Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Mutations, ummm....how should I put this. Are very harmful to the DNA code, disordering the already existing information. Therefore, mutations are even more limiting than no mutations since mutations make the DNA code worse, not better. A heap of mutations won't just make a monkeys mind expand into a humans mind, perhaps rather limit it instead.

---

The first part about mutations being necessarily harmful is patently wrong, as is evidenced by my reply to Redstang281 at beginning of this thread (about halfway down 1st page). Put simply Bacteria mutated & were able to survive virus'.So the question remains, whats the limit?Also, if your going to condescend, you better make reeeeeeeeeeal sure of your information.

I consider bacteria and living systems to be very different things. Even though they both can be classed as living, bacteria does not know of its existance and living systems have a number of attributes that makes them seperatable. If you can tell me how a mutation can be benneficial (where talking about the evolving of living systems here) and prove that it didn't have that existing DNA information before I'd be interested in hearing it.I find you can easily draw a line on the biology of DNA. Why do you think you can't get a horse and a fox to successfully mate? Even though the horse supposedly evolved from the fox it just goes to show DNA isn't all free range like you seem to think.

RetroCrono,Ask a genuine question without condescending at me & I’ll try my best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
I consider bacteria and living systems to be very different things. Even though they both can be classed as living, bacteria does not know of its existance and living systems have a number of attributes that makes them seperatable.

​

---

That bacteria are living organisms is not in issue. Ask any of the better informed creationists here. A bacteria IS a living system, it needs nutrition, it respires, reproduces etc. It’s knowledge of its existence is utterly irrelevant, plants don’t either, nor does someone in a coma, what’s the diff? Separating bacteria from other life forms is a bit silly, you have single celled plants & animals that aren’t bacteria.
If you mean the difference between single & multicellular life, so what? The genetic stuffs the same. Again, don’t take my word for it ask any of the other creationists. The same processes are required for mutation, just asserting that it is single celled is irrelevant. Mutation that has a positive effect, & is then culled by natural selection, can & has entered a general population.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

If you can tell me how a mutation can be benneficial (where talking about the evolving of living systems here) and prove that it didn't have that existing DNA information before I'd be interested in hearing it.

---

Since you never read it, I’ll post again, so I apologise to other members."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. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

I find you can easily draw a line on the biology of DNA. Why do you think you can't get a horse and a fox to successfully mate? Even though the horse supposedly evolved from the fox it just goes to show DNA isn't all free range like you seem to think.

---

Who said DNA was free range?What is the biology of DNA?Horses & Foxes can’t mate because they are different species. Unless DNA is matched relatively closely no viable organism will result. The generally accepted definition of species is that of an organisms that can produce fertile young. Why fertile? Well, interestingly, the line is blurred between the point where organisms can produce young, & not produce young. It is possible for two closely related species to produce infertile hybrids. Eg Horse & donkey produce mules. There is NO species of mule, they are purely the product of horses & donkeys. I live in the UK where there is a fish group called cyprinids, these are represented by bream, roach, rudd, carp, chub, dace, they all can hybridise.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2001]

[QUOTE]Why do you think you can't get a horse and a fox to successfully mate? Even though the horse supposedly evolved from the fox it just goes to show DNA isn't all free range like you seem to think.[/B][/QUOTE]Others have already responded well to the rest of this post, but I just had to pipe up about your major confusion concerning horse evolution. (It is a special interest of mine)The horse was NEVER, EVER supposed to have evolved from the fox.Many older books on the evolutionary history of the horse state that the first horse, Hyracotherium (previously called Eohippus, or "Dawn Horse"), was the size of a fox-terrier.This is a strange inaccuracy that was perpetuated after some yet earlier books described Hyracotherium's size as "dog-like", and others called it "fox-like". Somewhere along the line the two descriptions were conflated, most likely in less-scholarly, popular books, and then Hyracotherium began to be described as the size of a "fox-terrier".I can only think that this is part of the source of your very mistaken idea that horses are descendents of foxes.However, I really can't imagine any legitimate scholarly or popular work dealing with horse or fox evolution would claim that this.Where did you hear that horses were supposed to be descended from foxes, anyway?

quote:

---

Where did you hear that horses were supposed to be descended from foxes, anyway?

---

Several evolutionist actually. My teacher for one and I can also remember reading a text book showing the artist conceptions from the fox to the horse.Anyway, one example is still pretty useless. I can name countless harmful mutations compared to only perhaps at best several useful mutations (even then I'm exagerating on the several). Now, I can remember reading that about 99.9% of mutations are harmful. If we compare that to what really would of happen you'll find the ToE is just plain wrong. I'll be really leanient and give you about 10% of useful mutations to work with. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was told how things evolve. Every several generations a new gene is formed. Using the leanient harmful to useful mutations ratio, this would most likely be a harmful mutation. Now, after 10 new genes have formed after about 30-100 generations, 9 harmful genes would have formed and 1 useful gene would have formed. How is it possible then that life went from unordered to ordered if in reality it gets worse. Just because you want to ignore God do you also get to ignore reality and comman sense as well? How did a monkey/ape's brain evolve into a superior thinking brain if it can only overall get dumber? Was it that everything was made perfect in the beginning much like the accounts of Genesis claim and since then everything has slowly been degerating, which, observing the evidence is what you see.When entering this topic again I found the name of this topic rather pointless. You have to define evolution. If your talking about can creationist show macro-evolution never happened then I can straight away say yes, since you are yet to show that it did happen, let alone possibly could. Nobody ignores micro-evolution, the evolving of new breeds/species within a kind. But I believe the true evolution that takes place is what goes on with each and every person. The evolving of there emotions and mind. However, just because someone evolves within there generation, doesn't mean they pass on evolved DNA blue prints. Your DNA blue print is decided upon when your born so that is what will be passed on. There's no survival of the fittest and natural selection evolving going on, that is just a Darwin myth. Would you care to explain why the Jewish still need to be circumsised, or why there are dogs that have had there tails docked for centuries yet they continue to be born with tails? This doesn't seem to fit in with this so called "evolving" going on.

Ignore that this post is here, somehow, not sure if it was by my own mistake. The post of mine before this one was repeated within this one. Anyhow, carry on...

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-26-2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]

quote:

---

Where did you hear that horses were supposed to be descended from foxes, anyway?

---

Several evolutionist actually. My teacher for one and I can also remember reading a text book showing the artist conceptions from the fox to the horse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

Anyway, one example is still pretty useless. I can name countless harmful mutations compared to only perhaps at best several useful mutations (even then I'm exagerating on the several). Now, I can remember reading that about 99.9% of mutations are harmful. If we compare that to what really would of happen you'll find the ToE is just plain wrong. I'll be really leanient and give you about 10% of useful mutations to work with. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was told how things evolve. Every several generations a new gene is formed. Using the leanient harmful to useful mutations ratio, this would most likely be a harmful mutation. Now, after 10 new genes have formed after about 30-100 generations, 9 harmful genes would have formed and 1 useful gene would have formed. How is it possible then that life went from unordered to ordered if in reality it gets worse. Just because you want to ignore God do you also get to ignore reality and comman sense as well? How did a monkey/ape's brain evolve into a superior thinking brain if it can only overall get dumber? Was it that everything was made perfect in the beginning much like the accounts of Genesis claim and since then everything has slowly been degerating, which, observing the evidence is what you see.

​

---

One example that proves CONCLUSIVELY that positive mutation a/ happens b/ becomes general to a population via natural selection is enough. Look up conclusively. It happened & saying it didn’t won’t help.Latest information indicates that most mutations are neutral, only a small proportion being negative or positive. Get a recent textbook.Those several evolutionists should be horsewhipped. I suggest you don’t listen to them. The evolution of the horse NEVER suggested it evolved from a fox. I doubt the fossil record shows foxes at the time of Hyracotherium.How did a monkey/ape's brain evolve into a superior thinking brain if it can only overall get dumber?This is your inference, not ToE.and since then everything has slowly been degerating, which, observing the evidence is what you see.Evidence pls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

When entering this topic again I found the name of this topic rather pointless. You have to define evolution. If your talking about can creationist show macro-evolution never happened then I can straight away say yes, since you are yet to show that it did happen, let alone possibly could. Nobody ignores micro-evolution, the evolving of new breeds/species within a kind. But I believe the true evolution that takes place is what goes on with each and every person. The evolving of there emotions and mind. However, just because someone evolves within there generation, doesn't mean they pass on evolved DNA blue prints. Your DNA blue print is decided upon when your born so that is what will be passed on. There's no survival of the fittest and natural selection evolving going on, that is just a Darwin myth. Would you care to explain why the Jewish still need to be circumsised, or why there are dogs that have had there tails docked for centuries yet they continue to be born with tails? This doesn't seem to fit in with this so called "evolving" going on.

---

I did define it. In my very first post, no less. I should have included the mechanism of neutral drift, recombination, & lateral gene transfer, but the definition stands.If your talking about can creationist show macro-evolution never happened then I can straight away say yes, since you are yet to show that it did happen, let alone possibly could.That I can’t observe it happening it doesn’t mean it didn’t/isn’t. Do you realise the implication for your God, if you apply this statement to him? LOLHow do you have micro-evolution that you accept, without natural selection that you don’t accept?My DNA blueprint was decided when i was CONCEIVED, not born.Regarding Jews, nobody HAS to be circumcised, it’s a religious practice & what this has to do with nat sel I don’t know!! If Jews stopped ritual circumcision today, they would be no better/worse off than other people who are uncircumcised. GOOD GRIEF!The genetic information in a dog that makes it have a tail is not contained in the tail!!!! So when dogs breed they SHOULD have a tail, even if they’re docked at birth. GOOD GRIEF!! They could be bred not to have one, given enough time selecting dogs with shorter tails than others, & breeding them. Kind of unnatural selection.The rest of the personal evolution is waffle & has nothing to do with the genetic processes at issue.There are plenty of examples of natural selection, rather than me do a web search, you take a stroll on the net for yourself. I don't mean Answers in Genesis either.RetroCrono, I say this with respect, because we all have to learn it somewhere. But this post has just made you look a bit silly, regarding docked tails & Jews. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of ToE, genetics & heredity. The simple stuff. If you have made such a decision that evolution couldn't have happened, then you have clearly done it from a position of ignorance.Count yourself lucky I got to this post before Schrafinator.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-26-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-26-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-26-2001]

My point still stands, you obviously didn't see the point I was trying to make about dogs or the Jews. Wouldn't they have evolved to "adapt", like the dolphin began to "adapt to the water. You admit the DNA is decided upon conception, so then how can anything possibly evolve to suit there environment. The DNA you get when your conceived is what you'll pass on. Meaning, with in each creatures life what ever evolving/adapting goes on won't be passed on and that was the point I was trying to make with the dogs and the Jews. You openly admitted that with your last reply that this is the case, so how do things evolve. Don't just tell me look at sites on the net as they tell me nothing, except "survival of the fittest", "Gene Flow", "Mutations", "Natural Selection", etc. I know all that and it is all pretty much wrong. Saying stuff like Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents is absurd. Of course there not identical, but they are the exact make up of there parents meaning they cannot be anything but a make up of there parents. The reason they will stay within there kind is because they cannot bread outside of there kind, Gene flow is impossible, it will never work. Mutations are almost always harmful, you give me one case of a useful mutation and that is it, some other evolutionist know a few others but not many. Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth and I could go on for ages. Just ask and I will, that is clear cut evidence that things get worse.Why has it made me look silly, I've got you right where I want you. You admitted exactly the point I was trying to make, if your DNA is decided upon when your conceived (yeah, I made a mistake about saying born but the point was still there) then anything that goes on with in anythings life time as in evolving and adapting to there environment will not be passed on. I made this point quite clear with the Jews and the dogs and you could clearly see that this won't do anything. So then how do things evolve? I can see you don't know, and just leaving it up to make believe stuff like survival of the fittest will not answer the question at hand. I know I only have a basic understanding of genetics & hereidty. Enough to know evolution cannot be possible. I know that these laws were published after Darwin who believed it was all chance, perhaps evolution would be possible then. But it is now widely known it is decided upon precise mathematical ratios. Therefore a human will always be a human, a dog will be a dog, a cat will be a cat. I also know it states that life must come from life. In Darwins time they thought magots could just arrise from the garbage. Yet we know that the eggs must be laid there. How big a law does evolution want to break here. I know they've seen microscopic organism form but this is drasctically different then a structured ordered living system. Does evolution not break this law? Perhaps in the 1800's evolution might have been science, but now in the light of real science it doesn't work. Why do so many people still believe it is possible since science dissaproves it? Like Einstein's Big Bang Theory clearly forgets the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know what you'll say to that. Gravity is what made it all ordered. But saying how it went about doing the impossible still does not justify for it doing the impossible.Sorry guys, you are very unconvincing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
My point still stands, you obviously didn't see the point I was trying to make about dogs or the Jews. Wouldn't they have evolved to "adapt", like the dolphin began to "adapt to the water. You admit the DNA is decided upon conception, so then how can anything possibly evolve to suit there environment. The DNA you get when your conceived is what you'll pass on. Meaning, with in each creatures life what ever evolving/adapting goes on won't be passed on and that was the point I was trying to make with the dogs and the Jews. You openly admitted that with your last reply that this is the case, so how do things evolve. Don't just tell me look at sites on the net as they tell me nothing, except "survival of the fittest", "Gene Flow", "Mutations", "Natural Selection", etc. I know all that and it is all pretty much wrong. Saying stuff like Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents is absurd. Of course there not identical, but they are the exact make up of there parents meaning they cannot be anything but a make up of there parents. The reason they will stay within there kind is because they cannot bread outside of there kind, Gene flow is impossible, it will never work. Mutations are almost always harmful, you give me one case of a useful mutation and that is it, some other evolutionist know a few others but not many. Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth and I could go on for ages. Just ask and I will, that is clear cut evidence that things get worse.

​

---

EXACTLY what was your point regarding docked tails & Jews circumcision?I have given you a case where a positive mutation & natural selection occurs. Argue with the conclusion if you wish, blanket statements that it can’t happen, when I have shown it does will not help.blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growthhow is heart failure a mutation? Or collapsed lung? Or AIDS (the virus!) deafness & blindness can both be caused by recessive genes & not mutation, man you’re a peach!I didn’t admit you get the DNA from conception, I pointed it out to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

Why has it made me look silly, I've got you right where I want you. You admitted exactly the point I was trying to make, if your DNA is decided upon when your conceived (yeah, I made a mistake about saying born but the point was still there) then anything that goes on with in anythings life time as in evolving and adapting to there environment will not be passed on. I made this point quite clear with the Jews and the dogs and you could clearly see that this won't do anything. So then how do things evolve? I can see you don't know, and just leaving it up to make believe stuff like survival of the fittest will not answer the question at hand. I know I only have a basic understanding of genetics & hereidty. Enough to know evolution cannot be possible. I know that these laws were published after Darwin who believed it was all chance, perhaps evolution would be possible then. But it is now widely known it is decided upon precise mathematical ratios. Therefore a human will always be a human, a dog will be a dog, a cat will be a cat. I also know it states that life must come from life. In Darwins time they thought magots could just arrise from the garbage. Yet we know that the eggs must be laid there. How big a law does evolution want to break here. I know they've seen microscopic organism form but this is drasctically different then a structured ordered living system. Does evolution not break this law? Perhaps in the 1800's evolution might have been science, but now in the light of real science it doesn't work. Why do so many people still believe it is possible since science dissaproves it? Like Einstein's Big Bang Theory clearly forgets the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know what you'll say to that. Gravity is what made it all ordered. But saying how it went about doing the impossible still does not justify for it doing the impossible.

​

Sorry guys, you are very unconvincing.

---

How is Einsteins 2nd Law ignored by the big bang?I await your description in detail, & conclusion of circumcised Jews & docked dogs tails re. evolution, with anticipation. Please assume I know nothing, & you're explaining it to someone who has never heard of heredity/genetics/evolution before.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

When I was referring to your DNA being decided upon from when your born I just meant you have your DNA from the moment you enter the world and that is what will be passed on, no evolved or adapted to the environment DNA is passed on. I admit I made a mistake by saying born but my point was still there. If that is the case, how can things evolve for there environment? I was just using Jews and dogs as examples that you pass on your DNA from when you were conceived, not by what adapting or evolving happened within its life tine. Evolution is entirely fixed around life adapting to there surroundings. Yet how can this be if no adapted or evolved DNA is really being passed on?If you don't get that than I'm sorry.When referring about the bad mutations. Well, that doesn't necassarily have to be just mutations. I was just showing that life has become more degenerated and disordered which completely out ways that of better mutations, ordering, etc. The ratio is totally uneven and I cannot possibly see how life gets more advanced learning all this new information from some mysterious source if it is without doubt overall going to get worse.

quote:

---

How is Einsteins 2nd Law ignored by the big bang?

---

Your kidding right. Can you not see how it doesn't? I can remember hearing a creation argument about the earth couldn't have become more ordered since that goes against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I saw the fault with this straight away, the earth isn't a closed system and that was the evolutionary reply. No surprise there. But I like to look at the big picture. The entire universe! It exists only within itself so that can be classed as a closed system. An explosion is a mess, which can clearly be seen by any nuclear bomb. However, the big bang supposedly went off then went about going against the 2nd Law and forming ordered planets, galaxies, etc. Why would the biggest thing that possibly could of happened break its own scientific laws? I heard the evolutionary reply that the gravity ordered it. Why does it matter what caused it to go against this law? Whether you like it or not, saying how it went about doing the impossible DOES NOT JUSTIFY it for doing the IMPOSSIBLE.Anyway, if you cannot possibly work out in your own head how evolution is impossible without people making up wrong excuses for it all the time, then sorry you cannot be helped.This is going to be my last post on this forum. All you evolutionist are just so boring, anytime I bring up something valid you skip over it, try find a little technicallity then expand on it simply because the question is to hard, "evolution makes no such claim", "man you’re a peach!", and so on. Sorry, replies like that are doing little to defend your imaginery beliefs.BTW, I'm not really a creationist. I just know evolution is wrong. I only argued for that side since there is only a choice of being one or the other on this forum. I know God exists and that is something you can never take away from me as what you don't know will never convince me for what I do know. Deny His existance all you like, it won't make Him non-existant. However He went about getting us here is really not that big of a deal as I already know He exists. One thing is for sure though, it wasn't evolution!

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-27-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
I was just using Jews and dogs as examples that you pass on your DNA from when you were conceived,

​

---

No, you weren't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

There's no survival of the fittest and natural selection evolving going on, that is just a Darwin myth. Would you care to explain why the Jewish still need to be circumsised, or why there are dogs that have had there tails docked for centuries yet they continue to be born with tails? This doesn't seem to fit in with this so called "evolving" going on.

---

You were telling me natural selection never happened, & asked me to explain why Jews still need to be circumcised, & why dogs that have had their tails docked for centuries are still born with tails.I'm asking how this shows natural selection, or "so called evolving" never happened.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Regarding the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics, the universe is only a closed system if it is finite. This is unknown.Secondly, you're essentially claiming that from the initial conditions of the big bang, no greater order could arise. Why do electrons, protons & neutrons so readily form atoms? Why, if energy is supplied to chemical systems do they form more complex molecules? Clearly proving you wrong.In a closed system FINITE universe, entropy will increase. But a finite universe is made of many open systems, allowing molecules of greater complexity to form. In the end this finite system will run out of gas, but in the meantime it ticks along very nicely.The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics does not contravene the big bang. So no, I'm not kidding.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001]

quote:

---

RetroCrono, I say this with respect, because we all have to learn it somewhere. But this post has just made you look a bit silly, regarding docked tails & Jews. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of ToE, genetics & heredity. The simple stuff. If you have made such a decision that evolution couldn't have happened, then you have clearly done it from a position of ignorance.

---

Hey, RetroCrono, your ideas about the heritability of aquired characteristics is pure Lamarckianism, not Darwinism at all. Who was Lamarck, You might ask? Read about him here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/07169.htmlI suggest you slow down with the writing and go do a LOT of reading about the history of science, the scientific method, and Biology.

quote:

---

Count yourself lucky I got to this post before Schrafinator.

---

What are you trying to say? ROTFLMAO!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[B]My point still stands, you obviously didn't see the point I was trying to make about dogs or the Jews. Wouldn't they have evolved to "adapt", like the dolphin began to "adapt to the water.[/QUOTE]No, they wouldn't, because there is no selection pressure to BREED no foreskins on the people or to BREED short tails on the dogs. There is no such thing as inherited acquired characteristics. IOW, if it doesn't happen through genetic inheritence, it will not be passed on.If you have a big nose and have a nose job, your kids still might have a big nose. No Biologist claims that Evolution works this way, do this is a false argument, again.

quote:

---

You admit the DNA is decided upon conception, so then how can anything possibly evolve to suit there environment.

---

INDIVIDUALS do not evolve. POPULATIONS evolve.Those individuals in a population which are better suited to the current environment will be more sucessful at reproduction, and those less-suited to the current environment will be less sucessful. Therefore, the genes of the better-adapted individuals will become more plentiful in the population in general.

quote:

---

The DNA you get when your conceived is what you'll pass on. Meaning, with in each creatures life what ever evolving/adapting goes on won't be passed on and that was the point I was trying to make with the dogs and the Jews. You openly admitted that with your last reply that this is the case, so how do things evolve.

---

Like I said above, individuals do not evolve, populations do, and the inheritence of acquired characteristics doesn't happen.

quote:

---

Don't just tell me look at sites on the net as they tell me nothing, except "survival of the fittest", "Gene Flow", "Mutations", "Natural Selection", etc.

---

All of those terms don't seem to amount to "nothing". Do you understand what all of these terms mean? If not, what are your specific confusions?The Evolution for Beginners site I provided to you is in very plain language and should be understandable to most people. Have you looked at it? www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.htmlRemember, give yourself some time to learn all of this new information. Do not expect to be able to immediately absorb and understand what some of us have been studying for many years. We can help you with your questions.

quote:

---

I know all that and it is all pretty much wrong. Saying stuff like Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents is absurd. Of course there not identical, but they are the exact make up of there parents meaning they cannot be anything but a make up of there parents.

---

Offspring having an "exact" genetic makup of their parents would be clones of their parents. If you agree that offspring are not clones of the parents, then you agree that they are genetically different.There is genetic crossover during meiosis. There is also mutation. Both of these phenomena are documented and observed.You covering your ears and repeating, "DOESN'T HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN!!" doesn't mean they are any less observed.

quote:

---

The reason they will stay within there kind is because they cannot bread outside of there kind,

---

Please precisely and unambigously define "kind". I have been asking creationists for years to do this and I have never gotten a straight answer. Can you provide?

quote:

---

Gene flow is impossible, it will never work.

---

This is an empty assertion if you do not show me how it will never work. Show me your evidence that it will not work and I will consider it.

quote:

---

Mutations are almost always harmful, you give me one case of a useful mutation and that is it, some other evolutionist know a few others but not many. Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth and I could go on for ages.

---

ROTFL! Many things besides heredity can cause all the maladies you list. In fact, hardly any illnesses you list are the result of mutations. AIDS is NOT a genetic disease, but a communicable one! My goodness, think before you write!If you think AIDS is a genetic disease, I strongly suggest talking to your doctor about how one contracts sexually-transmitted diseases. Your life is at stake here.

quote:

---

Just ask and I will, that is clear cut evidence that things get worse.

---

Mark asked for evidence, and now I am, too. What evidence do you have for your claim?

quote:

---

Why has it made me look silly, I've got you right where I want you.

---

Wow. All I can say is, wow.

quote:

---

You admitted exactly the point I was trying to make, if your DNA is decided upon when your conceived (yeah, I made a mistake about saying born but the point was still there) then anything that goes on with in anythings life time as in evolving and adapting to there environment will not be passed on.

---

Like I said, individuals do not evolve, populations do.

quote:

---

I made this point quite clear with the Jews and the dogs and you could clearly see that this won't do anything.

---

No, you were criticizing an idea that was outdated by Darwins time, and pretty much obliterated by the time Genetics came along.It's another strawman. [QUOTE]So then how do things evolve? I can see you don't know, and just leaving it up to make believe stuff like survival of the fittest will not answer the question at hand. I know I only have a basic understanding of genetics & hereidty. Enough to know evolution cannot be possible.[QUOTE] You have not demonstrated any such basic knowledge. Any college Biology 101 course will mention Lamarckianism in it's section on Genetics, yet you thought that inheritence of acquired characteristics is a tennet of Darwinism. [QUOTE]I know that these laws were published after Darwin who believed it was all chance,[QUOTE] NO, NO, NO. It is not "all chance". Mutations are random, but natural selection is not random.

quote:

---

perhaps evolution would be possible then. But it is now widely known it is decided upon precise mathematical ratios.

---

Please explain what "ratio" you are talking about. 3:2? What? [QUOTE] I also know it states that life must come from life. In Darwins time they thought magots could just arrise from the garbage. Yet we know that the eggs must be laid there.[QUOTE] "Spontaneous Generation" and "Abiogenesis" are ideas that have nothing at all to do with the ToE. they are seperate theories.

quote:

---

How big a law does evolution want to break here. I know they've seen microscopic organism form but this is drasctically different then a structured ordered living system. Does evolution not break this law?

---

The ToE apples only to life. Theories dealing with how the first life appeared are separate.

quote:

---

Perhaps in the 1800's evolution might have been science, but now in the light of real science it doesn't work. Why do so many people still believe it is possible since science dissaproves it?

---

Bald asserions do not convince. Repeating assertions does not make the assertion more credible. You have made it abundantly clear that you have not studied the subject, so why do you feel comfortable making such outlandish assertions?

quote:

---

Like Einstein's Big Bang Theory clearly forgets the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

---

There is so much wrong with this sentence, I hardly know where to start.Einstein did not produce the Big Bang Theory.
His General Theory of Relativity helped astronomers figure it out, but Einstein himself felt that a static universe was more likely. The 2ndLaw was used in developing the Big Bang model, so it couldn't have been "forgotten". http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

quote:

---

I know what you'll say to that. Gravity is what made it all ordered. But saying how it went about doing the impossible still does not justify for it doing the impossible.

---

Why are we talking about this? This has nothing to do with the ToE.Although, it does show that you are as uninformed in Cosmology as you are in Biology.

quote:

---

Mark: Latest information indicates that most mutations are neutral, only a small proportion being negative or positive. Get a recent textbook.

---

I have several, including Futuyma’s college undergrad textbook Evolutionary Biology. You are perpetuating a false claim that has been quite rampant on the internet. Most informed evolutionists believe mutations are nearly neutral, on the side of slightly harmful, not neutral. There is a difference. Following is a graph from the book. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/mutation_dist.jpgThe claim that most mutations are nearly neutral is a hypothesis (despite evolutionists attempts to label it a theory) with little evidence to support it (though I believe the graph may be a reasonable guess).FYI, informed evolutionists wanted more neutral mutations to lower the reproductive cost problem. This was the primary reason Kimura proposed the neutral theory in the first place:Under the assumption that the majority of mutant substitutions at the molecular level are carried out by positive natural selection, I found that the substitutional load in each generation is so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it. This was the main argument used when I presented the neutral mutation-drift hypothesis of molecular evolution — The Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution, M. Kimura, 1983, p 26

I can’t help but butt-in to schrafinator’s post to RetroCrono, as it is laced with incorrect claims & strawmen.

quote:

---

Hey, RetroCrono, your ideas about the heritability of aquired characteristics is pure Lamarckianism, not Darwinism at all I suggest you slow down with the writing and go do a LOT of reading about the history of science, the scientific method, and Biology.

---

I would suggest you take your own advice. Apparently you are no aware that Darwin espoused Lamarckism.Not only Lamarck but also other 19th-century biologists, including Darwin, accepted the inheritance of acquired traits. — "heredity" Encyclopdia Britannica Online. http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=120932&sctn=2

quote:

---

There is genetic crossover during meiosis. There is also mutation. Both of these phenomena are documented and observed. You covering your ears and repeating, "DOESN'T HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN!!" doesn't mean they are any less observed.

---

Strawman. No creation scientist I know of disputes crossover or mutation, nor do I see creationists on this board disputing this.

quote:

---

RetroCrono: Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth

​

schrafinator: ROTFL! Many things besides heredity can cause all the maladies you list. In fact, hardly any illnesses you list are the result of mutations.

---

You should get off the floor and allow us to ROTFL. With exception to aids, genetic mutation has most certainly been associated with ALL of the other human maladies listed. Some are somatic, other germinal. BTW, mutation, indirectly, is likely responsible for the aids virus (mutations of a good virus made it a bad virus).

quote:

---

schrafinator: Mark asked for evidence, and now I am, too. What evidence do you have for your claim?

---

You guys seem to be avoiding my article like the plague: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm

quote:

---

No, you were criticizing an idea that was outdated by Darwins time, and pretty much obliterated by the time Genetics came along. It's another strawman.

---

As I showed above, Lamarckism was endorsed by Darwin. It did not become outdated until after the 1930s.

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 12-28-2001]