The one thing that proves evolution wrong

[Magicsilence]

hecd2:

To say that no beneficial mutations add genetic material is nonsense. Whoever told you that is ignorant or lying. Both insertions and duplications can be beneficial; and duplications are a major source for new genetic material. Read this:

evolutionpages.com/Streptomyces.htm

Also this:

evolutionpages.com/Mouse%20genome%20proteins.htm

particularly the section under ‘gene familes’

As for the evolution of sex, this will tell you something about it . You won’t be able to see the full articles unless you are a subscriber, but the abstracts are interesting:

nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/index.html

Here is asimilar review in Science with similar constraints to see the entire papers:

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/281/5385/1979

Here is another paper:

pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/24/13774

When you’ve finished reading and digesting this material would be a good time to come back.

I guess you know that some bacteria exchange genetic material and that they have ‘sexes’?

Of course there are a lot of hard scientific problems with the evolution of sex and there’s a lot we don’t know about it. But you are just making the old tired ‘Argument from Personal Incredulity’.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Again, I have no problem believing that sex is an advantage. Your articles seem to focus on the benefits of sex and why sex evolved.

My problem stems from the impossibility of such a thing arising.

One of the biggest problems is that most websites say that it is because of conditions in the environment that something evolved. I.e massive pressure from predators cause an asexual cell to evolve into one which has sex in order to increase genetic variation and thus improve survival chances. This in itself is not the problem. It is the assumption that the mutation occurred because of the conditions that is.

Evolution is a chance theory. Nothing happens as a cause of something else. There are no tiny people controlling the genes. And the DNA does not react to the situation. A beneficial mutation may arise, but it does not come about because of the situation. It arises as an error which happens to be benefical because of the situation.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Magicsilence]

zian:

Well… why not??

Two reasons.

1. At what point would he “inject” the soul.
2. Why would God waste millions of years guiding evolution. Seems like a waste of time to me.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Magicsilence]

pachman:

In reply to the statement made by Andre on evolution, I agree to a point. Andre, you stated that you cannot accept the theory of the chances of a male and female cell (Zygote) occuring at the same time to reproduce a species. Whilst I agree with your comments, I disagree with your statement that you cann accept everything else. I am an aromatherapist and have consequent qualifications in anatomy & physiology. The body of a human, animal, reptile, etc. is enormously complex. They are like little worlds, with little factories, power plants, armies…I could go on and on… For instance, immune system. Did you know there are independant (lymphocytes) that roam the body just searching for foreign bodies. Cells talk to each other using chemical messengers. Totally amazing. There is no way I can accept the miracle of life happening by accident!

Incidentally, perhaps i was not clear. I agree with you totally. I am completely against evolution. I just used to believe it up to a point.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[steveandersen]

Magicsilence:

Evolution is a theory.

Yes it is. As is germ theory…do you think perhaps we shouldn’t wash our hands or pasteurize milk because it’s only a theory?

……. Evolution is the only possible option without God saving aliens puttng us on the planet. As such, all evidence has to be made to fit with it.

No it’s the other way around the theory is made to fit the data
New data comes along, then you revise the data

Magicsilence:

I have yet to see a scientist showing off his latest mutation find. Fact is, they exist very very very very rarely.

Please provide a citation for the rarity of mutations. I’m not a biologist but I would imagine that you have quite a few in you right now.

……Evolution seeks to have us believe that that something like a kidney, or the immune system just happened by chance through a huge mutation that suddenly caused it.

Evolution says no such thing!

…….However what you are observing is natural adaptation which i have no doubt happens. Part of Gods brilliant plan to allow species to survive despite a change in the environment.

you can’t just be a little bit evolved. Once you admit that the process happens then you are stuck with the consequences.

Magicsilence:

Serious question Phil. Have you read the link you gave me to the “Beneficial mutations in humans”. Its a lot of heavy jargon designed to put off the casual reader. That article is for scientists/microbiologists…

No offense, but this isn’t rocket science…it’s much more complicated.
Of course technical jargon is involved, it is a technical subject. It is not designed to put off the casual reader per se but its intended audience is someone who is familiar with the subject.

……. But it boils down to not a lot. Slightly improving the life span of a person with heart disease is not what i call evolution. Its adaptation to the environment. ….

Err ah……that’s a big part of what evolution is.

 

[pachman]

Hi Steve

To practise aromatherapy (and massage) one has to understand the human body and its workings. Aromatherapy is a far more complex therapy than many people would believe.

When refering to the accident of life, I mean the possibility of life and its extremely complex anatomy & physiology evolving from a molten mass (the viewpoint of modern science). My viewpoint is how can the mind and body of an animal, which is a perfect working machine, happen by chance. Furthermore, I believe the world is too well organised as a supporting organism to be the result of mere coincidence or probability. The world supports us in every respect. It is widely believed by the medical profession that every disease that mankind suffer has an antidote in the plant kingdom. Aromatherapy throughout the world has reported amazing results (although these are not proven). Essential oils are amazing in their complexity and there are some oils that even mimic human hormones.

The food chain is perfectly balanced to sustain all life and leaves absolutely nothing to waste (when mankind does not interfere). I am not a scientist but I cannot believe such a perfect managment system of the Earth can evolve from a molten (sterile) mass.

 

[Magicsilence]

Yes it is. As is germ theory…do you think perhaps we shouldn’t wash our hands or pasteurize milk because it’s only a theory?

Germ theory is backed by mountains of evidence. It was first postulated long ago, and as such we have had a long time to test the theory and AS SUCH I agree with it. When i get ill and take a tablet that is designed to attack those microorganisms and it WORKS I can be pretty sure that the theory is correct. Truth is determined by repeating experiments over and over again and getting the same results.

No it’s the other way around the theory is made to fit the data
New data comes along, then you revise the data.

I think you meant to say, then you revise the theory. However, it is inconceivable to imagine that life originated in any other way than evolution / creation. I think MOST people would agree with that. Seeing as you accept the theory of evolution, as do many other people, and UNLESS you wish to revise the theory, then all data will be made to fit with the theory. Therefore, all data that is found is made to fit the theory.

It is true that any theory ASIDE from evolution is usually revised HOWEVER evolution leaves no room for adjustment.

Please provide a citation for the rarity of mutations. I’m not a biologist but I would imagine that you have quite a few in you right now.

I would like a citation for that statement!

you can’t just be a little bit evolved. Once you admit that the process happens then you are stuck with the consequences.

I dont agree with this. I dont think that we evolve to the environment. We adapt to the environment, yes, but not evolve.

No offense, but this isn’t rocket science…it’s much more complicated.

?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Magicsilence:

…

I dont agree with this. I dont think that we evolve to the environment. We adapt to the environment, yes, but not evolve.

…

What, then, is the difference between “adapting to the environment” and “evolving”?

 

[Magicsilence]

EnterTheBowser:

What, then, is the difference between “adapting to the environment” and “evolving”?

Natural adaptation is the ability within an organism to adapt to the environment. It is prebuilt. I.e the massive variation of bacterial genome shift that occurs through reproduction accounts for the possibilty that a resistance to an antibiotic might occur. It happens by chance yes, but it not unexpected. After thousands of years of in Africa say, our skin may have adapted to the environment by changing to be black.

Evolution takes the stand that although the change was beneficial, it was due to a mutation or disorder. A radical change that caused a significant change in the organisms being. Many of these eventually lead to the different organisms being classified as seperate species that cannot interbreed. Im sure we all agree that all humans can still interbreed. Technically speaking, if evolution were true, we would have seen super humans evolving in some places which would have eventually replaced the humans we know today. As of course you know, we have yet to discover such a person.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[steveandersen]

Magicsilence:

…Evolution takes the stand that although the change was beneficial, it was due to a mutation or disorder. A radical change that caused a significant change in the organisms being.

No it doesn’t. Evolution can also occur through natural variation, and plain old genetic drift.

Magicsilence:

Many of these eventually lead to the different organisms being classified as seperate species that cannot interbreed. Im sure we all agree that all humans can still interbreed. Technically speaking, if evolution were true, we would have seen super humans evolving in some places which would have eventually replaced the humans we know today. As of course you know, we have yet to discover such a person.

But we do have clear evidence that modern Homo sapiens replaced Neanderthals.

Have you considered that possibility that human populations weren’t isolated from each other long enough for significant changes to occur?

 

[steveandersen]

Magicsilence:

…I would like a citation for that statement!

IIRC One of the other posters (I forget which one but I will try to find out , maybe Phil or Alec?) on this site had floated a number of 100 mutations in the average human

I will look for a citation on it.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Magicsilence:

Natural adaptation is the ability within an organism to adapt to the environment. It is prebuilt. I.e the massive variation of bacterial genome shift that occurs through reproduction accounts for the possibilty that a resistance to an antibiotic might occur. It happens by chance yes, but it not unexpected. After thousands of years of in Africa say, our skin may have adapted to the environment by changing to be black.

Evolution takes the stand that although the change was beneficial, it was due to a mutation or disorder. A radical change that caused a significant change in the organisms being. Many of these eventually lead to the different organisms being classified as seperate species that cannot interbreed.

So: adaptation is the change in frequency of preexisting alleles (or whatever), whereas evolution is the emergence of new such alleles?

Im sure we all agree that all humans can still interbreed. Technically speaking, if evolution were true, we would have seen super humans evolving in some places which would have eventually replaced the humans we know today. As of course you know, we have yet to discover such a person.

In Christ.

Andre.

I don’t think that any subgroup of humans has been reproductively isolated for a sufficient length of time so as to significantly diverge from the rest of humanity. In other words, no, we should not expect to see super-humans that are reproductively incompatible with other humans.

 

[PLP]

steveandersen:

But we do have clear evidence that modern Homo sapiens replaced Neanderthals.

Darn! You beat me to it!

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Sorry - this got a little long…but I AM interested in this…

Ok…I’ll admit - most of this topic material is way over my head. But - since that is…maybe you guys could answer a question or two for me, and maybe as a result of that I could start to accept some of this as possible .

My understanding of evolution is this: a mass of goop some 3-4 billion years ago ‘decides’ to become something else. Say - an amoeba.

This amoeba then ‘decides’ to become more and more complex until it becomes something resembling a fish of some sort.

Then this ‘thing’ decides it could be better off out of the water and starts growing legs.Becomes something of an aligator or frog - or something.

From there it becomes deer, bears, raccoons etc., while the ‘thing’ in the pond decides to become goldfish, sharks, whales etc.

The argument for all of this is because life needs diversity - predator/prey - in order to survive. The science of it (What I get of it anyway) says that these ‘things’ evolved because of adaptation requirements to their surroundings, and the need to eat to sustain the changes. They evolved to survive in other words.

OK…BUT.

Why would something (assuming it had the capacity to desire change in the first place) on its way to becoming a shark, or already a form of shark, decide it would be better off as a tuna? OR - why would a tuna CONTINUE to be a tuna - when it could be a shark?

Why would something obviously eminently adapted to water (Otherwise how could it survive for the millions of years necessary TO evolve further) ‘decide’ it would be better off on land? Wouldn’t the changes required of it to even begin to get out of the water make it highly susceptable prey in a primordial world where there are few living creatures, and what living creatures there are would eat you because of the survival of the fittest thing?

Or does evolution say that hundreds of thousands of these ‘things’ evolved at once, and so then there ARE enough of a given ‘thing’ ( I don’t see the word ‘species’ as being applicable here) to promote a change?

Continued>>>

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

For example…our little friend in the pond…say - for the sake of the argument even - that it is able to live on land and water - it is some sort of a frog [with teeth I guess]. It has the best of both worlds. Now - as such - it seems that it would be the epitomy of it’s ‘evolution’ as it has evolved to a point it can survive anywhere. Now evolution wants us to believe that it A} limited it’s food supply to become ONLY a land animal B} Wanted to become something of a lizard, and therefore had to feed on itself in the process [Frogs], and morphe into something that was NOT a frog, yet not a lizard [like an alligator I guess] in order to feed on fish as well - until it was sufficiently evolved [If going from something of an alligator - to something as restricted as a lizard can be called ‘progress’] to feed on something that had yet to be developed on land. *

I see thousands of holes in this whole thing {I also do not explain things very well on this subject - for that I apologize, but I do think you see my point] If the frog generated into some sort of alligator - why would it then go on to become a smaller, less adapted form of itself to the available food supply - and become a lizard? It’s not enough to be a 'gator???

Makes no sense to me…unless evolution wants us to believe that thousands of this process were happening all at the same time in differing forms, all across the globe, over millions and millions of years, simultaneously generating all the specialized equiptment for each species - only to abandon it in favor of something less adapted to the environment it finds itself in.

All by itself.

I have no problem yes, personal acceptance DOES play a part in my struggles with this - I am only human therefore it has to make sense from the start] with a given species changing to a point: grizzly bears/black bears, all the various forms of deer and such. To a POINT…but when you start talking about something that has to survive for millions of years as one thing, becoming adapted to life as it is - suddenly deciding to change into something LESS adapted in order to become something else - then you start talking about DIRECTED evolution, which also implies that that director had to put all the necessary components in place in order to provide the means of and for the change BEFOREHAND [Yet all of this came from a single celled ‘thing’], which implies a creator, which also implies that that creator had a PLAN for everything - including us, and yet that creatort told us in His Word that He formed man from the dust of the ground, separately - not from an ape. [Which, by the way - would be even MORE miraculous to me, and, I suppose - to most people]

Then too - speaking of reproduction now - why is it that things of differing, or even similar, species can’t reproduce together, and when they do have a successful union the product of that union is sterile more often than not? Wouldn’t that be the logical conclusion of evolution? I mean - we’re talking about things changing for the efficiency of life in general and for diversity…wouldn’t that be a logical consequence of ‘things’ evolving?

Any help would be appreciated

Peace

John*

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I think you have an overly teleological view of evolution and a misinformed picture of abiogenesis. First, no scientist claims that the first “living thing” (the line gets blurry) was an amoeba, or anything resembling a modern cell. Rather, it is often viewed as some sort of chemical that was an imperfect replicator - or even a sort of suite of chemicals.

Regarding evolution, again, no scientist claims that living things “decide” to change into others. Rather, natural variation (generally due to mutation) in a population makes some organisms more equipped to survive in a given niche, and some less so; eventually the population as a whole shifts towards being more adapted due to the reproductive success of the individual organisms.

Additionally, it’s a misconception to say that alligators are somehow “better” than a small lizard (or whatever) in an evolutionary sense (it is human ideas of fitness - stronger, smarter, faster which you seem to apply to organisms - but these characteristics do not necessarily make a creature better in an evolutionary sense). The only pertinent question is whether one is more adapted to an environment than the other. And lizards fill a particular niche much better than alligators, just as gators fill their own niche better than lizards.

On an early earth, there were presumably many unpopulated niches. For example, the frog that is entirely aquatic has to compete with all those other frogs (“frogs”) for the algae in the water. But the one that can get on land to some degree - maybe even just flopping around in the mud - has access to resources the other frogs don’t. It eats more, has more children like it, and eventually there are lots of frogs filling the flopping-around-in-the-mud niche.

 

[siamesecat]

Magicsilence:

So I accepted the almost impossible chance of life evolving from nothing into a cell.

I accepted the fact that we have never observed a mutation which has been beneficial to any organism which showed an increase in genetic material.

And I accepted the fact that the fossil record is very very very patchy.

But I cannot accept the “fact” that two of those original cells both spontaneously mutated into distinct male/female organisms that required each other to reproduce.

The complexity involved in the reproduction cycle is enormous.

And it is for that reason that I do not accept it.

To the atheists: Are you in the same position I was in a few months ago? This realisation brought me back to my faith.

Those with a belief in God: Of course, the idea that God guided evolution makes all this possible, but why would he do such a thing?

In Christ.

Andre.

p.s The subject is to debate the topic.

I’m still an agnostic but I agree…the one thing that keeps me from not believing is that fact that I find it hard to grasp the concept that a world this complex evolved randomly. i believe in evolution, but I feel like something had to put it in motion…but how was this thing created?

 

[BioCatholic]

Magicsilence:

Actually, if you studied the genetic change, you would see a marked decrease or mutation decreasing genetic material. Antibiotic resistance is a possibility that can arise through the reduction of genetic material.

Like I say, we have never observed a mutation with an increase in genetic material that has been beneficial to the organism. Also, resitance to antibiotics may or may not be beneficial. We dont know if it has an impact on the bacteria in another manner.

In Christ.

Andre.

actually, you are wrong. GENE DUPLICATION, that is, a process whereby a gene is doubled, or tripled within the genome, is responsible for many VARIANTS (isoforms) of enzymes. these variants mutate over time and become entirely different genes. hence, you GAIN genetic material that is beneficial.

take for instance the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, where Drs. Richard Axel and Linda Buck demonstrated that the odor receptors are part of a PSEUDOGENE family. that is, the 1000 types of odor receptors share alot of similarity, but are different at KEY points in the gene. thus, each receptor subtype has a different response to different odors based on the DIFFERING STRUCTURE of each receptor.

they also demonstrated that this is NOT from alternative splicing of mRNA. hence, these genes were duplicated and over time, mutations creeped in that caused variations in the receptors.

you will note they won the Nobel Prize for this. because 1) it became the basis for understanding HOW an entire sensory system works, and 2) definitively showed that PSEUDOGENES exist and produce real results in physiology.

Pseudogenes have also been demonstrated in the retina, for which the authors probably will win a future Nobel Prize because it demonstrates DEVELOPMENTAL consequences of psudogene function.

you will see a combined 40 years of research in odor and vision that support this. by scientists (many Nobel Prize winners).

 

[zian]

Magicsilence:

Two reasons.

1. At what point would he “inject” the soul.

I have no idea. Why are you asking me.
I have confidence than an omnipotent and omniscient creator could accomplish such.

1. Why would God waste millions of years guiding evolution. Seems like a waste of time to me.

In Christ.
Andre.

As I reminded GodnCountry in another thread -
2 Peter 3:8 -
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

 

[zian]

siamesecat:

I’m still an agnostic but I agree…the one thing that keeps me from not believing is that fact that I find it hard to grasp the concept that a world this complex evolved randomly. ** i believe in evolution**, but I feel like something had to put it in motion…but how was this thing created?

I do not believe in evolution. I accept evolution as scientific paradigm which makes sense of a vast quantity of data and observations pertaining to life in our world. If somebody comes up with a better theory, then I’ll accept that one.

 

[zian]

pachman:

When refering to the accident of life, I mean the possibility of life and its extremely complex anatomy & physiology evolving from a molten mass (the viewpoint of modern science). My viewpoint is how can the mind and body of an animal, which is a perfect working machine, happen by chance.

Molten mass? Oh, you mean the planet, right? So you’re talking about theories of abiogenesis, then.

Happen by chance? There are many mutations that happen by chance. But they are not usually successful and propagate into future generations by chance. They may succeed by natural selection, for example, which is the opposite of chance.