Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
Except in this case it occurred in four days.
Click to expand...
What occurred in four days was not evolution. It was repairing something that had previously developed by evolution.
Darwinian evolution makes no claims about how this particular experiment should have turned out.
Click to expand...
Really? I guess we can only wonder why the researchers were “surprised” by the results.
Click to expand...
You can wonder all you want. It still does not prove anything.
Dr Louise Johnson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading, said: "Evolution has been described as a process of ‘tinkering’, but this work shows that evolution can be remarkably repeatable.

Repeatable…not something ordinarily associated with blind chance.
Click to expand...
But as I said, the repair of the genes is not the same thing as evolution.
If the information that selects between black or white colors is not in the DNA, it is in some other part of the genetic inherited structure.
Click to expand...
Where else does one find heritable genetic structures other than in DNA?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I was just taking your word for it that the information that coded for black or white moths was not in the DNA. Perhaps you were just wrong?
A certain form of bacteria was artificially created, but then they were left alone, at which point their response to their environment was driven by “selective pressures”.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The reappearance of the flagella would have happened even if there was no environmental benefit. The act of repairing the genetics does not stop to evaluate if the function being repaired was beneficial or not.
Their changes were heritable and occurred within four days. The “evolutionary” moth “changes” were not heritable. In the first case, evolution that is non-Darwinian is dismissed as not evolution, while in the second case evolution that doesn’t even occur is cited as proof of Darwinism.
Click to expand...
I don’t know as anyone calls the moth experiment “proof” of Darwinism. I don’t know exactly what happened from your description. If removing white moths leaves you with only black moths that is obvious. If the black color was inherited for a few generations, that is just the result of the upset to the statistical balance of white vs black genes. As evolution goes, these are the most micro of micro evolutionary changes, since they don’t involve the creation of anything new, but just involve the dominance of pre-existing characteristics. What would be really surprising and a challenge to Darwinism is if you could take a species that has never had a history of a particular structure or feature and through exposure to a certain environment, make that species develop that feature in only a few generations.

The closest I have seen to that is the famous domesticated red fox. Just read the article. It does a lot better job explaining it than I could.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
That little monkey is awesome
Click to expand...
A nitpick – Gibbons are Lesser Apes, not Monkeys: no tail. Monkeys run along the tops of branches and use their tails for balance. Apes hang below branches by their arms and so do not need tails for balance. Tree sloths also lack tails for the same reason.

rossum
 
It started with His thought and the information He put in place to have it all work. From the prototypes adaptation allows regeneration and life to flourish. The fact that is still does is testament to His “design”.
 
Ender said:
Except in this case it occurred in four days.
Click to expand...
In four days a switch was repurposed to fill the place of the switch that had been removed. Changing a switch into a switch is not exactly a big problem. There are a lot of switches controlling most genes, so there are plenty of them around.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
God revealed to us His original designs were “good”.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder about the dinosaurs - existing millions of years ago, long before man. Why? Were they good designs? Perhaps they were very good for the times - though not able to survive everything that nature through at them. A pity man did not get to see them…and maybe a blessing too.
 
Controlling? Controlled by NS and RM?

You well know this is not a good explanation. The better explanation is programming.
 
Selective quoting again. I know you know better. Please… sob… stop…

Ed 🙂
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
That little monkey is awesome
Click to expand...
A nitpick – Gibbons are Lesser Apes, not Monkeys: no tail. Monkeys run along the tops of branches and use their tails for balance. Apes hang below branches by their arms and so do not need tails for balance. Tree sloths also lack tails for the same reason.

rossum
Click to expand...
Ok rossum, awesome little Gibbon Ape, swings beautifully.
 
Doesn’t make what he said any different. I would have to be quoting him out of context in order for your reply to be relevant.
 
You’re welcome. Unfortunately, this all boils down to politics and atheism. The theory, as given, is whole and complete. Nothing else matters. So, the only conclusion any rational person can draw is: human beings are accidents that just happened, for no particular reason, to come into being. AND that this life is ALL there is. You die and nothing happens. You’re dead and that’s it.

It is abundantly clear that some commonality is sought to bring atheists and believers together in one secular holy book. The Biology textbook. It excludes God and the Church has a problem with that. NO, not science in general, but what life is. You’re just a biological robot that reproduces, or not, and dies. Heck, we should evolve into supermen because, who knows, evolution might grant us offspring with super strength. We all “know” evolution kept upgrading our minds which have been described in the literature as calculators.

So we are mechanism, and upgrading is all that has been going on and continues on until we become blobs of brain matter with telekinetic and telepathic powers. Or we develop internal warp drive capabilities and wander the stars.

Yeah, right. Storytelling, the opiate of this theory.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a thought…God created every animal for the food it likes to eat. Example : a Anteater likes to eat Ants, so God give it the ability to eat Ants …Hummingbirds likes nectar, so God give it the ability to get to the nectar… Squirrels like nuts…
 
Last edited:
Wow. Evolution just knew, without a brain, to match up the organisms it spits out to an edible food supply? What are the odds? But wait, it gets weirder. Beavers build dams, bees build complex hives and store honey in complex geometric shapes.

With blind, unguided chance, we’ll evolve the ability to live on the moon because evolution knows, without a brain, that we have spacecraft that can take us there. And all spiders go to spider web making class to make sure the shape is just right, and have this ability to measure out just the right distance between living or non-living things to anchor their webs.

It just makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Wow. Evolution just knew, without a brain, to match up the organisms it spits out to an edible food supply? What are the odds? But wait, it gets weirder. Beavers build dams, bees build complex hives and store honey in complex geometric shapes.

With blind, unguided chance, we’ll evolve the ability to live on the moon because evolution knows, without a brain, that we have spacecraft that can take us there. And all spiders go to spider web making class to make sure the shape is just right, and have this ability to measure out just the right distance between living or non-living things to anchor their webs.

It just makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Right, everything just happens fit together in a perfect interconnected ecosystem just by chance. 🤔
 
Evolution doesn’t know things, and it doesn’t spit things out. It’s just a name for the interaction between animal traits and the environment, and the accumulated effect these actions have on reproduction and eventually changes in traits of the species.

You seem to think that every new trait or behavior is a one-time mutation. Beavers didn’t suddenly just pop into existence with dam-making abilities.

As for food, look at people. What if milk was (for some hypothetical reason) the only available food source? What would happen? People who cannot process milk well would be relatively unhealthy, and this would affect their ability to reproduce for a variety of reasons. So the % of the population with that intolerance would dwindle over generations until it was almost completely gone.
 
benjamin1973 said:
You seem to think that every new trait or behavior is a one-time mutation. Beavers didn’t suddenly just pop into existence with dam-making abilities.
Click to expand...
What did they do before they perfected their dam-making abilities?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top