Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

Per the two creation accounts: I was merely showing that the two literal Genesis creation accounts differ.

Thank you for admitting your approach is as a Literalist.

 

[SHW]

I’m always dissappointed when Catholics need to lead people to ATHEIST web sites that ridicule the Bible for interpretation of the Bible. Light was created on day 1 “owr” and the bearers of light on day 4 “ma’owr”. There is no contradiction.

Hi Redneck,

I just knew that someone would complain. I am sorry that you feel that way. I meant no disrespect. I simply chose the first website that I found which clearly showed the differences in the **literal **wording of the creation accounts in an easy to understand format. This website fulfilled my intention for its use.

Since the stars are what give us our light here on earth, they would have to have been created first, in my opinion. The earth was not created before our sun either in my opinion and also according to science.

I do not agree with the strict “Creationist’s” “seven literal days” (of 24 hours for each day) for creation interpretation of Scripture. And, it is fine for you to have an opposing view.

2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Pax,
SHW

 

[The_Barbarian]

The problem here is that you don’t have a means to measure that information, much less understand what information means. As I pointed out in my last post, information is not simply an accumulation of data points.

To be precise, it’s a measure of uncertainty in a message. It can be adopted to genetics, because DNA contains information. Hence, any new mutation adds information in a population.

I also showed that insertion of data is not a means of aggregating information. As Werner Gitt stated: "It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through materialistic means].

The significant difference between the scientific definition and Gitt’s definition is simple: the scientific defintion works. Gitt’s does not. So when it comes to finding new ways to pack information in a limited pipe, we use Shannon’s equation, not Gitt’s idea of coding. When we make sure a spacecraft millons of kilometers away can reliably broadcast, it’s Shannon’s version. Gitt’s simple-minded idea of information can’t even approach these problems.

The difficulty that evolutionists have in dealing with the subject of information is explaining how it came to be without the infusion of intelligence that is required to create that information.

Even random events generate information.

On top of that, they have no means of quantifying it.

H = - K Sigma i = 1 n (pi log(pi))

Want to see how it works?

 

[SHW]

Thank you for admitting your approach is as a Literalist.

Hi PEPCIS,

I did know that you were being facetious. I just could not behave myself and so I replied to you in that same facetious manner. I did enjoy that!

I am not personally an inclusive literalist when it comes to Bible interpretation. Far from it. And I certainly do not believe that the creation accounts should be interpreted in a strictly literal context. I was actually pointing out the dangers, if a person interprets everything in the Bible literally.

I do believe that Adam, as the first human, sinned and lost eternal life for us, however.

Romans 5:12-14 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”

One thing I do take, to the utmost, literally is this:

John 6:55-57 “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.”

John 6:52-53 “The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

Jesus meant this literally.

Pax,
SHW

 

[StAnastasia]

As I said, a fairy tale. The fact is that we nowhere see any such favorable conditions for evolution. Evolutionists make the best children’s books for adults.

Is that why you leave the science up to adults?

 

[Monty_Arch]

As you admit, we still aren’t sure why gravity works.

Gravitons,hypothetically.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you admit, we still aren’t sure why gravity works.

Gravitons,hypothetically.

Hypothetically. But we haven’t yet found evidence of them, while we have directly observed how evolution works.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The understanding of evolutionary mathematics is coupled with the understanding that inherent in any “forward” movement in evolution (such that you are defining “forward” as being an increase in information),

There is no “forward” in evolution. And every new mutation adds information to a population, a mathematical certainty. BTW, at one time, birds had teeth. They no longer have teeth. Is that an increase or a decrease in information?

that there are costs associated with such “forward” movements. These costs are problematic to any evolutionary scenario, and require a significant trend of beneficial mutations.

In all actuality, in humans alone, deleterious mutation rates are on the order of 1.6 per individual per generation

(Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999)).

Someone’s led you down the garden path on that one:

High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids
Nature 397, 344-347 (28 January 1999)
Adam Eyre-Walker & Peter D. Keightley
Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.

Not quite what they told you it was, um? For obvious reasons. And indeed, there are a large number of slightly deleterious mutations in humans. We are more prone to choke, have all sorts of musculoskeletal problems, etc. relative to apes.

Moreover, many others were recessive, something that makes them persist at low levels, but makes inbreeding more dangerous.
But not surprisingly, the rate is just a bit lower than tolerable for a species.

Your “compound interest” story is nothing more than a fairy tale for grownups.

You’d be more interesting if you made up your own slogans, instead of copying old ones.

 

[rossum]

The understanding of evolutionary mathematics is coupled with the understanding that inherent in any “forward” movement in evolution (such that you are defining “forward” as being an increase in information), that there are costs associated with such “forward” movements.

I do not specify that information always increases, just the information is copied from the environment into genomes. In a reduced environemnt then information might decrease. In a dark cave information about optics and the behavious of light is no longer present and will gradually decay in genomes, leading to eyeless cave fish. Information can both increase and decrease.

These costs are problematic to any evolutionary scenario, and require a significant trend of beneficial mutations.

The costs are known and have been calculated - Haldane’s initial version has since been refined. We have never found any evidence of any evolutionary change going faster than allowed for by such limits. If you have any evidence of such a change then please refer us to it.

In all actuality, in humans alone, deleterious mutation rates are on the order of 1.6 per individual per generation (Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999)). Your “compound interest” story is nothing more than a fairy tale for grownups.

Your figure is too low. The usual figure for mutations in the average human genome is about 150 or more:The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 x 10[sup]-8[/sup] mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.

Source: Nachmann and Crowell, Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, 2000
Of those mutations the vast majority are neutral, over 95% of them. Most of the rest are deleterious with very few being beneficial. Deleterious mutations are removed from the gene pool by the usual mechanisms of natural selection; a number of miscarriages are caused by a lethal mutation in the embryo for instance. Beneficial mutations are amplified by natural selection as I showed with my simple ‘compound interest’ calculation. I note that you do not question the accuracy of my calculations.

The fact is that we nowhere see any such favorable conditions for evolution.

So how do you explain the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria? When you get ill do you take the medicine that worked 50 years ago or do you want the medicine that works against modern evolved bacteria? Your rhetoric has carried you too far.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

To be precise, it’s a measure of uncertainty in a message. It can be adopted to genetics, because DNA contains information. Hence, any new mutation adds information in a population.
The significant difference between the scientific definition and Gitt’s definition is simple: the scientific defintion works. Gitt’s does not. So when it comes to finding new ways to pack information in a limited pipe, we use Shannon’s equation, not Gitt’s idea of coding. When we make sure a spacecraft millons of kilometers away can reliably broadcast, it’s Shannon’s version. Gitt’s simple-minded idea of information can’t even approach these problems.

H = - K Sigma i = 1 n (pi log(pi))

Want to see how it works?

Dear Barbarian,

Why is it that every time you ask a question, I want to say yes?

Actually, I’m just curious as to what H, K, Sigma, i, n, pi, log, (pi) stands for. And good morning to you.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity is loved by God.

 

[rossum]

The problem here is that you don’t have a means to measure that information, much less understand what information means. As I pointed out in my last post, information is not simply an accumulation of data points.

So you are saying that other creationists are wrong when they claim that evolution cannot increase information? They must be wrong because it is not possible to measure biological information so it is impossible to tell if information is increasing or decreasing. Am I correct here?

I didn’t calculate anything. I’m saying that DNA is information. That much is a fact which I understand that all evolutionists agree with.

DNA is a way of storing information, it is not “information”, which is an abstract mathematical quantity. The same information stored in a piece of DNA can just as easily be expressed in a sequence of letters on a page, a pattern of bits in a computer memory or an arrangement of light and dark on a computer screen.

The difficulty that evolutionists have in dealing with the subject of information is explaining how it came to be without the infusion of intelligence that is required to create that information. On top of that, they have no means of quantifying it.

We do have means of quantifying it, it is just that you do not accept those means. Despite what you say Shannon information is applicable to DNA - it can be seen as a transmission of information from parent to offspring. You agreed that Shannon information was developed to deal with transmission over a noisy line. In biology mutations are the noise on the line as the DNA is transmitted from parent to offspring. The analogy is good enough for the mathematics to work perfectly well in either case.

The origin of the information in a genome is well known; it came from the environment in which the population using that genome lives. Evolution copies information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment. Organisms with better, more accurate, copies are at an advantage while organisms with worse copies are at a disadvantage. Natural selection selects the organisms with the better copies.

If you do not like Shannon or Kolmogorov information measures, then what about Fisher information? See Frank, 2009: Natural Selection Maximizes Fisher Information. Despite what you claim, biologists are working on the impact of information theory on evolution.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

"redneck22:

I’m always dissappointed when Catholics need to lead people to ATHEIST web sites that ridicule the Bible for interpretation of the Bible. Light was created on day 1 “owr” and the bearers of light on day 4 “ma’owr”. There is no contradiction.

Hi Redneck,

I just knew that someone would complain. I am sorry that you feel that way. I meant no disrespect. I simply chose the first

website that I found which clearly showed the differences in the **literal **wording of the creation accounts in an easy to understand format. This website fulfilled my intention for its use.

I can understand where Redneck is coming from. The only people that I am aware of that actually make such a charge are those who are AGAINST the Bible, because it shows contradictions. As far as I am aware of, the Catholic Church holds that these two accounts are the same event told from different perspectives. That would mean that you are outside of the stream of Catholicism.

SHW:

Since the stars are what give us our light here on earth, they would have to have been created first, in my opinion. The earth was not created before our sun either in my opinion and also according to science.

You place such a mad emphasis on science, especially when it is clear that it does not have all the answers, much less the correct ones.

SHW:

I do not agree with the strict “Creationist’s” “seven literal days” (of 24 hours for each day) for creation interpretation of Scripture. And, it is fine for you to have an opposing view.

You need to back off of that horse. You are the one who is the LITERALIST.

2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

And that has WHAT to do with this??? Oh, I see…a LITERALIST interpretation. That was meant to be allegorical, and only meant to illustrate that the passage of time has no meaning to God. It is not meant to be applied LITERALLY to gain an understanding of creation.

 

[Leela]

Yes. That’s my opinion.

How does one teach ID? Wouldn’t the lesson pretty much go “God created the species as they are” and that’s about it? Sure doesn’t sound like science.

No, you already accept on faith that there are no gods/higher beings. That’s a faith statement in itself, because it relies on incomplete information.

It’s not a faith statement. I’m just saying “I don’t know.” It doesn’t take any faith to not believe something. I’m open to convincing evidence of God or gods. I just haven’t seen any. I also have been unconvinced by the evidence for angels, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. But my lack of belief in those things also requires no faith.

But if you want to extend the definition of faith so far as to include not believing in mythological creature, then okay, by your understanding I have faith. As the kids say, whatever…

Very well. You should back off of ID then, because it can never be proven. It could only be disproven.

Well that’s the issue. How could ID be disproven? If you can’t explain how a universe that is designed would be different from one that is not designed in such a way that we can compare our observations with your predictions, then you don’t actually have a scientific hypothesis.

Best,
Leela

 

[b_ulmen]

Actually, nothing in science is ever “proven.” .

Doesn’t the presence of evidence ‘prove’ a thing? And if a thing is not proven, how can it be fact? Not trying to be argumenative, science not proving anything seems counter-intutitive to me.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The problem here is that you don’t have a means to measure that information, much less understand what information means. As I pointed out in my last post, information is not simply an accumulation of data points.

To be precise, it’s a measure of uncertainty in a message.

As I stated earlier, Shannon information has absolutely NOTHING to do with genetics, but diehard evolutionists have attempted to highjack it and force it to fit their fairytales. Just what would “uncertainty” have to do with measuring the quantity of information? Can you actually quantify information? The answers are obviously “no”, but I know that you’ll insist that you can. That is because you lack the understanding of what information is. You need to think abstractly.
Barbarian:

It can be adopted to genetics, because DNA contains information. Hence, any new mutation adds information in a population.

LOL mutations DECREASE information, because the MAJORITY of mutations are deleterious, not beneficial. I’ve already shown how a mutation adds no information to the genome.

I also showed that insertion of data is not a means of aggregating information. As Werner Gitt stated: "It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through materialistic means].

Barbarian:

The significant difference between the scientific definition and Gitt’s definition is simple: the scientific defintion works. Gitt’s does not.

You haven’t even given a scientific definition!! You have made some assertions that Genetic information is a measure of the loss of certainty. What the heck could that possibly mean to genetics? LOL Any perceived increase in genetic information would HAVE to include the increase of certainty, not an increase in uncertainty - which is exactly what you get when you have mutations.
Barbarian:

So when it comes to finding new ways to pack information in a limited pipe, we use Shannon’s equation, not Gitt’s idea of coding. When we make sure a spacecraft millons of kilometers away can reliably broadcast, it’s Shannon’s version.

Once again, I must remind you that Shannon’s version - which you so ably demonstrate - deals strictly with the TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION, not the measure of it. Any measurement that is performed is purely for confirmation of maintaining the same amount of information. It could never be used to measure information in totality of the genome.

The difficulty that evolutionists have in dealing with the subject of information is explaining how it came to be without the infusion of intelligence that is required to create that information.

Barbarian:

Even random events generate information.

Huh? ROFL Please, please, please give me an example of randomly generated information.

 

[PEPCIS]

I am not personally an inclusive literalist when it comes to Bible interpretation. Far from it. And I certainly do not believe that the creation accounts should be interpreted in a strictly literal context. I was actually pointing out the dangers, if a person interprets everything in the Bible literally.

But you ARE the Literalist. Biblical Literalists attempt to interpret the Bible LITERALLY where it clearly should not be interpreted thusly. You are FORCING a LITERAL interpretation where none is warranted.

SHW:

I do believe that Adam, as the first human, sinned and lost eternal life for us, however.

I’m glad that you are still with me on that one!

 

[Leela]

Doesn’t the presence of evidence ‘prove’ a thing? And if a thing is not proven, how can it be fact? Not trying to be argumenative, science not proving anything seems counter-intutitive to me.

If we have strong evidence for something we have good reason to believe it. The question of when we can say that we actually have definitive proof of something is hard one. It depends on what you mean by prooof. It is generally taken to mean that a belief is so well justified that one is compelled to believe it. But that compulsion will depend on how skeptical you are or want to pretend to be.

For example, if you drop a ball 100 times and it falls to the ground each time, have you proven that it will always fall to the ground? Most people are convinced, but most people would also say that this doesn’t constitute proof. In fact no matter how many such experiences that are consistent with the hypothesis that the ball will always fall, we can’t say that we’ve proven that this will always happen because we haven’t experienced “always.”

That the ball will always fall is a valid scientific hypothesis because we can say exactly what sort of experience would be inconsistent with it. (Note that we can’t say the same thing about ID.) All we would need to disprove it is to drop the ball one time and for it to begin rising up into the air.

So scientists don’t prove things so much as accumulate data that is consistent with their hypothesis to validate applying the truth of the hypothesis to solving problems and inquiring in other directions while remaining open to the need to revise their hypothesis in the face of contradictory evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[oriel16]

• Some scholars see Jesus Christ as the “new Adam” Who is perfectly obedient to God. *John 3: 16-17 "*For God so loved the world…’ connects right back to Genesis 1:31 “God looked at everything He had made [including Adam and Eve] and He found it very good.”

.

I find it difficult to comment on what you write at the moment just after dealing with the matter of biological evolution within the empirical framework,which is to say,there is nothing casual in importing an essay on national supremacy and making it stick to God’s creation as biological evolution.I can get ‘God is love’ or ‘Jesus is truth’ from everyone including the Arians/empiricists here but what I cannot get is the basic admission that the injection of a ‘cause’ for evolution is basically anti-scientific with catastrophic consequences when it was put into effect in Europe in the 1930’s through the 1940’s.

It is your right to treat the matter casually but as they are about to meet in Rome and probably will affirm an Arian stance to the matter in the same casual way it means the Trinity is no longer in the Church,which is to say,in its people.

It will take some creative thinking and lots of humility to see just how faith and science are really partner disciplines.

.

What you are doing ,maybe unintentionally,is presenting the very thing that suits those who think Christians are little more than maggots who cannot think for themselves with God and Jesus just delusions.The damage is done by the empirical/Arian strain within Christianity and this requires active opposition of a ideological battle (not that Christ and Christianity is an ideology) between genuine science and the phony empiricist strain which looks for a ‘partnership’.For those who are fond of the render onto Caeser/God quote,Jesus could forgive Pilate and those who put him on the cross,it is the ones who betray him with a kiss that always come in for condemnation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCbuqXZ0Gfo

Unfortunately, the sound stuff was not hooked up to my new computer which makes it difficult to understand youtube, etc.

A few years back, I saw a very good documentary on eugenics in Germany. Somebody needs to correct my memory… It seems to me that there was also some information on eugenics in the U.S. I’m not sure if this was with some kind of cult. Regardless, World War II was caused by a variety of “evil” factors. I am well aware of the suffering. We still had relatives in Germany.

.

You don’t get it do you not even when the ‘eureka’ moment of Darwin mirrors the same language which justifies the attempted extermination of the Jewish people and justification for it and may I remind you that Jesus was a Jew.Darwin’s ‘cause’ is a symptom of the bigger problem and that is empiricism itself,the means by which guys like Darwin flourished was brought about by very definite means back in the late 17th century.The separation of science from within Christianity to where it is now has very definite technical arguments,not opinions or theories,but very distinct distortions of the original works and insights.

You are tinkering around among the ruins of science by begging questions off those who will tell you what they think you wish to hear.

I hope you will understand that I have to limit the scope of my current research to one specific point. It is not that I am unknowing or unsympathetic, it is that I am unable.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity belongs to God.

I know exactly what happened that Christians became cut off from their astronomical heritage by Newton’s ‘scientific method’ approach which in turn open the floodgates for every numbskull to mangle genuine scientific discoveries including the existing biological evolutionary framework.

Do you clearly,and I mean clearly, understand this -

“An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it.” Thomas Malthus

“Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence” National socialism

Looking backward or forwards ‘natural selection’,whatever it was supposed to mean, is bookended by those two passages,both nationalistic and both a horror for any reasonable individual.If you can stomach Darwin’s ‘cause’ and the empirical atmosphere from which it emerged and still consider yourself Christian… I leave the rest to you.

“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also… .” Charles Darwin

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The understanding of evolutionary mathematics is coupled with the understanding that inherent in any “forward” movement in evolution (such that you are defining “forward” as being an increase in information),

There is no “forward” in evolution.

And I NEVER said that there was. Rossum stated his premise as a move toward greater information. I merely used forward in the terms of that movement toward greater information. Anyone that has read the fairy tale of evolution understands that in evolutionland you can lose information just as easily as you could gain it.
Barbarian:

And every new mutation adds information to a population, a mathematical certainty.

You have yet to establish that mutations add information. I’ve already shown that they do not.
Barbarian:

BTW, at one time, birds had teeth. They no longer have teeth. Is that an increase or a decrease in information?

In your fairy tale, it is both. In reality, it is neither.

(Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999)).

Barbarian:

Someone’s led you down the garden path on that one:

High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids
Nature 397, 344-347 (28 January 1999)
Adam Eyre-Walker & Peter D. Keightley
Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.

Not quite what they told you it was, um?

It’s exactly what I gave. Rossum gave this rosy picture of how easy it was to increase genomic information, believing wrongly that it was simply a random aggregation of data points. I gave this citation to show that MOST mutations are deleterious, and give no added benefit to the genome. All other mutations are simply insertions of alternate data points that add no information.
Barbarian:

You’d be more interesting if you made up your own slogans, instead of copying old ones.

Why re-invent the wheel? I go with what works, and what’s true.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The understanding of evolutionary mathematics is coupled with the understanding that inherent in any “forward” movement in evolution (such that you are defining “forward” as being an increase in information), that there are costs associated with such “forward” movements.

I do not specify that information always increases, just the information is copied from the environment into genomes. In a reduced environemnt then information might decrease. In a dark cave information about optics and the behavious of light is no longer present and will gradually decay in genomes, leading to eyeless cave fish. Information can both increase and decrease.

The conversation seemed to be assessing the accumulation of information - a very real problem for evolution, because evolution theory cannot account for the accumulation of information. For evolution to occur from the beginning of a single-cell to that of an animal with organs and higher brain function, then genetic information must be replaced by new and larger amounts of information. This replacement of information has to occur in the entire population of a species if it is to evolve into another species.

These costs are problematic to any evolutionary scenario, and require a significant trend of beneficial mutations.

rossum:

The costs are known and have been calculated - Haldane’s initial version has since been refined. We have never found any evidence of any evolutionary change going faster than allowed for by such limits. If you have any evidence of such a change then please refer us to it.

The costs are ignored, and more rosy pictures (such as what you attempt to portray) are offered instead of real science. Here, try this instead:

Haldane’s Dilemma on the proposal of evolution from ancestral “ape” to man:

Data:
Population size = 100,000
Length of a generation = 20 years
Status for the new trait = higher survival rate than the old trait
New trait generation method = mutation
Mode of action of mutation = alteration of one DNA nucleotide in the chromosomes
Amount of genetic material = 7x109 nucleotide sites in the DNA (typical of a mammal)
Length of evolution = 10,000,000 years (10 million years)
Type of evolution = perfect, uninterrupted & continuous for the whole time
Contra-evolution factors = not considered

Analysis

QUESTION 1: What is the average Cost of Substitution in populations today? (The Cost of Substitution is the ratio of survivors with new traits to those with the old trait who are unfit and die.)
Answer: 30:1 (see ReMine p:216)

QUESTION 2: If a higher vertebrate is to maintain its population size, what is its Reproductive Excess - the number of excess individuals that it can afford to lose?
Answer: 10% (see ReMine p:216)

QUESTION 3: How long would it take for one nucleotide to completely replace an old one?
Answer: 300 generations (30÷10% ie Cost of Substitution/Reproductive Excess)

QUESTION 4: How many nucleotides could be replaced in the 10 million years of our example?
Answer: 1,667 (10,000,000yrs÷20yrs x 300 generations)

QUESTION 5: Therefore, how much of the apes genetic material would be replaced in the 10 million years of the example?
Answer: 0.00002% (1667÷7x109x100)
Explanation: 1,667 nucleotides is 0.00002%, if the apes had the typical amount of genetic material.

QUESTION 6: Is this enough change to evolve a simian into a sapien, an ape into a human?
Answer: No

QUESTION 7: How long would it take to evolve an ape into a human?
Answer: 500 billion yrs for just 1% change (10,000,000 yrs ÷ 0.00002%)
Explanation: At this rate of replacement it would take 500 billion years for just 1% of the genes to be replaced. One percent change wouldn’t even change an ape into a new ape species.

The fact is that we nowhere see any such favorable conditions for evolution.

rossum:

So how do you explain the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria?

Natural Selection. How do you explain it? By the way, Natural Selection IS NOT evolution.