Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

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?

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

[QUOTE]Please name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
[/B][/QUOTE]First, I want to make clear that evolution DOES NOT CLAIM that new species are formed by random mutation ALONE, so your requiring it as evidence is irrelevant.However, if you want evidence of speciation at all, here you go: http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/Evo.html"Three species of goatsbeard are known to have been introduced to the area by European settlers around the turn of the century. These non-native species have hybridized and produced two new polyploid species.
Small populations of the new species were firs observed in the 1950s by Marion Ownbey, director of the herbarium at WSU, who studied polyploidy and the goatsbeards before the Soltises."

You will notice that at the bottom of each message, there is a line that reads "This message is a reply to message # XXX from Joe Schmoe.That is how you know who is replying to whom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Retro Crono:
[b]Alright, lets get back to the topic.

​

Firstly, as I will say again for you evolutionist that decide to turn a blind eye on my last post. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same thing, that is only a fools way of thinking. No matter how many micro-evolution changes take place it will NEVER EVER equal a macro-evolution change.[/QUOTE]

​

First of all, "NEVER EVER" is not scientific language.

​

Second, what mechanism prevents many small changes accumulating to large change?

​

The mechanism must be very well understood if you are so VERY, VERY sure that it can NEVER, EVER happen.

​

Please explain it, in detail.

​

quote:

---

Micro-evolution is the reshuffling of existing DNA information within each kind (notice I said kind, not species, new species do come about but they are always true to there kind and only degenerative versions of the last species going against the trend of evolution).

---

​

Please provide a precise, unambiguous definition of "kind". (I have yet to get this from any creationist, in over 3 years of asking)

​

quote:

---

Macro-evolution is the deriving of new DNA information, NOT THE RESHUFFLING (e.g. reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers).

---

​

The ToE doesn't claim that "reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers", so this is a meaningless argument.

​

quote:

---

They are totally different, WAKE UP, evolution has never occured, will never occur and as far as I'm concerned anyone believing in it hasn't got there head screwed on right.

---

​

Riiiiight. Gosh, you sure do sound like you are a scientist, with all of that "black and white" language.

​

quote:

---

It doesn't work, it is impossible.

---

​

Speciation has been observed.

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

​

[QUOTE]There is no proof of evolution so stop believing in your fairy tale.[/b]

---

Oh, yes, on the basis of your overwhelming evidence, I will stop accepting the evidence for common descent. Mmmmm.....ahhh. There, done it.LOL!BTW, You don't think that the "logical" alternative to science and Biology is Fundamentalist Christanity, do you?Now that I have traveled back in time 300 years intellectually and scientifically, I can also stop thinking that E=MC^2 ever existed. Space travel? Forget it. I can believe that there are canals on Mars, too.Here's another good one; fossils are rocks that spontaneously take on biological forms.If I get sick, all I have to do is get some leeches, and I will feel a lot better.It's so great!

[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:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by skibum_theory:
hey i'm new here, I'm a biology student at MSU. In response to the topic, can creationists show evolution never happened, I say no; but evolutionists can't show creation never happend too, its a double edged sword. My experience and research i have done shows that there is more evidence for an intelligent designer. The complexity of intracellular activities forces me to lean on intellignet designer side. big scale evolution, more than one cell, is easy to correlate and find similaries between differnt organisms, but how the molecular and chemical evoluion formed gradually, step-by-step is beyond me, and science so far. But lets get this part straight, stating one believes in an intelligent designer does not make them a religious, blind faith fanatic; they may just have weighed both sides of the scale and found one side more heavy. as incoherent as it may sound.

---

Are you saying that you think that ID is scientific?Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that ID is simply a modern way to say "God of the Gaps?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design.[/QUOTE]

​

Really? How so? How does one determine if something is designed or if it came about by natural processes?

​

[QUOTE]It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell) is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.
[/b]

---

If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites?If you don't think that the Bible should be taken as a scientific document, then why do you have a problem with the idea of common descent and the ToE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul: I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design.

---

quote:

---

schraf:Really? How so? How does one determine if something is designed or if it came about by natural processes?

---

quote:

---

John Paul:For one you could run it through Dembski's Design Explanatory filter and see what you get.

---

The part that is missing from Debski's filter is any allowance for saying "I don't know", or "we don't know yet".Let me ask the question in a different, less easily-avoided way:How can I tell the difference between something that MUST be intelligently-designed, and a natural process that we don't understand yet?If there is no way to tell the difference, then hopw can one EVER tell if somthing was designed, for sure?

quote:

---

JP: It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell)is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.

---

quote:

---

Schraf:If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites?

---

quote:

---

John Paul:And by the same token why do want me to believe that all of life's diversity arose from some as yet unknownpopulation(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce?

---

You avoided answering my question, so I'll ask it again:If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites? Now answer the question honestly instead of avoiding it.As for the second part of your question, I don't care what you believe or if you accept the evidence for Evolution. I care about the misrepresentation of science that you have been perpetrating, and I also care about the attempt by the Religious Right to co-opt the trappings and language of science to further it's own religious/political agenda.You are free to believe any religious teaching that you want to. You just cannot say it is science, because it is most certainly not science.

quote:

---

schraf:If you don't think that the Bible should be taken as a scientific document, then why do you have a problem with the idea of common descent and the ToE?

---

quote:

---

John Paul:Who said the Bible was a scientific document? Not I. The Bible is a collection of historical & philosophical documents. And guess what? It has been verified using science. Imagine that!

---

LOL!! Do you think that something becomes true if you say it out loud, or repeat it often enough?Talking donkeys and bushes have been verified by science? How about rabbits chewing their cud? I suppose that science has verified that bats are actually birds, too? The plagues of Moses were verified by science? Noah's Ark has been reportedly found at least 6 times in my lifetime, yet we never see it on display in any museum anywhere. (funny, that) The virgin birth and Jesus' resurection are scientifically-documented, too?

quote:

---

Further I don't see that the alleged evidence for CD/ToE is very compelling.

---

I do not think you look at the evidence honestly. I do not think you have doen much, if any, study of Biology, geology, or science in general. I think you confine yourself to reading that which confirms your preconceived notions about what you would like to be true. I know that you have not presented yourself as a straightforward debater, as you tend to avoid direct questions, and you tend to avoid talking about specific points of evidence. When cornered, you simply say; "It didn't/doesn't happen" or somesuch, or you ignore the points.
There are many questions that you just don't answer, because you can't, but yet you do not honestly say that you can't answer them.I think that you are more interested in hunkering down with your preferred belief and defending that belief, no matter what mental gymnastics you have to do to avoid really looking at the evidence.

quote:

---

Add that to the fact it doesn't matter at what life started in order to resolve its function and maintenace of.

---

The question of how life started is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE deals with life once it got here.If your problem is only with Abiogenesis then why do you have a problem with the ToE?