T
Techno2000
Guest
Ok you say they ALL are evolving, lets look at the Roach, what exactly is evolving on the Roach ?Hasn’t enough time past for the Roach to do something ?
- Status
T
tjm190
Guest
The roach has a short reproduction cycle, a flexible diet, is highly resilient, and can live almost all over the world… what do you want, laser vision?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Out of all the thousands of animals in the world and the Millions and Millions of years that has past by why can’t someone just point to ONE animal that is in the Middle of evolving into something New !?!?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah but a Roach still can’t hold it’s breath as long as a Dolphin .Out of all the thousands of animals in the world and the Millions and Millions of years that has past by why can’t someone just point to ONE animal that is in the Middle of evolving into something New !?!?
T
Touchstone
Guest
You can’t point to one that isn’t. If it is reproducing and passing on its genes to its offspring, it is the middle of what was for that species and what will be.Out of all the thousands of animals in the world and the Millions and Millions of years that has past by why can’t someone just point to ONE animal that is in the Middle of evolving into something New !?!?
-TS
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yeah but a Roach still can’t hold it’s breath as long as a Dolphin .
T
Techno2000
Guest
M
Matthias123
Guest
Although of course I am not a creationist it the traditional sense, the best creationist argument I have heard is that Darwinism is not refutable. Other then that there is always the claim of physiological warfare or some other giant conspiracy. I am sure some fundamentalists believe the Jesuits are behind it all.
R
rossum
Guest
Touchstone is right, all living species are evolving.
I am not sure how much you already know about the subject, so forgive me if some of this is teaching you ovisuction.
Individual animals do not evolve; they are hatched/born, live, reproduce and die. It is populations of animals that evolve. Evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals. Over time the genes in a population of animals, plants, bacteria etc. will change. Some genes will become more common. Some genes will become less common. Some new genes will arise due to mutations. Some genes will disappear completely. The gene pool of each species changes over time. That change over time is evolution.
Hence all living species are evolving all the time. Individuals reproduce, populations evolve.
The theory of evolution is our current best explanation as to how the gene pools of populations change over time.
As well as the video liquidpele suggested in post #36 you might also want to look at Evolution 101.
Oh yes, you owe me 5 quatloos royalties for the dolphins in your post #45.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Whatever creationist told you that was either lying or ignorant. Clearly they had never even bothered to read “On the Origin of Species”:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.
- both from Chapter Six of Origins.
Right from the start Darwin gave ways to falsify his theory. Indeed, Professor Behe has said that his idea of Irreducible Complexity was based on the first of those two falsifications suggested by Darwin.
rossum
C
cassini
Guest
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-press-scientific_conference_evolution.htm
Remnant Press Release — Oct 20, 2009
Scientific Conference Refuting Evolution Theory to be held in Rome
Nov 9, 2009 — 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. — St. Pius V University (Rome)
CONTACTS: H. M. Owen (U.S.), noevolutioninfo@gmail.com or, Peter Wilders (Europe), wilderspeter@gmail.com
Scientific Impossibility of Evolution
A Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to Be Heard
The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species, in Nov 2009 will be the occasion for a unique Conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome, presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory.
According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov,
“Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November Conference will demonstrate, with empirical data, that such geological time is not available for evolution.”
Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale — instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years.
Lalamov observed . . .
“Contrary to the conventional wisdom, these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” ( www.sedimentology.fr )
According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon . . .
“Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming Conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”
Participating scientists include . . .
• Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.
• Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology.
• Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich.
• Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d’Electronique et de Technologie de l’Informatique).
• Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.
Abstracts of the presentations can be seen on-line at . . .
sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/Home .
Thomas Seiler, a German participant in the Conference, said . . .
“The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution” conference is being held in direct response to Benedict XVI’s request that both sides of the evolution controversy be heard. In the light of astounding new scientific breakthroughs, particularly in geology, we hope the worldwide scientific community will acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against the theory of evolution.”
The Conference begins at 9:30 a.m. on November 9 in the auditorium of St. Pius V University (Via Cristoforo Colombo, No. 200). Entrance is free although the number of seats is limited. It is open to the public and members of the press and media, but reservations are recommended. Reservations can be made by email at noevolutioninfo@gmail.com; or Peter Wilders (Europe phone: 377 93 50 88 34)
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
You asked for a reference on genetic decay in humans. The following link gives some examples, and closes with the comment that there is not one instance of a mutation giving a positive advance which has been observed.
That is, the coding maching is gradually breaking down and incorporating more and more negative mutations as a race.
christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html
You also asked what the sudden rise of civilisations had to do with evolution. I’d have thought it obvious that one should be able to show a gradual move towards advanced literature, architecture, mathematics etc. etc. if these things were of evolutionary origin. Yet they basically suddenly appear in human history. One minute we have cave men in terms of evolutionary time, the next we have Plato and Socrates, the Roman Senate, Inca Jewellery, Chinese ceramics and organisation, and all widely separated from each other, without mutual contact.
The human population curve seems to fit pretty well with a 10,000 BC origin or even more recent origin.
vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
How did that happen?
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
And there’s a bit more herea about transitional fossils, or the lack of them.
With the exception of archeopterix for example, what evidence is there for birds “evolving”? And how would a creature survive while it had merely rudimentary flying apparaturs, which wouldn’t be good for anything much? If a bird can’t fly, it doesn’t last long. As the article points out, bats have always been bats, turtles always turtles etc.
creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-3-the-links-are-missing
and here’s a bit more shooting down the dinosaurs to birds theory -
creation.com/bird-breathing-anatomy-breaks-dino-to-bird-dogma
These creationist scientists aren’t idiots, even if you think they are.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Evolution of feathers:
people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
Evolution of birds video series (in 5 parts):
- youtube.com/watch?v=NB46sz5eoZg
- youtube.com/watch?v=02V8Y1OhWHc
- youtube.com/watch?v=-B2c79tq-Do
- youtube.com/watch?v=L_Uiuy-lfGs
- youtube.com/watch?v=v6vHdRfi14c
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557105,00.html
More information:
darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm
R
rossum
Guest
Again, your creationist source is either ignorant or lying. Mutations showing positive advances have been observed. The vast majority of mutations in humans are neutral, over 95%. Those mutations have no effect on the phenotype and so cannot contribute to genetic decay. Of the rest the great majority are indeed deleterious, probably more than a further 95%. However you source is in error when it says that there are no known beneficial mutations in humans.* Apolipoprotein A-I Milano protects against a high chloresterol diet.
- HbC protects against malaria.
Natural selection is constantly filtering the variations in the human genome. Deleterious variations will tend to decrease while beneficial variations will tend to increase. For example, in a malarial area people with the HbC mutation will not be as badly affected by malaria and so, on average, will have more children. Over time that variant will spread through the population while the variants that are less resistant to malaria will tend to decrease because carriers will tend to have fewer children. To quote the linked paper:These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.
Biologically there are no differences between Cro-Magnon cavemen and ourselves. The development of civilisations is not a biological phenomenon but a cultural one. It is a question for archaeologists and historians, not for biologists. The question is not relevant to evolution.
<mode=YEC>Those numbers are incorrect since they do not include the effects of Noah’s flood!
Seriously, this joke points out a common problem with YEC arguments; they do not cross-correlate between different points. Your figures do not show any sign of a massive population drop around the time of the Flood - Ussher has 2350 BCE - yet you are using these same figures to support a YEC argument for a recent origin of humanity. Inconsistent arguments are an obvious target for critics so you would do well to avoid them.
There is no “10,000 BC origin”, it is just where the author decided to start posting figures. Here is a different set of figures starting in 25,000 BCE. If I searched harder I could probably find some earlier estimates. I do know that population estimates for after the Toba eruption rage between 1,000 breeding pairs and 10,000 breeding pairs. That was about 70,000 BCE.
I am also somewhat mistrustful of the figures your reference provides since they never ever fall. You will note that on the link I provided the population figures sometimes fall, for instance between 1600 CE (579 M) and 1650 CE (545 M). Plagues, famines, volcanos and climate can all cause the population to drop. The Black Death is estimated to have killed between 30% and 50% of the population in Europe.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Again it is trivially easy to show that your creationist source is either ignorant or lying.
Natural selection is constantly filtering the variations in the human genome. Deleterious variations will tend to decrease while beneficial variations will tend to increase. For example, in a malarial area people with the HbC mutation will not be as badly affected by malaria and so, on average, will have more children. Over time that variant will spread through the population while the variants that are less resistant to malaria will tend to decrease because carriers will tend to have fewer children. To quote the linked paper:These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.
Biologically there are no differences between Cro-Magnon cavemen and ourselves. The development of civilisations is not a biological phenomenon but a cultural one. It is a question for archaeologists and historians, not for biologists. The question is not relevant to evolution.
<mode=YEC>Those numbers are incorrect since they do not include the effects of Noah’s flood!
Seriously, this joke points out a common problem with YEC arguments; they do not cross-correlate between different points. Your figures do not show any sign of a massive population drop around the time of the Flood - Ussher has 2350 BCE - yet you are using these same figures to support a YEC argument for a recent origin of humanity. Inconsistent arguments are an obvious target for critics so you would do well to avoid them.
There is no “10,000 BC origin”, it is just where the author decided to start posting figures. Here is a different set of figures starting in 25,000 BCE. If I searched harder I could probably find some earlier estimates. I do know that population estimates for after the Toba eruption rage between 1,000 breeding pairs and 10,000 breeding pairs. That was about 70,000 BCE.
I am also somewhat mistrustful of the figures your reference provides since they never ever fall. You will note that on the link I provided the population figures sometimes fall, for instance between 1600 CE (579 M) and 1650 CE (545 M). Plagues, famines, volcanos and climate can all cause the population to drop. The Black Death is estimated to have killed between 30% and 50% of the population in Europe.
rossum
It is time once again to play the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
L
liquidpele
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
L
liquidpele
Guest
- Status