Why is Evolution such a bad theory?

[Yehren]

Actually, the evolution of new species has been directly observed. Few creationists still deny macroevolution in terms of the evolution of new taxa.

Even the Institute for Creation Research has endorsed the view that all the species we see today evolved from a few kinds that were carried on the Ark.

[Jbuza]

Actually, the evolution of new species has been directly observed. Few creationists still deny macroevolution in terms of the evolution of new taxa.

Care to expand on that or is it an empty claim.

[Yehren]

Fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis of species....and that's just one thing that comes to mind.

Often, it does. But sometimes, when a population is very numerous and/or is in an environment where fossilization is common, we see a very gradual process.

Even Stephen Gould, the apostle of punctuated equillibrium, admitted that there is also evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record.

[Yehren]

I, for one, would be willing to hear the Cambrian objections.

[Jbuza]

I, for one, would be willing to hear the Cambrian objections.

I object to the fact that the prescence of certian fossils in paticular groups or formations is being used in conjunction with unproven assumptions as evidence that the world is of any paticular age.

I see the observation that their are large formations of small creatures interesting, but could you tell me specifically what the prescense of large groups of these creatures prooves?

I don't mind if you measure it all you want in any way, go ahead and tell me what your measurments and information from the formation indicate. Perhaps if it would help you could measure prescense of some elements.

You can do all these things and make grand calculations, and what are you left with? What do you wish to tell me about these groups of formations labeld Cambrian?

IF you would like you can bring some fancy gelogical indexes and graphical representations of indexed fossils, and geological assumptions. Well bring the entire scientific community if you must, I don't care who you bring, But I do know you will be able to measure it and speculate about things, till you are dust, and If you haven't foudn Truth you have nothing.

[Yehren]

I object to the fact that the prescence of certian fossils in paticular groups or formations is being used in conjunction with unproven assumptions as evidence that the world is of any paticular age.

You'll be happy to know then, that it doesn't work that way. We can only infer the sequence of ages from index fossils, not the age. We know, from other data, about where in time certain fossils are going to be, but that is not how they are dated.

I see the observation that their are large formations of small creatures interesting, but could you tell me specifically what the prescense of large groups of these creatures prooves?

You mean like when I see certain species of trilobites, and know that the rock must therefore be Cambrian? They are useful indices, but other methods are necessary to get ages.

You're objecting to something that doesn't happen. I can see Wiwaxia, for example, and know the rock is early Cambrian. But that doesn't tell me how old it is, unless I know from other means how old the Cambrian is.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Actually, the evolution of new species has been directly observed. Few creationists still deny macroevolution in terms of the evolution of new taxa.

Even the Institute for Creation Research has endorsed the view that all the species we see today evolved from a few kinds that were carried on the Ark.

Care to expand? A group like that is probably referring to the microevolution of subspecies. And especially explain when and where new species were observed to evolve?

[Yehren]

The first recorded, directly observed instance of macroevolution was the evoluton of a new species of primrose by polyploidy.

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

The creationist claims for evolution go much farther than that. The Institute for Creation Research cites John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study" in declaring that new species, genera, and families of organisms evolved.

I discussed this with Woodmorappe in email, and he confirmed to me that creation science indicates that evolution works up to new families, but not much farther, if at all.

This goes much, much farther than the minimum scientists consider to be essential for macroevolution.

Woodmorappe's argument is that Noah's Ark could not possibly have held all those animals, and so a few basic "kinds" (some say "baramin") were taken aboard, and all modern species evolved from them.

"Barminology" was a thriving activity among creationists, although I haven't heard as much of it lately.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

You have to be kidding me. It's a genetic mutation where the DNA is copied. It's not a new species. it just two copies of the same DNA. Wow..

This goes much, much farther than the minimum scientists consider to be essential for macroevolution.

So, a guy makes a claim that evolution can work at the level of family...because of his misconception of the Flood...and you THEN go and say that evolution can work at the level of phylum, and start with a simple bacteria and work its way up to multi-cellular life...Amazing...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

You have to be kidding me. It's a genetic mutation where the DNA is copied. It's not a new species. it just two copies of the same DNA. Wow..

Yes wow, vertebrates are thought to have had their entire genomes duplicated on several occations. Duplicate genes allows the extra copies to undergoe mutations without deleterious effects.

This goes much, much farther than the minimum scientists consider to be essential for macroevolution.

So, a guy makes a claim that evolution can work at the level of family...because of his misconception of the Flood...and you THEN go and say that evolution can work at the level of phylum, and start with a simple bacteria and work its way up to multi-cellular life...Amazing...

Evolution doesn't work at the level of a phylum, a phylum arises after years of diversification.

Take two adolescent twins and have them start at their home. Have each twin walk in opposite directions. After a few miles they're experiences are like subspecies. A year goes by, their experiences are now as different as genera, a decade does by and the differentiation is like that of families. After a lifetime of separate experiences the only shared experiences are from childhood, their experiences are as different as phylums.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Yes wow, vertebrates are thought to have had their entire genomes duplicated on several occations. Duplicate genes allows the extra copies to undergoe mutations without deleterious effects.

And the extra copies will just be mutated into garbage.

Evolution doesn't work at the level of a phylum, a phylum arises after years of diversification.

Take two adolescent twins and have them start at their home. Have each twin walk in opposite directions. After a few miles they're experiences are like subspecies. A year goes by, their experiences are now as different as genera, a decade does by and the differentiation is like that of families. After a lifetime of separate experiences the only shared experiences are from childhood, their experiences are as different as phylums.

Ideologically speaking, yes, but the evidence says otherwise.

[Yehren]

Yep, polyploidy does produce new species. The new species is completely unable to reproduce with the old, which is the definition of species.

Polyploidy is interesting, because it's sudden, and produces species quickly enough that humans can see it happen.

[Jbuza]

quote YEHREN (henry e?)
Stephen Gould, the apostle of punctuated equillibrium

[Yehren]

Apostle:
1. One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel.

2. A missionary of the early Christian Church.
A leader of the first Christian mission to a country or region.

3. One of the 12 members of the administrative council in the Mormon Church.

4. a.One who pioneers an important reform movement, cause, or belief: an apostle of conservation.

b. A passionate adherent; a strong supporter.
(dictionary.com)

Guess which one applies to Gould?

BTW, Yehren is:

[Jbuza]

cool I guess you see what you are familiar with "henry".

I just thought it a strange word choice, that's all.