Theory of Evolution exposed

[PaulSacramento]

The issue seems to be the notion of macroevolution.
I think that it is important to understand that macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution BUT because of the time frame needed, we can NOT observe it directly in nature and I think that it will always be that way UNLESS macro-evolution can be proven to be via OUTSIDE sources.
I find it funny how some are trying to prove macro-evolution by causing it which, if they succeed will actually lend evidence to a God being the prime mover in evolution.

[jlay]

Sorry, didn't know you had such a sensitive intellectuality.

Just a fact.

Be specific. How do you know its devolving, are you saying that certain genes are not working?

I'm saying that every bit of diversity we see in the canine gene pool is the result of starting with established info. Diversity of existing info does not account for how the info appeared to begin with.

The real crime is setting arbirtrary (which is what scientists are doing) limits and then saying, "See, evolution!!"

There is nothing arbitrary, if the gene pool is changed than yes, evolution is occurring. You just don't like the answer.

THere is no answer. It is taking micro evolution and saying just give it enough time and we can get from molecules to man. It is conflating change (diversifying of existing info, my $20 example.) to change (molecules to man).

I get it you are good with words and this isn't your first debate on the issue. BTW, with this you have shown me the biggest God of the gaps one could muster. Care to elaborate how bone came into being? and why it is in some organisms and lacking in others? If you can, I'll show you how it could be done with evolution. Happy now?

Certainly the burden of proof is on you. I haven't presented any God of the gaps. You are once again making presumptions based on a worldview founded in equivocation and question begging.

Precisely wrong, that is the reason you do not understand evolution, I guess. It does not work like that at all. Infact you actually prove that you do assume that evolution only means an increase in genetic code. That is certainly wrong for all cases. And to dismiss it using such a pathetic argument as changing currency is in my view quite the straw man itself.

I have plenty of threads to prove you wrong. You again are building a straw man.
I never said that evolution only means an increase in genetic code. The word evolution in the most basic sense, simply means change. However, it is the fallacy of equivocation to say that change (vestigiality, NS) makes other change (invertebrate to vertebrate) viable.

[bippy123]

Notice how national geographic did the story on the basilosaurus fossil found that fit in their timeline of 33 to 37 million years, but not even a blip on their radar of the scientific find of the basilosaurus fossil found that dated from 49 million years ago. Golly jee!!!, how could those unbiased folks at national geographic miss this tiny detail lol
Could it be that maybe it completely obliterates the evolutionary whale transition chart and in fact show that there wasn't in fact any macroevolution happening at all with whales???

Bippy, with due respect, I don't see how this supports your case at all. Micro-evolution in the long run becomes Macro-evolution.

Net was down for a day lol

Neo, that is just an assertion that the evidence doesnt support. There are huge leaps of information between these animals as evidence by the whale evolutionary chart , plus there is no transition found in the chart. Its just a patch of guesswork. Neo, where are the transitional forms for the whale evolutionary chart? You have basilosaurus swimming at roughly the same time as ambulocetas (which was supposed to be one of the early transitional forms that was both aquatic and land dwelling. The early chart shows them to be about 12 to 15 million years apart. This chart doesnt support micro turning into macro. It was one of the first charts that I studied when believed evolution. This new find of ambolucetas swimming at the same time as basilosaurus doesnt just make the chart problematic, it blows it out of the water.

[PaulSacramento]

Biologos has a 3 part series on the whales issue:
http://biologos.org/blog/series/underst ... f-evidence

[bippy123]

Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

But remember Ivellious that there seem to be limits to this change, and the fossil records show this. We have no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs. Zilch, zippity doo-daa, as was shown recently by the crashing down of the whale evolutionary chart which has been turned on its head.

You don't even need fossil records. You can see a lot through selective breeding. Take canines for example. You can pressure the genetic info into a lot of diversity but it has limits. I'd love to see an explanation of how nature goes from invertebrates to vertebrates.

Thats the other problem Jlay, and dont forget the fruit fly experiments where they subjected them to blasts of radiation and every harsh conditions but not only did they produce nothing but fruit flies.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=2501

Enter Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly. Drosophila maintains several characteristics that make it the perfect specimen for laboratory mutation experiments. First, the female fly is extremely fertile. She can potentially lay 100 eggs a day, up to 2,000 eggs in her life (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Second, Drosophila grows from an egg to an adult in 10-12 days, thus producing up to 30 generations per year (p. 157). Due to these and other ideal traits, since 1901 the fruit fly has been one of, if not the, most often used organisms in genetic mutation experiments. Reeve and Black noted: “The exploitation that made Drosophila the most important organism for genetical research was its selection by the embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan for his studies of mutation...” (p. 157).

Since the early 1900s, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred in laboratories across the globe. Scientists performing these experiments have introduced fruit flies to various levels of radiation and countless other factors designed to produce mutations. Sherwin noted that over 3,000 different mutations have been documented in the fruit fly gene pool (n.d.). These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.

So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can take place, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.

What do we see? Fruit flies. That is all we see. After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any different kinds of creatures from Drosophila. Concerning the fruit fly stasis, late evolutionist Pierre Grassé stated: “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times (as quoted in Sherwin, n.d.). Norman Macbeth highlighted the late evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt’s thoughts about the fruit fly: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” (1971, p. 33). The bottom line of all experiments ever done on fruit flies is that they stay fruit flies.

The results of such experimentation “fly” in the face of evolution, but they are exactly what one would expect to find if the biblical story of Creation is true. In Genesis 1, the Bible states that God made all the flying creatures and land animals on days five and six of the Creation week. In the creation model, the Bible specifically states that all organisms were to multiply according to their own kinds (Genesis 1:11,21,24,25). Thus, one would expect fruit flies, regardless of the number of mutations introduced and selected, to be bound to reproduce only after their “own kind”—which is exactly what the last 100 years of fruit fly research has shown. It is amazing how menacingly a little fruit fly can bug those who adhere to evolution.
REFERENCES

MacBeth, Norman (1971), Darwin Retried (Boston, MA: Gambit).

Reeve, E.C. and Isobel Black, ed. (2001), Encyclopedia of Genetics, [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYK ... PA157&lpg= PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots= V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWNDqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en.

Sherwin, Frank (no date), “Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.icr.org/article/2602/.

[bippy123]

Biologos has a 3 part series on the whales issue:
http://biologos.org/blog/series/underst ... f-evidence

Looks like they conveniently left out the basilaoaurus fossil found from 49 million years back. That Poor basilosaurus fossil needs a media agent because he cant seem to get a documentary that would interview him

[PaulSacramento]

Sherwin noted that over 3,000 different mutations have been documented in the fruit fly gene pool (n.d.). These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.

So, in a scant 100 years we see all these mutations, can you imagine over 1 million? over 10 million ??

[bippy123]

The issue seems to be the notion of macroevolution.
I think that it is important to understand that macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution BUT because of the time frame needed, we can NOT observe it directly in nature and I think that it will always be that way UNLESS macro-evolution can be proven to be via OUTSIDE sources.
I find it funny how some are trying to prove macro-evolution by causing it which, if they succeed will actually lend evidence to a God being the prime mover in evolution.

Paul the problem is those experiments that have tried to prove macroevolution have failed to produce any macroevolution at all, even with animals that we can speed up the process on. I have no problem believing either theistic-evolution or old earth creationionism- ID. I left theistic evolution because of the problem of macroevolution, but I think the one thing that both me and theistic-evolutionists agree upon is that the incredible amounts of informational changes between animals couldnt have happened by chance.

[PaulSacramento]

Biologos has a 3 part series on the whales issue:
http://biologos.org/blog/series/underst ... f-evidence

Looks like they conveniently left out the basilaoaurus fossil found from 49 million years back. That Poor basilosaurus fossil needs a media agent because he cant seem to get a documentary that would interview him

I think I am missing something...what is the issue that basilaoarus poses for evolutuion?

[PaulSacramento]

The issue seems to be the notion of macroevolution.
I think that it is important to understand that macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution BUT because of the time frame needed, we can NOT observe it directly in nature and I think that it will always be that way UNLESS macro-evolution can be proven to be via OUTSIDE sources.
I find it funny how some are trying to prove macro-evolution by causing it which, if they succeed will actually lend evidence to a God being the prime mover in evolution.

Paul the problem is those experiments that have tried to prove macroevolution have failed to produce any macroevolution at all, even with animals that we can speed up the process on. I have no problem believing either theistic-evolution or old earth creationionism- ID. I left theistic evolution because of the problem of macroevolution, but I think the one thing that both me and theistic-evolutionists agree upon is that the incredible amounts of informational changes between animals couldnt have happened by chance.

Some would argue that the millions of years needed to prove macroevolution is non-repeatable in a laboratory environment.

[bippy123]

Biologos has a 3 part series on the whales issue:
//biologos.org/blog/series/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence

Looks like they conveniently left out the basilaoaurus fossil found from 49 million years back. That Poor basilosaurus fossil needs a media agent because he cant seem to get a documentary that would interview him

I think I am missing something...what is the issue that basilaoarus poses for evolutuion?

the issue here is that there is a very scant line of animals between the whale evolutionary chart. Ambulocetas is supposed to be the walking whale (descendent of the fully aquatic whales that came about later like basilosaurus about 12 to 15 million years later). Then the find about a year or 2 ago of a basilasauras fossil dating from roughly the same time as ambolucetas. Do you see the problem now Paul?
//www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-des ... antartica/

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time. Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:




Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

[bippy123]

The issue seems to be the notion of macroevolution.
I think that it is important to understand that macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution BUT because of the time frame needed, we can NOT observe it directly in nature and I think that it will always be that way UNLESS macro-evolution can be proven to be via OUTSIDE sources.
I find it funny how some are trying to prove macro-evolution by causing it which, if they succeed will actually lend evidence to a God being the prime mover in evolution.

Paul the problem is those experiments that have tried to prove macroevolution have failed to produce any macroevolution at all, even with animals that we can speed up the process on. I have no problem believing either theistic-evolution or old earth creationionism- ID. I left theistic evolution because of the problem of macroevolution, but I think the one thing that both me and theistic-evolutionists agree upon is that the incredible amounts of informational changes between animals couldnt have happened by chance.

Some would argue that the millions of years needed to prove macroevolution is non-repeatable in a laboratory environment.

So its not a scientific fact right ? and it cant be falsified correct paul
Like I said I have no problem with macroevolution being taught in a philosophy class or theology class but not in a science class

[PaulSacramento]

Biologos has a 3 part series on the whales issue:
//biologos.org/blog/series/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence

Looks like they conveniently left out the basilaoaurus fossil found from 49 million years back. That Poor basilosaurus fossil needs a media agent because he cant seem to get a documentary that would interview him

I think I am missing something...what is the issue that basilaoarus poses for evolutuion?

the issue here is that there is a very scant line of animals between the whale evolutionary chart. Ambulocetas is supposed to be the walking whale (descendent of the fully aquatic whales that came about later like basilosaurus about 12 to 15 million years later). Then the find about a year or 2 ago of a basilasauras fossil dating from roughly the same time as ambolucetas. Do you see the problem now Paul?
//www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-des ... antartica/

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time. Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:




Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

Could basilaoaurus have been an independent species itself? like our modern day shark or crocodile?

[PaulSacramento]

The issue seems to be the notion of macroevolution.
I think that it is important to understand that macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution BUT because of the time frame needed, we can NOT observe it directly in nature and I think that it will always be that way UNLESS macro-evolution can be proven to be via OUTSIDE sources.
I find it funny how some are trying to prove macro-evolution by causing it which, if they succeed will actually lend evidence to a God being the prime mover in evolution.

Paul the problem is those experiments that have tried to prove macroevolution have failed to produce any macroevolution at all, even with animals that we can speed up the process on. I have no problem believing either theistic-evolution or old earth creationionism- ID. I left theistic evolution because of the problem of macroevolution, but I think the one thing that both me and theistic-evolutionists agree upon is that the incredible amounts of informational changes between animals couldnt have happened by chance.

Some would argue that the millions of years needed to prove macroevolution is non-repeatable in a laboratory environment.

So its not a scientific fact right ? and it cant be falsified correct paul
Like I said I have no problem with macroevolution being taught in a philosophy class or theology class but not in a science class

No I don't think we can call macroevolution a scientific fact or a fact at all. Facts would have to be proven and repeatable.

[jlay]

The word "Descent" seems obvious in its meaning.

I've gone through lengthy arguments regarding the whale chart before. Misinformation and even deceipt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ZeH4PCSBs