MACRO Evolution Evidence

[Palmetto State Dude]

Since there has been some heavy debate in the past few days concerning this subject, and since people keep asking for evidence, I have been researching quite furtively, and decided to contact a prominent professor at Cal Poly Tech, who has her PhD, and conducts research in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology. The following was her response:

Hi,
Macroevolution certainly doesn't require an increase in genetic information, just a change in the information. Genetic information is changing all the time, not just through mutation but also through recombination and transposition (you should be able to look those up). But in fact, increases in genetic information have certainly been observed; the most obvious example of that is that many plants have huge genomes because they are polyploid. Polyploidization (which you should also be able to look up) is actually a great source of speciation in
plants (harder in animals). But transposition also often increases genome size (and therefore potentially, though not necessarily, increases genetic information).

Also, an increase in genetic information does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you believe that, you have to believe that life itself violates the second law of thermodynamics (which it doesn't). Living cells are constantly working against the second law, constantly taking disorganized stuff and making it more organized. That doesn't violate the second law at all, it just requires energy input (so we eat food). There should be tons of information on the web about what the second law really means.

If you want a specific example of how a very small change in genetic information (not an increase) can lead to new species, look up Hox genes. They are genes which control the organization of body plans in animals (like how many wings an insect has, or how many legs). Very minor genetic changes in Hox genes can get you a 4-winged insect from a
2-winged one, or a snake with no legs from a 4-legged precursor, etc.

So, here are some links to evidence she alluded to in the email (too much to cut and paste, so here's the links):

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html

http://www.cbu.edu/~esalgado/BIOL246/Ch12.doc

http://www.ci.pwr.wroc.pl/~kwasnick/download/16.pdf

http://is2.dal.ca/~jcrewe/zcrewe/xecol/crewest.html

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/149/2/663

I'll get more info on Hox genes later...

[CoLDTuRKeY]

Bump
I want to see the rebuttal
Interesting stuff. Using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been somewhat of a cornerstone for those trying to disprove evolution.

[10forty2]

I'm no expert on this subject, but I still don't see macro evolution explained here.

If you want a specific example of how a very small change in genetic information (not an increase) can lead to new species, look up Hox genes. They are genes which control the organization of body plans in animals (like how many wings an insect has, or how many legs). Very minor genetic changes in Hox genes can get you a 4-winged insect from a
2-winged one, or a snake with no legs from a 4-legged precursor, etc.

Same species adapting is micro, not macro and that has not been disputed. ALL life forms adapt to their surroundings even to the point of gaining or losing limbs, but there's still no convincing evidence (to me anyway) which shows that my ancient ancestors developed from swamp slime, swam onto shore, grew legs and lungs, walked upright, began to procreate and suddenly had the knowledge to call it evolution.

[Palmetto State Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
10forty2 said:
I'm no expert on this subject, but I still don't see macro evolution explained here.

If you want a specific example of how a very small change in genetic information (not an increase) can lead to new species, look up Hox genes. They are genes which control the organization of body plans in animals (like how many wings an insect has, or how many legs). Very minor genetic changes in Hox genes can get you a 4-winged insect from a
2-winged one, or a snake with no legs from a 4-legged precursor, etc.

Same species adapting is micro, not macro and that has not been disputed. ALL life forms adapt to their surroundings even to the point of gaining or losing limbs, but there's still no convincing evidence (to me anyway) which shows that my ancient ancestors developed from swamp slime, swam onto shore, grew legs and lungs, walked upright, began to procreate and suddenly had the knowledge to call it evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two-winged insects are not the same species as a 4-winged insect, I don't think they're even in the same Genus.

Hence, macroevolution through variations in the Hox gene....

[icecube]

Oh no not again.. This is gonna be another one of those religion vs the theory of evolution post. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif. Just when i thought it ended.

-Matt

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
CoLDTuRKeY15 said:
Bump
I want to see the rebuttal
Interesting stuff. Using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been somewhat of a cornerstone for those trying to disprove evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

My friend, I shall accomidate you

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,
Macroevolution certainly doesn't require an increase in genetic information, just a change in the information

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok,

1. Lets put it to you this way. You cannot turn a hand held calculator into a supercomputer by simply changing already existing information in the calculator. You agree with this correctly. So the point is. In order to go from one animal which contains a smaller amount of information to an animal with a larger amount of information, one needs to gain information. That is a fact.

If you mean macroevolution can occur, and by that you mean simply change. Well, sure! I'll even give you an example!

A superior Genetic Dog Gets off of Noahs ark

Mankind, preserves dogs that lose information, and preserves mutations. No new information is added, but the animal continues to have detrimental mutations, and continues to lose all its useful genetic information.

WHat do you Get - An animal that is 100 percent useless

A Chiwahwa! Sure, lots of change just took place, but it was all lost information. If that is what she means, then ok, creationists accept that, in fact its biblical, the world is going downhill, not up.

But, what would it take for a land animal to become a whale?
I will end with a quote from Old School to show you this.

Lets do the math here on the statement that all you need is change in information content to gain information, and see whether you agree or disagree.

The organism with the least amount of information in the world is a myoplasm. We shall compare them to a human.

1. mycoplasma with 580,000 letters ( adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine )

2. Man 3 billion letters

How complicated is the mycoplasm? Simply put, those 580, 000 letters comprise 482 genes, which code for proteins. Each have an average sequence of 400 amino acids each!
And each aspect of those sequences is vital to the survival of the organism. However, it pales in comparison to mankind

For there is a massive amount of information gain that must occur for the animal to increase from a cell, to a man, period!

Simply changing around already existing information will not change that cell to a man. That is a fact.

In other words the argument is this

Animal A - 580, 000 letters

[ QUOTE ]
Macroevolution certainly doesn't require an increase in genetic information, just a change in the information

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this statement, in order to gain

2, 999, 420, 000 letters, you do not need a gain of information???

That is an impossibility! You must gain information to gain information.

If you mean that an animal can lose information and change drastically. Sure. Look at the chiwawa. But that in downhill. You cannot go from a mycoplasma to a human by drastically losing information. It will never happen.

[ QUOTE ]
; the most obvious example of that is that many plants have huge genomes because they are polyploid. Polyploidization (which you should also be able to look up) is actually a great source of speciation in
plants (harder in animals).

[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation is not the question. In fact, rapid speciation is in the flood model. It does not occur via a increase in information however.

Now back to polyploid. We start off as a diploid. What does this mean?

Simple, you recieve half of your chromisomes from your mother via an egg which is a haploid cell( one set of chromosomes ), you recieve the other from your Old Man which is one set. When they combine, you are a diploid.

Now, several combinations of already existing information can produce a variety of human beings. But, this is with already existing information, and as science has shown, man is still man, and we are all so incredibly related that it boggles the mind!

a polyploid is an organism with more than 2 sets of chromosomes. Heres the problem. Polyploidization, only works with information that was already in the plants genetic code. A sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information, it inherits it from what was already contained in the parent code. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. The question is still begged? Where did that information being passed from the parent come from?

The only option is mutations. And we have already covered this in depth.

Scientific America stated

[ QUOTE ]
How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words. When we state increased genetic information, we mean a new feature, such as the evolutionary journal scientific america stated had no explanation for!

Polyploidization is like saying this. I give you a book, and that book has 10 chapters in it. What happens if I duplicate chapter one twice? Did you add new information? No. How does a new chapter, with brand new information that did not previously exist come into being. That is the only way to explain how feathers came about, or as scientific america stated: <font color="green"> new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers. </font>

Not only does the human have more genes, but it codes for thousands upon thousands of different " features " that is new information which must be accounted for. Polyploidization is not new information.

Dr. Safarti, an expert on the subject has this to say about polyploidization

[ QUOTE ]
In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare ex-ceptions),
the doubling of all the chromosomes may re-sult
in an individual which can no longer interbreed with
the parent type this is called polyploidy. Although this
may technically be called a new species, because of the
reproductive isolation, no new information has been pro-duced,
just repetitious doubling of existing information.
If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be
printed with every page doubled, it would not be more
informative than the proper book. (Brave students of
evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they
would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the
same assignment.)
Duplication of a single chromosome is normally harm-ful,
as in Downs syndrome. Insertions are a very efficient
way of completely destroying the functionality of existing
genes. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner analyzes examples of mutational changes that evo-lutionists
have claimed to have been increases in informa-tion,
and shows that they are actually examples of loss of
specificity, which means they involved loss of information
(which is to be expected from information theory). ]

The evolutionist gene duplication idea; is that an
existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its
normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed.

Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection
pressure (to get rid of it). However, such neutral mu-tations
are powerless to produce new genuine informa-tion.
Dawkins and others point out that natural selec-tion
is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the
immense design in nature (not a good one, as Spetner
and others have shown). Dawkins and others propose
that random changes produce a new function, then this
redundant gene becomes expressed somehow and is fine-tuned
under the natural selective process.
This idea is just a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a
chance copying event, genes somehow being switched
off, randomly mutating to something approximating a
new function, then being switched on again so natural
selection can tune it.
Furthermore, mutations do not occur in just the du-plicated
gene; they occur throughout the genome. Con-sequently,
all the deleterious mutations in the rest of the
genome have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit.
Selective mutations in the target duplicate gene are ex-tremely
rare it might represent only 1 part in 30,000
of the genome of an animal. The larger the genome, the
bigger the problem, because the larger the genome, the
lower the mutation rate that the creature can sustain
without error catastrophe; as a result, it takes even longer
for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable one, in
the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time
for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount
of genetic information that we see in living things.
Dawkins and others have recognized that the &amp;#8220;infor-mation
space possible within just one gene is so huge

that random changes without some guiding force could
never come up with a new function. There could never
be enough experiments (mutating generations of or-ganisms)
to find anything useful by such a process. Note
that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4 1000
possibilities that is 10 602 (compare this with the num-ber
of atoms in the universe estimated at only 10 80 ). If
every atom in the universe represented an experiment

every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of
the universe, this could only try a maximum 10 100 of the
possibilities for the gene. So such a neutral

process cannot possibly find any sequence with specificity (use-fulness),

even allowing for the fact that more than just
one sequence may be functional to some extent.
So Dawkins and company have the same problem as
the advocates of neutral selection theory. Increasing
knowledge of the molecular basis of biological functions
has exploded the known information space so that

mutations and natural selection with or without gene
duplication, or any other known natural process can-not
account for the irreducibly complex nature of living
systems.



[/ QUOTE ]

So you see, the problem still exists. Mutations must create new features such as feathers, and this in no way, shows how that information was created. Nor does it account for new information

[ QUOTE ]
Also, an increase in genetic information does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you believe that, you have to believe that life itself violates the second law of thermodynamics (which it doesn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

The suns energy is destructive. It will peel the paint off your car. Go stand out in the sun and see if you do not need to eat.

Thats the point, you cannot. You would need complex machinery to harnest power. Explain how photosynthesis evolved? The United states added allot of " Energy " to Iraq. Last I checked, it didnt increase the organization!!!!

That is what you are telling us to believe happened in the primordial soup. The addition of energy does not increase organization unless preprogramed machinary can harnest that information, period!

Lightening striking an area, will disorganize it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want a specific example of how a very small change in genetic information (not an increase) can lead to new species,

[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation is not the question. The Creation model predicts speciation. Notice how she stated " not an increase "

The creation model predicts that as well! In other words, natural selection can cause speciation. We agree with that. But in order to go from a single cell to a human, speciation doesnt cut it! You need massive increases in information, period!

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
or a snake with no legs from a 4-legged precursor, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is, if an animal " loses " the information for legs, that this proves information gaining evolution?

Wrong, a loss of information does not prove how one can gain information. I already explained this, but I will repost it

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, Charles Darwin himself illustrated a beneficial mutation. on the Island of Madeira. The Beetle there had the previously contained information for wings. However, those whose wings degenerated, by what scientists now know as mutations actually survived because they were not blown out to sea. What conclusion can therefore be made? Simply that, a positive mutation is one, which allows a species to survive. But, this, as Dr. Spetner stated is clearly a " loss " of information, and does not explain how the wings got there in the first place, and certainly cannot explain how an organism can gain information. This, is therefore the opposite of information gaining, macro evolution( i.e. a new organ system or the development of the complex eye).



[/ QUOTE ]

The question is not change, the question is " information gain "

Speciation is not the point. Nor is change. But rather an input of new information which creates new structures.

In other words, blasting a fly with radiation so that it loses its wings, produces a change. But not a gain in information and cannot account for how those wings arrived in the first place!

[President Wilson]

By the way, notice how she said, life as if it solved the problem of thermodynamics, without explaining how it origionated. See this post click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=558528&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=Cohen%2C%20Jon%2C&amp;Match=En tire%20Phrase&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main =557113&amp;Search=true#Post558528)

Thats the point

[CoLDTuRKeY]

Mr Palmetto, would you like to respond? /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Palmetto State Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Lets put it to you this way. You cannot turn a hand held calculator into a supercomputer by simply changing already existing information in the calculator. You agree with this correctly. So the point is. In order to go from one animal which contains a smaller amount of information to an animal with a larger amount of information, one needs to gain information. That is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Electrical engineering is quite different from molecular biology. Not much of an analogy there.

Did you read any of the links?

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean macroevolution can occur, and by that you mean simply change. Well, sure! I'll even give you an example!

A superior Genetic Dog Gets off of Noahs ark

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, not sure if you're being sarcastic here. Are you now saying that macro evolution occurs? That's in the least contradictory to what you've been saying...


[ QUOTE ]
Mankind, preserves dogs that lose information, and preserves mutations. No new information is added, but the animal continues to have detrimental mutations, and continues to lose all its useful genetic information.

WHat do you Get - An animal that is 100 percent useless

A Chiwahwa! Sure, lots of change just took place, but it was all lost information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chiwawas are worthless? How is it 100 % useless? It can reproduce can't it? You're confusing me (on purpose?)

[ QUOTE ]
So you see, the problem still exists. Mutations must create new features such as feathers, and this in no way, shows how that information was created. Nor does it account for new information

[/ QUOTE ]

to quote her:But transposition also often increases genome size (and therefore potentially, though not necessarily, increases genetic information).

An increase in genome size can increase genetic information. Transposition CAN increase genetic information. Please read the links!

[ QUOTE ]
The suns energy is destructive. It will peel the paint off your car. Go stand out in the sun and see if you do not need to eat.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh???

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, natural selection can cause speciation. We agree with that. But in order to go from a single cell to a human, speciation doesnt cut it! You need massive increases in information, period!

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, maybe not in 6,000 years, but given enough time, calculations have been made to determine how long it would take for that to occur, and "massive" increases are possible. Please READ THE LINKS.

[ QUOTE ]
The Creation model predicts speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that not macro evolution? At what taxonomic level do changes need to occur before you consider macroevolution viable?

As far as I've see it, you've provided no real argument against anything she stated, or what's stated in the links. Just contradictions and confusing analogies...

[Palmetto State Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:
By the way, notice how she said, life as if it solved the problem of thermodynamics, without explaining how it origionated. See this post click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=558528&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=Cohen%2C%20Jon%2C&amp;Match=En tire%20Phrase&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main =557113&amp;Search=true#Post558528)

Thats the point


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask her about how thermodynamics originated, nor the origin of buffalo wings /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif (I know, I'm a smart a**)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[President Wilson]

Pal Salmatto,

you are not seeing the point.

The General theory of evolution must go Up hill. Change is not the point.

Which is why when you look at Egyptian mummies thousands of years ago, bacteria look the same then as they do now.

You said " huh? " on the energy discussion I brought up. The point is, you need a complex mechanism to utilize energy. This has yet to be addressed. And that is the point on thermodynamics. Not that life already contains the machinary, but how did that machinary arrive. In fact, how did life begin!

You asked if I looked at your links, I did. And each of them fails to show the origionation of new informtation.
I addressed them.


The question is how does a single cell turn into a man?

All the links you gave me showed losses of information, or inheritence of already existing information.

Now, you stated that a supercomputer being compared to biological life is a false analogy? If by that you mean, that no super computer on earth can compare to to biological technology you would be correct.

If by that you mean there is no comparison, you would be incorrect. Biological life houses the most complex processing machinery known. And, it additionally yields extreme technology such as actual motors!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/images/ATPase.jpg

However the design in living organisms has far exceeded our most painstaking efforts. Bacteria propel themselves using flagella (singular flagellum, from the Latin for whip), filaments propelled by a true rotary motor. This motor is only the size of a virus, thus far smaller than anything man-made. Yet it can rotate at over 1000 times per second.

Hiroyuki Noji et al., 1997. Direct observation of the rotation of F1-ATPase. Nature 386(6622):299&amp;#8211;302. Comment by Block, S. Real engines of creation. Same issue, pp. 217&amp;#8211;219.

Wu, C., 1997. Molecular motor spins out energy for cells. Science News 151(12):173

Biological technology also comprise actual compasses. The turtle for example has its own magnetic compass!

Nature Australia Winter 1997, pp. 7-8


I can go on and on, but Biological life not only houses extreme machinary, but far exceeds mans technology.

By the way, you stated this

[ QUOTE ]
Electrical engineering is quite different from molecular biology

[/ QUOTE ]

Your central nervous system is comprised of over 100 trillion connections between over 100 billion neurons.

How do you think signals are conducted so that as you read this, you can comprehend the information content?

The answer is manipulation of electrical currents! If over 100 trillion connections, which opporate off of electrical impulses is not comparative to electrical engineering, I don't know what is!

[ QUOTE ]
Chiwawas are worthless? How is it 100 % useless? It can reproduce can't it? You're confusing me (on purpose?)


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, change occured, but it was due to a loss of information. Not a gain. Change is not the point, the point is, how does the eye origionate? How do feathers origionate? How did photosynthesis origionate?

A loss of information, such as a lizard losing its legs is irrelevent.

[ QUOTE ]
But transposition also often increases genome size (and therefore potentially, though not necessarily, increases genetic information).



[/ QUOTE ]

This infers the same problem as a mutation. A virus infecting a bacteria, so that its DNA is perminantly altered
does not show an increase in information, but rather a
problem which will now be passed on to future generations.
That is no different then a problematic mutation.

I am not arguing that a mutation can occur and can cause changes. The point is again, change is not a " Vertical "
increase. Mankind is full of mutations, and its only getting worse. This does not infer how a feather was created. A bacteria can have a mutation or have transposition which causes it to no longer be able to produce enzyme X, but that change is not vertical. In fact, there is no process which has shown this ability.


You must have faith, that

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, maybe not in 6,000 years, but given enough time, calculations have been made to determine how long it would take for that to occur, and "massive" increases are possible. Please READ THE LINKS.



[/ QUOTE ]


You have no evidence of uphill evolution. I have read your links. You still are not seeing the point. How does a books worth of information progress to a libraries worth of books?

If you copy a computer program 1 million times, the program will change. But that is due to copying errors. That is all we see in nature, and you have yet to show any different


In fact, I will show you exactly again from your links what I am talking about!

Your first article uses the Hox gene as evidence.

I am going to show you from the scientific journals, all that this evidence has yielded.

[ QUOTE ]
&amp;#8216;Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. &amp;#8230; Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.&amp;#8217; (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167&amp;#8211;177).



[/ QUOTE ]

Notice this part have led only to monstrosities


That is all the evidence you have. If you are stating that something " might " be able to do something, it is not based on the experimental evidence

Further, each of those mutations only work with existing information. For example, Legs comming out of a flys head.
That does not show how the leg information arrived. Further, that fly was worse off after the experiment, and could not function. That is change alright, but negative, non information increasing change!

Next link

Your next link, assumes that " The General Theory of Evolution has already taken place! "

Look at what it states

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing sequences of AA, DNA and RNA nucleotides can help to clarify some phylogenetic questions.

Molecular comparisons can be made between organisms that have been evolving separately for millions of years and that cannot be compared by traditional methods, e.g. humans, magnolias, yeast and bacteria.


[/ QUOTE ]

That goes back to comparitive anatomy. Comparitive anatomy in no way stretch or form proves evolution. I have addressed this subject about 1 thousand times.

Look at this quote

[ QUOTE ]
The persistence of similarity in a protein's AA sequence in many unrelated species

[/ QUOTE ]

Microsoft works and Microsoft word are similar, not because they have a common ancestor, but because they have a common designer. The argument is once again irrelevent. That whole study is on compartitive anatomy. You must assume evolution took place for that. It isn't evidence, its inference, based on faith in events which never took place.

Next link

Your next link is a " simulation " that again assumes that evolution has taken place. It offers no evidence. Further, look at their conclusions

[ QUOTE ]
So, we can say, that the simple genetic operators (mutation and recombination)
do not work well in the model.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A similar situation as in the previous experiment arises. Without redundant genes,
even frequently performed crisis has no effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Frequent crisis was also tested, but it does not give better results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at their findings in mutations!

[ QUOTE ]
The first experiment is made without recombination and with enlarged mutation (changed
from 0.002 to 1). The average quality of the population is significantly reduced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reduction proves you can increase information! again, change is not the point. they changes, but the quality was reduced!

look at the second experiment!

[ QUOTE ]
Next experiment is with high recombination (changed from 0.02 to 1). The result is quite bad (Fig. 12
shows the run for pr = 0.8), the global optimum is not reached.

[/ QUOTE ]

A quite bad result shows evolution can happen?

I have reviewed your links, and they have only shown my point.

Lets look at the conclusion to your next link

[ QUOTE ]
Many real problems solved by using Genetic Algorithms are t he optimization problems with many
local optimums. The possibility of escaping from the local optimum is a very significant feature
of genet ic algorithms. But still applications of genetic algorithms to specific problems (e.g., a
neural network design problem) do not give satisfactory results.

[/ QUOTE ]


I will heightlight this aspect

[ QUOTE ]
do not give satisfactory results

[/ QUOTE ]


I could have said that without wasting my time.

[CoLDTuRKeY]

[ QUOTE ]
Speciation is a far cry from macroevolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't they nearly the same thing? Speciation is the formation of a new species. It usually happens when a single species divides into 2 new species which are genetically different, even though they have the same anscestor. And that is what would have happened if evolution took place. The few living things on the planet would have had to spawn off and create new living things.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, thank you. They provided a good laugh!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too sound too much like I'm trying to provoke a fight, but some would say the same about Genesis...

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't they nearly the same thing? Speciation is the formation of a new species. It usually happens when a single species divides into 2 new species which are genetically different, even though they have the same anscestor. And that is what would have happened if evolution took place. The few living things on the planet would have had to spawn off and create new living things.



[/ QUOTE ]

That isnt the case. Speciation occurs with already existing information. Not new. For example. Florida rabbits were isolated from Arkansas Rabbits.

The Florida lost a certain amount of information as did the Arkansas. They were differently adapted, because the envireonment selected " already " existing information in their genetic code.

Now, they can no longer interbreed. That is change, but it is due to a loss of information. We are speaking of " vertical " evolution. Not horizontal. Natural selection,
can only select what is in the genetic code. It cannot create information, and I can reference that a thousand times over. It still comes down to the fact that a species must increase information to gain a feather or an eye.

In examples of animals not being able to interbreed( speciation ) it is due to a loss of information. In all of these instances, the changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist.

We have plenty of real, observed evidence that (downhill) loss of information happens.

By the way, that is what the Bible states exactly. It says that all of creation is " running down "

Once again, science fits with the Bible.

[President Wilson]

The real point however is How does an animal gain new information such as a dinosour turning into a bird. That is one kind of animal turning into another kind based on information increase here is what the fossil evidence shows for this

[ QUOTE ]
p. 127
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."


[/ QUOTE ]

Paleobiology, vol. 6, pp. 119-130.
p. 122

Its pure imagination. And one cannot conclude the following

We see an overall loss of information

Therefore we can gain information

A better explanation is

We see an overall loss of information

Creation is running downhill as the Bible states

Here what the evidence is

<font color="blue"> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Stanley, Steven M., Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., ), 332 pp.


</font>

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection,
can only select what is in the genetic code. It cannot create information, and I can reference that a thousand times over. It still comes down to the fact that a species must increase information to gain a feather or an eye.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to try to help break this down. Jacob has given great examples to help simplify things, great idea.

Let me try to explain what he is saying in regards to natural selection(which by the way creationists discoverd)

Let's say you work on an assembly line that produces skateboards.

Now you have eagle eyed vision. You catch every mistake. Nothing gets by you.

How long is it going to take to turn that skateboard into a helicopter?

It never will. I don't care if you give it trillions of years.

The parts for creating the helicopter are not there.

This is exactly what they are expecting us to believe happend though.

You can only select from what is present. Selection is never going to create a helicopter from a skateboard.

Let's hear from the leading evolutionists himself, Richard Dawkins, where the evidence for increases in information exists:

http://answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/play.aspx?mediaID=000620_special

This is actually a condensed version. His original silence was much longer.

He gives no such mechanism, then starts talking about natural selection, which does not increase information.

The truth is there is no such mechanism. This is the supernatural force of evolution that makes it a religon.

Dogs produce dogs, roses produce roses. Exactly like the bible says. Roses and dogs do not have a common ancestor.

[konaforever]

This analogy is just plain wrong.

In this analogy, there is no benefit in becoming a helicopter. In this analogy you wrote that you catch every mistake. DNA does not work like this. Mistakes are not caught. In this Analogy, there is no benefit in a skateboard that can fly over one that cannot. What if suddently a skateboard that could fly was created by mistake and shipped out by mistake, and became popular. Then there would be incentive for skateboards that fly. That is a more true analogy of how evolution works.

Yours leaves out great detail in order to make your point. False analogies make bad points.

Luckily, in evolution, your mistake would not evolve.

[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:

I am going to try to help break this down. Jacob has given great examples to help simplify things, great idea.

Let me try to explain what he is saying in regards to natural selection(which by the way creationists discoverd)

Let's say you work on an assembly line that produces skateboards.

Now you have eagle eyed vision. You catch every mistake. Nothing gets by you.

How long is it going to take to turn that skateboard into a helicopter?

It never will. I don't care if you give it trillions of years.

The parts for creating the helicopter are not there.

This is exactly what they are expecting us to believe happend though.

You can only select from what is present. Selection is never going to create a helicopter from a skateboard.



[/ QUOTE ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[konaforever]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:

Oh no? I think flying would be a benefit! Besides, you are talking about natural selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

Teach us then. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Genes are passed to offspring through breeding. This is not always an error free process. Mistakes are not always caught or there would be no children with birth defects.

[ QUOTE ]
"What if" questions are irrelevant. It's poor debate tactics.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is ridiculous. An analogy is a big "What if"!

[ QUOTE ]

What are the mechanisms behind the transformation? Where are the intermediate forms of the flying skateboard? Do you know the mechanisms that drive change at all? A bear cannot give birth to a whale. Thusly, a skateboard factory cannot accidentally make a helicopter.


[/ QUOTE ]

Natural selection. Genetic drift.

Intermediate forms of flying skateboard could be minute widening of the midsection of the skateboard by mistake (since the machines used to cut the board isn't perfect), thereby giving the board more lift and a better capability to handle small bumps or uneven surfaces. More people buy these, so the factory changes the settings on the board cutter machine. The midsection gets even wider until you reach a point where the skateboard can eventually glide in mid air.

Here you no longer have a skateboard, but a glideboard. Maybe the next step is the ability to fly.

[ QUOTE ]

With that logic, you made a terrible point with your analogy.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so? My analogy is much more accurate than yours.

[ QUOTE ]

LOL! Show me ONE piece of evidence proving macroevolution, and I will show you it is based on either speciation or variation - in essence, MICROevolution, not macroevolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no evidence that PROVES macroevolution. There is evidence that points towards it. If I could prove it, I would be on the cover of Time tommorrow.

There is no evidence that proves gravity exists. But we do have evidence that points towards the theory of gravity.

[CoLDTuRKeY]

[ QUOTE ]
That is ridiculous. An analogy is a big "What if"!


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was going to say. There have been a whole lot of analogies dealing with everything from radiation to skateboard factories going around so you can't dismiss them when someone is trying to make a point. They're just trying to put it into simple terms.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[konaforever]

[ QUOTE ]

Microevolution, yes. MACROevolution, no. Even evolutionists agree with that. In order to effectively argue evolution, you must first know what it is. You have a lot to learn my friend. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with what? That natural selection does not work for macroevolution? Evolutionists do not agree on that. Some may, but not as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree. Now, how does this prove a gain in information. You are merely telling me of a variation in the genes, not new genes being created.


[/ QUOTE ]

This I don't know. That does not mean it does not exist.

[ QUOTE ]

Not at all. You need to brush up on your vocab too. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Webster's states:

analogy: a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike

A "what if" question is imaginary.

What if = suppose, pretend, imagine etc

Analogy = similarity, likeness etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is pure semantics. I could have worded my answer differently by not using "What if" and it would have fit into the analogy just the same.

Are you just trying to avoid the question? I don't get it.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, natural selection in no way proves macroevolution, in fact, it helps to disprove it!


[/ QUOTE ]

How does it disprove it?

[ QUOTE ]

What about the machinery behind it? How is it propelled without an engine? Will we see a skateboard with half an engine, or will it appear spontaineously and fully formed (like what we have seen in the fossil record)?


[/ QUOTE ]

The fossil record is incomplete. There are many reasons for this. Darwin, himself, explained possible reasons for this.
As evolution is a science, information is always being gathered. Anyway, in certain animals, there are transitional fossils. You just don't believe in the transition.


[ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, MOST evidence points AGAINST macroevolution, as we have shown you time and time again. Maybe that is why most people don't believe in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your evidence points against it. Creationist propaganda points against it.

I wouldn't say that most people don't believe in it. And even if they don't, that doesn't mean they're correct in their beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]

The evidence is right in front of you. Conversely, there is no evidence of macroevolution. If you can find some, pass it my way and I will show you it's false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on. NO evidence? So that means every piece of evidence points against it? You would have to be a die hard creationist to believe that. There are no absolutes in this world. To say that there is NO evidence is to be ignorant.

As a person who believes in evolution, even I can question aspects of evolution. For you to be so biased requires a great deal of denial.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[renob]

hey guys, u ever think of actually becoming biochemists? you certainly seem to have the knowledge for it....


anyways, is it possible to genetically engineer something? or do we not yet fully understand genetic code? and if we do, can we add say the genetic code from a fly's wings, onto a person? (that would be really kool actually..)

[konaforever]

I don't want to debate this over and over. I just wanted to point out your incorrect analogy that doesn't even closely model what evolutionists think. And I think I did that.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:


Hmm, death is pretty absolute I would say.

Try to avoid such blanket statements.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could have sworn that the Bible said that Jesus was resurrected. So much for death being absolute. Try to avoid such blanket statements.

[ QUOTE ]

Denial my ancestor was a rock, absolutely. Denial that my distant relative is a banana, of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are bacteria in your body that help you live. Bacteria are one of the earliest life forms, but you could not survive without them. Why is it so hard to believe we once came from something simpler?

[ QUOTE ]

You, on the other hand, deny the scientific evidence against evolution. That is blind faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

You only use science when it suits you. When it comes to religion, science is thrown out the window. All you need is the Bible. But as evolutionists, we are held to a higher standard where we have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is in fact a valid theory. No wonder we can't win.

All you have to say is God did it to prove anything.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[konaforever]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
You did so in a non-convincing fassion. An analogy for evolution would be:

A dinosaur finds it necessary to grow wings for some reason (presumably for survival). Over time, (billions of years) this change occurs. The dinosaur is able to increase it's genetic information until it has shrunk to 1/100 of it's size, completely change it's skeletal, muscular, digestive, endocrine, excretory, circulatory, respiratory and nervous systems as well as change the skin to grow feathers, change the structure of it's eyes and brains as well as the billions of other changes that must take place synergistically with one another for this transformation to be even remotely possible. The end result - a bird. Is this not macroevolution at its finest?


[/ QUOTE ]

You could have posted that the first time, instead of writing a misleading skateboard analogy. But that wouldn't have worked with your point, huh?


[ QUOTE ]

Lol, your tactics are pathetic to say the least.

Indeed, Jesus was ressurected. But you evolutionists don't believe in that, right?

Jesus - the Son of God, part of the Holy Trinity is beyond death. And now He lives forever in God's kingdom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I used your own tactic against you, and you call it pathetic. There's some irony in there somewhere.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[CoLDTuRKeY]

Why can't weeee be freinds?
Why can't weeee be freinds...

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree with what? That natural selection does not work for macroevolution? Evolutionists do not agree on that. Some may, but not as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? Not according to March's issue of Scientific American, one of the leading evolutionary journals:

[ QUOTE ]
'How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? &amp;#8230; Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.'



[/ QUOTE ]

Then they continue claiming they are baffled, but somehow it happened, because afterall evolution is true.

They could all quickly end this whole thing with evidence of this supernatural miracle called evolution that can magically increase information.

I will save them the time. You can't. Because it doesn't exist. Where is the evidence that has stood the test of time?

How does one select from something that is not there. That is magic, not selection.

Give evidence of this process by which living things gain entirely new characteristics that were never before present in their genetic make-up, not even in a latent or "hidden" form.

Here is a simple experiment from Mr. Wizard. (Ok, not really but that guy was cool. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif )

The following simple and easy-to-do experiment will show what that difference is. It can be performed with a large stack of miscellaneous clothes buttons and some builder's sieves of different mesh sizes.

Sieving the buttons through the mesh, mimics the action of natural selection -- sorting out which objects will survive the testing process. The use of different mesh sizes will sort out the buttons quite differently (this is analogous to different environmental conditions or selection pressures). Buttons that survive one sieving may be caught out in the next.

What we have at the end of the sieving or selecting process are groups of buttons of similar size, each of which will be quite different from the original collection of all shapes and sizes thrown in together. No button has changed, but what if some buttons did not make it right through the sieving process? If all the buttons which stuck on the first sieve were thrown into the fire and burnt, you could claim they had become extinct. That is what natural selection does -- it can eliminate species. Likewise from our button experiment, it would be extremely naive to claim that the button populations (the groups of buttons) had 'evolved' since all the buttons were present right at the start -- no new types of buttons had appeared from the beginning. If you wanted new buttons to appear on the scene, only the supplier of the buttons could introduce new kinds of buttons. However, note that each pile of buttons you have from your sieving will be a new combination, a previously unseen combination of those things that already existed at the start.

This is exactly what results from natural selection. Natural selection produces or uncovers previously unseen combinations of genes that have always been there and remain unchanged.

For example we often hear resistance as evidence for evolution.

When new drugs have been tried out on germs it has usually been discovered that the germs that survive the drug were already resistant not because they were evolving resistance, but because they already possessed it. Those that didn't possess in-built resistance became extinct. They couldn't get through the mesh or sieve of the new selection pressure of the drug. Those that did survive were the ones that went on to make obvious a previously unobserved combination of existing genes that were already present. The population hadn't changed or evolved. One section of it which was previously unknown or was a minority had now become the majority.

[ QUOTE ]
This I don't know. That does not mean it does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just said you have no evidence how information increases. None whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh come on. NO evidence? So that means every piece of evidence points against it? You would have to be a die hard creationist to believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

By your logic you must therefore be a creationist.

[ QUOTE ]
The fossil record is incomplete. There are many reasons for this. Darwin, himself, explained possible reasons for this.
As evolution is a science, information is always being gathered.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is switch and bait. So the record is incomplete, that is obvious, there is no way we have every animal throughout all of earth's history fossilized.

So you use that obvious conclusion to point that that somehow is evidence for evoltuion?

Translation- there is no evidence, therefore it must be missing.

That sounds like a strong faith.

Why cares anyway? If I get buried on top of a earth worm that doesn't mean he's my grandpa!

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, in certain animals, there are transitional fossils. You just don't believe in the transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me some. And I'm talking macro level here.

Don't say, "here's a Wolf fossil and here's a dog fossil!, see transitional!" It's still a canine. Give me macro evidence in the fossil record.

[FelixL]

Ok
evolution may be wrong, maybe someday well find a way to prove it. Right now I think we dont have enough knowledge to even understand all stuff how life works cause its complexitity

however IMO creationism is worst than evolution
the same about earth being only 6000 yrs and the flood stuff
even with all your explanations, there is something deep inside me, and almost all ppl i know, that feels it is wrong too...

just my 2 cents

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
however IMO creationism is worst than evolution
the same about earth being only 6000 yrs and the flood stuff
even with all your explanations, there is something deep inside me, and almost all ppl i know, that feels it is wrong too...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, sadly many people have fallen for this lie. Not because you, or any one else believes it. But because you would rather enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season than eternity with Christ.

Isaiah 66: 22-24
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. 24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Isaiah 14:4-21
4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. 7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? 11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

2 Corinthians 4:1-4
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be ****ed who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Isaiah 8:19-20
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Matthew 13:13-15
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Revelation 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 22:11
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Isaiah 30:8-14
8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. 12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon: 13 Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. 14 And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters' vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/images/1201evolutionisreligion.jpg

The Evidence For Evolution In The Fossil Record Displayed (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/fossil_evidence.htm)