Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Incorrect. Evolution predicts that new features should only exist as modified versions of pre-existing features. There is nothing new or unique, and nothing arises from nothing. Mutation is a series of baby steps that adds up to very large differences only over a large number of iterations - just like walking will eventually take me to another state. I don't think you're stupid, thure. I just think that you're conclusions are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, and are based on definitions of evolution and mutation given by Creationist sources, and as such have been misrepresented to you, just as the typical Creationist arguments put forth on various websites.Saying that you are wrong, or pointing out the flaws in your logic and mistaken conceptions of the theories being argued does not mean I think you're an idiot. We have shown you. Copper resistance is a mutation that added diversity tot he gene pool - the resistance did not exist in one population, but some of that populations descendents developed it via mutation and formed a new species. Bacteria that, through mutation, develop resistance or immunity to antibiotics add diversity to the gene pool. These are well-documented, observed examples of new features rising out of old features through slight modifications - mutation. HOW? You accept that mutation exists - what mechanism do you propose that prevents the slow, gradual process of mutation from causing new species to develop from pre-existing species? Especially in the face of evidence! I think it's time for you to pony up your own proof. You've made a lot of claims and presented your "intention to show that it doesn't, cannot" account for the origin of species, but you haven't shown us any proof. I and others in the thread have done our research and legwork to show you the evidence - it's time for you to refute us with evidence of your own or conceed.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

GUILTY AS CHARGED! I will contend a lot, no most, 99.999% of evo supporters (most of the general public) can not support the evolution position well either which is why I came to this web site. To put my theories to the test.
What level of expertise would adequate to be worthy of discussion on this general public web site?

I really suggest that you read up on the other thread mentioned earlier. It is a fact that mutations occur and that they expand the gene pool.In fact even creationists have no option but to admit it. If there were no mutations and humans all descend from a single couple there could be at most four alleles per gene (i.e. 4 variants of each gene). In fact some human genes have tens or even hundreds of distinct alleles. You cannot deny that mutations expand the gene pool and also maintain that humans are all descended from one original pair.

The equivalent of a freshman-level college biology course, presuming that you paid attention, should grant you the familiarity you'll need to successfully grapple with the scientific theory of evolution.On the other hand if you're relying on what your teacher had to insinuate in high school, or what you think evolution says according to creationist sources, you're already hopelessly lost.

quote:

---

Sorry for not responding to your input, way too much to say not enough time.

---

Heh. Yeah, that happens; there are quite a lot of evolutionists here, and when one of the few creationists tries to get involved in a debate we kind of go into a feeding frenzy. When there are too many responses to a post, you have to do your best and reply to the ones you feel you have time for.-

quote:

---

Where are the faults in the evolution theory?

---

This is a very scientific question. This is a question that should be asked for any and all scientific theories, not just the theory of evolution.But be careful what you consider "faults". It is true that unexplained phenomena (which is what you seem to be trying to bring up) can be considered a "fault" of the theory. However, this often just means that our knowledge is incomplete and further investigation is needed to better understand the phenomenon. It is rare that a theory is abandoned just because there is something that is not explained.What any theory ultimately must rest on is how well the evidence fits into the theory. The main faults in a theory are not the phenomena that are left "unexplained", but the data that ends up contradicting the theory.To find "fault" with a theory (called falsification in the philosophy of science) is to find data that contradicts it. One determines what must be true if the theory were true, and then checks to see if this is indeed true.For example, Darwin's theory of evolution states that current species evolved from a fewer number of earlier species through the selection of randomly occurring variations. In Darwin's time the means of heredity (what we now call genetics) was completely unknown. Since then, genetics were discovered; that is, the units of heredity were genes which were passed to each subsequent generation -- this is Mendel's discovery. Well, for evolution to be true, these genes had to be able to undergo changes. With the discovery of molecular genetics (and DNA), had the replication of DNA been shown to be perfect, with no changes whatsoever being possible, evolution would have been falsified. Doulgas Theobald has written an essay giving several dozen pieces of evidence for the theory of evolution, and each piece of evidence is phrased in this way: "If evolution were true, we should see this; when we look, this is what we see. If evolution were true, we would not see that; when we look, that has never been seen."So this is the real test of a theory; simply pointing out phenomenon that are (as yet) unexplained do very little to discredit a theory. After all, just because we don't know an answer now does not mean we will never know an answer. In fact, that is why we still have scientists: there are still plenty of questions that we cannot answer and plenty of phenomena that we cannot explain in all the fields of science. The job of scientists to look for answers and explanations. If all the questions were answered, there would be no need to keep paying people to do research.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Believe me or not. BS in Physics with emphasis in nuclear science & Minor in mathematicsAs far as my exposure to creationist sources, I have been purposely avoiding them to reach fair conclusions on my own, you know scientific method.

This is an important point. It should not be lost in this rather general (and perhaps messy) thread.Please formulate the initial approach you are going to take to show how it could not account for the living things we see and post it as a proposed new topic.

Yeah, and what's going on when the little light changes from green to orange?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What is the metric that you use to measure and quantify this so that it can be compared in different speciation events?You obviously have a measurment system in order to make this statement, please share it.Or your statement is just one more unsubstantiated assertion based on incredulity and ignorance.Thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yup. Those degrees are pretty much going to be useless in regards to this subject.Did you take any biology while you were at college? An intro-level course would probably be sufficient; mine was.

Obviously the knowlege picked up in such a course of study would be of pretty much no use. But the ability to think things through and follow logical reasoning is far from useless. However, lots of knowlege and a problem with reasoning (Behe comes to mind) is a bigger problem than a short fall in knowlege.

Thure, thanks for replying to my post, I now feel privileged, or maybe 'cos I'm a newb here too, you think that I'm an easy target.Anyway, as you say I have read your previous posts and just do not understand how you can keep on saying this, if another form (carefully not saying species, so as not to offend you) is not genealogical diversity what the hell is?As Modulous says we (all life) are subsets, diversifying from a previous common ancestor, this as far as I understand is genealogical diversity.You are flogging a dead horse here, speciation is expanding the gene pool, and even if god did put the genetic starting place here, then evolution (OK, adaption if you prefer that word) took over from there (not that I personably have any problem with primordial abiogenesis), increasing genealogical diversity.You are not only flogging a dead horse here, but also digging it's (and your) grave.

My computer just split in the middle and divided into two, so I guess I'll have to accept ID.But wait, due to copying errors one is faster than the other, if I keep the faster one and it reproduces and I repeat the process, can a CRAY evolve?This message has been edited by DHR, 09-30-2005 09:25 PM

Well, I noticed the power-on light blink rate speed up a couple of times.Query: do you measure electronic orgasms in megabytes or milliwatts? My upload/download rates seem to have shot up lately.

I'd say megabytes--lot of money in size.