Toggle sidebar

Genetics and evolution

K

KillVols

1st Team
Oct 23, 2004
417
23
137
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. Any thoughts?

When you think about it evolution falls apart when you happen to notice there has never been one shred of evidence of information being added to DNA. It's always being taken away. Individual characteristics stay the same. Even the leading "Evolutionist" can't answer the simple question... Can you show any scientific evidence of information being added?

Rolltide!
 
You came to the right forum. There are several who will be glad to see you, including me, and some who will love you - well I mean love to argue with you. I can't wait!!! There has already been a huge discussion on that very subject in here. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. :biggrin2: :biggrin2: :biggrin2:
 
I got much joy watching the abortion thread turn into an evolution debate. I'm excited to see how this one ends.

The suspense is terrible!

:biggrin2:
 
IHateUT said:
I got much joy watching the abortion thread turn into an evolution debate. I'm excited to see how this one ends.

The suspense is terrible!

:biggrin2:
Click to expand...


LOL. Well that isnt totally true. However I do maintain that ones worldview often flows from where one thinks he came from.
 
KillVols said:
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. Any thoughts?

When you think about it evolution falls apart when you happen to notice there has never been one shred of evidence of information being added to DNA. It's always being taken away. Individual characteristics stay the same. Even the leading "Evolutionist" can't answer the simple question... Can you show any scientific evidence of information being added?

Rolltide!
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite.....what scientific evidence of information being added to what?

"there has never been one shred of evidence of information being added to DNA." What does this mean? Information, data, what have you, is being added all the time to our knowledge of DNA. All of this data is now being used to clone cats, sheep and for all I know cockroaches. Please clarify as you have lost me.

If I remember my reading of Darwin correctly, he was essentially looking at some weird animals that looked kinda like some other but more familiar animals. He wondered why that was and then suggested that "something" was going on here and then suggested that maybe, just maybe, one species could become another species over time, depending on local conditions. Upon arrival back home he was villified and screamed at by the establishment.

Darwin's basic theory was arrived at, through observation, that nature selects which species will survive and evolve. We might say today that if a species survives it can then pass it's DNA down to it's decendants. If it doesn't then it doesn't. Kind of like natural genetic engineering.

Hope all this helps................
 
bandersnatch45 said:
Ok, I'll bite.....what scientific evidence of information being added to what?

"there has never been one shred of evidence of information being added to DNA." What does this mean? Information, data, what have you, is being added all the time to our knowledge of DNA. All of this data is now being used to clone cats, sheep and for all I know cockroaches. Please clarify as you have lost me.

If I remember my reading of Darwin correctly, he was essentially looking at some weird animals that looked kinda like some other but more familiar animals. He wondered why that was and then suggested that "something" was going on here and then suggested that maybe, just maybe, one species could become another species over time, depending on local conditions. Upon arrival back home he was villified and screamed at by the establishment.

Darwin's basic theory was arrived at, through observation, that nature selects which species will survive and evolve. We might say today that if a species survives it can then pass it's DNA down to it's decendants. If it doesn't then it doesn't. Kind of like natural genetic engineering.

Hope all this helps................
Click to expand...



Darwin's basic theory was arrived at, through observation, that nature selects which species will survive and evolve.

This has never been observed.

cheers
 
Has anyone here actually read "The Origin of Species" or "The Descent of Man"? I haven't, and so I don't presume to know what Darwin was actually trying to say.

The amazing variety of DNA is a miracle from God. Any time you see someone really funny-looking, step back and marvel at it.
 
bamabake said:
Darwin's basic theory was arrived at, through observation, that nature selects which species will survive and evolve.

This has never been observed.

cheers
Click to expand...

Actually it has in England. A certain species of tree dwelling moth in fact. The moths in question were of a color to blend in with the tree bark but would occasionally have dark colored offspring that would invariably be eaten by birds and so not be able to reproduce. As coal became a more common source of heat in the London area soot began to coat every thing around, including trees. As the trees became dirtier the moths became easier prey for the birds. The lighter colored moths began to disappear and the darker ones (determined later to be a rather uncommon mutation) began to multiply. The lighter moths stood out on the now darker trees and the darker moths were now better suited to their environment and therefore could now reproduce more little dark moths.

The irony here is that as London began to clean itself up the trees became cleaner an the moths as a result became lighter again. All observed and recorded.

One might also contemplate the age old custom of selective breeding of animals. The mechanics are slightly different from "natural selection" but the results are basically the same and also reproducible.

As an aside I still don't understand the question of evolution science and genetic science being at odds. Can someone help me out here? :confused:
 
KillVols said:
Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. Any thoughts?

When you think about it evolution falls apart when you happen to notice there has never been one shred of evidence of information being added to DNA. It's always being taken away. Individual characteristics stay the same. Even the leading "Evolutionist" can't answer the simple question... Can you show any scientific evidence of information being added?

Rolltide!
Click to expand...
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Genetics is an experimental science. You can develop a theory in laboratory conditions. The theory is evolution is a product of observational science, more akin to paleontology. As Bamabake noted, all you can really do is collect evidence and attempt to explain it.

Is there rock-solid proof that evolution occurs? No. That's why it's a theory. But there is evidence that suggests that it occurs, from what appear to be development progressions in the fossil record to various anomalies in present day species. Several snakes have vestigial legs, for example.
 
jthomas666 said:
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Genetics is an experimental science. You can develop a theory in laboratory conditions. The theory is evolution is a product of observational science, more akin to paleontology. As Bamabake noted, all you can really do is collect evidence and attempt to explain it.

Is there rock-solid proof that evolution occurs? No. That's why it's a theory. But there is evidence that suggests that it occurs, from what appear to be development progressions in the fossil record to various anomalies in present day species. Several snakes have vestigial legs, for example.
Click to expand...


Finally an honest assesement from the evolution side (if I may be so bold).
It is a theory. I think there is growing evidence that it is a bad one but my beef has been that it is talked about and discussed like it is a fact. There is a generation of people alive today that think it is a fact. As I have stated before I think that this had led to some unintended consequences.
 
bamabake said:
Finally an honest assesement from the evolution side (if I may be so bold).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you say "finally". Every time this topic has come up on this forum I have gone out of my way to make it clear that evolution is a theory.
It is a theory. I think there is growing evidence that it is a bad one but my beef has been that it is talked about and discussed like it is a fact. There is a generation of people alive today that think it is a fact. As I have stated before I think that this had led to some unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
My guess is that a major reason for this is that there currently is not a viable scientific alternative to evolution.
 
jthomas666 said:
I'm not sure why you say "finally". Every time this topic has come up on this forum I have gone out of my way to make it clear that evolution is a theory.
My guess is that a major reason for this is that there currently is not a viable scientific alternative to evolution.
Click to expand...


Sry, maybe my comments were a reaction to the harshness of others on the topic. You are always fair-minded.Creationism makes as much sense and may be more likley.
 
bandersnatch45 said:
Darwin's basic theory was arrived at, through observation, that nature selects which species will survive and evolve. We might say today that if a species survives it can then pass it's DNA down to it's decendants.
Click to expand...

Well, come on, Mother Nature...let's see some extinction of whatever gene drives folks to love the color orange! :biggrin:

My mama always told me that when she was pregnant with me she couldn't even look at the color orange or she's vomit. I'd say that's a move in the right direction! Unfortunately, I married a barner, so we'll have to see how our girls turn out...see who has the dominant genes. :wink:
:)
 
bandersnatch45 said:
Actually it has in England.
Click to expand...

It also has in bacteria, where there are now strains of Streptococcus and Staphococcus that are all but immune to penicillin.

bandersnatch45 said:
As an aside I still don't understand the question of evolution science and genetic science being at odds. Can someone help me out here? :confused:
Click to expand...

Evolutionary science and genetic science are not at odds at all. Well, unless you take the story of Genesis literally, they aren't. If you do, then you'll grasp at whatever straws are left.
 
GulfCoastTider said:
It also has in bacteria, where there are now strains of Streptococcus and Staphococcus that are all but immune to penicillin.



Evolutionary science and genetic science are not at odds at all. Well, unless you take the story of Genesis literally, they aren't. If you do, then you'll grasp at whatever straws are left.
Click to expand...


If you do, then you'll grasp at whatever straws are left.

Thanks for the compliment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back