Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 367 (30080)
01-23-2003 9:30 PM


I'm new here. Can you please answer this question for me?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MRC_Hans, posted 01-24-2003 6:41 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 3 by nator, posted 01-24-2003 8:56 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 4 by DanskerMan, posted 01-24-2003 4:06 PM drummachine has not replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 11:38 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 235 by Rich, posted 03-01-2003 10:02 AM drummachine has not replied

MRC_Hans
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 367 (30093)
01-24-2003 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM


Well, just in general? In the published results of 150 years of research.
Most prominent evidence? IMHO, the very way nature is put together; the whole family three of species, ecosystems, food chains, the competitive nature of -nature.
Hans

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2250 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 367 (30103)
01-24-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 367 (30131)
01-24-2003 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM


That's a very good question..and the answer is the evidence points toward creation and not evolution. As you'll see if you really seek the truth, there is no evidence for macro-evolution (changing from one species to another gradually over time)..however there is variation within a species, as in different kinds of dogs, or finches or salmon...but these species never become a different species...this kind of minor variation within the species is called micro-evolution. You'll see that nobody argues over that one. But it seems that every evolutionist wants to extrapolate micro to macro by arguing that if little changes can happen why can't big?
In reality, you have probably noticed that everything around you has been designed by an intelligent designer (cars, houses, bridges, watches, etc)...life and this universe we live in, is so much more complex than those things...only an Intelligent Designer (God) could have created it.
Try these instead:
Creation SuperLibrary [HOME] - a feature of ChristianAnswers.Net
Northwest Creation Network
Page not found | Creation Safaris
Answers in Genesis
http://www.trueorigin.org/
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 01-24-2003 4:13 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 118 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 4:26 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 367 (30134)
01-24-2003 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DanskerMan
01-24-2003 4:06 PM


"In reality, you have probably noticed that everything around you has been designed by an intelligent designer (cars, houses, bridges, watches, etc)...life and this universe we live in, is so much more complex than those things...only an Intelligent Designer (God) could have created it."
These things such as cars, houses, bridges, and even Paley's watch are all designed by people and use components that also have various other designers. Who designed and create the people that created the cars, houses, bridges, watches, etc?
Can you support your answer with evidence or just assumptions?
Best Wishes
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DanskerMan, posted 01-24-2003 4:06 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Bald ape
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 367 (30153)
01-24-2003 8:40 PM


"In reality, you have probably noticed that everything around you has been designed by an intelligent designer (cars, houses, bridges, watches, etc)...life and this universe we live in, is so much more complex than those things...only an Intelligent Designer (God) could have created it."
These thing have all evolved as well, evolution does not only work on an organic level but also on an "information" level where information is accumulated via new ideas, testing existing theories and melding them together which refines our knowledge giving way to newer ideas and greater understanding.
For example the watch... Someone had to invent the metals, the wheel, the cog, the spring, etc. When all these things were invented the first clocks could be built. It was many years of continual refinement before a simple watch could be built. I do not see how a complex watch can can be sighn of creation rather a glaringly obvious example of evolution! The same is true of all the examples you give.
Bald ape

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by DanskerMan, posted 01-24-2003 11:40 PM Bald ape has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 367 (30155)
01-24-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bald ape
01-24-2003 8:40 PM


Your definition of evolution is then something like "gradual change over time"...that's fine for things like car "evolution", but that doesn't explain macro-evolution. Also, like the watch, ALL the components were DESIGNED, they didn't just magically make themselves from star dust and then adhere and interlock with each other to form a watch by unbelievable odds. A designer or designers, were involved in your information scenario. We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!!
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bald ape, posted 01-24-2003 8:40 PM Bald ape has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 01-24-2003 11:46 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 1:34 PM DanskerMan has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1786 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 367 (30157)
01-24-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DanskerMan
01-24-2003 11:40 PM


quote:
Your definition of evolution is then something like "gradual change over time"...that's fine for things like car "evolution", but that doesn't explain macro-evolution. Also, like the watch, ALL the components were DESIGNED, they didn't just magically make themselves from star dust and then adhere and interlock with each other to form a watch by unbelievable odds. A designer or designers, were involved in your information scenario. We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!!
Just a quick question here, S. Just who designed the designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DanskerMan, posted 01-24-2003 11:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Bald ape
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 367 (30162)
01-25-2003 4:56 AM


Hang on one sec!!!!
I said nothing about explaining biological evolution, I simply put sonnikkes (your) statement into perspective in regards to the development of technology.
"Also, like the watch, ALL the components were DESIGNED, they didn't just magically make themselves from star dust and then adhere and interlock with each other to form a watch by unbelievable odds. A designer or designers, were involved in your information scenario. We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!!"
No the components didnt just magically make themselves, components were developed one step at a time buy people... or are you saying that everything we create the idea is given to us by "God". If this is the case, this would mean that Darwins ideas were implanted by "God"... I realy cant see what role "God" played in making a complex watch, and the notion that he did realy undermines the whole idea of "Free thought"!
Your thoughts on this are?
Bald ape

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by David unfamous, posted 01-25-2003 11:51 AM Bald ape has not replied

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 367 (30170)
01-25-2003 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bald ape
01-25-2003 4:56 AM


We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!
That is either a statement from ignorance, or a conscious lie. Unless you have evidence of what a 'supreme god' can and cannot create, and whether there is such a thing as a supreme god, or any gods, or how your logic explains how life cannot possibly exist without design yet a god can just exist without design, then have a good think about what you're saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bald ape, posted 01-25-2003 4:56 AM Bald ape has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:07 PM David unfamous has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7746 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 11 of 367 (30211)
01-25-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by David unfamous
01-25-2003 11:51 AM


Hi Dave,
In response to:
We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!
You say:
That is either a statement from ignorance, or a conscious lie. Unless you have evidence of what a 'supreme god' can and cannot create, and whether there is such a thing as a supreme god, or any gods, or how your logic explains how life cannot possibly exist without design yet a god can just exist without design, then have a good think about what you're saying.
I say:
Design can be concluded from genetic redundancies. If they don't demonstrate association with gene duplication and do not change faster than essential genes they can be taken as proof for design. That's exactly what we see in life. So, the debate can be concluded: design.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by David unfamous, posted 01-25-2003 11:51 AM David unfamous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-25-2003 8:15 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 18 by David unfamous, posted 01-26-2003 8:40 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 28 by MRC_Hans, posted 01-28-2003 2:37 AM peter borger has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 367 (30214)
01-25-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
01-25-2003 8:07 PM


Dr Borger said: 'Animal phyla archetypes were created sometime during the Cambrian with a MPG, then they [d]evolved into various creatures we see today.'
Now, does the derived creatures have a more limited genome than the ancestral creatures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:32 PM Andya Primanda has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7746 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 367 (30220)
01-25-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Andya Primanda
01-25-2003 8:15 PM


Dear Andya,
AP: Dr Borger said: 'Animal phyla archetypes were created sometime during the Cambrian with a MPG, then they [d]evolved into various creatures we see today.'
Now, does the derived creatures have a more limited genome than the ancestral creatures?
PB: That depends. The GUToB says that adaptive phenotypes can arise through loss of (redundant) genes/DNA elements, or through duplication of preexisting genes/DNA elements. So, both mechanisms are possible. Therefore, a derived creature can have a more diverse genome. It is not the DNA content (amount) that matters, it is the quality (interactions) of the DNA content.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-25-2003 8:15 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-25-2003 8:40 PM peter borger has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 367 (30221)
01-25-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
01-25-2003 8:32 PM


Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know that you:
1.
quote:
adaptive phenotypes can arise through loss of (redundant) genes/DNA elements,
refuted Behe (this is Thornhill & Ussery's 'scaffolding' argument)
2.
quote:
through duplication of preexisting genes/DNA elements.
quote:
So, both mechanisms are possible. Therefore, a derived creature can have a more diverse genome.
refuted the 'information loss' theorists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:32 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:56 PM Andya Primanda has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7746 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 15 of 367 (30223)
01-25-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Andya Primanda
01-25-2003 8:40 PM


Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know that you:
1.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adaptive phenotypes can arise through loss of (redundant) genes/DNA elements,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
refuted Behe (this is Thornhill & Ussery's 'scaffolding' argument)
PB: I don't know how anybody can refuse that genes can get lost? We see it all the time. However, according to my knowledge Behe does not work with MPGs so I don't see your point.
2.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
through duplication of preexisting genes/DNA elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: To deny that DNA elements are able to duplicate/triplicate etcetera would be denying sceintific observations. If you apply a lot of constraint the MPG establish an appropriate response, that may include duplications. So, what's your point.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, both mechanisms are possible. Therefore, a derived creature can have a more diverse genome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP: refuted the 'information loss' theorists.
PB: If the IL theorists depend on: one gene = one bit of information, it could refute the IL Theorist. But, one gene unquals one bit of information. Besides, IL theorist do not work with multipurpose genomes. I don't see a problem for a MPG.
I already asked the question on this board: if you knock out a redundant gene do you loose information? I didn't get a response.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-25-2003 8:40 PM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-25-2003 9:02 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 01-29-2003 7:02 AM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024