Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Many scientists have dismissed the Toba eruption as significant. It probably did, though, precipitate the most recent ice age. I don't believe anyone has identified what happened between 40,000 and 30,000 ybp. H. neanderthalis went extinct roughly between 35,000 and 30,000 ybp, and the report of two Harvard geneticists about a decade ago is that the world-wide population of h.s.s. was no more than 10,000 and possibly as few as 1,000 just 30,000 ybp. I haven't kept up, but I have not read any explanation for that bottleneck.

yes but the information in the dna has not except that the pool of available information is smaller. This smaller pool of information can easily account for macroevolution in darwin’s Finch’s or selective breeding of domesticated animals. Both are examples of selecting traits already present in the genome, no new information from random mutations are needed nor did selection create any. Selection only selected the winner through death. And as farmer pointed out with melting polar ice caps and the polar bear most likely extinction not evolution. Reduction in the number of species not an increase.

For some reason in the ancient past new information was being added to the genome in just the correct way that new species with new abilities (like sight and flight) were being created faster than the old species were going extinct. That amount of information being added in the correct sequence is impossible by random mutations. Either intelligence was inserting it or, the dna code itself had an artificial intelligence preprogrammed into it to create the new information in the correct sequence (AI). Natural selection’s action of selection by information elimination does not create information, it just puts limits on the choices random mutations has to work with. We know what that leads to. We observed it many times. Extinction not speciation with new physical organ systems or abilities.

Or do you have evidence that prove random processes alone are capable of it? Because at one time in the past all there was were random processes. At one time in the past there was no order. Do you agre with that or do you believe there always was some underlying order. Some basic structure or “rules” (with no origins) that always exists to make sure matter and the physical forces are in place to guide random actions like natural selection does.

I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if the accreditation process is under attack by creationists as well. I'm afraid to look.

It's the interaction of random mutation and replication and selection which increases "information" (and I'm using that term loosely to avoid landing us into a discussion on Information Theory, which is extremely complex).

You are making incorrect assumptions because you are trying to break things apart and only look at the pieces without considering the interactions.

Still find it interesting how evolutionism false teachings stretch Scientific truths so thin.
Whether it be simple truth like life forms being created with ‘sensors’ to give the ability to Minorly adapt..... evolutionism doctrime Teaches that lifeforms can Majorly evolve, Like Whales having legs once upon a time, and that mankind Is a modified monkey(Neanderthal) and ultimately mankind is a modified bacteria 😬
The truth that the universe is several thousand years old, yet this truth is stretched extremely thin into billions of years.
The truth that all life was created vegetarian, And yet, Death and bloodshed are taught as ‘good’ and A necessity.
For that matter the religion/false teaching teaches that life can be created by un-intelligent forces like ocean vents.
I guess it is not overly surprising considering over several thousand years of history all of the creation stories and false gods.
The unintelligent god of atheism, and its creation story Is a continued tradition of a lost civilization.

I break them up to describe what each does and then put them together. Are you saying natural selection does something different besides limiting (through death and extinction) the amount of available new information random mutations can generate overtime.

gobbledygook

I think it is very hard to age accurately it could be millions but more than likely not billions. I think it matters whose clock and units of time you are using, Seth’s or Cain’s.

Yes. The process of Natural Selection (in biological populations) results in a selective change in the allele frequency in the gene pool of a population.

What you are proposing above is like claiming that winnowing wheat has no value because all it does is remove the chaff. Or that panning for gold doesn't work because all it does is eliminate the sand.

That is correct Natural selection separates and random mutations make small random changes that have never been proven to lead to macroevolution by replication. If it can then random has to be guided by something. To lead to more complexity it takes more than random change. It takes planning for new organ systems or capabilities like flight.

Of course it's been proven. Evolution is a fact. It happened and it's happening. We use our knowledge of it every day in agriculture and medicine and dozens of other disciplines. It's on display in the fossil record and we can see it in all the biology of everything on the planet. Get over it.

And "Random" is guided by something. It's guided by Natural Selection. How dense are you, have you not been listening to anything anyone has been saying? Why do I waste my time even typing this when you don't listen to a damn thing. Here... Complexity does take more than random change, it also takes selection. That's why it's called SELECTION. And no, it does not require planning. All it takes is Reproduction, Variation and Selection, the three components of Evolution.

OK, if you are finally willing to concede that there is vast amounts of information encoded in DNA, what is your explanation for the insurmountable information barrier mentioned in the paper I posted? Do you just poo poo it (I.e. claim you know better than all the researchers listed in the paper) or do you go along with the panspermia explaination that the authors posit?

My only argument (as well as the scientists behind the paper and the ID argument) is that currently accepted theories (mutation and natural selection) are not adequate to explain the source of information required to explain things like the Cambrian explosion.

To reiterate - ID does not say that ‘God did it', only that current theories are not adequate to explain the evidence we see in the fossil record.

If you are satisfied with panspermia, that's fine, just want to know where you stand on it.

They can't listen, because it'll destroy their lifelong ignorance, and that's scary if you think about it. It's almost impossible to admit they were wrong all their life.

That's a scary though, Roswell. I'm not sure I appreciate that insight.

Yeh, I worried myself too. I'm tempted to put my head back in the sand and not look...

please try to make believe that youve even read anything Ive posted. Ive always accepted panspermia as a possibility for "seeding our planet viqa incoming bolies containing prebiotic organics". Ive been onistent in that point , qwhy??? because it i teswtqble qnd fqlifiaqble and cannot be deny as a possible possibility. WE JUST DONT HQVE ANY INFO TO EVIDENCE IT YET. Ive been consistent also saying that e will know one way or another that it was a delivery ytem from outer space.
However, having aid tht (AGAIN), It doesnt negate anything re Naturl swlection, nor does it mqake ID ny more evidenced . (Understand?). You must plase tell me how ID is supported by a panspermian origin of life??
If you say that pnspermian efforts were delivered to the plnet at key times to kick start certain phyla (in the order they occur in the fosil recor), you hqve a bigger job in doing a convincing dnce.

I hve no rsponsibilities in this at qll. I know what evidence supports now and Im pretty much using it in my work.(Any other explantion WILL NOT BE SCIENTIFICALLY USEFUL), in fact, it been debunked and trashed in the literature many times.(Ill respond with examples when you start (I DID SAY START) providing any real evidence besides references to bogus Creationist mathematics nd AIG and Discovery Institute drek.

The article doesnt reference much in how SNP'sand MNP's can SIMULTANEOUSLY effect phenotype without major restructuring of the entire genome. Yet differences between H ss and H neander is greater than that among the existing apes. The argument that "stuff keeps evolving all the time and it doesnt take much genic difference to ffect phenotypic outcome" are still "Factoids" that Steve Gould brought to our attention hortly after much work was done in lab genomics

Our species had a common ancestor about 6 my ago with great apes and this can be seen in the restructuring of two entire chromosomes (not jut an SNP)


Ill wait with my ice tea in hand

Since you get all sensitive and defensive in these debates, I repwctfully submit that what you know and understand about a "Cambrian Explosion" can b fit on the back of a postage stamp.

All the CE did was to apply carbonte tests as a common building material within already exiting genera, qnd it was anywhere between 30 and 60 million years long (as opposed to the 20 MY "first cut" estimate. Pre Grenvillin fossils of proto trilobites like Dickinsonia or complex annelids or mollusca (without shells.)
like Apidillans, Sprigginia and less complex proto brchiopods likeVendozoans. The ARchea qnd other les complex phyllq hqd already been on the planet for almot 2 billion years. So your "Cambrin Explosion" is nothing more than a 30 to 60 million year experiment for animals to obtain exokeletons and segmentation. Not a really big accomplishment. Think about it, 30 million years min to 60 million max , just for all that. Then remember, It took the entire redt of the Pleozoic to hqve the rest of the phylla show up (with the exceptions of mammals and birds of course).
MOre of a slow burning chrcoql pit than an axplosion. We use several dozen key fosils in mineral explorqtion ince minerals also seem to have an environmental appearance schedule from the origin 35 native elements and 50 minerals that appeared on earth in the Pre Vendean times.
It actually critical information ,whenever we search for specific elements. so spreading the calendar pages out from the fossil record isnt just stamp collecting for the rich hobbyists, its a geo-enginering TOOL.

I think perhaps your understnadings may not be based on hard facts but interpretations from popular religious presses. Ive never had a problem with pnspermia, It , as I said, can be tested in its time. However, it does NOT equate to intelligent "dsign" unless several key occurences show up THROUGH GEOLOGICAL TIME.

youve mde a very cogent argument and to deny what you say, in my mind, would be surrendering to defiant religiosity rather than scientific observation.

Lets see what BJ has to say in respone.

Panspermia?!
....
Again, when God (truth) goes, anything goes....

Which is exactly what BJ has been displaying in every single post he makes.

I find it encouraging however that many of the people arguing against science based ideas (Evolution as just one example), still couch their arguments in a facade of sciency-sounding woowoo, inadvertently showing their recognition of the inherent value of true scientific arguments.

"Science is the tool that prevents us from being deceived, both by ourselves and others". And things don't get much more valuable than that.

When god goes, you become free of a fictional character who never existed. Humans need only one rule in life. "Treat all living things with respect and dignity." You don't need a bible with 1190 to 1701 pages that are full of errors and contradictions. Besides all that, god came upon the human scene a bit too late, because humans have been around for 200,000 years by evolving from the primate family, and god was created only 2,000 years ago.