Science Disproves Evolution

[God himself]

Any response to my question, So What?

[mr platohead]

so what ...

No, you really are wrong!

Some phenotypic and behavioral characteristics are coded for by single genes, which are then affected by a single mutation. (I don't know about eye colour.)

And I wouldn't rule out some "minimal complexity" mechanism, whereby traits will only be expressed once a particular sequence of mutations builds up somewhere in the genome (still randomly, but accumulatively). Of course, this is just my own idea, and has no basis in current research (as far as I know). If I were an evolutionary biochemist, I'd either know it was a load of baloney and had been disproved, or might look into it myself. Either way, real work, real research, would be involved, and not just blind belief.

And if God Himself denies creating everything, then who am I to argue? 

[God himself]

And if God Himself denies creating everything, then who am I to argue? 

I'm dreading the thought that he might be an advocate of the most ironically named mumbo-jumbo "theory" of our time -- "intelligent design".

[so what]

God himself denies everything, even his own existence.

[mr platohead]

Not sure if that's good-natured irony or an attempt at bad sarcasm.

I enjoy a good debate, so please keep the arguments a-comin'.   

[God himself]

God himself denies everything, even his own existence.

Given your reluctance to answer a simple question, I can only assume you are yet another dim-witted religious loony.

[Old Mike]

So What wrote:

Platohead, I dont care whether creationists can prove if God created the world. I know they cannot. I also know Evolutionists cannot prove their hypothesis.

Evolution is proved by experiment, certainly at the level of microorganisms and insects that have short generations.

It is certainly the most logical explanation of how the numerous species we now have arose.

But, the way evolution is described by Old Mike and yourself, also validates Pahu's point that it is highly remarkable (if not questionable) that we are unable to find organisms of 2-20 cells.
If indeed evulotion is a process over many generations and over many years, proof of existance in this category should be abundant.

This remark shows a lack of knowledge of the fossil record.
Only 30 incomplete T rex fossils have ever been found. If organisms of 2 to 20 cells existed but were not successful it is quite understandable that thre is thus far no fossil evidence of them.

As said before, Pahu's question is of a much larger magnitude than some simple gene mutations, leading to the development of a new species.
We are talking about (the first) one-celled organism, having the "urge" due to external or internal factors, to reproduce into a multi-celled organism.
In order for this cell to be te common ancestor of all living things, this one cell should carry the genetic blueprint of all
As said before, Pahu's question is of a much larger magnitude than some simple gene mutations, leading to the development of a new species.
We are talking about (the first) one-celled organism, having the "urge" due to external or internal factors, to reproduce into a multi-celled organism.
In order for this cell to be te common ancestor of all living things, this one cell should carry the genetic blueprint of all living things.

This said, it makes Old Mikes example absurd as the sudden arise of an insecticide is not natural and can therefor not cause natural selection to occur.

An insecticide is quite natural. It is man-made, certainly, but natural. Any stress that causes some individuals in a population to be advantaged over the rest will lead to evolution of new populations.

[God himself]

Nice Christians ...


 

Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God


Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Attenborough went further in his opposition to creationism, saying it was "terrible" when it was taught alongside evolution as an alternative perspective. "It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five ... Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066."

Attenborough, who attended the Wyggeston Grammar School for Boys in Leicester in the 1930s, said he was astonished at manifestations of Christian faith.

"It never really occurred to me to believe in God - and I had nothing to rebel against, my parents told me nothing whatsoever. But I do remember looking at my headmaster delivering a sermon, a classicist, extremely clever ... and thinking, he can't really believe all that, can he? How incredible!"

In 2002, Attenborough joined an effort by clerics and scientists to oppose the inclusion of creationism in the curriculum of state-funded independent schools receiving private sponsorship, such as the Emmanuel Schools Foundation.

[so what]

Old Mike,

"It is certainly the most logical explanation of how the numerous species we now have arose"
- Absolutely correct. Creation is totally illogical, so anything else than creation will be more logic.

"Only 30 incomplete T rex fossils have ever been found. If organisms of 2 to 20 cells existed but were not successful it is quite understandable that thre is thus far no fossil evidence of them"
- Incorrect and incomplete. Statistically the chances of finding certain fossils depend of the quantity these species existed in their time, plus some other factors that apply to a possible fossilisation. The more species, the larger the chance to be fossilized.
Since you are unable to tell me how many T-Rex there ever were, your statement holds no ground.

"An insecticide is quite natural. It is man-made, certainly, but natural. Any stress that causes some individuals in a population to be advantaged over the rest will lead to evolution of new populations"
- Incorrect and incomplete. All natural insecticides found sofar have a purpose to attack an individual in a species, not the species as a group.
All resistancies studied, most famous are those of musquito's, are due to insecticides introduced by humans, with the soul target to destroy a species as a complete.
In nature insecticide works as a deterrent. and an atacked organism will simply stay out of the way of the insecticide.
Furthermore, resistancy itself has not been shown to trigger evolution. Evolution is a combination of factors (of which resistancy may be one).
Finally, where resistancy has been studied, it has always come at a price. Where the resistance increased, other gene functions were reduced or lost, finally leading to deficiencies.

The introduction of insecticides in an environment by humans is an unnatural process, and mutations (if there are any due to this introduction: disputed*) are unnatural mutations, causing unnatural defects.

The whole point of evolution is that it happens WITHOUT unnatural external influences (such as a god?).
In an artificial environment you can never have natural selection.
 

[mr platohead]

In an artificial environment you can never have natural selection.

so what ... this is wrong.

It seems, with your newly acquired (no pun intended) denial of creationism, that you are trying to produce evidence  that you have some kind of logical thinking.

But your arguments don't support this - they're all very woolly and misguided.

In nature, nothing evolves to attack a whole species. Evolution is based on change in the genome of an individual, which is then passed on by that individual to their offspring - if the change gives an advantage, the gene(s) will spread.

We like to anthropomorphise and talk about "evolutionary wars" between species, but this is just colourful language to describe what happens naturally over a long period of time.

Industrial insecticides and poisons are unnatural in that they are man-made, but this doesn't mean that they cause unnatural mutations and/or unnatural defects - these do happen, but are directly caused by the insecticide on the organism, in a similar way to radiation, and will most likely affect somatic cells as well as reproductive cells (just like cancer of the liver, for example).

What I'm talking about is that a population may eventually adapt to an insecticide and become resistant, following natural evolutionary processes.

You write:

Furthermore, resistancy itself has not been shown to trigger evolution

Nothing "triggers" evolution. It's just the name we give to a long, complex process of change and adaptation that's going on all the time. And I'm not sure what you mean by "resistancy" triggering evolution, as if there were some direction to it, some purpose - this is starting to sound a lot like "intelligent design" or even pseudo-creationism.

Your logic is all mixed up.

[God himself]

Fantastic article in the form of a book review by Professor Jerry Coyne here. Very long, but well worth printing out and reading at your leisure. First poublished in this month's edition of The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

A brilliant rebuttal of scientists who are also Christians (as opposed to Christian Scientists).

Enjoy.

[Old Mike]

Statistically the chances of finding certain fossils depend of the quantity these species existed in their time, plus some other factors that apply to a possible fossilisation. The more species, the larger the chance to be fossilized.
Since you are unable to tell me how many T-Rex there ever were, your statement holds no ground.

My intention was merely to point out that thye fossil record, as it now stands is incomplete. The fact that a fossil of a species has not been found is not evidence that the creature bdid not exist.

[mr platohead]

You might also want to take a look at this:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#rc

And I do like the line in Coyne's piece:

If high intelligence was such a predictable result of evolution, why did it not evolve in Australia?

Classic   

[Old Mike]

So What posted:

All resistancies studied, most famous are those of musquito's, are due to insecticides introduced by humans, with the soul target to destroy a species as a complete.
In nature insecticide works as a deterrent. and an atacked organism will simply stay out of the way of the insecticide.
Furthermore, resistancy itself has not been shown to trigger evolution. Evolution is a combination of factors (of which resistancy may be one).
Finally, where resistancy has been studied, it has always come at a price. Where the resistance increased, other gene functions were reduced or lost, finally leading to deficiencies.

The introduction of insecticides in an environment by humans is an unnatural process, and mutations (if there are any due to this introduction: disputed*) are unnatural mutations, causing unnatural defects.

The whole point of evolution is that it happens WITHOUT unnatural external influences (such as a god?).
In an artificial environment you can never have natural selection.
 

This post shows that So does not have even the vaguest idea of what the theory of Evolution postulates.
Mayuggest, So, that you obtain an elementary textbook on the subject and study it. You would then be able to particpate in an informed debate.

[Pahu]

Rapid Burial

Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a), show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions (b) that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas (c). These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood.  The fossil record is not evidence of slow change (d).

a.   Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]

Coarse grains slowly covering a jellyfish would allow atmospheric oxygen to migrate in and produce rapid decay. Burial in clay or mud would better shield an organism from decay. If coarse-grain sand buried these jellyfish in a storm, turbulence and abrasion by the sand grains would tear and destroy the jellyfish.
    
Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish.  He wrote:

“No organism wholly soft can be preserved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 330.

Once again, a prediction of evolution is seen to be wrong.

Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth,” Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982, pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]

Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals,” Scientific American, Vol. 204, March 1961, pp. 72–78.

b.   Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.

“... preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and erosion....But the very conditions that promote preservation also decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such places.” Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989), pp. 61–62.

c.   Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale,” The Illustrated London News, 1856, p. 116.

Sunderland, pp. 111–114.

David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22.

Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.

d.   Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html#wp1012558