programs. What might happen with natural processes if you give it not thousands, but millions of years?

Selection Boerseun, selection will happen. That means a decrease, not an increase.

 

Given enough time, probability will permit quite a lot, but it won't explain anything. One could simultaneously win every lottery, be struck by six bolts of lightning, and be accidentally dyed purple by a strange mix of elephant feces and peanut bacteria in Central Park if he lives to be a billion years old... assuming the preexistence of the proper conditions.

 

Time is the only mechanism macro-evolution has. When chances are slim, create more time to make things feasible. Create time to explain a changing environment with a dating system that assumes environmental constancy. I'll be convinced in relatively no time.

 

Forgive me for C&P'ing, but I already compiled a list of related evidence elsewhere, and I grow ill from repeated, ignorant accusations that creationism has little or no evidence:

 

1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. SOURCE
    
   
2. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. SOURCE
    
   
3. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. SOURCE
    
   
4. Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. SOURCE
    
   
5. Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. SOURCE
    
   
6. A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. SOURCE
    
   
7. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs. SOURCE
    
   
8. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. It also is accompanied by elaborate transmission, translation, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. SOURCE
    
   
9. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. SOURCE
    
   
10. All isolated systems contain specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been observed to increase its information content significantly. Natural processes, without exception, destroy information. SOURCE
     
    
11. [T]he human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths. Indeed, the absence of true vestigial [unused] organs implies evolution never happened. SOURCE
     
    
12. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. SOURCE
     
    
13. The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water.The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change. SOURCE
     
    
14. The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. ADTL INFO
     
    
15. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. SOURCE
     
    
16. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years. Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. SOURCE
     
    
17. Also, fossil evidence alleged to demonstrate human evolution is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent. Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated. ADTL INFO
     
    
18. Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. SOURCE
     
    
19. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon. SOURCE
     
    
20. No theory has been able to explain how earth’s atmosphere acquired so much oxygen. Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. SOURCE
     
    
21. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments. SOURCE
     
    
22. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows that the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed. SOURCE
     
    
23. If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell. SOURCE
     
    
24. Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, almost miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species? SOURCE
     
    
25. Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information. They conflict in major ways. SOURCE
     
    
26. DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. The components of this manufacturing system must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation. SOURCE
     
    
27. Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis; that is, a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon or chrysalis around itself. Its body inside then disintegrates into a thick, pulplike liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges—one that is dramatically different (as shown in Table 1), amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from those of the adult. ... What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. SOURCE
     
    
28. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca moth, many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation. SOURCE
     
    
29. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
     
    
    a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
    
    
     
    
    
    b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.
    
    
     
    
    
    c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
    
    
     
    
    
    d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense.
    
    
     
    
    
    e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
    
    
     
    
    
    f. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

    
     
    Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or an intelligent designer created sexual reproduction. SOURCE
     
    

30. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. SOURCE
     
    
31. Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems—including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world’s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms; miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated radar and discrimination systems of the bat; efficient aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects; and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could not have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component’s evolution was complete. All evidence points to a designer. SOURCE
     
    
32. If life is ultimately the result of random processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of accidents. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance, or natural, processes. By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. “Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces.” SOURCE
     
    
33. We have all heard it said that humans use only a small fraction of their mental abilities. If this is true, how did such unused abilities evolve? Certainly not by natural selection, because those capabilities are not used. Why does the human capacity for thought exceed that required for evolutionary success? SOURCE
     
    
34. When Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the “evolutionary tree” had only a few gaps. Believers in his new theory thought these gaps would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science progressed, these “missing links” have multiplied enormously, and the difficulties in “bridging” these gaps have become even more apparent. For example, in Darwin’s day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today, it is generally accepted that life falls into five radically different kingdoms, only two of which are animals and plants. (None of the five include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way.) In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.
     
    Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a “warm little pond.” Today, almost all evolutionary biologists will privately admit that science has no explanation for how life evolved. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a leap of gigantic proportions, vastly more improbable than for bacteria to evolve into humans. In Darwin’s day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, most evolutionists think bacteria are simple—one of the first forms of life to evolve. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing facilities with many mysteries, such as bacterial motors, yet to be understood. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.
     
    The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, gigantic leaps from single- to multiple-cell organisms were grossly underestimated. Development of the computer has also given us a better appreciation of the brain’s intricate electronics, extreme miniaturization, and vast storage capabilities. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call “flight” must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for birds, some insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterosaurs). Fireflies produce light without heat, a phenomenon called bioluminescence. Other species, including fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did all these remarkable capabilities evolve independently?
     
    Before 1977, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that some organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing, by thousands of rare accidents, the heating systems of widely separated homes to electricity—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants would risk freezing every winter. How such a system could evolve on different ocean floors, without solar energy, and in a cold, diluting environment has yet to be explained.
     
    If evolution happened, many other giant leaps must also have occurred: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and sea cows), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.
     
    Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. Most paleontologists now admit that their prediction failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes. However, the term is deceiving. There is not one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences.
     
    Scientific advancements have shown us that evolution is an even more ridiculous theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps” and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely.
     
    All the breeding experiments that many hoped would demonstrate macroevolution have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research in the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Nevertheless, evolutionists still argue against this design by, oddly enough, using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid. SOURCE

 

Both of us must say "may." I just believe there is more evidence on my side - that says nothing about how good the evidence is.

Yes... you believe, and blindly at that. I find it humorous that people who cling to ideas given to them through mandatory, government education can consider themselves critical thinkers.

 

P.S. This is just some of the biological evidence. There's still geological and astronomical evidence not included here (such as oceanic trenches and the age limit of the Moon's orbit) that directly effect the time afforded to any theories regarding the proliferation of life on Earth.

[Southtown]

:D Neat, huh?

[Harzburgite]

I see you have provided thirty four pieces of evidence for creationism. I do hope the bulk of them contain more substance than the first handful. Let's take a brief look at some of them:

1. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed.

And? So what? We have not yet duplicated the conditions in which abiogenesis occured, so it is hardly surprising that we have not observed it. While this absence is certainly not an argument for abiogenesis it is very certainly not an argument for creationism.

Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited.

Again, so what? You are in danger of erecting strawmen. Please don't insult others or demean yourself with such an approach.

Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes.

There has been a little work in this field since Mendel died, as you are well aware. Either you are unfamiliar with this work (in which case it is presumptuous, and perhaps even arrogant of you to enter such a discussion), or you are aware of it and have chosen to ignore it (which smacks of intellectual dishonesty). I am always open to a third, undetected explanation.

Some examples:

a)Possible gene formation via TE (transposable element insertions) http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/c/n/cnw121/020405%20presentation.ppt

 

:DLeukaemia is a genetic disease.In many cases, recombination between the DNA which encodes genes at different chromosomal sites in bone marrow progenitor cells gives rise to functional fusion genes with leukaemia-causing properties. Chromosome interchanges or "translocations" are the microscopically visible products of this recombination.from http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/cancergenetics/mech.htm

 

c)Or 'shuffling' from elsewhere: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/msi147v1

 

4.Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

Once again you are either being deliberately or incidentally obtuse. Your statement is not a proof of creationism (You could thoroughly disprove evolution and you would not have advanced one step closer to proving evolution. What is difficult for you to understand here?) Your statement is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Please explain in what possible way it disproves evolution or proves creationism.

 

and I grow ill from repeated, ignorant accusations that creationism has little or no evidence:

If these are the best you have to offer I am amazed your illness has not been terminal! Enlighten me. In these first four items explain how a single shred supports creationism. You may wish to consult a basic text on logic before replying.

If you find the tenor of my response insulting please ignore that and focus on the facts. So far, in these first four 'proofs' the facts have either been wrong or irrelevant.

[Biochemist]

...I noted one mechanism --- population isolation --- as helping to produce speciation, and you note another --- genetic drift....

Yet neither of these could actually work without different alleles in the populations --- and the best explanation for that that we have is mutation, and we can readily observe mutation actually happening.

The existence of variant alleles is a fact. The causality by mutation is a postulate. The mutations that we observe are damaging, not constructive. There are rare examples of mutations that are" beneficial", but only in cases were actual biochemical damage is helpful (like taking the control chip out of your BMW might improve mileage- it would damage performance, but improve mileage). Evidence for mutations causing in increase in information load are non-existent.

... Hasn't there actually been some reviewal of that Cambrian explosion, resulting in less phyla than thought ?

Sure. But the number is still between 70 and 100 phyla, and no no new phyla have occurred since. Many have gone extinct to get to the current 30 animal phyla. None of this supports gradualism as a general model, mutative or otherwise. The issue is not speciation in this case. The issue is that arrival of new body plans has apparently occurred quickly. There does not appear to have been adequate time for any mutative model to have occurred.

You assume selection based only on phenotypic expression ? Why ?

For selection to work, the gene would have to be expressed to be "preferred" in the environment.

plus, what you really are tackling here is abiogenesis, not speciation on a basis of mutation,

No, but the arguments are similar. I am speaking only about speciation by mutation at the moment.

[geokker]

The first definitions on Dictionary.com:

 

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

 

Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

 

So perhaps the theory of evolution can be a religion until it is proven as fact beyond possible doubt as people may well believe in the perceived evidence.

 

I don't see where creationism is relevant to the question.

[Southtown]

I see you have provided thirty four pieces of evidence for creationism. I do hope the bulk of them contain more substance than the first handful.

The best way to ascertain that would probably be to read them.

 

We have not yet duplicated the conditions in which abiogenesis occured, so it is hardly surprising that we have not observed it. While this absence is certainly not an argument for abiogenesis it is very certainly not an argument for creationism.

Look, either abiogenesis happens or it does not. Has it happened yet? If not, the only other cause is an act of creation.

 

There has been a little work in this field since Mendel died, as you are well aware. Either you are unfamiliar with this work (in which case it is presumptuous, and perhaps even arrogant of you to enter such a discussion), or you are aware of it and have chosen to ignore it (which smacks of intellectual dishonesty). I am always open to a third, undetected explanation.

Your tendency to assess the validity of people over the validity of ideas is hardly rare in my experience. And I will treat your post the same as you did mine by aborting my response before I reach the heart of the matter.

 

P.S. You haven't refuted any of those first few points, only questioned their application.

[eMTee]

The taking the 10 commandments down from public buildings. what is that for? I see it as the world religion forcing itself upon the society. There is a God, because without God there is chaos. Morality is everything, and without it, this Nation, this world will become wicked. Everyone has the law (knowlege of good and evil) written inside their very selves automatically. Is this for no reason that that would happen axidently?

 

Evolution is a religion, Atheism is a religion...this world is full of religion..you are not defending science, science defends itself, and I suport the study of science, to learn better things and ways to do things, what you are doing is defenting your beliefs, your religion, weather it be doing nothing or believing in a God, it is what you believe in. God placed the laws of science in order to sustain life..and when you are talking evolution, you are playing with science. if you would only look further than what you notice with your five sences, you don't even go that far sometimes. You go as far as you can safely so that you will not believe, if an area looks suspicious of possible "brainwashing" you go no further, and say it's not evidence.

 

Darwin went to class for 2-3 weeks (or months) before he went off into the field, which was of a new type of science at that time, and wrote his first book (which I think was a hit) his teacher was a creationist. and Darwin died an agnostic.

[Erasmus00]

The taking the 10 commandments down from public buildings. what is that for? I see it as the world religion forcing itself upon the society. There is a God, because without God there is chaos. Morality is everything, and without it, this Nation, this world will become wicked. Everyone has the law (knowlege of good and evil) written inside their very selves automatically. Is this for no reason that that would happen axidently?

 

First, the 10 commandments are taken out of public buildings because, like it or not, the United States was founded with the ideas of the seperation of Church and state. We might not be particularly good at it (see our money, for instance), but that means that the state doesn't endorse any religion, including Judaism and Christianity.

 

As to Morality, I suggest a reading of Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, which attempts to define morality without reference to God. Also, if EVeryone has the law written into them, how come different people believe in different ideas of right and wrong?

 

Evolution is a religion, Atheism is a religion...this world is full of religion..you are not defending science, science defends itself, and I suport the study of science, to learn better things and ways to do things, what you are doing is defenting your beliefs, your religion, weather it be doing nothing or believing in a God, it is what you believe in. God placed the laws of science in order to sustain life..and when you are talking evolution, you are playing with science.

 

You claim to support science, but if abiogenesis or macro evolution were established beyond a doubt, you'd still question it. You'd still find reasons to argue, and cling to even the smallest hope. That is what institutions like the ICR are founded on, not doing science, but discrediting any science they don't like. The ICR, and people like Barry Setterfield do Christianity a disservice. Why? Because they use ludicrous "science" to confuse people who don't have the background to know any better. Christians who research science in good faith get duped by this pseudoscience, and real scientists who might have an interest in Christianity get pushed away. If you have any background in science, visit the ICR Museum in CA for a real eye opener. The place is a shrine to deception.

-Will

[Queso]

The taking the 10 commandments down from public buildings. what is that for? I see it as the world religion forcing itself upon the society. There is a God, because without God there is chaos. Morality is everything, and without it, this Nation, this world will become wicked. Everyone has the law (knowlege of good and evil) written inside their very selves automatically. Is this for no reason that that would happen axidently?

 

Evolution is a religion, Atheism is a religion...this world is full of religion..you are not defending science, science defends itself, and I suport the study of science, to learn better things and ways to do things, what you are doing is defenting your beliefs, your religion, weather it be doing nothing or believing in a God, it is what you believe in. God placed the laws of science in order to sustain life..and when you are talking evolution, you are playing with science. if you would only look further than what you notice with your five sences, you don't even go that far sometimes. You go as far as you can safely so that you will not believe, if an area looks suspicious of possible "brainwashing" you go no further, and say it's not evidence.

 

lol