Gaps in Evolution

[Mersenne]

Haeckel drawing shows embroys of different species in different stages of development.
Notice the top row shows that embryos of ALL vertibrates in a stage where they appear almost identical… http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Haeckel-1.jpg
This picture is still used in biology books in 2004 - and unfortunately, many students did not know how fake these really were)​

http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Haeckel-2.jpg
(Compare and contrast the Drawn Embryo’s top, to the actual Embryos bottom.)
It turns out that when Haeckel published his embryos drawing in 1874, the drawing were not trusted by his collegues - but they don’t have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
I like to share with you a few quotes from the “Science” article in 1975:
NOTE: “Science” is NOT some Religious Magazine, but a Scientific publication !!!

“Generations of biology students may have been MISLED by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
“Not only did Haeckel ADD or OMIT features, Richardson and his collegues reported, but he (Haeckel) also FUDGED THE SCALE to EXAGERATE SIMILARITIES among species.”
“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous FAKES in Biology,” Richardson concludes.

The $6,000,000 Question:
WHY do school textbooks STILL promote this LIE ???
My experience is the “scientific community” is so NATURALISTICALLY INCLINED that they are BLIND to anything that has to do with the SUPERNATURAL…
Their PRIME Directive is:
EVERYTHING must be explained NATURALISTICALLY…
Now where did I read something like that… ???

**2Corinthians 4:3-4 ---- But our gospel is also hidden. It is hidden to those being lost, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them… **

In other words: The truth is hidden from the Evolutionists !!!

The past 2 posts, were all from ichthus.info/Evolution/evolution.html
I got all the text pictures, statements from there. I merely quoted with what was written there.

The Red is the Evolutionist point.
The blue is the counter arguement.

Again, Angel, I would suggest you show some common decency and stop spamming the thread with things you copy and pasted off of creationist websites, pick up a book, and actually learn something about evolution before you go off on rants about how the scientific community is wrong, when you don’t even have an elementary school education on the subject.

 

[buffalo]

granny,

Here is more from Hawks. Look at the graphs.

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

 

[Angel7]

Hmm… Although I do feel im going over board with this.
Point is, I feel a need to correct myself.
I personally believe in Creationism.
Some people Believe in Evolution. (through G-d’s will)
But Evolutionist or Creationist, It doesn’t matter, when it comes to the Salvation of Souls.
I personally find that there is more evidence for Creationism then against it.
There were Catholics ages ago, that probably believed the Earth was Flat, that didn’t mean they weren’t saved. I do not expect everyone to accept the idea of creationism (my hopes are always up) but what matters is wheter or not your saved. I should not be Ranting Creationism, and going off topic. I just don’t find Credible Evedince FOR Evolution, some of which is easily dispelled.

G-d willed Evolution, or Creationism. That isn’t really the Goal here.
Pardon for my excessive information.

 

[edwest2]

Hmm… Although I do feel im going over board with this.
Point is, I feel a need to correct myself.
I personally believe in Creationism.
Some people Believe in Evolution. (through G-d’s will)
But Evolutionist or Creationist, It doesn’t matter, when it comes to the Salvation of Souls.
I personally find that there is more evidence for Creationism then against it.
There were Catholics ages ago, that probably believed the Earth was Flat, that didn’t mean they weren’t saved. I do not expect everyone to accept the idea of creationism (my hopes are always up) but what matters is wheter or not your saved. I should not be Ranting Creationism, and going off topic. I just don’t find Credible Evedince FOR Evolution, some of which is easily dispelled.

G-d willed Evolution, or Creationism. That isn’t really the Goal here.
Pardon for my excessive information.

It really does matter. It matters very much. If you are taught the following, how do you think it would affect your behavior?

You are just an animal.

There is nothing supernatural. What you can sense is all there is.

Religion is just ‘magical thinking.’

The Bible and all other holy books were written by men and while they may contain some good ideas, are myths.

How do we evangelize others and tell them why Christ was born, lived and died for them, rising from death to life? Why? They might ask. Did He do that? Why did Christ die for all men?

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cerad]

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world.

You mean one woman right? After all, men don’t menstruate.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

One could say that there is already a challenge to common descent–the Japanese evolutionist Motoo Kimura. His theory is that evolutionary change and most of the variability within a species are caused at the molecular level. He also laid a strong foundation for a mathematical theory of evolution.

granny

Granny, Hi. Kimura’s theory in no way can be taken as a challenge to common descent. Common descent is a necessary part of his theory. You asked in an earlier post for info on the neutral theory and Kimura. Not sure I can summarize in a nutshell, but I’ll try:

Prior to the accumulation of much genetic data, most biologists assumed that when differences in DNA were found between species, or within species, those differences were due to natural selection. That is, a random mutation occurred and it was kept in the population because it conferred a selective advantage. Within species, it was assumed that genetic variation existed also because of natural selection (balancing selection or selection for variability). Kimura proposed that much variation within species and differences between species was actually neutral. That is, mutations occurred, but the new variants in the population stayed around or became fixed differences between species not because of natural selection but rather due to random fluctuations over time (genetic drift). More importantly, Kimura developed mathematical models to quantify the relative effects of selection, mutation, and drift under different circumstances (like differences in effective population size). These are often used as null hypotheses when performing statistical tests to detect the strength and type of selection. There is some confusion or mischaracterization, even among professionals, regarding the neutral theory. Kimura was not saying that all variation is due to random effects, nor that natural selection is unimportant. He realized that natural selection may not always be the dominant force affecting allele frequencies, and provided a framework to evaluate this. Biologists today continue with healthy and vigorous debate over the relative strength of selective vs neutral forces in shaping patterns of variation within and between species.

Mike

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Hmm… Although I do feel im going over board with this.
Point is, I feel a need to correct myself.
I personally believe in Creationism.
Some people Believe in Evolution. (through G-d’s will)
But Evolutionist or Creationist, It doesn’t matter, when it comes to the Salvation of Souls.
I personally find that there is more evidence for Creationism then against it.
There were Catholics ages ago, that probably believed the Earth was Flat, that didn’t mean they weren’t saved. I do not expect everyone to accept the idea of creationism (my hopes are always up) but what matters is wheter or not your saved. I should not be Ranting Creationism, and going off topic. I just don’t find Credible Evedince FOR Evolution, some of which is easily dispelled.

G-d willed Evolution, or Creationism. That isn’t really the Goal here.
Pardon for my excessive information.

It really does matter. It matters very much. If you are taught the following, how do you think it would affect your behavior?

Science is wrong and can not be trusted.

Believing in God means you have to turn off your mind.

The Bible is meant to be read as a science book. Or, rather, that certain interpretations of the Bible (basically, those coming from fundamentalist protestant creationists) trump any data anyone can come up with.

How can we evangelize when nonbelievers will laugh at our obvious neglect, disdain, and willful ignorance of observable facts? (to paraphrase St. Augustine)

peace,
Mike

 

[grannymh]

It really does matter. It matters very much. If you are taught the following, how do you think it would affect your behavior?

You are just an animal.

There is nothing supernatural. What you can sense is all there is.

Religion is just ‘magical thinking.’

The Bible and all other holy books were written by men and while they may contain some good ideas, are myths.

How do we evangelize others and tell them why Christ was born, lived and died for them, rising from death to life? Why? They might ask. Did He do that? Why did Christ die for all men?

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world.

Peace,
Ed

To see this in real life, go to:

 

[tjm190]

With “Other” flies. Thats is exactly the problem with evolution! Can you really rely on the fact that another fly by chance has the same mutation? Such mutations would be come recessive, if not non existant in the next generation or so of flies

Brutal misunderstanding on your part. Let’s say one fly got a gene that allowed it to fly 2% faster. This gene would allow the fly to avoid predators and travel faster, giving it a competitive advantage over it’s fellow flies. With this advantage, the fly would be more likely to survive and pass down that particular gene. Would all of the flies descendants have this gene? No, but those that had that gene would also be more likely to survive and pass down that same gene.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, Hi. Kimura’s theory in no way can be taken as a challenge to common descent. Common descent is a necessary part of his theory. You asked in an earlier post for info on the neutral theory and Kimura. Not sure I can summarize in a nutshell, but I’ll try:

Prior to the accumulation of much genetic data, most biologists assumed that when differences in DNA were found between species, or within species, those differences were due to natural selection. That is, a random mutation occurred and it was kept in the population because it conferred a selective advantage. Within species, it was assumed that genetic variation existed also because of natural selection (balancing selection or selection for variability). Kimura proposed that much variation within species and differences between species was actually neutral. That is, mutations occurred, but the new variants in the population stayed around or became fixed differences between species not because of natural selection but rather due to random fluctuations over time (genetic drift). More importantly, Kimura developed mathematical models to quantify the relative effects of selection, mutation, and drift under different circumstances (like differences in effective population size). These are often used as null hypotheses when performing statistical tests to detect the strength and type of selection. There is some confusion or mischaracterization, even among professionals, regarding the neutral theory. Kimura was not saying that all variation is due to random effects, nor that natural selection is unimportant. He realized that natural selection may not always be the dominant force affecting allele frequencies, and provided a framework to evaluate this. Biologists today continue with healthy and vigorous debate over the relative strength of selective vs neutral forces in shaping patterns of variation within and between species.

Mike

Thank you for your excellent explanation.

I did not see challenge to common descent as one of existing or not existing. Rather, I saw it as a challenge of focus. As I understand, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was based on the concept that evolution occurs at the species level, whereas Kimura focused on the molecular changes that occur in DNA. While I do not have a scientific background, this invites my curiosity. As an analytical thinker, I see this difference as a door opener to reexamining the evidence of human evolution. Reexamination is often seen as a challenge.

My initial impression of Kimura is that he has a broader conception of evolutionary theory than Neo-Darwinists. Furthermore, the paper I mentioned in post 806 seemed to take in so many additional factors which would influence both reduced populations and expanded populations. Since I do not have a scientific background, I may be wrong in my analysis. That is why I question. I am very much like Thomas the Apostle.

I am working on a thesis: The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species. This means that evolutionary theories must be considered regarding the nature of the human being. However, the thesis itself cannot be limited to the material aspects of the human being. I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Thank you for your excellent explanation.
As I understand, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was based on the concept that evolution occurs at the species level, whereas Kimura focused on the molecular changes that occur in DNA.

I don’t see it so much as a disagreement in the question of “at what level does selection operate”, but rather in the differences in the type of data each researcher (Darwin and Kimura) had available and/or was interested in. The big question of at what level does selection operate (gene, individual, group) existed before and after Kimura. Darwin clearly discusses selection as occurring among individuals within a species, rather than a fight between species. This is how we typically view selection today. He did use selection at the level of the individual to explain differences between species. And yes, population geneticists like Kimura model evolution as occurring at the level of the gene with, of course, it implicit that the genes exist inside individuals.

Anyway, I am not sure if that is what you were getting at, so ignore if you want.

My initial impression of Kimura is that he has a broader conception of evolutionary theory than Neo-Darwinists. Furthermore, the paper I mentioned in post 806 seemed to take in so many additional factors which would influence both reduced populations and expanded populations. Since I do not have a scientific background, I may be wrong in my analysis. That is why I question. I am very much like Thomas the Apostle.

Yeah, I like to think of Thomas the Apostle as the first experimental biologist, since he did not accept a theory until testing it with his own hands . I would agree that Kimura had a broader conception in that he really forced the question of what changes can be attributed to natural selection and what changes are random and neutral. People so often equate natural selection with evolution, but we need to remember that selection is just one force that is operating. This is not to suggest that Kimura was the first to discuss this; there is a long literature on adaptation and recognizing it from nonadaptive change (e.g., G.C. Williams in the 1960s, continuing on with S.J. Gould’s spandrels in the 1970s or 80s).

Anyway, great to see you are interested in this stuff. It is not often nonscientists read Molecular Biology and Evolution or think about the neutral theory!

Mike

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You are just an animal.

You ARE an animal.

 

[PaulF2]

You ARE an animal.

Hey “Charles Darwin”,

Atheism is irrational nonsense. If you were honestly looking for truth you’d see that.

First of all, you claim that your mind is your brain and nothing more and that your brain is a material thing produced by an undirected physical process. Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind would have any inclination to seek what it true nor would it have an ability to DETERMINE what is true with any certainty whatsoever. From this alone, it should be clear that you should spend WAY less time pontificating than you do, eh? A more intellectually passive hobby would seem to be in order for someone who must, by his own worldview, admit that he’s not capable of producing anything logical or true - that is, unless it furthers his ability to pass on his selfish genes.

In short, in order for you to have any confidence that truth exists, you must acknowledge a Source for truth. And in order for you to believe that your brain has any ability to find truth you have to understand that it has a non-material element.

Secondly, by ignoring the impossible odds against this universe producing life - that is, the many “anthropic coincidences” - you are implicitly suggesting a reality much more complex and unknowable than that which you deny - God. There is essentially only one way around the anthropic coincidences problem, and that is to assert a nearly infinite number of other universes that did not produce sentient life. You believe in many more things that you can’t see or touch than those of us who know that God exists.

That’s for starters.

 

[Angel7]

Hey “Charles Darwin”,

Atheism is irrational nonsense. If you were honestly looking for truth you’d see that.

First of all, you claim that your mind is your brain and nothing more and that your brain is a material thing produced by an undirected physical process. Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind would have any inclination to seek what it true nor would it have an ability to DETERMINE what is true with any certainty whatsoever. From this alone, it should be clear that you should spend WAY less time pontificating than you do, eh? A more intellectually passive hobby would seem to be in order for someone who must, by his own worldview, admit that he’s not capable of producing anything logical or true - that is, unless it furthers his ability to pass on his selfish genes.

In short, in order for you to have any confidence that truth exists, you must acknowledge a Source for truth. And in order for you to believe that your brain has any ability to find truth you have to understand that it has a non-material element.

Secondly, by ignoring the impossible odds against this universe producing life - that is, the many “anthropic coincidences” - you are implicitly suggesting a reality much more complex and unknowable than that which you deny - God. There is essentially only one way around the anthropic coincidences problem, and that is to assert a nearly infinite number of other universes that did not produce sentient life. You believe in many more things that you can’t see or touch than those of us who know that God exists.

That’s for starters.

Very good response, I would like to add that, Man kind is “Flesh” and “Spirit”

Plants and Animals have Material souls, that die when they have a physical death.

Human’s and Angels have Spiritual Souls, which survive Physical death (although an angel would never experience that)

Could G-d make animals in Heaven? Sure. We wouldn’t need them though, cuz we would have G-d.

 

[Angel7]

It really does matter. It matters very much. If you are taught the following, how do you think it would affect your behavior?

You are just an animal.

There is nothing supernatural. What you can sense is all there is.

Religion is just ‘magical thinking.’

The Bible and all other holy books were written by men and while they may contain some good ideas, are myths.

How do we evangelize others and tell them why Christ was born, lived and died for them, rising from death to life? Why? They might ask. Did He do that? Why did Christ die for all men?

The Bible tells us that through one man sin entered the world.

Peace,
Ed

Exactly, G-d could have willed Evolution, but I find so much mroe Proof in Creationism.
How dreary Life would be, if this was all there was to it…

 

[tjm190]

Exactly, G-d could have willed Evolution, but I find so much mroe Proof in Creationism.
How dreary Life would be, if this was all there was to it…

Really? Are you hiding this evidence from us?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**Hey “Charles Darwin”,

Atheism is irrational nonsense. If you were honestly looking for truth you’d see that.**



First of all, you claim that your mind is your brain and nothing more and that your brain is a material thing produced by an undirected physical process.

Nope, i claim there is not one shread of empirical evidence that suggest otherwise. If you don’t agree then please present it.

**Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind **

What?

would have any inclination to seek what it true nor would it have an ability to DETERMINE what is true with any certainty whatsoever.



**From this alone, it should be clear that you should spend WAY less time pontificating than you do, eh? **


**
A more intellectually passive hobby would seem to be in order for someone who must, by his own worldview, admit that he’s not capable of producing anything logical or true - that is, unless it furthers his ability to pass on his selfish genes.**



In short, in order for you to have any confidence that truth exists, you must acknowledge a Source for truth. And in order for you to believe that your brain has any ability to find truth you have to understand that it has a non-material element.



**Secondly, by ignoring the impossible odds against this universe producing life - that is, the many “anthropic coincidences” - you are implicitly suggesting a reality much more complex and unknowable than that which you deny - God. **

The odds are 1 in errrrrr 1. I don’t “deny” god?
**
There is essentially only one way around the anthropic coincidences problem, and that is to assert a nearly infinite number of other universes that did not produce sentient life. You believe in many more things that you can’t see or touch than those of us who know that God exists.**

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR… You could do the intellectually honest thing, and admit at this point in time we don’t have enough evidence to form a meaningful hypothesis. Wild speculation gets us no where.

That’s for starters.

That was jibberish.

 

[Angel7]

Brutal misunderstanding on your part. Let’s say one fly got a gene that allowed it to fly 2% faster. This gene would allow the fly to avoid predators and travel faster, giving it a competitive advantage over it’s fellow flies. With this advantage, the fly would be more likely to survive and pass down that particular gene. Would all of the flies descendants have this gene? No, but those that had that gene would also be more likely to survive and pass down that same gene.

But where would such a Mutation or a Gene Come From?
How could a Gene make a fly fly 2% faster? Different Sized wings? Wouldn’t this Already be in the Genome? Similar to how the Size of a Bird’s beak is already in the Genome.
Or how Tall I am Is already in my Genome.

Hear i will use Darwin’s finches as an example.
Some Sized Beaks are different then others,. Depending on Enviroment, the Genes were there. Would This be Evolution? or should I say Adaptation.

Maybe a better example would be, the Peppered Moth.
people thought the Peppered Moth’s (which turned white = Black,) Was because it “evolved to changes in enviroment” (Polution was making the Trees covered with soot, which were normally white and peppered)

Another favored example of the Evolutionists…
Before the industrial revolution in England, there were a lot of lighter peppered moths.
After many years of industrialization in England, the population of peppered moths became darker:
The hypothesis was that lighter peppermoth could be more easily detected when the barks of the tree became darker due to polution and became an easy prey to birds…
They Thought this was True of Evolution. False, but rather Natural Selection.
The Darker Moths, survived under the New Camoflauge, where the Pepper ones, were exposed on the blackened Trees (poor trees )

The Dark Moth Gene was Always there, just more of them survived to pass it on.

All this example showed is that a changing environment EMPHASIZES a property that is already present in the genome of the peppered moths.

(Quoted from ichthus.info/Evolution/evolution.html )

As I was saying, this 2% Gene.
1, How would it work? what caused it. (Wingspan, etc…)
2. How could it not be Adaptation? Faster Predetors Faster prey, no?
3. Such a Gene could surely be present in the Genome Already.

 

[Angel7]

Really? Are you hiding this evidence from us?

… Have you seen my posts 1-4 or so back? I stated alot of stuff from websites, how did you miss it

I also noticed that after a little bit of surfing the web, I can find info that dispels Evolution Counter arguements Kind of easily. Read a few posts back.

 

[reggieM]

Hey “Charles Darwin”,

Atheism is irrational nonsense. If you were honestly looking for truth you’d see that.

First of all, you claim that your mind is your brain and nothing more and that your brain is a material thing produced by an undirected physical process. Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind would have any inclination to seek what it true nor would it have an ability to DETERMINE what is true with any certainty whatsoever. From this alone, it should be clear that you should spend WAY less time pontificating than you do, eh? A more intellectually passive hobby would seem to be in order for someone who must, by his own worldview, admit that he’s not capable of producing anything logical or true - that is, unless it furthers his ability to pass on his selfish genes.

In short, in order for you to have any confidence that truth exists, you must acknowledge a Source for truth. And in order for you to believe that your brain has any ability to find truth you have to understand that it has a non-material element.

Secondly, by ignoring the impossible odds against this universe producing life - that is, the many “anthropic coincidences” - you are implicitly suggesting a reality much more complex and unknowable than that which you deny - God. There is essentially only one way around the anthropic coincidences problem, and that is to assert a nearly infinite number of other universes that did not produce sentient life. You believe in many more things that you can’t see or touch than those of us who know that God exists.

That’s for starters.

Excellent starters … it should also be the finishers of many faulty arguments (but experience shows that it will not be).

If the mind was reducible to matter and physical laws, then it could not produce rational or even abstract outcomes. All mental calculations would be the product of natural laws – operating by evolutionary forces (randomness and survival urges). The brain could not adhere to abstract truths which have no counterpart in nature (such as the fact that 317 is a prime number).

Just as you said, the brain would not be able to determine what is true – it would not have a choice in its operation. Products of the mind would be accidental and would serve only the functions needed for survival.
There would be no free will since all behavior would be determined by physical, evolutionary processes.
There would be no need for or existence of morality – since nature cannot and could not command or forbid any human action. Nature just “is” – it does not plan for human life, it does not care that there is human life. If humans were reducible to nature, then humans wouldn’t care either.

But the fact that atheists, in their personal lives, contradict every one of these points (and many more), means that atheistic materialism is irrational (but that can only be judged by a rational view). Actually, from the materialist view, atheism is non-rational – since there would be no need or purpose for rationality.

The atheist who spends time pontficating or arguing or denouncing religion here on CAF is contradicting the materialist premise.