Toe. A Fact Or Belief?

[freeday]

Neo-Darwism was first established in a time where perhaps it was justifiable to think that apes and humans were related because of thier apperance. When theory of evolution (ToE) was concieved, there were no molecular biologist at this time, with the emergence of electron microscopes and todays vast technology, is his theory any closer to being proven. Or has it become even more imposible to prove.

 

1. Irreducible Complexity.

 

The clotting of blood is something we take for granted, seldom do we consider the complexity of this system and many others in the human body. Before the complex cascade of multiple factors for clotting begins, it has to know where and when to perform and it has to maintain a delicate balance as not to clot too easily or it would damage heart and other blood vessels. If you don't believe me on how complex the cascade is, just google "blood clotting cascade" and see for yourself. The necessity of these complex components has not been accounted for in the biochemical models of naturalistic evolution.

 

2. Mutation

 

What is a mutation? It is a random change in the nucleotides of a DNA molecule that occurs in preparation for cell division. Assuming mutation is the mechanism for evolutionary change, then mutations must add information in order to develope more sophisticated organisms. First it should be noted that mutations are extremely rare because DNA actually has its own proof reading system in place. These are quotes by evolutionist themselves about the harmfull aspects of mutations.

 

"In general, new mutations are more likely to be harmfull to survival than adaptive" (Maynard Smith and Szathmary)

 

"The altered information (mutation) shows up in the ofspring, ussaully as a defect." (Hoagland and Dodson)

 

"Mutations that give rise to substantial changes in the physical characteristics of the organism, however, are unlikley to be advantageous." (Ayala, in Ruse, ed.)

 

"Most mutations that cause a visible change are harmfull." (World Book)

 

Now onto bacterial mutations. Some bacteria have built up a resistence to antibiotics through mutation. Normally a mollecule of the drug attaches to a matching site on a bacteriums ribosome, interfering with its ability to make essential protiens. Bacteriums's mutation changes the shape of the site so the drug can't attach any longer. Although this adds survival value and is inheritable, it doesn't add information. It is still bacteria, not a new species, as it is clasified as a different strain of bacteria. Ex. Staphylococcuss Aureaus mutates into Methicillin-resistent Staphylococcuss Aureaus. for further info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA

 

A 20 year series of experiments by evolutionist looking to prove that cultures of bacteria could add information so that they could provide a possible basis for macorevolution turned out these results.

 

"we see that no new information got into the genome. Indeed, it turns out that each of those mutations actually lost information. They made the gene less specific, therefore, none of them can play the role of the small steps that are supposed to lead to macroevolution." (Dr. Spetner)

 

mutations can help a creation survive, but they simply change the function of a gene, they don't add anything.

 

"But so far as known, there are no such examples of mutations adding information." (T.K. Gartner and E. Orias University of Santa Barbara)

 

In summary, if mutations don't add information, and if the addition of information is necessary for evolution, then macroevolution cannot occur.

 

3. Origin of the DNA molecule.

 

ToE believes that amino acids just came together to form the first DNA molecule. Before you can even look at the imaginary Symbiotic Theory, evolutionist try to explain how it even got to a prokaryote cell.

 

A. The first obsticle to overcome is called Chirality, which simplified means that all nucleotides in a DNA or RNA chain must be in a certain molecular orginazation. Here is a link to a great article by Charles McCombs, Ph.D that will provide much further information on Chirality. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...view&ID=105

 

Here is what evolutionist say about Chirality.

 

"In an experiment designed to test the requirements for chiral purity, it was demonstrated that incorporation of even a single mononucleotide of opposite chirality into the end of a growing chain in template-directed oligomerization is sufficent to terminate the reaction." (Dr. Alan Schwartz)

 

"The proposed explanation does not entirely solve the chirality problem, molecular modeling could not possibly help clarify this issue." (Christian de Dule of the institute of cellular pathology)

 

What are the chances of a 100,000 plus nucleotides combining together at the right time in exactly the right way. The only reason it bring this up, is to elude to the fact that ToE is about random events of chance that has brought us to this point. The chances are so minute, it's like winning the state lotery 4700 times in a row with only a single ticket each time. It is 1 in 10 with 33,113 zeros behind it. Virtually imposible. Ok, so maybe you are one of those people who think that you could win the lotery 4700 times in a row. Although, there would not be enough time for the random amount of events to take place. But say it could happen. What next.

 

B. Oxygen. ironically oxygen is a major problem for proponents of ToE. The reason is, it destroys the building blocks necessary for life. Of course, once a living cell is put together and protected, it's necessary for life. To solve this problem, some scientist, (Oparin, Haldane, and Urey) proposed an early-earh atmosphere with essentially no oxygen. However, this creates a problem too. Oxygen-in the form of ozone-makes up a critical protective barrier against ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. As qouted by molecular biologist Michael Denton.

 

"What we have then is a sort of "catch 22" situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't, we have none either."

 

C. Water. A solution proposed to the oxygen problem was that the building blocks of life simply came together in the primordial ocean. There is a key problem with this idea, according to ToE, DNA and protien molecules would have been built by adding one block at a time to an ever-lenghening chain. However, with the addition of each amino acid to a protien chain or nucleotide to a DNA chain, a molecule of water is released. This is referred to as a Condensation Reaction. for more information reffer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensation_reaction on this reaction.

 

so nucleotide + nucleotide = DNA + H2O

 

This process can also be reversed. A chemical reaction will never proceed in a direction that produces a compound already present in greater amounts in the reation vessel, which in this case is water. So if you took a strand of DNA and threw it into some H2O it would break down into nucleotides. Therefore, to construct DNA and protien chains underwater from the amino-acid building blocks of life would be impossible. (Eastman and Missler)

 

D. Information. Among the biggest dilemmas for supporters of naturalistic evolution is how information is programmed into the DNA structure to begin with. Where does it come from? How does DNA know when to start creating an arm, leg, ear or eye? How does it know it's supposed to be a human, elephant, or fish? These questions about systems apply to the very first life form. How did the DNA of the very first bacterium know how to program protiens to provide for its needs? Better yet, how did it even know what its needs were?

 

 

In conclusion, to learn more about ToE i read 2 250pg books in 2wks. I was criticized because of the authors of the books be biased. But i wanted both sides of the story. And these books presented both. I personally found the evidence against ToE to overwhelming. And the evidence for it to be sketchy at best. If ToE is a fact, as it is taught in schools today, then creationist should have a leg to stand on. but i have found over 20 different convencing arguments for it. This was just a very small portion of it.

[scitsofreaky]

Hmm, I think I'll wait to see what, if anything RHEMtron and others have to say.

[RHEMtron]

In conclusion, to learn more about ToE i read 2 250pg books in 2wks.

So does that mean you have a PhD in Genetics, Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Quantum Physics?

 

I was criticized because of the authors of the books be biased. But i wanted both sides of the story.

There is no both sides to the "story". It's not even a "story". In science, there's multiple views and hypothesis to a theory. These peer reviews are what helps in the search for truth and knowledge.

 

You didnt seem to be biased though. You wrote a couple of words to state a theory of how it worked, then wrote novels against why it wouldnt work. No no no... i mean statements that just illustrate a bump in the road. Since the mechanism is not fully known, it does not mean it wouldnt work. If you had any training at all as a scientist, you would know that just because the mechanism is still not completely known, doesnt disprove anything. Science can make immediate discoveries, to slow, gradual discoveries.

 

Just keep in mind it was the bible that taught leprosy was a punishment from God. We now know it's a bacterium called Mycobacterium leprae, and can be treated. Your religion tried to argue for a flat earth. That we know is not true... It was a slow, gradual process until we got the definitive answer, but nevertheless... it was proved right.

 

Youre pretty much saying it's okae that in the bible, Matthew and Mark both say there's only one angel in the tomb, but we can say there's really 2 because it would contradict Luke and John, but it's not okae for a person to say ToE is this and that, but we cant make any type, or even test a hypothesis, because it contradicts our current general knowledge.

 

Like i was saying in the other thread. Reevaluate your thinking. Youre just being a hypocrite and pulling a double standard. Either you analyze the Bible the same way you analyze ToE, or you analyze ToE the same way you analyze the Bible. Either way, at treat them equally. Like you said, dont let your emotions get in the way. See, the difference between you and us, is that we apply our logic equally to everything. The other difference is that if science proves ToE to be wrong, then no biggy, we accept it. You seem to not be able to do the same...

 

And these books presented both. I personally found the evidence against ToE to overwhelming. And the evidence for it to be sketchy at best. If ToE is a fact, as it is taught in schools today, then creationist should have a leg to stand on. but i have found over 20 different convencing arguments for it. This was just a very small portion of it.

Again, does this mean you have a PhD now? What gives you the credibility to analyze, understand, and present the material to us? Especially in a 2 week crash course! There is more to ToE than 2,500 pages in a book. There is more to it than reading a book entitled ToE. This offends me because i went through extensive schooling, researching, and writing for Biochemistry. Ive taken years worth of classes in all the branches of Chemistry, all the branches in Biology, good amount of Physics, and now youre coming here presenting your case like you know and understand this more than I? And after a 2 week crash course from a book?

 

I dont even know if i should touch this one... maybe once ive calm down from being offended, ill actually answer the points....

[Asimov]

1. Irreducible Complexity.

 

Irreducible Complexity has a tough job ahead of it. In order for any system to be called Irreducibly Complex we must look at a few things:

 

1. Goal-oriented - Are any systems in biological evolution goal-oriented? Does any population strive to create blood clotting? The answer is no. So we've dealt with the probability part.

 

2. Time - The amount of time given for the development in life is never considered a factor with ID proponents. Life has been around for 3.5 billion years. That's time enough to create life, and proceed with simple systems to more complex systems built upon that. Why do you think scientists have discovered pseudo-genes and "junk" DNA?

 

3. Were organisms created with those systems in place? No, they were developed over billions of years.

 

4. Was the city of Los Angeles created all at once? No. Look at the road system there. I'm sure if you were to take a number of major intersections away that there would be chaos and the entire city would shut down. It must have all been put together at once.

 

IC systems can be developed gradually and interdependance can evolve.

 

2. Mutation

 

What is a mutation? It is a random change in the nucleotides of a DNA molecule that occurs in preparation for cell division. Assuming mutation is the mechanism for evolutionary change, then mutations must add information in order to develope more sophisticated organisms. First it should be noted that mutations are extremely rare because DNA actually has its own proof reading system in place. These are quotes by evolutionist themselves about the harmfull aspects of mutations.

 

In summary, if mutations don't add information, and if the addition of information is necessary for evolution, then macroevolution cannot occur.

 

Since you provided no context for those quotes, I am not even going to read them.

 

There are different ways a mutation can occur, AFAIK:

 

Let's take sequence ABCD. A mutation can occur to create BACD, CADB, DABC etc.

A mutation can occur to create ABCDABCD

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, other people, because I could be wrong. How is the rearrangement of sequences not new information?

 

Let's take the word AND. It means something, it is information. Change it to NAD and suddenly it means something else. Change it to DAN and suddenly it means something else. This is all new information that wasn't there before.

 

Amazing, isn't it?

 

Stop using macroevolution.

 

3. Origin of the DNA molecule.

 

ToE believes that amino acids just came together to form the first DNA molecule. Before you can even look at the imaginary Symbiotic Theory, evolutionist try to explain how it even got to a prokaryote cell.

 

No it doesn't. The origins of DNA is biochemistry, it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution which posits three things and ONLY three things:

 

1. Common ancestry of all life.

2. Inheritance of traits along a lineage.

3. The mechanisms that cause populations to lose and gain traits.

[trashy]

Freeday,

 

You seem to be approaching this from the same perspective I used to have. You will have to take my word for this for now, but trust me -- your knowledge of the theory of evolution is sorely lacking and extremely biased. I still to this day discover things about evolution that astound me. I have to shake my head in wonder that I was so misled for so many years by the creationist dogmas.

 

Just for starters, the theory of evolution does not postulate that humans descended from apes. Believe it or not the evidence suggests that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, nothing more. I found this whole area quite enlightening. Here's a link for your perusal:

 

Phylogenetics Introduction

 

Figure 1 helped me out a lot - plus do some reading on transitional fossils and vestigial organs/limbs. You will learn a lot about what evolution actually states vs. what creationists claim that it states. You may also see a few things that fly in the face of 'intelligent' design.....

 

You can always contact me offline as well, if you have any questions on this or on my background as a young earth literalist creationist....

[freeday]

1. Irreducible Complexity.

 

 

No it doesn't. The origins of DNA is biochemistry, it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution which posits three things and ONLY three things:

 

1. Common ancestry of all life.

2. Inheritance of traits along a lineage.

3. The mechanisms that cause populations to lose and gain traits.

 

Irriducable complex.

 

i have searched and found no proof of this. i am sorry here is my reference for such a conclusion. (Russell Doolittle, biochemist form harvard's center for molecular genetics) his comment of the journal "Thrombosis and Haemostatsis" that tries to explain how the clotting could have arrised was as such "seriously inadequate because no reasons are given for the appearance of the protiens, no attempt is made to calculate the probability of the proteins appearance and no attempt is made to esimate the new proteins properties.

 

as far as the mutation here is an example.

 

the fox runs mutation: the lox runs, the box runs, the aox runs. none add information, it is a shuffleing of information, which is normally not helpfull to the species. and even if a positive mutation does occur, you have to look at population genetics, the chances of it getting passed down to the offsprind is a 50 % chance. the mutation must occur in the Germ cell for it to be inhereted by the offspring.

 

In conclusion, to learn more about ToE i read 2 250pg books in 2wks.

So does that mean you have a PhD in Genetics, Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Quantum Physics?

 

I was criticized because of the authors of the books be biased. But i wanted both sides of the story.

There is no both sides to the "story". It's not even a "story". In science, there's multiple views and hypothesis to a theory. These peer reviews are what helps in the search for truth and knowledge.

 

You didnt seem to be biased though. You wrote a couple of words to state a theory of how it worked, then wrote novels against why it wouldnt work. No no no... i mean statements that just illustrate a bump in the road. Since the mechanism is not fully known, it does not mean it wouldnt work. If you had any training at all as a scientist, you would know that just because the mechanism is still not completely known, doesnt disprove anything. Science can make immediate discoveries, to slow, gradual discoveries.

 

Just keep in mind it was the bible that taught leprosy was a punishment from God. We now know it's a bacterium called Mycobacterium leprae, and can be treated. Your religion tried to argue for a flat earth. That we know is not true... It was a slow, gradual process until we got the definitive answer, but nevertheless... it was proved right.

 

Youre pretty much saying it's okae that in the bible, Matthew and Mark both say there's only one angel in the tomb, but we can say there's really 2 because it would contradict Luke and John, but it's not okae for a person to say ToE is this and that, but we cant make any type, or even test a hypothesis, because it contradicts our current general knowledge.

 

Like i was saying in the other thread. Reevaluate your thinking. Youre just being a hypocrite and pulling a double standard. Either you analyze the Bible the same way you analyze ToE, or you analyze ToE the same way you analyze the Bible. Either way, at treat them equally. Like you said, dont let your emotions get in the way. See, the difference between you and us, is that we apply our logic equally to everything. The other difference is that if science proves ToE to be wrong, then no biggy, we accept it. You seem to not be able to do the same...

 

And these books presented both. I personally found the evidence against ToE to overwhelming. And the evidence for it to be sketchy at best. If ToE is a fact, as it is taught in schools today, then creationist should have a leg to stand on. but i have found over 20 different convencing arguments for it. This was just a very small portion of it.

Again, does this mean you have a PhD now? What gives you the credibility to analyze, understand, and present the material to us? Especially in a 2 week crash course! There is more to ToE than 2,500 pages in a book. There is more to it than reading a book entitled ToE. This offends me because i went through extensive schooling, researching, and writing for Biochemistry. Ive taken years worth of classes in all the branches of Chemistry, all the branches in Biology, good amount of Physics, and now youre coming here presenting your case like you know and understand this more than I? And after a 2 week crash course from a book?

 

I dont even know if i should touch this one... maybe once ive calm down from being offended, ill actually answer the points....

 

why are you offended? that was not the purpose of this article. why do you have to calm down. if its what you believe, than its what you believe. nothing can take that away. i just posed some problems i can't find answers for, which i feel to be important before you should even look at the fossil record. I am starting from the begining, vs working backward.

[Taphophilia]

Others who know more about ToE can address your points, but I'd like to address how you titled your post.

 

I don't believe in ToE.

 

I believe in my children. I believe in myself. I don't believe in anything that doesn't involve inspiration on a human level. With that said, I accept ToE, not because it gives an alternative explaination for anything, but because it stands on it's own as science.

 

Science isn't out to prove or disprove god, it simply applies the scientific method and looks at the facts. It starts with a question on what is observed and seeks to answer the question objectively. Any belief system, that is worth anything, will not threatened by science or try to twist science around to support a belief. Science and belief are two separate entities.

[freeday]

Freeday,

 

You seem to be approaching this from the same perspective I used to have. You will have to take my word for this for now, but trust me -- your knowledge of the theory of evolution is sorely lacking and extremely biased. I still to this day discover things about evolution that astound me. I have to shake my head in wonder that I was so misled for so many years by the creationist dogmas.

 

Just for starters, the theory of evolution does not postulate that humans descended from apes. Believe it or not the evidence suggests that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, nothing more. I found this whole area quite enlightening. Here's a link for your perusal:

 

Phylogenetics Introduction

 

Figure 1 helped me out a lot - plus do some reading on transitional fossils and vestigial organs/limbs. You will learn a lot about what evolution actually states vs. what creationists claim that it states. You may also see a few things that fly in the face of 'intelligent' design.....

 

You can always contact me offline as well, if you have any questions on this or on my background as a young earth literalist creationist....

 

will do, when i said ToE, i was grouping them all together. i realize there are varieties of the theory of evolution. my purpose was not to disprove ToE, i was just stating facts that does not have answers in the ToE. does it disprove it, that's soley up to the reader.

[Taphophilia]

Another fact that I found enlightening was that Darwin didn't invent Evolution. It had been around since the time of the Greeks. What Darwin did was give the first plausable explaination of how it worked.

[RHEMtron]

why are you offended? that was not the purpose of this article. why do you have to calm down. if its what you believe, than its what you believe. nothing can take that away. i just posed some problems i can't find answers for, which i feel to be important before you should even look at the fossil record. I am starting from the begining, vs working backward.

Starting from the begining is not researching posed problems or Evolution. Learn the basics of how things work, i.e. the physics, the chemistry, the interactions, etc. That's how you start from the begining. For you to come in and say that these are problems of Evolution without understanding the basics of general science is what i find offensive.

 

If you change the title, and/or came in listing facts from multiple points of view equally as to oppose to the long narratives of the problems, then i probably wouldnt have been offended. As you can probably tell, ive been in a lot of debates with Christians about science. It's just been my experience that theyll try to argue for/against something they dont understand. We really get offended when a Scientific Theory of Hypothesis is called "A Belief".

 

They tend to quote "Scientists" who are biased towards ID. In science, youre not supposed to be biased. Well, actually you can be, but there's unofficial rules when to be.

 

But anyway, sometimes i just feel it's pointless to argue... especially since people who argue against ToE, like uninformed Christians or biased "scientists" like Behe [the person who brought up the whole example of Blood Coagulation Cascade] can only argue this "defies explanation".

 

The only thing i now point out is that religion, for ages, have always tried to explain the unexplainable by using God. As science progressed, it was able to explain how the world works, that the world is not flat, explained medical problems thought to be cause be demons, that you can perform surgery on the heart, etc. Time and time again, opponents of science or opponents of a proposed theory or hypothesis, argue that it's too hard to explain. Or it defies explanation. Time and time again, science has proven them wrong, and has thoroughly has come up with an explanation. Just ask Behe... he said the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye could not be explained. Now he acknoledges it can. Now he's saying the smaller features cant be explained.... but only time will tell...

[Ouroboros]

Recommendation to anyone that have iTunes: (iTunes link to Evolution 101 with Doctor Zach Moore)

[scitsofreaky]

ToE. A fact or belief

Here is an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould about evolution as both a fact and a theory.

 

I find the premise of this topic to be rediculous. Just because we don't know everything and we haven't explained everything (yet) doesn't mean that evolution is a belief. Evolution has explained so much that I have no reason to think it can't explain the "gaps."

 

Oh, and what two books did you read?

[RHEMtron]

1. Irreducibility Complex

If you really want to do more research, then look up John H. McDonald, Niall Shanks, and Karl H. Joplin. They have done research to reduce Behe's arguments.

 

Irreducibility Complexity is challenged by the theories of Facilitated Variation, Handicap Principle, and Sexual selection. I suggest you look those up too.

 

<edit>

 

also, check out the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

 

excerpt from wikipedia:

There, Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms, and that there existed no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex".[3] The result of the trial was the ruling that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature".

[RHEMtron]

2. Mutations

I really suggest doing a more in-depth study on this one. There are different types of mutations and different results from mutations. Your sources make it seem so definite, when it's not. There are ways to naturally, and spontaneously add new DNA sequences. Effects arent just deleterious. It can be advantageous, as well as inert. Mutations can be morphological or biochemical.

 

if you want a brief synopsis, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

[freeday]

2. Mutations

I really suggest doing a more in-depth study on this one. There are different types of mutations and different results from mutations. Your sources make it seem so definite, when it's not. There are ways to naturally, and spontaneously add new DNA sequences. Effects arent just deleterious. It can be advantageous, as well as inert. Mutations can be morphological or biochemical.

 

if you want a brief synopsis, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

 

now we are getting somewhere, we are all learning here. here is what i found at the above link.

 

"Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. However, macromutations seem to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods."

 

that was my whole point, mutations are detrimental. not benificial. i would have to look it up, but i remember there being many ways to prevent mutations from happening withing the DNA structure.

 

also in the article.

 

"By effect on function

Loss-of-function mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function. When the allele has a complete loss of function (null allele) it is often called an amorphic mutation. Phenotypes associated with such mutations are most often recessive. Exceptions are when the organism is haploid, or when the reduced dosage of a normal gene product is not enough for a normal phenotype (this is called haploinsufficiency).

Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes.

Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterised by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, Marfan syndrome is an example of a dominant negative mutation occurring in an autosomal dominant disease. In this condition, the defective glycoprotein product of the fibrillin gene (FBN1) antagonizes the product of the normal allele.

Lethal mutations are mutations that lead to a phenotype incapable of effective reproduction.

 

the only function listed as benificial has no examples to attribute to it. i listed one, the example of the bacteria, i can list others with insects where mutation occurs, but it does not create a new species. i can not find any information that lends this idea credit.

[Ouroboros]

mutations can help a creation survive, but they simply change the function of a gene, they don't add anything.

 

"But so far as known, there are no such examples of mutations adding information." (T.K. Gartner and E. Orias University of Santa Barbara)

 

In summary, if mutations don't add information, and if the addition of information is necessary for evolution, then macroevolution cannot occur.

I don't think that's true. I remember we had a discussion recently where we had information and links proving the opposite.

 

Do you have any reference, which book, document, article or whatever where TK Gartner and E Orias say this? Is it in the publication from 1966? That's quite old, I think there's a little more things found out the last 40 years.

[freeday]

ToE. A fact or belief

Here is an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould about evolution as both a fact and a theory.

 

I find the premise of this topic to be rediculous. Just because we don't know everything and we haven't explained everything (yet) doesn't mean that evolution is a belief. Evolution has explained so much that I have no reason to think it can't explain the "gaps."

 

Oh, and what two books did you read?

 

what does it matter? i learned something from them, did i tell a lie in the above article. i stated facts with proper references. what has evolution explained for us. certainly not the beginning of life. lets look what other experts say about ToE.

 

"The theory of evolution by natural selection does not predict that organisms will get more complex. it predicts only that they will get better at surviving and reproducing in the current environment, or at least that they will not get worse. " (John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, The Origins of Life. pg 15)

 

this statement says that changes can occur within a species through natural selection, more complex changes that cause one species to be transformed into another are theoretically unfounded. this is coming from noted evolutionists.

 

why do you think my statement is rediculous? i just stated some holes in the ToE. Do they offend you because it challenges you on what you beleive to be true.

[Ouroboros]

that was my whole point, mutations are detrimental. not benificial. i would have to look it up, but i remember there being many ways to prevent mutations from happening withing the DNA structure.

Eh, didn't it say "most likely" not "exclusively"? There's a slight difference. When you roll a die, you're more likely to get 1-5 than a 6, but you do get a 6 once in a while. Or did I miss something here? You say they "are detrimental" but your article say "most likely". 99% <> 100%.

[RHEMtron]

Like i said... present both sides...

 

that was my whole point, mutations are detrimental. not benificial. i would have to look it up, but i remember there being many ways to prevent mutations from happening withing the DNA structure.

It also says it beneficial.

 

A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment

 

The benefits are the effects that you also quoted:

 

Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes.

 

which can be represented as:

By aspect of phenotype affected

 

* Morphological mutations usually affect the outward appearance of an individual. Mutations can change the height of a plant or change it from smooth to rough seeds.

* Biochemical mutations result in lesions stopping the enzymatic pathway. Often, morphological mutants are the direct result of a mutation due to the enzymatic pathway.

 

Yes, mutations are more deleterious, but through evolution and natural selection, the deleterious mutations are "weeded out". If you have a mutation that's bad for you and wont help you survive, then you really wont survive to produce offspring thatll pass on the mutation. Or, you wouldnt have been viable to produce an offspring in the first place.

 

Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate.

 

the only function listed as benificial has no examples to attribute to it. i listed one, the example of the bacteria, i can list others with insects where mutation occurs, but it does not create a new species. i can not find any information that lends this idea credit.

Define the creation of a new species? Do you even know what that means? Before i try to explain it, try to study Ecology first. Like i said.... study at least the basics of all branches of science, and then youll get the understanding.... especially speciation.

 

but im off for the weekend so ill get back to you more on this and DNA later.

[Antlerman]

Oh brother. Freeday, before I even expend any of my energy on this, again, yet once again, the outsiders who understand science better than scientists! This is a dead argument. It has been shot down by others far more credentialed than you or I or the non-scientists who come up with the crap, again and again. Yet the creationists continue their silly squakings.

 

Why are you wasting your time on this? Is it SO IMPORTANT TO THE STABILITY OF YOUR FAITH THAT YOU NEED EVOLUTION TO BE UNTRUE?

 

Cleary, you have a problem with your faith.

[freeday]

mutations can help a creation survive, but they simply change the function of a gene, they don't add anything.

 

"But so far as known, there are no such examples of mutations adding information." (T.K. Gartner and E. Orias University of Santa Barbara)

 

In summary, if mutations don't add information, and if the addition of information is necessary for evolution, then macroevolution cannot occur.

I don't think that's true. I remember we had a discussion recently where we had information and links proving the opposite.

 

Do you have any reference, which book, document, article or whatever where TK Gartner and E Orias say this? Is it in the publication from 1966? That's quite old, I think there's a little more things found out the last 40 years.

 

yes it is from 1966, but the statement is endorsed by Dr. Lee Spetner

 

others for you

 

" evolutionist fail to show the plausibility of macromutations." L. J. Gibson

Geoscience Research Institute origins 1992.

 

"After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Professes Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

 

"Although he [Goldschmidt] recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in populations (microevolution) [changes within species], he believed they did not lead to speciation. Between true species he saw 'bridgeless gaps' that could only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in 'hopeful monsters.' " —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)

 

"[Mutations are] merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. . they modify what pre-exists. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." —*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pp. 8788.

 

"Variable mutations with the major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutations individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event." —*D. Erwin, and *J. Valentine, " `Hopeful Monsters,' Transposons, and Metazoan Radiation," in Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 81, 1984, p. 5482.

 

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

 

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379

 

i was not trying to be an ass, i am just proving my point. i searched before i wrote the artcle for positive proof of macromutation, and have found none.

[Asimov]

Irriducable complex.

 

i have searched and found no proof of this. i am sorry here is my reference for such a conclusion. (Russell Doolittle, biochemist form harvard's center for molecular genetics) his comment of the journal "Thrombosis and Haemostatsis" that tries to explain how the clotting could have arrised was as such "seriously inadequate because no reasons are given for the appearance of the protiens, no attempt is made to calculate the probability of the proteins appearance and no attempt is made to esimate the new proteins properties.

 

That doesn't matter. You do realize that science is progressive, don't you freeday? The problem with labelling something as IC is that they conclude something is impossible without:

 

1. Explaining how it is impossible.

2. Factoring in the lack of goal-orientation in evolution or the mechanisms of evolution.

3. Factoring in the amount of time available.

4. Realising that organisms are not created ex nihilo.

 

No proof of what? I'm giving you a reason why IC systems are not plausible as evidence against the ToE. The probability? We don't need to calculate probability, it's impossible to calculate the probability of something you don't know all the variables of.

 

as far as the mutation here is an example.

 

the fox runs mutation: the lox runs, the box runs, the aox runs. none add information, it is a shuffleing of information, which is normally not helpfull to the species. and even if a positive mutation does occur, you have to look at population genetics, the chances of it getting passed down to the offsprind is a 50 % chance. the mutation must occur in the Germ cell for it to be inhereted by the offspring.

 

I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

 

Your analogy isn't applicable.

 

1. How does it not add information? Those are new words.

2. How is that shuffling information? You're adding letters.

3. What's your point? So what if beneficial mutations are rare. Most mutations are neutral and neither hinder nor benefit the individual. And the 50% chance thing? That only counts for organisms who sexually reproduce.

 

why are you offended? that was not the purpose of this article. why do you have to calm down. if its what you believe, than its what you believe. nothing can take that away. i just posed some problems i can't find answers for, which i feel to be important before you should even look at the fossil record. I am starting from the begining, vs working backward.

 

Your questions are fine, don't worry about RHEM, he's a big baby.

 

Let's see if you can provide us a refutation as to the evidences for the Theory of Evolution:

 

We see evidence of common ancestry through the study of genetics. We can show the percentage relationships between organsisms such as mice and humans, or chimps and humans, or pigs and humans etc.

 

This is corroborated by the ability to study medicine and apply it to humans.

 

We can also see evidence of common ancestry through endogenous retroviral insertions. These are retroviruses which take over a host sperm or egg cell, which then fertilizes or becomes fertilized. The retroviruses DNA becomes part of the organisms DNA and that is passed on down through the lines.

 

We can view these retroviruses in a lineage of apes....and guess what? Humans are there too.

the cat family also contains retroviral insertions as well.

[freeday]

Oh brother. Freeday, before I even expend any of my energy on this, again, yet once again, the outsiders who understand science better than scientists! This is a dead argument. It has been shot down by others far more credentialed than you or I or the non-scientists who come up with the crap, again and again. Yet the creationists continue their silly squakings.

 

Why are you wasting your time on this? Is it SO IMPORTANT TO THE STABILITY OF YOUR FAITH THAT YOU NEED EVOLUTION TO BE UNTRUE?

 

Cleary, you have a problem with your faith.

 

i am just here to make you think and question things, just as you have done to me. you questioned me on several things, i went and studied the bible. to where i feel more confident in it now that ever before. if you feel that strongly about ToE, you should do the same.

 

oh yeah, most of the qoutes in the article are by evolutionist, no creationists making silly squakings.

[crazy-tiger]

"The theory of evolution by natural selection does not predict that organisms will get more complex. it predicts only that they will get better at surviving and reproducing in the current environment, or at least that they will not get worse. " (John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, The Origins of Life. pg 15)

 

this statement says that changes can occur within a species through natural selection, more complex changes that cause one species to be transformed into another are theoretically unfounded. this is coming from noted evolutionists.

It says nothing of the kind...

 

Although it implies that changes can occur, it says NOTHING about more complex changes leading to speciation being unfounded... You are reading into this statement something that is not there at all, which shows just how much you are biased against ToE and how much you want, subconciously or not, to "prove" it wrong to us.

 

What it DOES say is that evolution doesn't say that organisms WILL get more complex... an increase in complexity is NOT what ToE states at all, and it's telling that you changed that into what you wanted it to say. If you wish to understand what ToE states, then leaving your preconcieved biases at the door before you start would be a very good idea... Otherwise you will be ripped rapidly to shreds and exposed as a fool. As you just have been...

 

 

Have a nice day though...

[freeday]

Irriducable complex.

 

i have searched and found no proof of this. i am sorry here is my reference for such a conclusion. (Russell Doolittle, biochemist form harvard's center for molecular genetics) his comment of the journal "Thrombosis and Haemostatsis" that tries to explain how the clotting could have arrised was as such "seriously inadequate because no reasons are given for the appearance of the protiens, no attempt is made to calculate the probability of the proteins appearance and no attempt is made to esimate the new proteins properties.

 

That doesn't matter. You do realize that science is progressive, don't you freeday? The problem with labelling something as IC is that they conclude something is impossible without:

 

1. Explaining how it is impossible.

2. Factoring in the lack of goal-orientation in evolution or the mechanisms of evolution.

3. Factoring in the amount of time available.

4. Realising that organisms are not created ex nihilo.

 

No proof of what? I'm giving you a reason why IC systems are not plausible as evidence against the ToE. The probability? We don't need to calculate probability, it's impossible to calculate the probability of something you don't know all the variables of.

 

as far as the mutation here is an example.

 

the fox runs mutation: the lox runs, the box runs, the aox runs. none add information, it is a shuffleing of information, which is normally not helpfull to the species. and even if a positive mutation does occur, you have to look at population genetics, the chances of it getting passed down to the offsprind is a 50 % chance. the mutation must occur in the Germ cell for it to be inhereted by the offspring.

 

I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

 

Your analogy isn't applicable.

 

1. How does it not add information? Those are new words.

2. How is that shuffling information? You're adding letters.

3. What's your point? So what if beneficial mutations are rare. Most mutations are neutral and neither hinder nor benefit the individual. And the 50% chance thing? That only counts for organisms who sexually reproduce.

 

why are you offended? that was not the purpose of this article. why do you have to calm down. if its what you believe, than its what you believe. nothing can take that away. i just posed some problems i can't find answers for, which i feel to be important before you should even look at the fossil record. I am starting from the begining, vs working backward.

 

Your questions are fine, don't worry about RHEM, he's a big baby.

 

Let's see if you can provide us a refutation as to the evidences for the Theory of Evolution:

 

We see evidence of common ancestry through the study of genetics. We can show the percentage relationships between organsisms such as mice and humans, or chimps and humans, or pigs and humans etc.

 

This is corroborated by the ability to study medicine and apply it to humans.

 

We can also see evidence of common ancestry through endogenous retroviral insertions. These are retroviruses which take over a host sperm or egg cell, which then fertilizes or becomes fertilized. The retroviruses DNA becomes part of the organisms DNA and that is passed on down through the lines.

 

We can view these retroviruses in a lineage of apes....and guess what? Humans are there too.

the cat family also contains retroviral insertions as well.

 

the above in read, could you provide me a link to this, i read somewhere, that there is only a 3% difference in genetic makeup of a human and an ape. i have a rebuttle to this, but i would like to read the article first.

 

once again you are going backwards and i am starting from the beginning. i tell you what though, has this not been a great refresher course on microbiology.

 

oh good one on pointing out that it only applies organisms who sexually reproduce. , but how did the first sexually producing cell even get here. i will go ahead and answer for you. they don't know.

 

"because of these complications (the complexity of meiosis-the process of sexual reproduction in cells) and the obvious disadvantages associated with them, it is not surprising that the origin and maintenance of sex continue to be a matter of controversy among biologists. " (Maynard smith and szathmary)