Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: WarminIndy

Again, like I said, all open to interpretation according to the filters you choose to use.

Filters don't have anything to do with it; these are Scientific Papers, not Editorial Opinions.

A Scientific Paper discusses exactly what it says it discusses, no more. When a paper is discussing the RATE of mutations occurring, it is NOT debating whether the mutation itself random or not random.

Suppose we do an experiment: we put a monkey into a room with a piano, wait for him/her to figure out that the piano can make an interesting noise when the keys are pressed, and record the results. Now lets analyze the results to determine if the monkey has any concept of rhythm.

Clearly in order to answer that problem, we are not interested in whether the monkey has any artistic intentions behind his choice of WHICH notes to play, we only want to know whether there is a discernible rhythm in his key presses. The notes may or may not be random, for THIS study we don't care, and we are not going to make any conclusions about them one way or another.

In the same way, those two papers are referring to the rate of the mutation, not the mutation itself.

The mutation caused by the cancer cell is (in my opinion pending further study) probably just happenstance of the chemistry of how that virus works. Different cancers work in different ways - some destroy the lungs, some the liver, some are apparently benign parasites - it would appear this one affects the reproductive cells as part of its life cycle.

Until it can be shown that the cancer cell itself gets some benefit from causing a mutation in the offspring of its host, it cannot be said that the cancer cell has any 'information' about that mutation anyway - anymore than a cosmic ray has any information when it zaps some gene. The fact that it is 'caused' by the cancer makes it non-random, but that doesn't mean that the cancer has some 'ulterior motive'; most cancers cause sickness of one kind or another, this is just a variation on a theme.

I must say again, anything that you interpret is through the filter of what you already believe. You said

The mutation caused by the cancer cell is (in my opinion pending further study) probably just happenstance of the chemistry of how that virus works.

As you have thrown in the statement (in my opinion) and that you need further study, what are you waiting for the study to validate? Does it need to validate what you have already thought is fact or does it need to show more, so that you will shift your paradigm?

I will now say that for my side, and my opinion is just as valid, that this demonstrates what our side already believes, that since the first human couple, there was an environmental change and this led to mutations that caused certain behaviors in the individuals and the resulting mutations were passed down through descendants. But as the last link indicated, epigenetics demonstrates that even if mutations are passed to descendants, by changing behaviors or environment, those negative mutations can be changed, leading to better behavior.

We could discuss origins again, but I think your side has already tried to remove itself from being able to answer, yet the ancient writers indicated a knowledge of the process of inherited traits and that individuals are capable of changing those traits, at the epigenetic level.

This is something long known on our side, that what you call evolution, meaning small changes are inherited, is indeed what we have already understood. What we define as "original sin" is nothing more than deleterious mutations that are inherited.

If we stay on that point, then we seem to agree that it happened and epigenetics seems to demonstrate. But as you can see, you used a filter as well as I, we look at the same evidence and arrive at the same conclusion that mutations are passed down.

I already know that the physical body of man is comprised of elements of the earth. That ancient writer knew that and didn't dismiss that fact, that man arose from the earth. The divergence here is what caused that to happen. I would imagine that those scientists who deeply believe what they understand from their faith, is that they have no problem reconciling what they understand already is answered in the science they practice.

Of course, there are some like a particular poster above, who claims evolution is a lie from Satan, hasn't fully comprehended what his religious text says. What the above poster also does not realize is that the text is actually saying that animals and man diverged in that same eon.

Like I said before, I am not a Young Earther, and even though that is what I had always heard growing up, when I learned that the text is saying things that aren't generally taught, well, among many evangelicals, is that the Biblical text introduces the idea that man was never created in the Garden, but rather placed there, because it had already existed. Now, there are going to be evangelicals who are going to come onto this thread now and say that I don't know what I am talking about.

But I can reconcile certain many facets of evolution with my faith, because I don't generally listen to all people on my side. I don't take someone's word for it if they also have an agenda to dismiss or reinterpret the text to maintain a worldview.

I simply do not believe in random mutations, but I do believe mutations are inherited. I do believe that the text is saying that man became a living soul, or that we have an intellect and in us a capacity to reason and what makes us who we are, inwardly, and that we today still possess that breath of life. To take it on a surface level, then those who trust that the breath of life is simply God breathing into man made him become this magical creature that suddenly jumped up animated and began to walk and talk. The text is deeper, in that man is highly intellectual and still carries and maintains that spark of life, with an intrinsic nature that makes him so divergent from animals, and that man is barely able to comprehend all what man is.

Even secular people agree that man has an intrinsic nature that is capable of multi-complex reasoning abilities. We could now disagree that God caused that, or that man was created in the image and likeness of God, those are viewpoints that will be discussed until we all go extinct and you are left with your belief and I am left with mine.

But through the filter of my worldview, I am capable of reconciling that if evolution is merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation, then that is what I already understand.

And this forum section was designed that I am allowed to present that into the discussion. And at this point of the thread, I think that I could reasonably say that from looking at the evidence, I am able to reconcile that with my faith. If you, on the other hand, do not think the evidence is sufficient for you to think one way or another, then that is your right and choice. I can't force you to believe one way or another. But what I can do is ask that you respect my right as I must respect yours.

a reply to: WarminIndy

As you have thrown in the statement (in my opinion) and that you need further study, what are you waiting for the study to validate?

I said it was my opinion because I haven't ready the study, only the abstract. I have this bad habit of being honest.

What I am waiting for is more information about the study, not for the study to validate anything. I have already said that I don't know what benefit the cancer cell derives from causing this mutation. Either it must benefit it in some way, or it is just a happenstance side effect of the biochemistry. By benefit, I mean, that it must further the cancer cells 'goal' of successfully passing its DNA on to future generations. So perhaps the mutation in the host's descendant makes it easier for the virus to infect the descendant. I don't know, but I personally consider that unlikely - it is an opinion. I suspect side effect hypothesis is much more likely. Perhaps the papers authors have other hypotheses, or perhaps none. Perhaps we are both misreading the abstract.

I understand your Lamarkian views, and I reject them, there is just no evidence for them, and lots of evidence against. If there was any substance to them, the lopping off of the tails and ears of Doberman Pinschers would be unnecessary (well it is not necessary, but you probably know what I mean) for a hundred years already. Changes between generations happen because DNA changes, not because you lop off a tail.

a reply to: rnaa

Furthermore the Lamarckian scenario has been falsified by the evidence.
We don't see is an entire population acquiring a specific mutation in single generation in response to a specific environmental stimuli. This is what we would expect from a system where the environment guides mutations, and it simply is not seen.

By definition, epigenetics does not involve changes to gene sequences, so it cannot explain why animals whose phenotypic differences are due to differences in gene sequences.
Epigenetics does not involve a change in DNA sequence. The differences between species is due to a difference in DNA sequence. Thus epigenetics can not be the cause of divergence between species.

WarminIndy is trying to claim that mutations are guided simply because WarminIndy wants it to be true.
WarminIndy needs to show how epigenetics guides mutations so that they are only beneficial and do not produce neutral or detrimental mutations. Where has WarminIndy done that?

rnaa you have a PM..

a reply to: WarminIndy

But through the filter of my worldview, I am capable of reconciling that if evolution is merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation, then that is what I already understand.

You understand it incorrectly.

The word "evolution" means "change over time". Nothing more, nothing less.

That means anything that changes over time, whether it be the entire cosmos or the biosphere, is evolving. Of course we are specifically discussing biological evolution here, not cosmological, not geological, not meteorological, and not psychological or any thing else; just biological.

Biological evolution is not 'merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation'.

Evolution is the change that occurs in populations as one generation produces the next. Unless a species reproduces by cloning, every generation is different from its parents in some way. That CHANGE is evolution. All populations of all organisms are evolving all the time. Change over time.

The differences between generations are caused by the mixing of DNA from the female and the male and by mistakes that occur during that mixing. The normal mixing of DNA is called sexual reproduction. The reproductive mistakes are known as MUTATIONS. Mutations may be caused by chemical accidents, cosmic rays, terrestrial radiation, possibly even viruses, whatever. There is no way to predict when a mutation will occur, where in the DNA it will occur, or whether the mutation is good, bad, or neutral, until after it has occurred. Mutations are random. Change over time.

In every generation, some siblings reproduce better than other siblings. It may be that they are harder to spot by predators and live longer, it may be that they are more attractive to mates, it may be that they can digest a less nourishing but more abundant food source, it may be that their siblings received a disadvantageous mutation, whatever. If the difference is a significant advantage, the trait that provided that advantage will come to dominate the population. THAT is natural selection.

Everything that lives, evolves, generation after generation after generation (except that it is not accurate to say that individuals evolve; populations evolve). Every individual that exists today is the *end point* of its personal evolution. Change over time. Its immediate children will be evolved differently. Change over time. Every generation has some changes that the previous generation did not have. Change over time. Every organism that has ever existed is in a 'transitional' state; every individual that has been fossilized is a 'transitional fossil'. Every single one of them. Change over time.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I will now say that for my side, and my opinion is just as valid, that this demonstrates what our side already believes, that since the first human couple, there was an environmental change and this led to mutations that caused certain behaviors in the individuals and the resulting mutations were passed down through descendants.

Which is, biologically speaking, motherhood and apple pie statement. Except why limit it to the first human couple? Evolution has happened continuously since the first living biote. Generation after generation after generation.

And notice I did not say first living organism or even cell. I don't know what you would 'classify' the first group of chemicals that was able to self-replicate and grow, but it certainly would not resemble anything we currently recognize as an organism or a cell.

But as the last link indicated, epigenetics demonstrates that even if mutations are passed to descendants, by changing behaviors or environment, those negative mutations can be changed, leading to better behavior.

Wait a minute, you have just changed topics in the middle of a sentence. That just will not do.

Animals can have inherited behavior and learned behavior. Learned behavior is not passed on as a mutation. A beating heart is not a "learned behavior" an organism didn't learn how to make its heart beat and passed on the capability. The heart evolved slowly, step by step, generation after generation, learning was not involved.

Gorillas can learn sign language because they have the physical tools to do so: capable hands and capable brains. Gorillas that learn sign language can teach their children sign language but they cannot pass it on through their genes. Humans can learn language because they too have the physical tools to do so. Humans also teach their children language, they do not pass it on through their genes.

Furthermore, "better behavior" is a value judgment, not a biological judgment. If learned "better behavior" is inheritable, why is there war?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: WarminIndy

But through the filter of my worldview, I am capable of reconciling that if evolution is merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation, then that is what I already understand.

You understand it incorrectly.

The word "evolution" means "change over time". Nothing more, nothing less.

That means anything that changes over time, whether it be the entire cosmos or the biosphere, is evolving. Of course we are specifically discussing biological evolution here, not cosmological, not geological, not meteorological, and not psychological or any thing else; just biological.

Biological evolution is not 'merely the process of passing inherited traits and mutation'.

Evolution is the change that occurs in populations as one generation produces the next. Unless a species reproduces by cloning, every generation is different from its parents in some way. That CHANGE is evolution. All populations of all organisms are evolving all the time. Change over time.

The differences between generations are caused by the mixing of DNA from the female and the male and by mistakes that occur during that mixing. The normal mixing of DNA is called sexual reproduction. The reproductive mistakes are known as MUTATIONS. Mutations may be caused by chemical accidents, cosmic rays, terrestrial radiation, possibly even viruses, whatever. There is no way to predict when a mutation will occur, where in the DNA it will occur, or whether the mutation is good, bad, or neutral, until after it has occurred. Mutations are random. Change over time.

In every generation, some siblings reproduce better than other siblings. It may be that they are harder to spot by predators and live longer, it may be that they are more attractive to mates, it may be that they can digest a less nourishing but more abundant food source, it may be that their siblings received a disadvantageous mutation, whatever. If the difference is a significant advantage, the trait that provided that advantage will come to dominate the population. THAT is natural selection.

Everything that lives, evolves, generation after generation after generation (except that it is not accurate to say that individuals evolve; populations evolve). Every individual that exists today is the *end point* of its personal evolution. Change over time. Its immediate children will be evolved differently. Change over time. Every generation has some changes that the previous generation did not have. Change over time. Every organism that has ever existed is in a 'transitional' state; every individual that has been fossilized is a 'transitional fossil'. Every single one of them. Change over time.

I am back, have been very busy.

When you say change, you mean adaptation, right? Species "adapt" to their environment, correct?

Adaptation is not complete change of the entire genome to accommodate a new genome. I just saw a video of a biology professor who couldn't explain KINDS and said that people are fish.

Would you care to elaborate on how humans are fish? This was a biology professor in a secular setting. If you want me to believe your side, show me the evidence that humans are fish.

Yes, you say it is for populations and yet can only say that for recent populations you have observed, but you still can't show evolution of one kind to another. Macro evolution has never been observed by anyone, and yet it is still being taught and all of this what you say is mere semantics.

When you say "kind" "species" "evolve" and all the catchwords, what you really are in essence merely saying is that every species adapts to their environment, because if you move individuals away from that environment, they can adapt to a new one. Isn't that what you are really saying?

But let's say this, if an individual did not adapt to the environment, what would happen? They would die. Therefore adaptation is at the individual level, because the ones who died don't breed and therefore no population.

OK, let's go through this...

Speciation from UC Davis

The fossil record tells us that new species have evolved from pre-existing ones.

So there has to be an original, right? I mean if every species that is "evolved" must come from a previous one that has all the functions of ability to thrive.

No one has seen a new species form in ecological time,

OK, you have not seen it, it has never been observed, it can't even be calculated, so how should I trust your scientific methods when science is....

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

For it to be science, it must be practically observed.

In fact, then, both biologists and paleontologists must infer what happens, and it is very difficult to sort out where fact ends and where interpretation begins.

Given that explanation, it would seem apparent then that what I have said is correct all along. You are basing your belief through interpretation, not facts. No one has scientifically observed species changing from one to another.

Notice that since biologists have not seen a speciation event that everyone would believe, biologists are driven to theory-heavy models of speciation, rather than a rich store of observational evidence. Even so, there are cases of near-speciation in the biological world, and many of them have been ignored because they suggested the "wrong" answer!

It's not been observed, just heavily theorized and inferred, and you would say to me that everyone must believe it, and then people on your side demand observed evidence of our side.

So, the question is, have YOU seen and observed it?

I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?

Believing in something for no good reason....(gods, ghouls and ghosts etc).

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?

Believing in something for no good reason....(gods, ghouls and ghosts etc).

But are you able to separate the facts from interpretations? That's the hanging issue.

And what do you consider a "good" reason?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I am back, have been very busy.

When you say change, you mean adaptation, right? Species "adapt" to their environment, correct?

Yes.

Adaptation is not complete change of the entire genome to accommodate a new genome. I just saw a video of a biology professor who couldn't explain KINDS and said that people are fish.

Would you care to elaborate on how humans are fish? This was a biology professor in a secular setting. If you want me to believe your side, show me the evidence that humans are fish.

How about posting the video so we can get a better idea of what the professor was saying instead of trying to decipher his meaning from your short description?

Yes, you say it is for populations and yet can only say that for recent populations you have observed, but you still can't show evolution of one kind to another. Macro evolution has never been observed by anyone, and yet it is still being taught and all of this what you say is mere semantics.

YES it has been observed. The E. Coli study has shown that one population of E. Coli has adapted to only be able to live in its new environment. But in any case, macroevolution is just the culmination of many microevolutions. They are guided by the same processes, so how about explaining why a bunch of small processes piled on top of each other cannot become the bigger version of those processes? That's like saying that 1000 grams can't equal 1 kilogram.

When you say "kind" "species" "evolve" and all the catchwords, what you really are in essence merely saying is that every species adapts to their environment, because if you move individuals away from that environment, they can adapt to a new one. Isn't that what you are really saying?

Well technically yes, but don't think that it will happen overnight. The species may also very well die out if it isn't lucky enough to evolve any suitable mutations that help it survive better before going extinct.

But let's say this, if an individual did not adapt to the environment, what would happen? They would die. Therefore adaptation is at the individual level, because the ones who died don't breed and therefore no population.

That is faulty logic. An individual is NEVER 100% indicative of the whole population. Since not every member of a species is the same on a genetic level, that means that part of the population may very well already have a preexisting mutation that helps it survive better, but it was a recessive gene. As the members of the species without that mutation die out, the ones with it survive and pass it along until the whole population has it.

OK, let's go through this...

Speciation from UC Davis

So there has to be an original, right? I mean if every species that is "evolved" must come from a previous one that has all the functions of ability to thrive.

Original what? Species? I need more clarification on this point. You aren't making sense here.

OK, you have not seen it, it has never been observed, it can't even be calculated, so how should I trust your scientific methods when science is....

Again, explain how if the processes involved on the micro level are EXACTLY the same as the macro level that when many micro processes pile up, they cannot make the macro level. Why does this even need to be observed at all? One can easily infer the results through given processes.

I can make a mound of dirt by piling dirt in place. If I keep doing that eventually I'll make a mountain. I don't have to observe this process, I just know that a mountain is just a macro scale mound of dirt. So eventually with enough dirt added, I'll make a mountain.

For it to be science, it must be practically observed.

Here is the scientific definition of observation (hint: it's not just using your eyesight).

Scientific Observation

Observation consists of receiving knowledge of the outside world through our senses, or recording information using scientific tools and instruments. Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation.

Take note of that bolded part. It allows for the claims scientists to make about evolution to be valid since testing on a small scale shows how things work on a larger scale (again all the processes are 100% the same, the scale is the only difference).

Given that explanation, it would seem apparent then that what I have said is correct all along. You are basing your belief through interpretation, not facts. No one has scientifically observed species changing from one to another.

Interpretation from using facts. You look at the evidence and infer the results. That is what is being said here. By the way, your article is from 2002. MUCH has changed in regards to evolutionary theory since then, including the developments in that E. Coli study.

It's not been observed, just heavily theorized and inferred, and you would say to me that everyone must believe it, and then people on your side demand observed evidence of our side.

Apples to oranges. The mountain of evidence that infers the answer of the current theory of evolution only shows that we may not be 100% correct about how evolution actually works. But, this has always been the case. Scientists don't accept Darwinian evolution anymore and have moved on. It isn't that far fetched to imply that we will abandon some ideas in the future as new evidence comes to light on things that are currently being inferred. It DOESN'T mean that evolution is false or that macro evolution is untrue however.

So, the question is, have YOU seen and observed it?

I am sorry again, but what is the definition of faith?

Believing an assumption without any evidence to back it up. Inferences AREN'T faith, they are predictions on how things will happen given past results and evidence. Until evidence can be shown that invalidates the inference, then the inference is considered good and trustworthy. Meanwhile, YOUR camp has a bunch of claims, but no evidence to back it up. We cannot predict future events or infer anything from the bible as we have no concrete idea of what exactly the bible is saying. And not to mention, many of the claims in the bible violate the laws of physics (and are therefore HIGHLY unlikely to have occurred).

a reply to: WarminIndy

There is no scientific designation "kinds". Please explain specifically what you mean by that word. Genus, family, kingdom, which one? Evolutionary changes only occur on the species level, but there's no reason to think that changes cannot add up over time to make the new species much different from the original. Some folks really just don't grasp how long 10 million years is.

Speciation HAS been observed on more than one occasion.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...

Multiple experiments have shown it. It was observed directly with the fruit fly experiment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does E. Coli become something else?

But the question remains, can you demonstrate or provide evidence of observation of organisms that change into completely other higher orders of life?

Your definition

Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation.

Again, has it ever been observed that change in species led to any higher form of life?

In other words, did a fish become man so that man is still a fish? You wouldn't like the video anyway, because the "experts" couldn't answer the simple questions. The thing about all of this is that we choose what we believe because we think it is reasonable to believe. And it becomes a sticky point when one side or another says that everyone MUST believe something.

Have I at one time demanded that everyone on this thread believe the same way as I do? There is a huge difference in saying "we think it does" as opposed to "It absolutely does". OK, so apples fall. But time is relative. If you and the apple were dropped at the same exact time, the apple is still relative to you and doesn't appear to be moving, but you both hit the ground at the same time.

But observing you and the apple falling is from my perspective, so it is different relatively and also time is slightly slower at higher elevations than lower. So, if you and the apple drop from the height of Mt. Everest, at first there would be an initially slower time but as you go lower, you then speed up, reaching maximum velocity, but it depends on mass as to how long it would take you to stop, therefore, if your weight were compared to the apple's weight, you would bounce differently, because you are comprised of more empty space.

So, it's all relative. And how does this play out in evolution? Given the fact that time is measured by linear standards, and evolution is considered linear, it takes no account of life and death cycles within lower forms of species. Hence, the life of the fruit fly is very short, it does not take 150 years to have 150 generations compared to the life of humans. And if you must account for the differences in life spans, then some life forms would be born and die out before any evolutionary change from one species to a higher form can occur.

Age- and calorie-independent life span extension from dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation in Caenorhabditis elegans

Does it happen in nature that dietary restrictions are placed on bacteria? If that is the case, then it is still dependent upon environment.

Based on these findings, we propose that dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation increases longevity in C. elegans by a combination of reduced food consumption and decreased food sensing.

But those bacteria never become a higher order organism, they remain as bacteria. And if the scientists could influence it from the outside, then it is not random.

Moss is also a species. But given the fact that moss has been around for a very long time, neither moss nor grass evolved into a higher order. Yes, some grasses are bamboo but all grasses are found in biological biomes. They are environment specific organisms, because apparently they learned to photosynthesize, but there are some types of mosses that are found in deep oceans. Algae never become something else.

But now, there has been single cell organisms still in the ocean, six miles below. They didn't need to photosynthesize but remain the same as what they have for millions of years. But as life, they have all the fundamentals for their life spans.

Single cell organisms at bottom of sea

Scientists claim that xenophyophores are the largest cells in existence on this planet; preliminary research shows that they trap particles of water, absorbing high levels of lead, uranium and mercury, and thus are highly resistant to these heavy metals. They are also perfectly adapted to live in huge pressures, low temperatures, and darkness.

They are adapted, but never to become something else. For something to become something else, it must have genetic information to do so, and where does the information come from if it isn't already in the organism? Outside. So it is not random.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Does E. Coli become something else?

But the question remains, can you demonstrate or provide evidence of observation of organisms that change into completely other higher orders of life?

Your definition

Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation.

Again, has it ever been observed that change in species led to any higher form of life?

In other words, did a fish become man so that man is still a fish? You wouldn't like the video anyway, because the "experts" couldn't answer the simple questions. The thing about all of this is that we choose what we believe because we think it is reasonable to believe. And it becomes a sticky point when one side or another says that everyone MUST believe something.

Don't make decisions for me or others. Post the video and let us speak for ourselves.

Have I at one time demanded that everyone on this thread believe the same way as I do? There is a huge difference in saying "we think it does" as opposed to "It absolutely does". OK, so apples fall. But time is relative. If you and the apple were dropped at the same exact time, the apple is still relative to you and doesn't appear to be moving, but you both hit the ground at the same time.

"We think it does" is the answer for ANY scientific answer. Unless it is a scientific law it is NEVER believed 100% and even then that may not be the case. So you are making an unnecessary distinction here.

But observing you and the apple falling is from my perspective, so it is different relatively and also time is slightly slower at higher elevations than lower. So, if you and the apple drop from the height of Mt. Everest, at first there would be an initially slower time but as you go lower, you then speed up, reaching maximum velocity, but it depends on mass as to how long it would take you to stop, therefore, if your weight were compared to the apple's weight, you would bounce differently, because you are comprised of more empty space.

So, it's all relative. And how does this play out in evolution? Given the fact that time is measured by linear standards, and evolution is considered linear, it takes no account of life and death cycles within lower forms of species. Hence, the life of the fruit fly is very short, it does not take 150 years to have 150 generations compared to the life of humans. And if you must account for the differences in life spans, then some life forms would be born and die out before any evolutionary change from one species to a higher form can occur.

Your point doesn't make any sense. Yes time is relative, but the relative fluctuation in time between any species (no matter where it is on the earth's surface, how off of the ground, or how fast it is moving) is so small that unless you are talking about fractions of fractions of fractions of seconds, there is no point to make the distinction. Keep in mind, a clock has to be in orbit or buried DEEP underground before we have to start programming correctional algorithm's into the clock's software to make up for lost or gained time.

Age- and calorie-independent life span extension from dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation in Caenorhabditis elegans

Does it happen in nature that dietary restrictions are placed on bacteria? If that is the case, then it is still dependent upon environment.

Based on these findings, we propose that dietary restriction by bacterial deprivation increases longevity in C. elegans by a combination of reduced food consumption and decreased food sensing.

But those bacteria never become a higher order organism, they remain as bacteria. And if the scientists could influence it from the outside, then it is not random.

The term bacteria is above species classification (it's a kingdom). You want changing species then question results when it doesn't show change across kingdoms (higher classification than species). Not that evolution doesn't work across kingdoms, just don't move the goal posts back when you ask for species change.

Moss is also a species. But given the fact that moss has been around for a very long time, neither moss nor grass evolved into a higher order. Yes, some grasses are bamboo but all grasses are found in biological biomes. They are environment specific organisms, because apparently they learned to photosynthesize, but there are some types of mosses that are found in deep oceans. Algae never become something else.

WRONG! Moss is a kingdom. There are many different species of moss. You really need to study up on taxonomic ranks. Algae is a class by the way.

But now, there has been single cell organisms still in the ocean, six miles below. They didn't need to photosynthesize but remain the same as what they have for millions of years. But as life, they have all the fundamentals for their life spans.

So? Punctuated equilibrium already accounts for this. It says that different species can and do evolve at different rates. Note the crocodile has remained largely unchanged for millions of years.

Single cell organisms at bottom of sea

Scientists claim that xenophyophores are the largest cells in existence on this planet; preliminary research shows that they trap particles of water, absorbing high levels of lead, uranium and mercury, and thus are highly resistant to these heavy metals. They are also perfectly adapted to live in huge pressures, low temperatures, and darkness.

They are adapted, but never to become something else. For something to become something else, it must have genetic information to do so, and where does the information come from if it isn't already in the organism? Outside. So it is not random.

Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Punctuated Equilibrium is still just a theory and one hotly debated among scientists. Some say it is possible and some say it is not the answer.



The assistant professor says it is not testable over time. OK, so if it is not testable over time, then how can it be observed? In the fossil record?

While you might think this video is simply a method of Creationist debate, this is one person asking the simple questions that can't be answered. I think that you only hold to Punctuated Equilibrium because to you it makes sense. But even Punctuated Equilibrium isn't random, it still would be dependent upon environmental factors.

Listen, we get adaptation, there is no debate with that. What we are asking is what are the changes that cause one organism to become another higher order organism. That has never been observed nor is it testable.

So when genetics are studied, and it is shown through testing that mutations are guided by environmental factors, then how is it random? And the UCLA assistant professor says they can teach anything they want. So why isn't ID allowed? Because the schools are getting federal aid and federal funding, to teach something not observable and not testable. How is that science?

Stick with apples falling, at least that is observable and testable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.

This is the big question and no creationist ever answers it. Each time a population speciates, the new species is slightly different from the old one. Logic would say that if you did it a million times, the original species would be significantly more different when compared with the most recent. I've never seen this question even attempted to be answered, it usually follows with a change of subject or a rant about how nobody's seen long term evolution so it can't be verified. You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order. The changes happen on the species level only, but add up over time.

originally posted by: WarminIndyPunctuated Equilibrium is still just a theory and one hotly debated among scientists. Some say it is possible and some say it is not the answer.

It is a Scientific Theory, which means it is supported by evidence and tests.

Gravity is just a theory too. Scientific theories aren't "just theories" they are evidence based and the premise is verified.

And that video was obviously edited heavily to make them look good. Hilarious that something so obviously fake and snipped up would be presented as evidence. The experiments speak for themselves.

I'll repeat. The ONLY random part of evolution is specific genes that mutate. Anything related to the environment is natural selection, which is far from random.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Punctuated Equilibrium is still just a theory and one hotly debated among scientists. Some say it is possible and some say it is not the answer.

HOLY CRAP! You didn't just use the "it's only a theory" defense did you? Because scientific theories and layman theories are two VASTLY different definitions.

The assistant professor says it is not testable over time. OK, so if it is not testable over time, then how can it be observed? In the fossil record?

For the most part. Yes.

While you might think this video is simply a method of Creationist debate, this is one person asking the simple questions that can't be answered. I think that you only hold to Punctuated Equilibrium because to you it makes sense. But even Punctuated Equilibrium isn't random, it still would be dependent upon environmental factors.

That video is just a rehash of someone asking fallacious questions bout evolution and pretending like they won the argument. It's useless and doesn't address any evidence or actual claims of evolution.

Listen, we get adaptation, there is no debate with that. What we are asking is what are the changes that cause one organism to become another higher order organism. That has never been observed nor is it testable.

I already explained that macro evolution is the same process as micro evolution. Why do you keep ignoring that? I even gave you an example to compare it to (dirt piled up into a mountain). Answer my question. Why can't the culmination of many micro processes add up to the macro process? Because that is what you are insisting when you declare macro evolution to be fake. Answer that question. You've ignored it twice now.

So when genetics are studied, and it is shown through testing that mutations are guided by environmental factors, then how is it random? And the UCLA assistant professor says they can teach anything they want. So why isn't ID allowed? Because the schools are getting federal aid and federal funding, to teach something not observable and not testable. How is that science?

Why do you keep using the word random with me? Have I ever insisted that evolution is random? Yes environmental factors are at play, but there is a certain randomness in how those factors alter the genetic makeup from parent to child. It most likely isn't random, we just don't understand the complexities of the process fully to say completely how it changes.

Stick with apples falling, at least that is observable and testable.

I gave you the definition of observable. Don't be coy.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.

This is the big question and no creationist ever answers it. Each time a population speciates, the new species is slightly different from the old one. Logic would say that if you did it a million times, the original species would be significantly more different when compared with the most recent. I've never seen this question even attempted to be answered, it usually follows with a change of subject or a rant about how nobody's seen long term evolution so it can't be verified. You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order. The changes happen on the species level only, but add up over time.

Pretty much what's happening to me. I've now asked the question three times. Let's see if she gets three strikes or not.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you going to explain to me why you don't think that many micro evolution processes can't total up to macro evolution? Again I say that they are the same fundamental processes, the scales are just different. Like I said, I can start stacking dirt to make a dirt mound and knowing this, I could continually stack dirt until I had a mountain. But I don't need to observe this happening to know that it is the result of stacking all that dirt. So explain to me why micro to macro evolution can't work the same way.

This is the big question and no creationist ever answers it. Each time a population speciates, the new species is slightly different from the old one. Logic would say that if you did it a million times, the original species would be significantly more different when compared with the most recent. I've never seen this question even attempted to be answered, it usually follows with a change of subject or a rant about how nobody's seen long term evolution so it can't be verified. You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order. The changes happen on the species level only, but add up over time.

Pretty much what's happening to me. I've now asked the question three times. Let's see if she gets three strikes or not.

Can you prove with observable and testable evidence of macro evolution? Yes or no.

You said

You're never going to see a creature speciate into a different order.

Thank you, that's all I was asking. You concede that it is not observable, therefore it is not testable, therefore it is not scientific method. That's what you concede.

What logic? The logical step you just gave me was this...

1: Species remain as species, no matter the adaptation.
2: Adaptation to other higher order organisms is never observed nor is it testable.
3: Because it is never observed nor is it testable in science,
4: You have to believe that it does.

I don't care whether or not the video answers anything, what it did do was show the very ideas that you have presented, only adaptation within the species, which is mere variety.

I wanted you to show me that adaptation leads to higher order life. You can't demonstrate that, so you are only stuck at the variety level.

Why can't the culmination of many micro processes add up to the macro process

There is no evidence, no observation, nothing testable to support that claim. You tell me where the evidence is. But since it is supposed to a genetic change, then let's talk about genetics.

How do genes works

Genes are often called the blueprint for life, because they tell each of your cells what to do and when to do it: be a muscle, make bone, carry nerve signals, and so on. And how do genes orchestrate all this? They make proteins. In fact, each gene is really just a recipe for a making a certain protein.

Each gene is just a recipe and that recipe means that it is making a specific cell.

But the genes in your DNA don't make protein directly. Instead, special proteins called enzymes read and copy (or "transcribe") the DNA code

This is information sharing in a network.

But the genes in your DNA don't make protein directly. Instead, special proteins called enzymes read and copy (or "transcribe") the DNA code. The segment of DNA to be transcribed gets "unzipped" by an enzyme, which uses the DNA as a template to build a single-stranded molecule of RNA. Like DNA, RNA is a long strand of nucleotides.

Ah, so it is information that is being shared and this information comes from somewhere. But what you have in chimpanzees and humans are two different sets of markers, the chromosomes are not equal. So the information in chimpanzees came from its parent and then from its parent, so forth.

So, the recipe transcribed is the same from generation to generation, at the species level. And here again, today's news about epigenetics

Strome noted that the findings in this study of transmission of histone methylation in C. elegans have important implications in other organisms, even though different organisms use the repressive marker that was studied to regulate different genes during different aspects of development. All animals use the same enzyme to create the same methylation mark as a signal for gene repression, and her colleagues who study epigenetics in mice and humans are excited about the new findings, Strome said.

Ah, gene repression. What causes a gene to repress? They don't know yet, but if there is indeed gene repression, then that is one explanation for why macroevolution does not happen and why it is not observed.

And here is also why

"Remarkably, when we watch the chromosomes through cell divisions, the marked chromosomes remain marked and stay bright, because the enzyme keeps restoring the mark, but the naked chromosomes stay naked, division after division," Strome said. "That shows that the pattern of marks that was inherited is being transmitted through multiple cell divisions."

The enzymes keep restoring the mark. Gene repression and restoring marks along the chromosomes, that is one explanation against macroevolution. As microevolution occurs to make varieties, and that is dependent upon environment, the RNA passes the information to adapt, for the purpose of the species survival. But it never answers the question about where the information comes from in the first place. We know that for us, it is through sex and the development of a new life form, one that has all the genetic code for that particular species.

OK, so there is more to learn. But now you know, gene repression is active and the enzymes keep restoring the mark within the chromosome, so by essence keeps it as a species. Not seeing macroevolution much at work here. And this news is only 2 hours old at the time of this comment, so it is pretty new.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I have a hard time understanding the point to all this. If a person has faith then the question is "why" and not "how" that is important. When we talk evolution that is a"how", so if God snapped his fingers to make man or started a 4 billion year process to make man it is still God's work.

When we see that all living things share DNA there is a correlation. Just living on this planet is a correlation. We can even say that two eyes is a correlation since that is not some fixed requirement other than all this life that is related has basically two eyes.

So to say that evolution is Godless is just a simplistic view of it all in that for some reason to be the work of God it requires some stupid parlor trick to make man with a pull out of the hat rabbit trick.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: WarminIndy

I have a hard time understanding the point to all this. If a person has faith then the question is "why" and not "how" that is important. When we talk evolution that is a"how", so if God snapped his fingers to make man or started a 4 billion year process to make man it is still God's work.

That is something I have not disagreed with.

When we see that all living things share DNA there is a correlation. Just living on this planet is a correlation. We can even say that two eyes is a correlation since that is not some fixed requirement other than all this life that is related has basically two eyes.

Yes, because our physical bodies were made from the earth, containing all the physical minerals found in all species, carbon. That is not something I disagree with.

So to say that evolution is Godless is just a simplistic view of it all in that for some reason to be the work of God it requires some stupid parlor trick to make man with a pull out of the hat rabbit trick.

I have stated that I believe that if that is the process, then that's what it is. But to imply that man evolved from a lower order of life, that is something unobserved and untested, only assumed. Yes, our physical bodies came from the ground with all the DNA that states "This is man". Man might come in different varieties, but in all the varieties still man.

I do not disagree that over time, certain adaptations were beneficial for man, so that man can live in polar and arctic regions, but the people that do live in those regions were adapted to live there successfully. Inuits have thrived on whale blubber and tropical Subsaharan Africans have adapted to live on fruits. But they could both move to other regions and their bodies adapt to the new environment, including diets.

I have Multiple Sclerosis and it has been established that people who have MS do not regulate Vitamin D, because more patients with MS live far from the equator. Except that I know some who live in Algeria. It tends to be a disease more prevalent in women of Northern European ancestry, men also get MS (really, one doesn't really "get" MS, no one knows really how it happens).

But at the same time I do not have the Duffy Null Allele, which most Europeans do not have. That means I can get malaria from mosquitoes. But Africans do have that allele, which means they aren't susceptible to malaria. This is an environmental adaptation not found in Europeans. One would assume that if it were a genetic trait for the purpose of survival, then Africans were adapted for protection but Europeans were not. How did Europeans lose that protective adaptation?

This is why one must be careful about speciation, because to say that speciation is the result of adaptation, then Africans and Europeans have different mechanisms of protection because of the Duffy Null Allele. If a species adapts, then it becomes a new species.

spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

What I find odd is that the same methods and definitions placed on non-human species, is not carried over into definition for humans. Every example of evolution has provided some type of adaptation, then the classification of new species arises from that. I say be consistent, if man is another animal species then place the same criteria onto man as one does animals.

Evolutionists say that there are anatomical changes and there are changes in skull shapes from Africans, Europeans to Asians. That is a phenotypical change in the anatomy. Not only that, there are other slight changes in the skeletal structure.Linnaeus also placed the different people groups on the taxonomy scale

Dyer (1974:8) discusses early racial classifications such as the earliest
classification of Linnaeus, who recognized four human racial subspecies: Homo sapiens europaeus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, Homo sapiens ajer, and Homo sapiens americanus

And this is still being used today by anthropologists.

My point in all of this is that if one really wants to stick with adaptations leading to macro evolution, then apply it to the entire spectrum of mankind, with all its variations. If one calls man an animal, then stick with it through the whole definition. Yes, all men of the species Homo Sapien can interbreed, as do all animals. Yet, to say mammal can breed with mammal, it only happens at the species level.

And we cannot evolve to breed with anything outside our species level. But if man is special enough to not place the exact same criteria across the board onto man, then man must be excused from the definition.

One can't say man is mere animal and then limit the criteria. All of this occurs at the micro level, but even more deeply than that. Some men were adapted to live in Africa and some for the Alps. That does not mean we are not equal and that some are better than others, it simply means that the phenotypical changes in skull shapes are just like Darwin's finches.

But here is a real interesting thing, even hair shafts are different from the different people groups throughout the world. I thought that in dinosaurs to birds, that meant phenotypical changes were the result of longer periods of evolution. But we see that in man in less than 100,000 years.

That to me means no punctuated equilibrium.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Thank you, that's all I was asking. You concede that it is not observable, therefore it is not testable, therefore it is not scientific method. That's what you concede.

That wasn't what we said at all. We were talking about small changes adding up over time. Why can't this happen? Big changes are observable via the fossil record. But a human cannot live long enough to sit there and watch something evolve enough to become a new order. That kind of thing takes tens of millions of years at minimum. I was trying to tell you that creatures never suddenly speciate into new orders over night or in one generation. It is a slow process that adds up beneficial mutations over time.

I wanted you to show me that adaptation leads to higher order life. You can't demonstrate that, so you are only stuck at the variety level.

Higher order life is relative. What is high order now will not be high order forever.

There is no evidence, no observation, nothing testable to support that claim. You tell me where the evidence is. But since it is supposed to a genetic change, then let's talk about genetics.

The evidence in favor of common descent is staggering. The fossil record, for example shows clear evidence of slow change over time, with the exception of the time directly following a cataclysmic event. These are when new orders begin to emerge because the planet goes through drastic changes and few survive. It is also proven via genetics.

www.talkorigins.org...

Start here. There is indeed scientific evidence for "macro" evolution. You are trying to hang your hat on the fact that humans can't sit around for millions of years to monitor a change. The whole argument claiming that micro and macro evolution are different processes doesn't make sense to me. They aren't different. One of them is just whole bunch of small changes adding up. We're still all wondering when you are going to explain why small changes do not add up without changing the topic or going off on a tangent.