Empirical Evidence for Evolution

In that article (the bit in red) there is a passage that reads..."A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one."While most rockets (for example solid fuel boosters) may look very similar from the outside an investigation of their cross sections provides interesting differences. A rocket designed for a long, slow, continuous burn will simply be filled with fuel which burns down along the length of the rocket giving a constant amount of thrust per second. On the other hand a rocket designed for a slowly increasing amount of thrust would be manufactured with a cylindrical section removed from its Central axis, this means that the fuel is burnt along the whole axis and the rate of fuel use increases with time as the interior cylinder widens. The point is that this is a very poor analogy as he seems to be arguing that rockets look alike (despite obvious differences in their design) so it is no surprise that different species of animals so obviously different despite the fact that they have vastly similar DNA (due to an IDer taking short cuts presumably). something doesn't quite sound right there does it...

Ok bub try this one graph the following:x against t
x=0.1t+1000note dx/dt=0.1 so over the first interval t will go from 0 to 1 while x will increase from 1000 to 1000.1 (1/100 of a percent) a small change now observe what has happened at time t=10000x=(0.1)(10000)+1000
x=2000in small steps of hundredths of a percent of the original value x has doubled in magnitude.Now stop saying that it cant happen and show the evidence that convinces you that this is not a viable mechanism.......

As opposed to YECs who infer the bible must be right and therefore say that the bible is a true record of what happened (which infers that by reading it you share in the writers infallible observation)?Yeah that's objective thinking isn't it.....The bible must be right coz the bible says so...BOLLOCKS...Oh and about your link about the problems with extrapolation it seems to me that the principle stands for a given system until limiting factors are observed and proved to have constrained the development...So here is the big question where is your example of constraints in evolution?You cant just know that the limits exist you must have some data to make your decision on. When they invented steam trains some very respected physicists postulated that people would spontaneously combust while riding on them due to friction from the air. They assumed a limit that was not there you seem to be doing something very similar here....so bub to quote Heinlein wheres your screwdriver, the one that lets you unscrew the inscrutable?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-06-2001]

right lets have another go...John Paul:
Excuse me, but evolutionists are the ones making the claim that small changes can add up. That means it is up to them to show it can happen. It is not up to me to show it can't happen. Don't feel bad if you can't provide the evidence to suport your PoV, no evolutionist has yet to do so.so here is how small changes add up to big ones....graph the following:x against t where:
x=0.1t+1000Note dx/dt=0.1 so over the first interval t will go from 0 to 1 while x will increase from 1000 to 1000.1 (1/100 of a percent) a small change.Now observe what has happened at time t=10000x=(0.1)(10000)+1000
x=2000In small steps of hundredths of a percent of the original value x has doubled in magnitude.You asked for proof that small changes add up, there it is. Now YOU have to show evidence that there are limiting factors in the small changes that occur that prevent them adding up...After all the logical POV is that a small rate of change over a long enough period integrates to give a large change, UNLESS some limiting factor is observed.So bub where is it, you got any proof, or are you divinely inspired like that book of yours?

Well bud Perci seems to have supplied a mechanism for small changes in a biological system adding up where is your limiting factor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
2. The extent of evolution that can take place.

​

us- limits exist, just like we observe in nature.

​

you- no limit to the evolution as long as it confers an advantage in a said environment.

---

Okay pal you say you have observed it in nature what are the limits on NS and RM?

The limits you state are not relevant so if you are aware of any that are please state them, I suspect you dont because you cant....If you cant show there are limits why insist they exist? I have a feeling that maybe it is because if you once conceded that if there is no evidence for something it is pointless to stipulate its existence you would have to reassess your position on the existence of God (moving to a "God is possible but with no evidence it cannot be claimed he definitely does exist" position presumably)...So do you have any relevant examples or is it another case of "I think this so it is necessarily true"?

quote:

---

Also as Fred has pointed out- the cost that mutations bring with them. Then we have the 3D protein structure. How many different shapes
can one protein take before it no longer binds to other proteins?

---

First how does the fact that most mutations are bad work as an example here? NS solves this by breeding the "bad" mutations out....Second protein structure we have proteins, bacteria have different proteins, both sorts work, you have not identified any mechanism that prevents "small changes adding up" to change from one to the other.... This example could quite possibly be used to constrain the types of organisms possible but not to refute the concept that types of organisms can evolve into different types....So that would make all of those examples irrelevant...Back to you...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-20-2001]