Gaps in Evolution

[Angel7]

All of that has already been debunked in this thread. Every attempt to show any irreducible complexity in life has failed. There is no good reason to think that micro-evolution could not lead to macro-evolution, and we have observed it happening. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.

and some people accuse christians of being indifferent, and mean spirited

Macro-evolution can not have derived from Micro

We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones13). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

Explain to me, oh friend, why Bacteria does not “Evovle” into a new species? but onyl adapts to its enviroment.
Men working in coal mines would have better night vision then we. But this isn’t a mutation, only adaption. We won’t evolve with night vision.

I’m dealing with the fact that Evolution has no proof quiet fine actually.

You have no Fossiel evidence of “Transitional” species to fit between the links of
fish =amphibian =reptile =mammal
How do we know if said species are not entierly different specimens?

 

[grannymh]

fish =amphibian =reptile =mammal
How do we know if said species are not entierly different specimens?

The one species which we know is definitely distinct from all other species is the human species.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

LOL i spat my coffee out there laughing. Bacteria is a DOMAIN not a species! You just said the equivalent of, but we dont evolve for were still Eukarya!!!

 

[grannymh]

LOL i spat my coffee out there laughing. Bacteria is a DOMAIN not a species!

Hi Charles,

Just wondering if you got the info to anwer my post 756…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Maybe I am a wild granny.

When one makes a direct statement: “Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain.” Charles Darwin, Post 753. One needs to present something to back up that statement. I am especially looking forward to your evidence.

I thought you were joking. Tell you what heres 63000, see if you can find ONE the posits intellect being linked to ANYTHING outwith the brain

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=intellect&btnG=Search

 

[reggieM]

Google scholar - linking intellect and spirtuality 72,000 pages

 

[grannymh]

I thought you were joking. Tell you what heres 63000, see if you can find ONE the posits intellect being linked to ANYTHING outwith the brain

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=intellect&btnG=Search

Sorry, that you misread my post.-- <When one makes a direct statement: “Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain.” Charles Darwin, Post 753. One needs to present something to back up that statement. I am especially looking forward to your evidence.> –

I never said I was interested in the intellect being linked to anything other than the brain. I was just interested in your particular evidence. There has been some recent studies done on the brain and I thought you were serious about research.

Thank you for the link. That is a new one for me and I appreciate it since “search” led me to Patrick Haggard, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London. Unfortunately, I would have to pay to read his work; however, I am hoping to find a “free” site…

If you happen to run across some free information about Haggard’s work, please let me know.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Sorry, that you misread my post.-- <When one makes a direct statement: “Everything we know about intellect and will tells us there linked directly to the brain.” Charles Darwin, Post 753. One needs to present something to back up that statement. I am especially looking forward to your evidence.> –

I never said I was interested in the intellect being linked to anything other than the brain. I was just interested in your particular evidence. There has been some recent studies done on the brain and I thought you were serious about research.

Thank you for the link. That is a new one for me and I appreciate it since “search” led me to Patrick Haggard, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London. Unfortunately, I would have to pay to read his work; however, I am hoping to find a “free” site…

If you happen to run across some free information about Haggard’s work, please let me know.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

You are asking me to provide evidence that intellect is linked to the brain, are you serious? What on earth do you think it is linked to?

 

[grannymh]

You are asking me to provide evidence that intellect is linked to the brain, are you serious? What on earth do you think it is linked to?

I am talking about natural science, evolutionary science if you want to call it that. You must have read the projections in the articles celebrating Darwin’s birthday.
And surely you are aware that some interesting studies are going on regarding brain functions. Human brain studies that were not possible ten-fifteen years ago, can be conducted now due to technology advances in neurosurgery.

I bet I know why we are on different tracks. You are thinking of intellect in general terminology. And I am thinking of intellect which is specific to the human species. Since I am dealing with the evolved human species, I am interested in current evidence in keeping with the guidelines of empirical science. Nonetheless, don’t worry about providing any documentation of brain functions. You gave me a link, thank you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

Google scholar - linking intellect and spirtuality 72,000 pages

Hi Reggie,

I think I should change my CAF name to Marie Curie for science discussions.

Thank you for the link. It will be put to good use since I’m finding “interesting” information about the experience of free will on the scientific level. One researcher suggested that a particular research project would somehow refute the idea of will somehow based on Cartesian dualism???

I do hope I don’t have to go through 72,000 pages… …But it is nice to know the variety of spiritual stuff on the net.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Mersenne]

and some people accuse christians of being indifferent, and mean spirited

Macro-evolution can not have derived from Micro

We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones13). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

Explain to me, oh friend, why Bacteria does not “Evovle” into a new species?

It does. We observe new species of bacteria all the time.

I’m dealing with the fact that Evolution has no proof quiet fine actually.

We’ve observed macro-evolution. It is a fact. We have more evidence for evolution then any other single theory in the history of science. It is verified through dozens of different fields of science.

You have no Fossiel evidence of “Transitional” species to fit between the links of
fish =amphibian =reptile =mammal

Sure we do. Even if we didn’t, how do you think that disproves evolution?

How do we know if said species are not entierly different specimens?

What?

 

[buffalo]

LOL i spat my coffee out there laughing. Bacteria is a DOMAIN not a species! You just said the equivalent of, but we dont evolve for were still Eukarya!!!

aka as a “kind”?

 

[Angel7]

LOL i spat my coffee out there laughing. Bacteria is a DOMAIN not a species! You just said the equivalent of, but we dont evolve for were still Eukarya!!!

Perhaps I should have been more precise.
I have not noticed any new types of Bacteria, if you know some recent ones tell me of them.

Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information
Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own
Design is apparent in the living world
“nothing works until everything works.”(Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. What is the point of evolving a wing, if when at the first evolution, it is just a an extra extremety)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state
Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law
By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion).
Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet
The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe
The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time .
There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air
Language separates man from the animals.
No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language.
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.
We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

All that information I got from emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
Just 13 short paragraps of information.
I’d love to get a response from this.
I hope you don’t take to long to read it.

 

[Angel7]

You are asking me to provide evidence that intellect is linked to the brain, are you serious? What on earth do you think it is linked to?

BestBibleScience.org God created. The Bible says so. Science confirms it.

Lets word that around a bit.
Where is Concience, linked to the brain?
If some one is brain dead they still have Concience am I right?
Concience isn’t necesserilly related to thought.

How can you say some one is dead, based solely on the fact that they have lost brain activity? In Some cases, they regained brain activity.

 

[Mersenne]

Perhaps I should have been more precise.
I have not noticed any new types of Bacteria, if you know some recent ones tell me of them.

Are you kidding? Do a basic google search. There are tons of new bacteria species. There are bacteria that survive by consuming synthetic materials, materials that we created and didn’t exist 100 years ago.

Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information

Prove it.

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own

Prove it.

Design is apparent in the living world

Prove it.

“nothing works until everything works.”(Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. What is the point of evolving a wing, if when at the first evolution, it is just a an extra extremety)

It’s not an extra extremity, I believed it was originally used to cool the body, but it could have been used for all kinds of things, who knows?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state
Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law

That’s not the second law, and the big bang is not contrary to it.

Honestly, read something other then creationist websites. Educate yourself before you try to tell the entire scientific world that they’re wrong.

 

[tjm190]

Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information- false.

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own- Not in the presence of creatures that eat said chemicals

Design is apparent in the living world- yes, just like design is apparent in the grand canyon: but that was formed by a natural process to.

“nothing works until everything works.”(Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit. What is the point of evolving a wing, if when at the first evolution, it is just a an extra extremety)- Wings are believed to have evolved from arms when feathers came into play. It has also been demonstrated that a partial wing could have allowed the individual to run significantly faster and up slopes of up to 110 degrees.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state- It refers to the tendency of mechanical energy to “decay” to “entropy”- completely irrelevant.

Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law- false. It refers to energy, not matter. After the bang there was helium and hydrogen, which formed stars. The fusion reaction that occurs inside stars gave us the remaining elements.

By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion)- yep

Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet- There are hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each- statistically, it shouldn’t come as surprise that a rock orbiting one of those stars was “just right”

The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe- wat?

The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time. False- google evolution of the horse

There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air- lungs aren’t fossilized, so observing this change would be tough

Language separates man from the animals.- True

No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language.- And yet we know they can pull of sign language. They just don’t have the right physical parts for the job.

Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.- As much as I hate referencing Disney movies, have you ever seen Fantasia? Right at the beginning, two little bacteria like things pop up, connect to each other with their tendrils, we see some lights pulsate across, and then they go their separate ways. This represents the exchange of genetic information, a valuable evolutionary tool because it allows beneficial genes to spread throughout the population. This is the benefit of sexual reproduction.

 

[buffalo]

Are you kidding? Do a basic google search. There are tons of new bacteria species. There are bacteria that survive by consuming synthetic materials, materials that we created and didn’t exist 100 years ago.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

It’s not an extra extremity, I believed it was originally used to cool the body, but it could have been used for all kinds of things, who knows?

That’s not the second law, and the big bang is not contrary to it.

Honestly, read something other then creationist websites. Educate yourself before you try to tell the entire scientific world that they’re wrong.

These bacteria have latent DNA capabilites that simply awaken.

 

[tjm190]

These bacteria have latent DNA capabilites that simply awaken.

They had a latent ability to eat materials that didn’t yet exist?

 

[Mersenne]

These bacteria have latent DNA capabilites that simply awaken.

That’s false. Please read a book.

 

[buffalo]

They had a latent ability to eat materials that didn’t yet exist?

Yes. Actually they digest nylon oligomers.

They still are bacteria right?