Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

. The amount of variation in nature is very low

So, what was the variations in the environment that led random mutations to evolve the huge variety of animals and plants we see today ?

All of them. All of the variations together have led to the huge variety we see today.

Again, do not confuse the inability to chart a course to somewhere with the inability of anyone to get there.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

. The amount of variation in nature is very low

So, what was the variations in the environment that led random mutations to evolve the huge variety of animals and plants we see today ?

All of them. All of the variations together have led to the huge variety we see today.

Again, do not confuse the inability to chart a course to somewhere with the inability of anyone to get there.

Vague…

 

[Aloysium]

All you have to believe is that at any stage of the Anglerfish’s evolution, random mutations made it possible for it to survive… its that simple.

Too far fetched, sorry. There are some things, too irrational with no proof whatsoever.

 

[Techno2000]

So I suppose the cheetah had to start out chasing slow mice around and wait millions of years for random mutations to get it up to speed.

 

[Techno2000]

The poor shark had to be happy with guppies for millions of years until evolution give him a real set of chompers.

 

[Aloysium]

vz71:

It is not unreasonable to expect a duplication of the results in a lab.

Of course it is, if the process you want to observe takes 10 million years.

Radium has nothing to do with it, and is a poor analogy.
Radioactivity follows specific laws.

So does evolution. You are just unwilling to accept them. That is the only difference.

Evolution physically speaking boils down the random electrochemical activity of organic molecules, which can result in glitches resulting from sources like the noise that exists in any system, various chemical toxins, and radiation. Under that paradigm, those are the sole laws that govern the emergence of phenotypes. There is no evolutionary force or principle. The shaping principle of Natural Selection is merely the bottom line, which is that organisms that give rise to offspring, carrying half their genome, have managed to live that long. Confounding the picture is the justification of evolution using adaptation, which pretty much everyone understands although as being of a very different nature. There is nothing else supposedly at work other than essentially what survives has survived, so forget what you see whenever you pick up a copy of National Geographic. While it strives to be a science and has convinced many as part of the mythos of our times, there is no evolutionary law with the power of physics.

 

[Techno2000]

What was all the prey doing while the predators were evolving? Answer … they were in the same slow, lame and pathetic shape as the predators.

 

[anon65111186]

I just want to see a duplication of results in a lab.

Can you duplicate tectonic plate shift in a lab? That is a testable phenomenon that can’t be reproduced in a lab.

 

[rossum]

So you are saying we have lab examples of an animal being turned into something radically different?

Define “radically”? We certainly have examples of “different”, both in the lab and in the wild.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Every medical lab is only observing and they have no guidance from evolution.

False. Current drug therapy for HIV was designed by doctors to prevent or slow the evolution of immunity. Evolution guided the design of the therapy used.

IIRC the manufacturers guidelines for some herbicides and insecticides are also designed to slow down the evolution of resistance.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So, what was the variations in the environment that led random mutations to evolve the huge variety of animals and plants we see today ?

Read up on the geological, ecological and biological history of life on earth. Come back in 250 years when you have finished studying the details.

This a question where the answer is too long to fit into the size of a CAF post. Do you really not realise what you are asking? This is like a non-Christian asking, “What did Jesus have for breakfast, if anything, every day of His life?” There is a great amount of detail in the question, not all of it recoverable and not all of it particularly relevant.

The question does not reflect well on the level of your knowledge of the subject. Start by examining how many species of organism are alive today. Don’t forget to include bacteria, archea and viruses as well as eukaryotes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Out of a very large number of possibilities, an unguided, unintelligent force guessed right for a long, long time? In little, incremental steps?

No. Out of a very very very very large number of possibilities, an unguided, unintelligent force guessed wrong for the vast majority of times, but just a small proportion of those guesses were right and made a little incremental step.

For example, humans have about 60 mutations each. That is 60 x 7,000,000,000 = 420,000,000,000 mutations in just humans currently alive on earth. How many mutations are there in insects, or in bacteria with their vastly larger populations? There is a huge range of mutations for natural selection to select from.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So I suppose the cheetah had to start out chasing slow mice around and wait millions of years for random mutations to get it up to speed.

Your ignorance of the evolution of the cat clade can be cured by learning.

The poor shark had to be happy with guppies for millions of years until evolution give him a real set of chompers.

Your ignorance of the evolution of the jawed fish can be cured by learning. Hint: teeth evolved before jaws, google “conodonts”.

Your lack of relevant knowledge shows in the questions you ask. “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

That is simply not true, especially in the case of HIV. A lot of time and money had to be spent. There is no evolution guide book. If there was, HIV would have been dealt with in a fraction of the time, not to mention current diseases. I watch ads on TV that tell me about this or that new drug, and see smiling, happy people as the voiceover continues with the side effects, including but not limited to: organ failure, lack of resistance to certain diseases or a lowered immune response, and my favorite, death. I’ll take my chances.

 

[rossum]

Can you duplicate tectonic plate shift in a lab? That is a testable phenomenon that can’t be reproduced in a lab.

I am waiting for some creationist astronomer to duplicate a full-size star in a lab. Not anywhere near me, I hope.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Slows down the adaptation.

 

[anon65111186]

I am waiting for some creationist astronomer to duplicate a full-size star in a lab. Not anywhere near me, I hope.

rossum

Hahah good one rossum.

 

[rossum]

That is simply not true, especially in the case of HIV.

You are grossly misinformed. Multi-drug therapy was specifically designed to get round the problem with the early single-drug therapies caused by the virus evolving immunity to the single drug used then.

You need to do more research on this. Google “Combination Therapy”.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

I am aware of ‘combination therapy’ which is not only used in the case of HIV. It’s still trial and error and needs careful testing. But there is still no guidance from evolution, it’s just a different approach to treating an illness.

 

[buffalo]

Michael Behe was right after all…

Behe calls it the first principle of adaptation. The organism will break or remove something in order to adapt. This is a killer for Darwinism. They will no doubt poo poo this, but this could be the end.

Evolution by gene loss

The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity. (aka speciation) This novel perspective of gene loss is raising new fundamental questions. How relevant has gene loss been in the divergence of phyla? How do genes change from being essential to dispensable and finally to being lost? Is gene loss mostly neutral, or can it be an effective way of adaptation? These questions are addressed, and insights are discussed from genomic studies of gene loss in populations and their relevance in evolutionary biology and biomedicine.

---

However, genomic data, which is accumulating as a result of recent technological and methodological advances, such as next-generation sequencing, is revealing a new perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic change that has great potential to cause adaptive phenotypic diversity.

In other cases, there are genetic losses –says Cañestro- which even though they are neutral per se, have contributed to the genetic and reproductive isolation among lineages, and thus, to speciation, or have rather participated in the sexual differentiation in contributing to the creation of a new Y chromosome. The fact that genetic loss patterns are not stochastic but rather biased in the lost genes (depending on the kind of function of the gene or its situation in the genome in different organism groups) stresses the importance of the genetic loss in the evolution of the species.

---

Oh my. Bad news for evolution. More science keeps coming in to end the evo paradigm. The 2nd law is in effect. See the post on Genetic Entropy - Sanford

Evolution does not create information it kills it. Even neutral mutations contribute to speciation, or loss of reproductive ability.

Once again it is a loss of something that was there before. IDvolution says life was front loaded and has been deteriorating since.