Evolutionary theory in crisis?

[bippy123]

Correct Abel , many evolutionary scientists conflate adaptation with evolution and say that macroevolution is simply lots of adaptation but that is when they go past something that they haven't been able to prove .

From fruit flies to lenskis bacteria we haven't seen it happen yet . Will it ever happen ?
I don't know and no one else knows but I'm open to come back to it if and when it does , but it would be an intelligent evolution of it happens

[Kenny]

Change in genetics? Are you really looking for evidence life evolves or getting hung up on genetic changes? Because I expect to see evidence life evolves not you tell me life evolved because there was a genetic change and that means it evolved.

When there is a genetic change, that is evolution. Just because something appears the same to the naked untrained eye doesn't mean evolution has not taken place.

Sorry but I have no doubt that when life adapts there are genetic changes like for instance eskimo's who have adapted to live in extreme cold,their bodies can handle it alot more than humans that are not adapted to that kind of evironment but eskimo's are still humans and have not evolved even after they adapted which is the same thing we see with viruses,bacteria and even insects you brought up show too.

A person who has assimilated to cold or hot weather is not an example of genetic change, is not an example of Evolution.


Ken

[Kenny]

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

I don't know ken cause what you describe with insecticides is what is called adaptation or microevolutuon , and that is proven fact , but it isn't macro evolution which had never been proven by direct observation Or inthe lab.

If I brought you a picture with a bunch of cars lined up in time sequence and said that to look at it , anyone would say that it looks like the car went through a process of evolution , even a picture of a boat that is slowly being transformed step by step into a car .

They are all using the same material and similar parts, but we both know that an intelligent designer designed all these cars.

All like the DNA cells have complex specified information Inputted into them .

Now how the designer made this design happened is up for debate , see I have softened my Stance thanks to a few helpful posts by rick that opened my eyes a bit , but I can't possibly see CSI cone about without intelligence involved in the process .

The examples of the insecticides, is evolution because there was a change in the gene pool. As far as the example of the cars, evolution pertains to life not machines.

Ken

[Audie]

Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

That is what I have always encountered with people who wish to argue against ToE,
they do not understand the topic, and make arguments based on some misunderstanding.

As a rule, its not too hard to savage a strawman.

I am unaware of any legitimate argument to be made against ToE. I would be most interested to hear of it if there is.

[Audie]

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

I don't know ken cause what you describe with insecticides is what is called adaptation or microevolutuon , and that is proven fact , but it isn't macro evolution which had never been proven by direct observation Or inthe lab.

If I brought you a picture with a bunch of cars lined up in time sequence and said that to look at it , anyone would say that it looks like the car went through a process of evolution , even a picture of a boat that is slowly being transformed step by step into a car .

They are all using the same material and similar parts, but we both know that an intelligent designer designed all these cars.

All like the DNA cells have complex specified information Inputted into them .

Now how the designer made this design happened is up for debate , see I have softened my Stance thanks to a few helpful posts by rick that opened my eyes a bit , but I can't possibly see CSI cone about without intelligence involved in the process .

The examples of the insecticides, is evolution because there was a change in the gene pool. As far as the example of the cars, evolution pertains to life not machines.

Ken

A change in the gene pool, as such, is just a percent thing. Now, if there is some mutation that brings about immunity, and that spreads as it does, that is a bit different.

Now if for example there are other mutations that build on the new / different capabilities, then you are starting to see some evolution take place.

[abelcainsbrother]

Change in genetics? Are you really looking for evidence life evolves or getting hung up on genetic changes? Because I expect to see evidence life evolves not you tell me life evolved because there was a genetic change and that means it evolved.

When there is a genetic change, that is evolution. Just because something appears the same to the naked untrained eye doesn't mean evolution has not taken place.

Sorry but I have no doubt that when life adapts there are genetic changes like for instance eskimo's who have adapted to live in extreme cold,their bodies can handle it alot more than humans that are not adapted to that kind of evironment but eskimo's are still humans and have not evolved even after they adapted which is the same thing we see with viruses,bacteria and even insects you brought up show too.

A person who has assimilated to cold or hot weather is not an example of genetic change, is not an example of Evolution.


Ken

I gave you very good info from research I've done and I understand you may not believe me,that is why you need to look into it yourself and you can. when you say genetic change is evolution you are just trusting and believing in evolution and its something you cannot verify based on the evidence. Yes Kenny eskimo's adapting to cold weather causes genetic changes in their race that allows their bodies to handle cold environments better than those not adapted to cold environments and yes it is no different than insects developing immunity from pesticides too,yes it is the same thing. This is why we do not need scientists demonstrating in a lab life can adapt and survive hostile environments but even if you disagree you still have evidence that only demonstrates life adapts not that life evolves,therefore you must use your imagination and enter a faith realm based on adaptation that life will evolve,but without evidence.

[abelcainsbrother]

Correct Abel , many evolutionary scientists conflate adaptation with evolution and say that macroevolution is simply lots of adaptation but that is when they go past something that they haven't been able to prove .

From fruit flies to lenskis bacteria we haven't seen it happen yet . Will it ever happen ?
I don't know and no one else knows but I'm open to come back to it if and when it does , but it would be an intelligent evolution of it happens

Yes they do.I've even seen scientists like on the Discovery Channel or Science Channel explaining how this particular creature adapted to this environment with the implication it is evolution. They do equate adaptation with evolution.

[Kenny]

Yes Kenny eskimo's adapting to cold weather causes genetic changes in their race that allows their bodies to handle cold environments better than those not adapted to cold environments and yes it is no different than insects developing immunity from pesticides too,yes it is the same thing.

I could spend a few years in Alaska right now and adapt to the cold as well as anyone else up there. This would not be an example of my genes changing.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

That is what I have always encountered with people who wish to argue against ToE,
they do not understand the topic, and make arguments based on some misunderstanding.

As a rule, its not too hard to savage a strawman.

I am unaware of any legitimate argument to be made against ToE. I would be most interested to hear of it if there is.

Yeah but I'm using arguments against evolution from somebody that happens to be a biologist that is an atheist. Basically evolution science is just stating the obvious and if you go back over my arguments you'll see examples where evidence in evolution science is just stating the obvious.

[Audie]

Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

That is what I have always encountered with people who wish to argue against ToE,
they do not understand the topic, and make arguments based on some misunderstanding.

As a rule, its not too hard to savage a strawman.

I am unaware of any legitimate argument to be made against ToE. I would be most interested to hear of it if there is.

Yeah but I'm using arguments against evolution that happens to be a biologist that is an atheist. Basically evolution science is just stating the obvious and if you go back over my arguments you'll see examples where evidence in evolution science is just stating the obvious.

You are not able to give one (1) bit of data contrary to ToE. But dont feel bad, nobody else can either.

Anything other than hard data is just blather. How about if you do not post again until you have found some actual verifiable data contrary to ToE.

[Audie]

Yes Kenny eskimo's adapting to cold weather causes genetic changes in their race that allows their bodies to handle cold environments better than those not adapted to cold environments and yes it is no different than insects developing immunity from pesticides too,yes it is the same thing.

I could spend a few years in Alaska right now and adapt to the cold as well as anyone else up there. This would not be an example of my genes changing.

Ken

I dont think that anyone has verified any actual particular adaptation to the cold, on the part of Eskimos. It is a mistaken idea anyway, to think that all Eskimos are native to areas of extreme cold. Their home ground ranges from Anchorage all the way around the coast to Greenland, which encompasses a wide range of climate.

The Finns probably better exemplify adaptation to cold than Eskimos do.

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

That is what I have always encountered with people who wish to argue against ToE,
they do not understand the topic, and make arguments based on some misunderstanding.

As a rule, its not too hard to savage a strawman.

I am unaware of any legitimate argument to be made against ToE. I would be most interested to hear of it if there is.

Yeah but I'm using arguments against evolution that happens to be a biologist that is an atheist. Basically evolution science is just stating the obvious and if you go back over my arguments you'll see examples where evidence in evolution science is just stating the obvious.

You are not able to give one (1) bit of data contrary to ToE. But dont feel bad, nobody else can either.

Anything other than hard data is just blather. How about if you do not post again until you have found some actual verifiable data contrary to ToE.

You would'nt believe anything I say anyway this is why I encourage people to look into it themselves.It is you that cannot give any evidence to refute what I've said,instead you will just disagree while defending evolution.I get the feeling that you don't really want to get into a serious debate about it,so you just defend evolution and leave it at that.

[Kenny]

Yes Kenny eskimo's adapting to cold weather causes genetic changes in their race that allows their bodies to handle cold environments better than those not adapted to cold environments and yes it is no different than insects developing immunity from pesticides too,yes it is the same thing.

I could spend a few years in Alaska right now and adapt to the cold as well as anyone else up there. This would not be an example of my genes changing.

Ken

I dont think that anyone has verified any actual particular adaptation to the cold, on the part of Eskimos. It is a mistaken idea anyway, to think that all Eskimos are native to areas of extreme cold. Their home ground ranges from Anchorage all the way around the coast to Greenland, which encompasses a wide range of climate.

The Finns probably better exemplify adaptation to cold than Eskimos do.

Yeah I was just trying to point out to him that there is a difference between building up a tolerance to cold and genetic change.

kenm

[abelcainsbrother]

Yes Kenny eskimo's adapting to cold weather causes genetic changes in their race that allows their bodies to handle cold environments better than those not adapted to cold environments and yes it is no different than insects developing immunity from pesticides too,yes it is the same thing.

I could spend a few years in Alaska right now and adapt to the cold as well as anyone else up there. This would not be an example of my genes changing.

Ken

I dont think that anyone has verified any actual particular adaptation to the cold, on the part of Eskimos. It is a mistaken idea anyway, to think that all Eskimos are native to areas of extreme cold. Their home ground ranges from Anchorage all the way around the coast to Greenland, which encompasses a wide range of climate.

The Finns probably better exemplify adaptation to cold than Eskimos do.

The reason why I use eskimo's as an example is because I seen a show on TV years ago where they were doing testing on eskimos to understand the changes in their bodies compared to other humans that alows them to handle the cold. But there are many other examples I could use. We have examples out in the world around us that life has adapted to hostile environments.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'll give you another example of life that has adapted to liv in a hostile environment. Bacteria that grows and thrives in Chernobyl,it actually feeds on the radiation in Chernobyl,it is some resiliant stuff God created but its still bacteria,so much for natural selection causing it to evolve,or mutations or random DNA copying errors like Richard Dawkins teaches. This is not evidence life evolves eventhough it is used as evidence life evolves. It is just stating the obvious.