Proof ? Observable macro evolution happening now.

reply to post by For(Home)Country


I get that some times it isn't really understandable at all.

Basically I wrote what I did with two separate meanings.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


I recognise a fair-mindedness in your response. The reason I stopped posting on this issue was because all too often posters continuously laid out their positions without ever listening to each other and genuinely engaging. (As such my purpose in contributing here was basically to clear up a misconception.)

But what about the evidence, and more importantly, what about the quest for what the real truth may be? If we already "know", then you aren't going to learn much else. Sort of like the folks who go to church. They aren't "seeking" anything, they already have their answer.

May I be so bold as to disabuse you of this particular misconception? Many who are convinced of the reality of a Designer, such as myself, have come to this position after a serious-minded and lengthy search. In my case it was years of study and thought. In addition, our search for further truth is ongoing. Admittedly many of my persuasion believe that the one who designed has also spoken to mankind directly, and therefore study the written record thereof. But it would be false to assume we do not use our critical faculties; rather we enjoy information about the living world just as anyone else: but with a mind to what it says of the sublime.

Here's a prime example, for your further contemplation:

"The inner life of the cell": an amazing 3D animated conception from Harvard

[edit to add video upon which the above thread is based (now broken in the OP)]







reply to post by JR 25cents

I find it interesting as well that you'd use a religious source in a discussion regarding the validity of mystical mumbo-jumbo vs. hard science.

I find it telling that you engage in mockery rather than simply replying to the points raised.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case - just because we have not found the 'missing link' does not indicate taht there never was one.

The problem for the theory of evolution is it's not a case of a missing link: it's countless tens of thousands of missing links. The links between species hypothesized by Darwin and fully expected to appear in the fossil record by those who accepted his thesis have failed to materialize. Thus his theory is based on faith in his message, not evidence. (I see no need to belittle this belief-system using mockery, though.)

In fact, rapid evolution is sometimes theorized to have occured many times in the past, which would account for lack of a 'smoking gun' in the example of monotremes.

I am familiar with this hypothesis, which is very telling indeed. What you refer to as a lack of a 'smoking gun' is a lack of evidence. Period. And what is most telling is that it is not just in isolated cases that evidence of one type (such as monotremes) changing into another is absent, it is in all cases. Consequently, acknowledging that the evidence is not there to be presented, the theoriticians concocted the idea that changes happened too rapidly to be seen in the fossil record, thus validating their pre-conceived ideas via circular argument.

When it comes to evidenced-based science, serious thinkers ought to turn their backs on the so-caled 'hopeful monsters', never to return. The idea of rapid evolution is just that: an idea.

And in view of the fact that mutations are neither design-based nor beneficial, it's an idea that never had a viable mechanism in the first place...



[edit on 17/5/10 by pause4thought]

I wasn't using the terminology in a mocking fashion, for the record. 'Mystical mumbo-jumbo' doesn't have a negative conotation to me, and I apologize if you saw it as such. I also note that you have not responded to the use of a biased source for your information.

Regarding the 'lack of evidence' train of thought, there is considerably more evidence for evolutionary science as opposed to a 'creator'. What amazes me is that no matter how much fossil evidence is uncovered, it's always disregarded because we cannot recover evidence for every singl species. Fossilization doesn't occur frequently, the conditions required aren't exactly common. It simply makes no sense to believe that every living thing that ever existed can have recoverable fossils. I'd be interested to see what evidence you've gathered in support of some intelligent creator who had the foresight to allow minor changes for adaptability, but wouldn't allow for maximum felxibility in mutation.

reply to post by 25cents


Not that "pause4thought" requires any assistance but the burden of proof falls into your lap in the case since you are defending the OP and the fact that some macro-ev is actually happening. The position you have taken requires you to back up this theory somehow not for any one taking the opposite position to prove creation.

At least pause4thought is willing to debate intelligently. "The burden of proof is on you" is the last vestige of someone who simply cannot continue the argument. Furthermore, if you haven't seen evidence, then you haven't done any research and the reason for your presence in this topic is baffling to me. It is completely useless to debate a topic with someone who refuses to look at both sides.

If one would but google "scientific evidence for evolution", you could find a pretty good approximation of the sources I would provide - however, compiling a proper list and posting it here would be risky due to my situation at work. I could get my tail in the fire if I were to be caught doing even this.

reply to post by pause4thought


I was reading the replies again and I noticed something.

Maybe you have an answer...

Every creature was created according to its kind. Each kind was made such that its genetic code carried all that was needed for the startling variety seen in subsequent generations.

How do you explain that we share the majority of our genetics with any other creature on Earth ?

reply to post by 25cents

I wasn't using the terminology in a mocking fashion, for the record... I apologize if you saw it as such.

Now we're talking.

I also note that you have not responded to the use of a biased source for your information.

Apologies. I should have explained that seeing as I am here to represent the creationist perspective I have no qualms about citing a creationist source. (Moreover I see no need to question your sources should they prove biased in the direction of an atheistic world-view.)

Regarding the 'lack of evidence' train of thought, there is considerably more evidence for evolutionary science as opposed to a 'creator'.

This is clearly the case — in your mind. Yet you present no evidence to back up your sweeping statement.

What amazes me is that no matter how much fossil evidence is uncovered, it's always disregarded because we cannot recover evidence for every single species. Fossilization doesn't occur frequently, the conditions required aren't exactly common. It simply makes no sense to believe that every living thing that ever existed can have recoverable fossils.

Let's quite looking for brownie points. I'd like to engage you very seriously on this one. What you have said is based on a misunderstanding of the challenge presented. It is not that we are saying there are thousands of missing species. The point is that the species represented in the fossil record lack transitional forms. Ergo the theory of evolution is bankrupt. Darwin stated in his Origin that he awaited the discovery of his posited transitional forms. The open secret is that they never materialized. This is the only honest perspective on over a century of research, and numerous well-known researchers in the field acknowledge this plainly, if at times somewhat grudgingly. The gauntlet is therefore down, and most commonly lifted with confidence only by those whose research has gone little further than the popular textbooks which fuddle the issue.

NB I disagree with little of what you have said here. I would take exception to the suggestion that we disregard the fossil record, though; on the contrary, it is the sine qua non of belief in stasis.

I'd be interested to see what evidence you've gathered in support of some intelligent creator who had the foresight to allow minor changes for adaptability, but wouldn't allow for maximum felxibility in mutation.

The real world, and genetics in particular. There is no evidence that genetic mutation can produce new, useful features. It's an idea, no more. What is observed (i.e. what science has shown) is that genetic mutation is harmful to an organism. (Darwin was ignorant of this aspect of science, as the world of DNA lay beyond his horizon, understandably.)

Consider:

...Believe it or not, orthodox evolutionists have tried to explain all the staggering variation both within and among species on the basis of these random changes in heredity called "mutations." What we know about mutations, however, makes them entirely unsuitable as any "raw materials for evolutionary progress."

As Ayala says, mutations in fruit flies have produced "extremely short wings, deformed bristles, blindness and other serious defects." Such mutations impose an increasingly heavy genetic burden or genetic load on a species. In her genetics textbook, Anna Pai makes it clear that "the word load is used intentionally to imply some sort of burden" that drags down the genetic quality of a species.3 The list of human mutational disorders, or genetic diseases, for example, has already passed 1500, and it is continuing to grow.

By elimination of the unfit, natural selection reduces the harmful effects of mutations on a population, but it cannot solve the evolutionists genetic burden problem entirely. Most mutations are recessive. That is, like the hemophilia ("bleeder's disease") gene in England's Queen Victoria, the mutant can be carried, undetected by selection, in a person (or plant or animal) with a dominant gene that masks the mutant's effect.

Time, the usual "hero of the plot" for evolutionists, only makes genetic burden worse. As time goes on, existing mutants build up to a complex equilibrium point, and new mutations are continually occurring. That is why marriage among close relatives (e.g. Cain and his sister) posed no problem early in human history, even though now, thanks to the increase in mutational load with time, such marriages are considered most unwise. Already, 1% of all children born will require some professional help with genetic problems, and that percentage doubles in first-cousin marriages.

Genetic burden, then, becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists trying to explain the enormous adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For any conceivable favorable mutation, a species must pay the price or bear the burden of more than 1000 harmful mutations of that gene. Against such a background of "genetic decay," any hypothetical favorable mutant in one gene would invariably be coupled to harmful changes in other genes. As mutational load increases with time, the survival of the species will be threatened as matings produce a greater percentage of offspring carrying serious genetic defects.1,3

As the source of adaptive variability, then, mutations (and orthodox evolution theories) fail completely. As a source of "negative variability," however, mutations serve only too well. Basing their thinking on what we observe of mutations and their net effect (genetic burden), creationists use mutations to help explain the existence of disease, genetic defects, and other examples of "negative variation" within species.

Mutations are "pathologic" (disease-causing) and only "modify what pre-exists," as French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé says, so mutations have "no final evolutionary effect."4 Instead, mutations point back to creation and to a corruption of the created order.

There are 40-plus variants of hemoglobin, for example. All are variants of hemoglobin; that points back to creation. All are less effective oxygen carriers than normal hemoglobin; that points back to a corruption of the created order by time and chance...

Source: Creation, mutation, and variation

I hope this serves as an introduction to the creationist perspective as an evidence-based world view.

I agree with JR MacBeth that philosophical perspectives affect one's interpretation of the evidence. Yet all too often this fact prevents people from leaving the safety of preconceptions hitherto dearly held, preventing them from stepping outside the box of all they have been told to date is fact; whereas in reality it is steeped in assumptions.







[edit on 17/5/10 by pause4thought]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

How do you explain that we share the majority of our genetics with any other creature on Earth ?

The mark of an efficient designer is the ability to reuse a basic design with tremendous variety. Life on earth is the ultimate expression of this concept.

(Good question. Sorry I must leave the discussion now. Many thanks.)

I had a rather lengthy reply typed up, and then the tech guys blew my computer up. I may return to the subject in the next day or two.

I love how in-depth and reaching the refutations to evolution evidence is, when when we get to creationist evidence, all we get is "I don't understand how this could have arised from nature, therefore god did it"

reply to post by pause4thought


Thank you pause4, I can appreciate your fair mindedness as well, and apologies to you and those I may have inadvertently offended by my characterization of those of us who may attend a church. My intention was not to paint the churched too broadly, but instead to help point out a seemingly pervasive "religiousness" to the debate on Origins, that is often not even recognized, as too many naively imagine they are only treating of "scientific" matters. Far from it, the philosophical / religious subject matter does in fact intersect here.

The problem may be that those on each side are in "denial" about this very fact. On the evolutionist side, they insist on maintaining that they are exclusively scientific. On the Creationist side, they try hard to maintain that they also, are only dealing with the science, but are casually dismissed, the minute the other side discovers that they are Creationist! Enter the ID camp, that would imagine they are taking the high road, and yet, depending upon which side of the spectrum you are on, even the ID variation seems to veer one way or the other, and can be casually dismissed as well.

This is why I mentioned Davison. To me, he seems to look at the evidence, and he manages to keep a level of "objectivity" that others seem to lack. Even though the conclusions can always be argued about, his ideas, of themselves, almost seem to lack that "religious" flavor. On the one hand, it's refreshing, but as mentioned above, I try not to fool myself into thinking that all is merely "science". We all inhabit our paradigm, and that, of it's nature can correctly be labeled "religious", even if one were an "atheist". But not to get caught up in semantics. Davison is honest enough to see "Design", and call a spade a spade. But he chooses not to proceed to a specific designER, per se, mainly because the evidence only can take you so far. After that, it's back to our paradigms.

BTW, I thank you for the vid, but as usual, as good as your info may be, most have already made up their minds. As far as the complexity of the so-called "simple" cell, I very much agree with those who recognize here something "beyond", regardless of what you choose to call it. The fact is, microbiology has shown us a world of "technology" that exists in every cell that is so far beyond ours, it should humble us. In short, there is nothing else we could study that is so "advanced" you might say, than the technology we see working in the cell. Does that mean we must automatically decide exactly "who" or "what" might be responsible for what we see? No, hardly. But it should, at minimum, demand that we respect those who have decided to make those leaps. In the face of such wonder, perhaps some of us can do no less.

Again, my apologies about the "church" comment, I don't believe that people who have religious faith have necessarily parked their brains at the door! Perhaps some do, but I see that most continue upon a road that has simply narrowed for them, and all of us are subject to that same dynamic, as we pass through the myriad logic-gates along our journey. However, that being said, I guess the clarification would be that we should all be careful to not end up on a road too narrow, notwithstanding the biblical allusion, because just as Darwin never suspected the complexity of the simple cell, there is so much out there that we cannot even guess at. In that context, it would almost seem as if even the mere notion of a "conclusion", would always be premature, at best. But I guess it would be hard for humans to forever suspend judgment, where would that ever get us anyway?

JR MacBeth
MyNewBlog

reply to post by 25cents


Very sorry you lost what you'd typed. It's been a constructive discussion.



reply to post by JR MacBeth


Unfortunately I don't have even a moment to respond properly. Nevertheless I must say you have articulated your balanced view in an exemplary fashion. I agree with the force of your argument more fully than you might have expected, in that while I believe it is perfectly reasonable to infer that apparently meticulous, hyper-intelligent design points to a designer, reaching the degree of conviction I have in regard to the specifics of how events actually played out generally requires great confidence in the self-revelation of said designer. Recognising, therefore, that Davison has reached his conclusions in the absence of the latter, I can respect his general position as one of intellectual integrity (—though I am as yet unaware of his working hypothesis when it comes to a source for design).

I will gladly look into his position.

reply to post by pause4thought


That 'good question' I asked you. When are you going to answer it ?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


It looks like a misunderstanding: I answered the question from my perspective as soon as I read it (-above where I stated it was a good question). Do you want a more detailed response?

reply to post by pause4thought


Ohh... That was your answer. I was actually waiting for it and I thought you left me with something to think about.

I do actually agree with it. It was not the answer I was looking for.
I fail to see the explanation but it is true nonetheless.

Lets accept we disagree in this. Unless you feel like you have something up your sleeve that is really convincing of course.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


My self-esteem just went through the floor.


(Will I ever post again?)

...According to some reports, we share half our genes with a banana (New Scientist, 1 July 2000, pp4-5)! ! Is this evidence for a common origin?

Since 1859 the phenomena of homology has been cited by evolutionary biologists as providing one of the most powerful lines of evidence for the concept of organic evolution and to this day, the phenomena of homology has remained a mainstay argument for evolution (Denton, 1986).

In biology, two or more structures are said to be homologous if they are alike. In traditional biological thinking homology of say bone structure in the limbs of different mammals is associated with assumed shared ancestry - see quote from Darwin below.

In genetics, homology is used in reference to similar (or otherwise, e.g. non-homologous) DNA sequences, and again the assumption tends to be that sequences that are homologous share ancestry. Homology can also be used to describe similar protein sequences.

A common example of genetic homology is that we share about 98% of our genes with apes or chimpanzees. This is discussed later and also on the video clip DNA: Human and chimpanzee DNA (1:23 mins)...

...Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer"! Taken from "Human/chimp DNA similarity".

Anatomical homology. A well know example of anatomical homology linked to macroevolution is that given by Darwin above, e.g. "What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions"? What Darwin is basically saying is Why do virtually all vertebrate forelimbs have the same basic "pentadactyl" (five fingered) design, if not due to evolution?

In his book Evolution, A Theory In Crisis, the author Dr Michael Denton devotes a complete chapter to homology and discussed this issue in depth. His arguments against anatomical homology being related to shared evolutionary ancestry are in part summarised as below, and also later, when considering the homology of Cytochrome C protein sequences between different species.

"One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide". From "Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory".

Sir Gavin De Beer in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem says "Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes".

Darwin did not know about gene or protein sequences in his day, so he could not see further than the visible anatomical features. If the pentadactyl limb did have a common origin though amphibians to reptiles, birds and mammals, then one would expect that the same genes would code for this structure in all these different animal groups.

To investigate this subject in more depth, please follow some of the links at the bottom of this page such as The Invalidity of Morphological Homology, or read Michael Denton's book Evolution, A Theory In Crisis...

Full article

reply to post by pause4thought


Cheer up. My words however mean they look are sugar coated with love and good will.

Nice article. Never read it before.
First of all the author brings up Darwin. With all do respect... the guy only founded the theory and it grew far beyond Darwin.

The analogy fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal is flawed.

Before the rise of the dinosaur the Earth was home to a different species. Do to the limited biological diversity this species ended up filling almost all the biological niches by itself. Both predator and carnivore. This branch of life which was wiped from the face of the Earth in a mass extinction were called megalodons.

Those that did survive the cataclysmic events did so going subterranean. these survivors were more similar to mammals then they were to reptiles . They took back what was theirs when the dinosaurs got extinct.

Please forgive me that I do not have a source laying around to post. I did not learn this from the internet.

These creatures are a perfect example of life and evolution. The ruled the Earth for millions of years but there was not a lot of variety yet. Because of this it was less likely to inherit a specific adaptation. Threats stayed the same for a long time and this made it hard for a specific change to stand out of the crowd.

Then there is the example of the hand or homology. It is definitely not the primary source in the theory of evolution.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe in a creator. However, this is not in any way in contradiction with the theory of evolution...

Like your answer to my question. An even more brilliant creator provides the blueprint and makes it self developing and self sufficient.

Do you know what land animal is the closest relative to whales and dolphins ?

There are NUMEROUS examples of rapid speciation - (thats what it is called).
The Cichlids in the African lakes are an example of hundreds of variations - as pointed out.

The Galapagos Islands are the greatest example with the same turtles evolving in size and shape so rapidly they are easily distinguished between islands only meters apart.

The greatest example is the bacterial evolutionary demonstration lasting over 20 years - where the bacteria is reproducing so fast there are currently over 48,000 generations (which would be about 100 million years for humans) and clearly shows evolution at work - this is the nail in the coffin experiment for ANYONE who seeks to deny evolution.

There are of course dozens more - including lizards who were transported deliberately in 1970's to a remote island (turned vegetarian, enlarged jaws etc), and of course domesticated dogs - which has now be proven to all derive from the Wolf - Great Dane and Chihuahua are incapable of natural reproduction - this is speciation.

reply to post by audas

Great Dane and Chihuahua are incapable of natural reproduction

Seriously ? How does this work ? I never ever heard of it before.