Evolution and Creationism is easy as math.

I fail to see the logic behind his argument and your support for it. If we are arguing creation versus big bang, which I did not because I was trying to support evolution and not the big bang, then I will rebuttal your logic and ask which is more sound. Which of these are more probable? Which of these sound like the most simple answer?

reply to post by Dynamike


LOL I am on the side of evolution. I really REALLY don't believe that a mystical magical being waved a magic wand and created the universe. I'm just saying that I'm not buying into everything about evolution in the way it is being presented. When one species dies out and another seems to appear with changes that should have taken millions of years, science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy.

Originally posted by jiggerj
LOL I am on the side of evolution. I really REALLY don't believe that a mystical magical being waved a magic wand and created the universe. I'm just saying that I'm not buying into everything about evolution in the way it is being presented. When one species dies out and another seems to appear with changes that should have taken millions of years, science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy.

How many cases of evolution are said to be sudden mutations? I was under the impression that favorable traits were slowly evolving through the various populations over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. You don't see a human suddenly turn into an ape or vice versa over night. The change has to be small and able to be integrated into the population. Large sudden mutations will not do this. Populations change when environmental factors force it. Think of the field mouse. You have 80% of the species born with brown fir and 20% with black fir. A volcanic eruption happens and the wheat fields burn down, which fir color of the species stays? Obviously the dark ones because they blend in better with the burnt rocks and soot. The brown are out of their element and easy prey. Without the fields, the dominant brown mice begin to phase out while the once minority of black fir mice dominate. The changes themselves were already there, they just didn't become a dominant gene in the species until after the volcano blew. The population would alter and now 80% would be black and 20% would be brown. That's how these changes happen.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by jiggerj
LOL I am on the side of evolution. I really REALLY don't believe that a mystical magical being waved a magic wand and created the universe. I'm just saying that I'm not buying into everything about evolution in the way it is being presented. When one species dies out and another seems to appear with changes that should have taken millions of years, science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy.

How many cases of evolution are said to be sudden mutations?

Why are you asking me to defend a position that I just claimed I don't agree with?

Mutation in Evolution

Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[

reply to post by jiggerj


First of all, where is your evidence of such claims? I dont recall science attempting to explain such arguments as you have presented them. Yes, there are more drastic mutations than others, but I dont know of any instance where a species "suddenly" evolved into another.

But if you are refuting the theory that drastic evolution can happen in a period of merely several generations then I would like to argue that your hunch is wrong. Genetic mutations on a drastic level can be accomplished in a short term, especially when RNA is involved. I employ you to look this up and find examples. Or better yet find evidence against such hunches, because the science is there, just not your understanding of it.

Here is a start:en.wikipedia.org... Teleogryllus oceanicus, an Australian ocean field cricket. "The species was introduced to Hawaii in 1877, where it is predated on by the parasitic fly Ormia ochracea. Research has shown that the male cricket on Kauai underwent a mutation in 2003 that removed the file and scraper apparatus required for producing sound from the wing and rendered the males incapable of using song to attract female crickets. Within 20 generations 90% of the males on Kauai have "flatwings"; the mutation has reduced predation since the fly cannot locate the males. The males have also adapted their behavior, exploiting males that can make sound to attract mates for them."

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by jiggerj
LOL I am on the side of evolution. I really REALLY don't believe that a mystical magical being waved a magic wand and created the universe. I'm just saying that I'm not buying into everything about evolution in the way it is being presented. When one species dies out and another seems to appear with changes that should have taken millions of years, science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy.

How many cases of evolution are said to be sudden mutations?

Why are you asking me to defend a position that I just claimed I don't agree with?

Mutation in Evolution

Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[

Maybe I misunderstood what you said by "science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy." It sounded to me like you were suggesting organisms suddenly mutate into another species. I wasn't saying you disagree with evolution, just that maybe that one aspect wasn't exactly accurate. You mentioned that changes appear that should have taken millions of years. Maybe some examples of this would be nice so I have an idea of the point you are making. I didn't mean any ill will by that. Are you trying to say you don't agree with the premise of genetic mutations in the first place? I'm just confused, that's all.

Originally posted by Barcs

Maybe I misunderstood what you said by "science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy." It sounded to me like you were suggesting organisms suddenly mutate into another species. I wasn't saying you disagree with evolution, just that maybe that one aspect wasn't exactly accurate. You mentioned that changes appear that should have taken millions of years. Maybe some examples of this would be nice so I have an idea of the point you are making. I didn't mean any ill will by that. Are you trying to say you don't agree with the premise of genetic mutations in the first place? I'm just confused, that's all.

Oh no, I know there's no ill will there. I could have put it better, but I was tired. I can't give examples. I've seen so many documentaries over the last couple of years that I just don't remember which one suggested sudden mutation as a viable part of evolution. All I can say is I heard it said. That's all.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Oh no, I know there's no ill will there. I could have put it better, but I was tired. I can't give examples. I've seen so many documentaries over the last couple of years that I just don't remember which one suggested sudden mutation as a viable part of evolution. All I can say is I heard it said. That's all.

No worries, I've just never heard of anything like that. My take on it is that a sudden major mutation would be very difficult to integrate into a population due to breeding capabilities and sexual selection. If a human is born deformed, chances are they will not reproduce and be able to pass this trait to others. I could see maybe a sudden minor change that makes a certain individual "sexier" or gives them a slight advantage, but it seems unlikely. If there are actually instances of evolution that claim sudden major changes, I'd like to see the science behind it or some examples. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, this is just something I've never seen and I've been researching evolution for almost a decade now.

Originally posted by Barcs
I could see maybe a sudden minor change that makes a certain individual "sexier" or gives them a slight advantage, but it seems unlikely. If there are actually instances of evolution that claim sudden major changes, I'd like to see the science behind it or some examples. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, this is just something I've never seen and I've been researching evolution for almost a decade now.

edit on 19-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I googled 'Evidence of Mutation in Evolution".

One site Mutation and Evolution claims:

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created.

Another here Evolution: Fact and theory says the following:

Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent’s gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA.

reply to post by jiggerj


The idea of sudden evolutionary change through mutation is usually refered to as Saltation or Macromutation. A hypothesis that is not accepted as part of evolutionary theory and has been latched onto as a creationist argument against evolution, often confusing for the idea of punctuated equilibrium

Yes . . . a scientist has proposed the idea of sudden change through mutation. Well . . . that must mean that his hypothesis is accepted as a valid part of the theory of evolution, as he is a scientist? Sorry . . . no.

Saltation/Macromutation - wiki

reply to post by jiggerj


Mutation is part of evolutionary theory. Sudden evolutionary change through mutation is not.

2nd line

reply to post by jiggerj


You said "sudden mutations" that should have taken millions of years. Again, you aren't backing up that claim. I know genetic mutations are part of evolution. I know that small genetic changes happen and add up over time. That's the most basic principle of evolution. A genetic mutation won't sudden make the species grow wings. Things like that do take millions of years. If they suddenly popped up, it would probably lead to the death of the individual without passing on the genes to the rest of the species. This is why major changes take a long time.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You said "sudden mutations" that should have taken millions of years. Again, you aren't backing up that claim. I know genetic mutations are part of evolution. I know that small genetic changes happen and add up over time. That's the most basic principle of evolution. A genetic mutation won't sudden make the species grow wings. Things like that do take millions of years. If they suddenly popped up, it would probably lead to the death of the individual without passing on the genes to the rest of the species. This is why major changes take a long time.

edit on 22-10-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

AHHHH! LOL I didn't say anything of the sort. I said I didn't buy the idea of sudden mutation as defined by scientists. Didn't say I understood it, back it, like it, want it. lol I am not going to defend a position that I don't agree with.

Originally posted by jiggerj
AHHHH! LOL I didn't say anything of the sort. I said I didn't buy the idea of sudden mutation as defined by scientists. Didn't say I understood it, back it, like it, want it. lol I am not going to defend a position that I don't agree with.

When one species dies out and another seems to appear with changes that should have taken millions of years, science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy.

This is the quote that threw me off. There is nothing to "buy" about it. Small changes add up over time. I've never seen anything that suggests a species dies out and suddenly changes into a new one right there on the spot. Mutations are not an excuse, they are a fact of nature. Chances are this whole thing is just words being misconstrued, but again I've studied it a lot so if you have questions about how this could happen feel free.

Originally posted by jiggerj

I fail to see the logic behind his argument and your support for it. If we are arguing creation versus big bang, which I did not because I was trying to support evolution and not the big bang, then I will rebuttal your logic and ask which is more sound. Which of these are more probable? Which of these sound like the most simple answer?

reply to post by Dynamike

 

LOL I am on the side of evolution. I really REALLY don't believe that a mystical magical being waved a magic wand and created the universe. I'm just saying that I'm not buying into everything about evolution in the way it is being presented. When one species dies out and another seems to appear with changes that should have taken millions of years, science allows itself the excuse of sudden mutation. I'm not buying it. It's too easy.

Hi jiggerj,

If I might make a suggestion...read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth or Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Sudden mutations are possible--what you're not understanding is that the mutation doesn't produce sudden, noticeable changes. That takes generations. And don't confuse generations with years; evolution doesn't work that way. Here's an example. Let's say person A had a mutation on a particular gene. That mutation gets passed on to his or her offspring one generation later. A hundred years after that, his or her descendent, who has inherited the gene, shows some physical alteration, no matter how small.

A hundred years, four generations.

Get it?

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Hi jiggerj,

If I might make a suggestion...read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth or Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Sudden mutations are possible--what you're not understanding is that the mutation doesn't produce sudden, noticeable changes. That takes generations. And don't confuse generations with years; evolution doesn't work that way. Here's an example. Let's say person A had a mutation on a particular gene. That mutation gets passed on to his or her offspring one generation later. A hundred years after that, his or her descendent, who has inherited the gene, shows some physical alteration, no matter how small.

A hundred years, four generations.

Get it?

Hi HB,

Two things,

First this from Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution

the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts.

Two: As impossible as it is to have successful mutations repeated over and over, it seems nature hasn't been informed. The trees mutated successfully, along with every plant, weed, bug, animal, fish...

Take any living thing and have a scientist look at it and say, "Hmmm, this creature had a bad mutation because it obviously doesn't need this part."

Even our appendix was once useful. And I bet every part of the platypus is useful to the creature. Show me an elephant with an extra (failed) trunk sticking out of it's side, seeds that won't grow and aren't edible.

The odds of unsuccessful mutations occurring are way more likely that successful mutations, yet all we see are the good ones.

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by jiggerj

 

First of all, where is your evidence of such claims? I dont recall science attempting to explain such arguments as you have presented them. Yes, there are more drastic mutations than others, but I dont know of any instance where a species "suddenly" evolved into another.

But if you are refuting the theory that drastic evolution can happen in a period of merely several generations then I would like to argue that your hunch is wrong. Genetic mutations on a drastic level can be accomplished in a short term, especially when RNA is involved. I employ you to look this up and find examples. Or better yet find evidence against such hunches, because the science is there, just not your understanding of it.

Here is a start:en.wikipedia.org... Teleogryllus oceanicus, an Australian ocean field cricket. "The species was introduced to Hawaii in 1877, where it is predated on by the parasitic fly Ormia ochracea. Research has shown that the male cricket on Kauai underwent a mutation in 2003 that removed the file and scraper apparatus required for producing sound from the wing and rendered the males incapable of using song to attract female crickets. Within 20 generations 90% of the males on Kauai have "flatwings"; the mutation has reduced predation since the fly cannot locate the males. The males have also adapted their behavior, exploiting males that can make sound to attract mates for them."

So a cricket evolved into a cricket
Struth hold the front page, stop the Earths rotation and fire off the nuclear fireworks.
This is astounding stuff. A cricket is now a cricket.

Oh, are you saying... it just turned into a cricket.

Thats a bit like saying a dog is now a dog, a big dog is littler, a Chihuahua is from the wolf family.
That all sounds a bit meh.
Who would deny a Chihuahua comes from wild dogs, that it is bred into a breed.

A cricket turning into a cricket is just stupid. Its just breeding.

reply to post by borntowatch


And once again you show everyone how little you understand the theory

Clearly you have no clue how long evolution as a process takes in larger species like dogs. Guess what, those small changes add up over hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years, and what you get after that time isn't the same as the orignal species. For example: seals evolved from a dog-like species...yet I don't see you calling it a dog.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself, read up on the theory you so clearly don't understand

reply to post by jiggerj

The odds of unsuccessful mutations occurring are way more likely that successful mutations, yet all we see are the good ones.

Because:

1) The timeframes involved a HUUUUUUUGE.
2) Unsuccessful mutations can often lead to death, so of course you don't see stuff with unsuccessful mutations survive a lot.

Anyone here can prove beyond any doubt in about an Hour using a Cheap $75 Microscope a book on Biology and some slides and some Bleach that EVOLUTION IS NOT THEORY!

Read up on how to prepare Microscope slides and purchase or grow your own Bacteria by reading the Biology Book or go to a specialty store that has Microscope slides already prepared.

Take a slide and use an eye dropper to add a small amount of Bleach onto you slide that is teaming with Bacteria. It is important to have a control group so use another slide group and drop in water and perhaps a third group that the Chemistry set book on Biology suggests.

Every time you add Bleach to a slide of Bacteria...the first time the majority die...but not all...read the book on how to scrape some of the live bacteria that survived and how to add food wait a small amount of time as the bacteria you will be using grows in number quickly after adding food by MITOSIS.

You continue the process and each time you will notice that you will have a larger number of surviving bacteria as the bacteria that live each time are the ones that are resistant to the bleach. The more times you do the experiment the Greater the Number of surviving Bacteria as right in front of your eyes YOU ARE WATCHING SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND NATURAL SELECTION AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS ADAPTATION AND after say a day of doing this the Bacteria you started with will not look the same under the scope as the Bacteria that you have driven by environmental conditions to change and adapt as well as be able to resist Bleach!

THIS IS EVOLUTION! Anyone here can watch it happen! Split Infinity

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by borntowatch

 

And once again you show everyone how little you understand the theory

Clearly you have no clue how long evolution as a process takes in larger species like dogs. Guess what, those small changes add up over hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years, and what you get after that time isn't the same as the orignal species. For example: seals evolved from a dog-like species...yet I don't see you calling it a dog.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself, read up on the theory you so clearly don't understand

Cool, now show us evidence, ypu know the fossils of the missing links.
What am I supposed to take your word for it.
We need transitional fossils, you know part dog part seal. Come on

You say seals evolved from dogs, where is the evidence.
Your beliefs constitute religion.

You show me a half seal half dog and I will be a evolutard instantly