Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 118 (814)
12-17-2001 8:09 AM


I wish to turn a question on its head & pass it back to anti-evolutionists/creationists.
Evolution is the mechanism by which a species changes as random mutation is offered up to non-random natural selection.
There are two factors that have to be true for evolution to be happen.
Natural Selection; This phenomenon has been observed & documented. E.g Anti-Biotic resistant bacteria. DDT resistant Insects, & Galapagos Finches. In all three cases I give, measurable change are evident in decades, not millions of years.
Mutation; This is also observed & quantifiable.
The organic bases, Guamine, Thymine, Cytosine, & Adenine are grouped together in pairs (A & T, G & C) in DNA. Three pairs of bases forms a codon. There are 90,000,000 codons in 40,000 genes in a single strand of human DNA. In humans the rate of mutation is about 1 mutation every 1,000,000 codons. So in every cell division that takes place in our bodies there are on average, 90 mutations. In haploid cells, (sperm & egg) that contain only half the genetic information, 45 mutations will occur. This amounts to every human having 90 mutations in the first cell of their development (45 in the sperm, plus 45 in the egg). That is to say, there is information coded in every individuals DNA that has nothing to do with the information of their parents DNA.
To save myself from repeating myself, I give an account of how natural selection & mutation work together to allow evolution, in the "What is the evolutionairy theory on the Giraffe?" thread. So please take a look to get a better picture of what I’m on about.
So, within the framework of the information given, that evolution relies on only two factors, mutation & natural selection, both of which are known. Could any anti-evolutionist explain how evolution doesn’t happen?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 9:36 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 109 by burntdaisy622, posted 02-09-2004 11:07 AM mark24 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 118 (820)
12-17-2001 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
12-17-2001 8:09 AM


Creationist agree that adaptation occurs. Adaptation is evidence of a "good design."
Mutations do not proove evolution. Mutations are never "good" or helpful to an organism. The plant or animal that is mutated is always worse off than he was before.
Besides, even when mutations do occur, they only scramble the genetic information that is already there. Mutations do not and can not add information
I believe that the true reason why creationist can not prove creation is because athiest reject the holy spirit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 12-17-2001 8:09 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 9:41 AM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 12-17-2001 10:04 AM redstang281 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 118 (821)
12-17-2001 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by redstang281
12-17-2001 9:36 AM


The process of natural selection states that as the environment changes the animals either die or change with the environment.
The animals we have today appear to be adaquatly adapt in their environment, or at least enough to survive.
I believe evolutionist see it backwards. The animals appear adaquatly adapted because they are designed to work with the environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 9:36 AM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 118 (826)
12-17-2001 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by redstang281
12-17-2001 9:36 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[B]Creationist agree that adaptation occurs. Adaptation is evidence of a "good design." [QUOTE] What is the mechanism of this "adaption"
[QUOTE] Mutations do not proove evolution. Mutations are never "good" or helpful to an organism. The plant or animal that is mutated is always worse off than he was before. [QUOTE] How do you know this? A mutation that improved the oxygen affinity of haemaglobin would be positive, a few codons reversed/removed/added could do this, its only a molecule. There is no reason a given mutation can't be positive.
[QUOTE] Besides, even when mutations do occur, they only scramble the genetic information that is already there. Mutations do not and can not add information [QUOTE] Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed before, just by switching a few codons around.
To say it isn't new is like saying the new testament doesn't contain new information because its just the same letters arranged differently.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 9:36 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 10:15 AM mark24 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 118 (830)
12-17-2001 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
12-17-2001 10:04 AM


[b] [QUOTE] What is the mechanism of this "adaption"
[/b][/QUOTE]
I suppose it would be the ability to handle changes in the enviroment without becoming extinct. However, these traits are already present in the animal before the enviromental condition which causes them to appear occurs. There also reaches a point where no further change can occur. I believe this is apparent because the enviroment changes very dramatically sometimes, yet animals die out, and we witness no new species.
[b]
quote:
Mutations do not proove evolution. Mutations are never "good" or helpful to an organism. The plant or animal that is mutated is always worse off than he was before. [QUOTE] How do you know this? A mutation that improved the oxygen affinity of haemaglobin would be positive, a few codons reversed/removed/added could do this, its only a molecule. There is no reason a given mutation can't be positive.
[/b]
Do you know of an example of an animal with a good mutation?
[b] [QUOTE] Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed before, just by switching a few codons around.
[/b][/QUOTE]
The animal looses the same amount of information that it gains. And like I said, the gains are never good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 12-17-2001 10:04 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 12-17-2001 10:36 AM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 8 by nator, posted 12-17-2001 11:13 AM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 118 (835)
12-17-2001 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by redstang281
12-17-2001 10:15 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] The animal looses the same amount of information that it gains. And like I said, the gains are never good.[/QUOTE]
Information loss is irrelevent. New information is there. Also there are mutations that cause replication of lengths of DNA, so genetic material CAN be added, & subsequently mutated, giving more, new information.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the mechanism of this "adaption"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose it would be the ability to handle changes in the enviroment without becoming extinct. However, these traits are already present in the animal before the enviromental condition which causes them to appear occurs. There also reaches a point where no further change can occur. I believe this is apparent because the enviroment changes very dramatically sometimes, yet animals die out, and we witness no new species.
.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the mechanism?
Also, new species are being described all the time.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Do you know of an example of an animal with a good mutation?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
"Today bacteria are an important tool in the study of genetics and biotechnology, but for 40 years after the rediscovery of Mendel's work and the rebirth of genetics, they were considered too simple to have genes, undergo mutation, or reproduce sexually. This is not surprising - bacteria are so small that it's very difficult to study individuals. Scientists had long observed differences between bacterial colonies, but had never realized that these differences were the results of mutations.
It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant.
Two explanations for this unexpected variation confronted the scientific community: either (1) exposure to the virus had caused some small proportion of the bacteria to become immune and able to pass this immunity on to their offspring, or (2) the virus-resistant form already existed in the colony prior to the introduction of the virus - having arisen through mutation - and it was selected for by the addition of the virus.
To determine which explanation was correct, Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck, working together at Cold Spring Harbor during World War II, devised a test. According to Luria, his inspiration for the test was his observation of a colleague playing at a dime slot machine at a faculty dance. After consistently losing for some time, his friend finally hit the jackpot. Luria realized that if the slot machine distributed payoffs randomly, according only to chance, the payoff would usually be zero, occasionally be a few dimes, and almost never be a true jackpot. However, the machine he was observing had clearly been programmed to return an excess of both zeros and jackpots.
Luria returned to the lab and set up a large number of bacterial cultures, starting each one from only a small number of cells. He allowed the cultures to grow for a while, then added virus and counted how many bacteria survived (were resistant). He reasoned that if resistance was induced in bacteria randomly, in response to contact with a virus, it would be expected to occur at a zero or low level in all cultures - like the zero or small payoffs from a slot machine operating by chance. Alternatively, if resistance was the result of a mutation, the results would be analogous to the payoff from a programmed slot machine. Most bacteria in most cultures would not mutate, but if one did, it would reproduce and when the virus was added there would be many survivors - a jackpot! By looking at the fluctuations in the pattern of payoff (viral resistance), he and Delbruck could determine whether they were governed purely by chance or if the game was "rigged" by mutation.
It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.
By analyzing their data further, Luria and Delbruck were also able to determine the rate of bacterial mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant. The likelihood of any single bacterium mutating during each cell division was extremely low - only about one in a hundred million, explaining why it was so difficult to detect and study bacterial mutations. Luria and Delbruck were successful because they created a method that screened for the outcomes of such rare events. They screened for the mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant by exposing the cultures to the fatal virus. Other mutations, for which there was no such screening method, would have been almost impossible to detect. "
So there you have it. A repeatable experiment showing mutation & natural selection do indeed occur.
Now, can we return to my original post?
What stops evolution occurring given mutation & natural selection are observable.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-17-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 10:15 AM redstang281 has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 7 of 118 (839)
12-17-2001 10:53 AM


It seems time to once again bring up the two aspects of organic evolution:
1) The fact of evolution - The worldly evidence that, down through time, there has been a change in the life forms populating the earth. This is true, regardless of whether it be from the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or from a progression of God's creations.
2) The theory of evolution - Mutations, natural selection, etc.
I ask Redstang - Do you accept #1, the fact of evolution?
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 12:14 PM Minnemooseus has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 118 (842)
12-17-2001 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by redstang281
12-17-2001 10:15 AM


quote:
Mutations are never "good" or helpful to an organism. The plant or animal that is
mutated is always worse off than he was before.
This is completely incorrect, and is misinformation that has been repeated in Creationists circles for decades even though it has been shown to be wrong.
Most mutations are neutral, some are detrimental, and a few are helpful in regards to fitness.
This site explains:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#mutation
"Most mutations are thought to be neutral with regards to fitness. (Kimura defines neutral as |s| < 1/2Ne, where s is the selective coefficient and Ne is the effective population size.) Only a small portion of the genome of eukaryotes contains coding segments. And, although some non-coding DNA is involved in gene regulation or other cellular functions, it is probable that most base changes would have no fitness consequence."
quote:
Do you know of an example of an animal with a good mutation?
Yes. Me.
I do not have any lower wisdom teeth; not because they were pulled, but because they never existed in the first place.
Also, were you not following the giraffe thread very closely? The giraffe with the longer neck, in certain conditions, gets more food, and that is therefore a good result of a mutation.
You do realize that ANY variation in the individuals in a species is due to mutation, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 10:15 AM redstang281 has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 118 (843)
12-17-2001 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Minnemooseus
12-17-2001 10:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
It seems time to once again bring up the two aspects of organic evolution:
1) The fact of evolution - The worldly evidence that, down through time, there has been a change in the life forms populating the earth. This is true, regardless of whether it be from the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or from a progression of God's creations.
2) The theory of evolution - Mutations, natural selection, etc.
I ask Redstang - Do you accept #1, the fact of evolution?
Moose

What you consider evidence of evolution, I consider misinterpritations and in some cases even frauds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-17-2001 10:53 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 12-17-2001 2:01 PM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-17-2001 2:54 PM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 12 by nator, posted 12-18-2001 1:14 AM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 66 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-03-2002 1:00 AM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 118 (852)
12-17-2001 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by redstang281
12-17-2001 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
What you consider evidence of evolution, I consider misinterpritations and in some cases even frauds.

Ok bud lets talk about Lucy why is that find a fraud...
Or if not Lucy name a find to examine.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-17-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 12:14 PM redstang281 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 118 (855)
12-17-2001 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by redstang281
12-17-2001 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
What you consider evidence of evolution, I consider misinterpritations and in some cases even frauds.

The example I gave regarding mutating bacteria is proven by repeatable experiment. Whats to misinterpret? You will have to do better than baseless accusations of fraud.
In fact, the experiments I quoted were undertaken in 1943, creationists that you have listened to you knew this. Yet they lied to you when they said there was no evidence of selective positive mutations. They've been in denial ever since.
Back to my original challenge to creationists.
"What stops evolution occurring given mutation & natural selection are observable."
I have shown both natural selection & that selective positive mutations exist. So whats the problem with evolution. What stops it happening?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-17-2001]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-17-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 12:14 PM redstang281 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 118 (871)
12-18-2001 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by redstang281
12-17-2001 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
What you consider evidence of evolution, I consider misinterpritations and in some cases even frauds.

It is not enough to just wave your hands and simply declare "misinterpretation" and "fraud".
HOW are the evidences misinterpretations? What are your better explanations for each and every bit of evidence in support for evolution?
Why are there 4 identical nonfunctional retrovirus inserions in identical locations on the genome of both humans and chimpanzees? The only way that such things have been observed to happen is through inheritence, so the only way that the IDENTICAL ones could be there is if chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
Also, what is your criterion for knowing what is a "correct" interpretation or an incorrect one? In science, a theory is likely to be correct if it agrees well with findings that have come before it, and if it generates many predictions about future discoveries which are subsequently found.
I am guessing that your criterion for "correctness" is a particular narrow interpretation of a compilation of religious writings known as the Christian Bible. In other words, you believe you know, before you even examine any evidence, how you are "supposed" to find things. Am I correct in thinking that you think you know ahead of time what "must" be found in nature, and the evidence must be made to fit what you have decided "must" be found? You pick and choose among evidence to find support for what you consider to be "correct", is that right?
Provide specific evidence of fraud among Biologists, please, or retract your accusation. It is as insulting to blithely state that scientists are often liars as it is to state that many priests are pedophiles or many preachers embezzel money from their congrgations.
BTW, it would be nice if you answered one of my posts every once in a while, Redstang.
Allison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by redstang281, posted 12-17-2001 12:14 PM redstang281 has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 118 (873)
12-18-2001 6:19 AM


Just to be clear- the debate is NOT whether or not evolution occurs because evolution can mean many things. Evolution, being a change in allele frequency over time, is not what is being debated. Bacteria mutating into bacteria is not being debated. A virus mutating into a virus is not being debated.
Mark24:
The organic bases, Guamine, Thymine, Cytosine, & Adenine are grouped together in pairs (A & T, G & C) in DNA. Three pairs of bases forms a codon. There are 90,000,000 codons in 40,000 genes in a single strand of human DNA.
John Paul:
This is misleading. A codon is 3 bases- not 3 pairs of bases. For example an amino acid (triplet)is a codon. Also the number of genes in humans is still under investigation.
Biotech CEO Says Map Missed Much of Genome
What is being debated is if the observed evidence of evolution can be extrapolated to infer the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. In other words do small changes and eons of time = great transformations?
Extrapolating From Small Changes
Enough examples can be given to cast doubt on the speculation that mutations can just accumulate over eons of time to give rise to the alleged great transformations. For example- There isn't any observable, testable, repeatable or verifiable genetic or biological evidence to support the idea that giraffes evolved from 'short necked' ancestors.
The differences between a Creationist and an evolutionist, on the subject of evolution, are:
The starting point of evolution.
The extent that evolution can occur.
The apparent direction evolution is taking life.
The other point Creationists make is that we don't have to know life's origins (not necessarilly how life started but what population of organism(s) started life's diversity) in order to know how the mechanisms of life work and how to maintain that life.
Can you tell me what in biology would change if there is a limit to evolution? Would it affect HIV research? No. Would it affect immunology? No. All it would change is text books and peoples PoV.
Schrafinator:
Why are there 4 identical nonfunctional retrovirus inserions in identical locations on the genome of both humans and chimpanzees? The only way that such things have been observed to happen is through inheritence, so the only way that the IDENTICAL ones could be there is if chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
John Paul:
That is not so. Common mechanism is also another way to explain retr-viral insertions.
"If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.
The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp.
"
from:Pseudogenes: a description of the problem
------------------
John Paul

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 14 of 118 (900)
12-18-2001 5:37 PM


Mark24: Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed before
This is incorrect. I’ve been trained in and have been applying information science to my work for over 18 years. A new protein arising is no more new information than a new capacitance on a circuit board that suffers a short. Randomness destroys information. Randomness cannot build information. It is impossible.
But don’t take my word for it. Find a single information scientist in the world who agrees with you.
Information science is devastating to the evolutionist position. You simply cannot have a code without a sender. It deserves the status as a law of nature, since there are no known exceptions to this rule in all of human history. When Crick discovered DNA, it wasn’t long before he completely rejected NeoDarwinism because he knew it became impossible. Not improbable, but impossible (he did not want to let go of his humanism so opted for panspermia, or life from outerspace)
Mar24: Also there are mutations that cause replication of lengths of DNA, so genetic material CAN be added, & subsequently mutated, giving more, new information.
This is the only mechanism informed evolutionists propose for new genetic information — gene duplication followed by mutation. There are many problems with this. Random gene duplication is rare. When it does occur, it often causes harm, such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). If the duplication is neutral, the odds of a subsequent beneficial mutation are astronomically low. Even if we got a hypothetical beneficial mutation, the odds of it being recognized by selection are very low. In fact, evolutionists generally agree that a beneficial mutation has no better than a 1 in 50 chance of survival in a population! (Fisher, Futuyma, etc). Then there’s the problem of fixing the gene in the entire population. Haldane showed in mammals that this rate can be no better than 1 ever 30 generations in a large population (the problem is worse in a small population due to drift). It’s a pipe dream think evolution can proceed this way. There certainly is no empirical evidence to support this.
Mark24: So there you have it. A repeatable experiment showing mutation & natural selection do indeed occur.
This is one of the most common strawman arguments used by evolutionists. There is not a single creation scientist in the world who disputes random mutation and selection. Not one. What we dispute is that randomness and blind selection can create new information, such that you can evolve complex organs, wings, feathers, etc from scratch. It is impossible.
Mar24: What stops evolution occurring given mutation & natural selection are observable.
What stops evolution from moving upward is randomness. You guys really messed up when you made randomness a fundamental tenet. Blind selection cannot get you out of the mess. Information cannot build under these conditions. Worldclass mathematicians warned you guys of the problems back in the Wistar debates of the 60s. But you didn’t listen!

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by lbhandli, posted 12-18-2001 7:42 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-19-2001 7:00 AM Fred Williams has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 118 (913)
12-18-2001 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Fred Williams
12-18-2001 5:37 PM


You are terribly confused over evolution. Evolution isn't random. There are two random elements to it. In one case mutations are random in relation to fitness--not in occurrence as they are probabilistic events. Neutral drift is also a random process expected by genetics. Natural selection is quite clearly not random.
If you want to criticize evolution I would suggest you first take the time to understand the science.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 12-18-2001 5:37 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 4:55 PM lbhandli has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024