Genetics and evolution

[CrimsonNan]

Good post BeccaBama. Welcome! :biggrin:

 

[CrimsonNan]

CoBamaFan said:

The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

************************

What's THAT suppose to mean? Dishonesty to advance their views? Sounds like an insult to me!

 

[bamabake]

Of course, you’re wrong on several points. First, the major one: evolution only explains how speciation occurs. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no attempt to explain how life began. Not understanding this simple, easily verified point is one of the major fallacies of creationists.

Second, evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested. A simple check of any introductory biology book would have enlightened you.

The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

Leave it to you to poison a thread with your smug arrogance.




evolution only explains how speciation occurs. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no attempt to explain how life began.

Everything as a start or a beginning. Just start with your rocket scientist self and go backwards.


Second, evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested.

Prove it.



The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.[/QUOTE]

The bottom line is the only people in God Denial are those with a humanist or secular or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty or blanket statements to advance their views.

 

[KillVols]

BeccaBama hit the nail on the head... and I could be wrong but it sounds like she may have read a biology book or two.

COBamaFan wrote.. "It makes no attempt to explain how life began."
This shows an obviously lack of knowledge of the topic. Evolution has to start somewhere and for it to be a viable theory it must hold up from the beginning.

Then... "evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested" This statement really show the level of knowledge we are dealing with here... I really hope you will humor us with and example or two where evolution has been "repeatedly tested"

Now for the most ridiculous quote of the day... "The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views."

Need I respond? Evolution denial?? dishonesty? The level of ignorance in this statement trumps the previous two. To have an intellectual debate requires a little more thought than it appears you are willing to display.

 

[drsmithofga]

Will COBamaFan return? Hello, Hello! 10 bucks says he lives at home with two atheist parents.

 

[BeccaBama]

Of course, you’re wrong on several points. First, the major one: evolution only explains how speciation occurs. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no attempt to explain how life began. Not understanding this simple, easily verified point is one of the major fallacies of creationists.

Second, evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested. A simple check of any introductory biology book would have enlightened you.

The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

Evolution purports to explain how speciation occurred from where? From what point in the formation of life on earth? It is my understanding that evolution tries to explain how all of the different species arose from a single-celled organism to branch out in a tree-like formation of many different species. This goes back to the point that KillVols was making in regards to genetics and evolution. In order for a single-celled organism to become a more advanced organism, information would have to be added to its gene pool. There is absolutely no evidence that this can occur. Information does not appear out of nowhere to make a change in genetic matter. That is not to say that variations within species cannot occur, because they most certainly do. This however occurs through the sorting and sometimes loss of information that is already present.

As far as evolution having been tested and proven, I think that you are confusing the evidence of the amazing abilities that animals were created with in their original gene pool to adapt to their environment with the notion that apes somehow gained information to become more intelligent creatures or that dinosaurs turned into birds.

Let's try to keep insults out of this. I don't really appreciate being called dishonest. We can have a reasonable conversation on the subject without calling each other liars, can't we?

 

[drsmithofga]

Will COBamaFan return? Hello, Hello! 10 bucks says he lives at home with two atheist parents.

That wasn't very nice. I apologize.

 

[Pachydermatous]

That wasn't very nice. I apologize.

"Will COBamaFan return? Hello, Hello! 10 bucks says he lives at home with two atheist parents."

But you are probably correct. In addition to the parents he likely has an introductory biology book. :biggrin:

 

[bamabake]

Where is a brilliant rocket scientist when you need one? I mean where is the smackdown?

 

[TexasBama]

It is my understanding that evolution tries to explain how all of the different species arose from a single-celled organism to branch out in a tree-like formation of many different species.

nope. Evolution is limited to speciation, with the theory of natural selection as the driver (ID disputes natural selection).

The stuff about organisms arising from priomordal goo is called origin of life.

 

[Pachydermatous]

nope. Evolution is limited to speciation, with the theory of natural selection as the driver (ID disputes natural selection).

The stuff about organisms arising from priomordal goo is called origin of life.

Some time back someone was trying to produce life by bombarding homemade primordial goo with lightning bolts in a methane atmosphere. Can't recall if he made amino acids, the precursors of amino acids or just some more interesting goo. Haven't heard anything lately about it.`

 

[tide69]

The bottom line is that micro-evolution(ie.dark or light moths being selected for,depending on the tree color) has been proven.This can also be termed "adaptation".However,the dark and light moths are the same species.One species hasn't "evolved" into another.

As for Darwinian evolution(macro-evolution),the jury is still out but it does seem strange that there seems to be paucity of transitional forms out there.I would think there should be thousands of these types of fossils laying around.You know,the "in-between" types that logically should exist if Darwin was right about one species evolving into a totally different species.The only "transitional" form that I know of is a third cousin of mine who lives in Leighton.

 

[BeccaBama]

Evolution as a concept actually encompasses several theories and hypotheses including common ancestry, the genealogical relatedness of all life, and transformation of species which are all a part of macroevolution. If you want to believe that common ancestry (the tree-like formation I was referring to) has no connection to the origin of life, that’s fine.

Natural selection falls into the realm of micro-evolution or adaptation where information from genes that are already present are selected (hence the term natural selection) so that the organism best suited for its particular environment survives. In the process however, genes that were initially present were weeded out, decreasing the size of the original gene pool and therefore the subsequent adaptability of the organism. Natural selection actually opposes macro-evolution by decreasing the gene pool instead of adding information that would be required to increase the complexity of an organism.

ID in no way disputes natural selection. In fact, it is a testament to the magnificent capabilities of our Creator God to provide for the need for potential adaptability in his creatures.

 

[bamabake]

Have all of the evolution defenders lost their moxie? Where oh where are you BlackUmbrella? It is raining reason in here. Looks like CBF has losthis voice on the topic. Great follow up post Becca. Makes total sense.

 

[TexasBama]

Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He then explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’ In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring

That was Lamarck, not Darwin.

Evolution as a concept actually encompasses several theories and hypotheses including common ancestry, the genealogical relatedness of all life, and transformation of species which are all a part of macroevolution. If you want to believe that common ancestry (the tree-like formation I was referring to) has no connection to the origin of life, that’s fine.

Yes, the modern theory, though primarily based on Darwin & Mendel's work.

If you want to believe that common ancestry (the tree-like formation I was referring to) has no connection to the origin of life, that’s fine.

Its not a question of belief, its simply a different body of work separate from that based on Darwin & Mendel.

ID in no way disputes natural selection.

Sure it does. It accepts speciation, but claims genetics and natural selection are not sufficient to explain complex organisms. That's disputation as far as I'm concerned.

And some seem to have descended from yet another species.

Well, its presumed that the Neanderthal split from the human evolution chain, then went extinct several thousand years ago. You don't suppose there's some still lurking around here?

 

[CrimsonNan]

Texas Bama said:

Well, its presumed that the Neanderthal split from the human evolution chain, then went extinct several thousand years ago. You don't suppose there's some still lurking around here?
------------------------------------

Probably - lol!!! Actually I was just joking around and really was insinuating jackasses. :biggrin2: though not necessarily on this board - just people in general. :biggrin2:

 

[KillVols]

Nice try TexasBama, but my facts are true. I looked it up just in case. However, you seem to be concern more about semantics and less about the actual debate. I will let BeccaBama throw down on your other comments as she seems to be quite knowledgable and the comments are weak. Here's an idea that will help in this discussion, how about giving us what you think with some information to back it up... instead of telling us who's body of work is who's and that you can not include the Origin of Life in a discussion about evolution.

Let's boil this down to one point. Let's discuss the part about information being added to genetic code creating new species. For everything to evolve from one organism (or from what ever starting point you wish) there must be new information added, and this would have had to happen countless times. If this had occured, creating all of the species we see today, there would be many examples of added genetic information in nature, and there is not one. In fact it is the exact opposite, all the evidence points to a loss of information, not a gain.

 

[TexasBama]

Nice try TexasBama, but my facts are true. I looked it up just in case. However, you seem to be concern more about semantics and less about the actual debate.

nope. Lanark claimed the some of the giraffes stretched their necks trying to eat and passed those longer necks onto their offspring (another of his analogies is a blacksmith develops big arms and passes those onto his offspring). Darwin's position was that some giraffes were born with longer necks, thus being a superior giraffee with respect to eating, and becoming predominant (survival of the fittest). Big difference.

I will let BeccaBama throw down on your other comments as she seems to be quite knowledgable and the comments are weak.

In what regard. Please enlighten me.

Here's an idea that will help in this discussion, how about giving us what you think with some information to back it up....

et tu

instead of telling us who's body of work is who's and that you can not include the Origin of Life in a discussion about evolution.

I'm not saying you can't. In the whole, they're all part of the macro term "Evolution". Given the varieties of theories, suppositions, etc. it helps in discussing the topic.

Let's boil this down to one point. Let's discuss the part about information being added to genetic code creating new species. For everything to evolve from one organism (or from what ever starting point you wish) there must be new information added, and this would have had to happen countless times. If this had occured, creating all of the species we see today, there would be many examples of added genetic information in nature, and there is not one. In fact it is the exact opposite, all the evidence points to a loss of information, not a gain.

Very Good. Makes sense. How do evolution scientists try to explain this?

 

[TexasBama]

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

This has never been observed.

cheers

Does natural selection extend to extinction by a predator? If so, then the passenger pigeon is a good example.

This is a fun topic

 

[KillVols]

nope. Lanark claimed the some of the giraffes stretched their necks trying to eat and passed those longer necks onto their offspring (another of his analogies is a blacksmith develops big arms and passes those onto his offspring). Darwin's position was that some giraffes were born with longer necks, thus being a superior giraffee with respect to eating, and becoming predominant (survival of the fittest). Big difference.

nice distraction... here's my quote that you say wasn't Darwin

"Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He then explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’ In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring"

Now check this "the inhertied effects of the increased use of parts"
Can be found here. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, John Murray, London 1902, p. 278... There it is in black and white...

In what regard. Please enlighten me.

in the regard to this statement you made... im sure you will be enlightened..

Sure it does. It accepts speciation, but claims genetics and natural selection are not sufficient to explain complex organisms. That's disputation as far as I'm concerned.



et tu

hmmm



"I'm not saying you can't. In the whole, they're all part of the macro term "Evolution". Given the varieties of theories, suppositions, etc. it helps in discussing the topic."


okay



"Very Good. Makes sense. How do evolution scientists try to explain this?"

Thanks,
Evolutionists of course claim large-scale evolution has occurred (non-life turned into life, then the first 'simple' life evolved all the way up to people). Yet all they point to as proof of this are minor changes, such as varying beaks in finches, or different colors in moths. Also, evolution is supposed to be a process generating lots of new genetic information. Yet the examples they cite invariably turn out to show no such thing.

In short they do not have an answer to that question. That's why it's still a theory, one that developed in a time where knowledge of DNA and the complexity of the single cell and the study of genes were not factors.

What do you think?