Evolution & Mutation in front of our eyes

Apparently "DUDE" it is you that "knows" nothing as you have to depend upon the paste of other like minded liberal Pseudo Science proponents to "paste" your copied knowledge, and then do not even comprehend what you have posted.

As per the fact the the "link" that you posted invalidates and contradicts the point that you are professing to be not concluded....i.e. that the DNA was in fact a part of the Biological life species' Genomes(the genetic code of their parents in 30-80% of their findings....this indeed shows that the species was "created" with the DNA to adapt by both cross pollenated borrowing and reconfiguration of the "original" DNA structure.

And this created ability does not in any way "prove" or even point in the direction of either "MACROEVOLUTION" or "ABIOBENESIS". As I said, please present the "empirical" evidence of some experiment that is reproducible or offer an "observed" experiment in the way of nature.

Different branches of the same lineage....i.e. foul, K-9, Fish, etc....does not even point in the direction of MACROEVOLUTION....it only confirms the "very valid" theory of biogenesis and "MICROEVOLUTION"...neither of which is in dispute, as both are validated by "science actual"

what is in dispute is the morphing of living biological life having been randomly arrived at by beginning only with non-living organic material, and then having the ability to build upon this initial life DNA structure, without other life to support it in gaining new knowledge. But, most in dispute and dictated as if it is backed by empirical evidence where none exists is MARCOEVOLUTION.....one species evolving into another in the animal kingdom, not a pre-programed plant, cross-pollened, simply growing more leaves, or a different color and then being reclassified as a totally different species by man....not science. Show me the transitional evidence, and I will stand corrected...."dude".

And as I said, and apparently that which you had no proof of....please present the evidence of some of these 'varible' factors in "your" theorized proof of the population expansion being skewed via "empirical" proof..

if not, why not....you expect the radiometric dating system to be calculated strictly on current factors that exist in today's world, "without" taking into consideration of any variables, and still wish to present it, as an absolute infallible theory.

Whereas the population expansion is not theory...it is fact and cannot be dismissed by if's, and's and maybe's to "shoehorn" your "uncalibrated" theories into with a nice snug fit. Present the empirical proof, of being able to test and retest with reproducible results such as the calculation's that show, all of the above mentioned "scientific" facts backed by empirical evidence. That of the "LEAP SECOND", THE POPULATION EXPANSION CALCULATION in real numbers backed by both history and scientific math calculation of extrapolation. While on the other hand, all you have are "chalk broad" theories in hopes of making ten pound of groceries fit into a 5 pound bag. RD

Kids in some areas of the world have a poor diet and do not grow as tall as other kids that have good diet. This is not a proof for Evolution. This is just common sense. And because some finches have a thicker beak, this is not a proof for Evolution either. There is changes within the species. Even humans will have changes in skin color because of their exposure to the Sun. So what?

If this is the best proof you can offer for the Theory of Evolution, then you will believe anything. If Darwin could come back from the grave and was shown that the abundance of transionals were never found,

he would be the first one to admit that his theory was false. Still, his followers blindly support his Theory based on imagination and little else.

Bet me. You have no comprehension of either abiogenesis or evolution.

OTHERWISE you'd know that they are two TOTALLY different theories that do not rely on each other one single bit. Asking evolution to prove abiogenesis is akin to asking a horse to fly.

Ask the proper question of the proper theory and you'll get an answer.



"Created"? I like that.

In the case I pointed out, this was OBSERVED. You know... that EMPIRICAL evidence which is the beat you bang your Bible to.

You said: "But no proof has ever been introduced either by fossil remains or observation to suggest that any species has breached the Scientific barrier of biogenesis (the proven theory that life begets life within the same species)."

"The occurrence of polyploidy is a mechanism of speciation and is known to have resulted in new species"

So... where'd this new OBSERVED species come from? I can guarantee that it didn't get "created" in a magic puff.

Also... just so you know, biogenesis NEVER says that life begets life within the same species. Biogenesis states that life begets life. NOT ONCE does biogenesis state that this process is static and cannot produce new variants.

So... abiogenesis... biogenesis... Evolution works with either. You're losing a lot of ground.



What you ask for you know is impossible. Not because it doesn't exist, but merely because we don't have several hundred thousand years to wait around.

"Macroevolution" as you like to call it, cannot be observed in a matter of minutes. If a snake birthed a frog, that would destroy evolution. What you are asking for simply doesn't apply, ESPECIALLY in the manner that you ask it.

Take Tiktaalik for example. Ol land fish himself. To his predecessors, his changes were MICRO. However, given that several hundred million years between Tikkie and now, several MICROs turn into one big fat MACRO.

Evolution isn't a lot of right angles with magic creatures popping out having transitional features. Evolution is a curve. Every creature could be considered transitional... constantly changing, ever so slightly. Tikkie stands out because he shares features from two different areas... fish and tetrapods.

Abiogenesis in itself is speculative, no matter which side of the field you play. Creationism lives on the idea of abiogenesis... Where'd life come from? Nowhere? From dirt? From created matter? Isn't that abiogenesis? The idea that life originated from inorganic matter?

Scientists cannot "prove" abiogenesis. However you miss the key point... ABIOGENESIS IS NOT NEEDED FOR EVOLUTION TO WORK. I myself could prove this second that abio is wrong and Evolution would keep on keepin' on.



Okay, microevolution is true. Let's start with that.

Take a lifeform. Change it a little bit. Change it a little more. How about some more. More. More. More. Keep going. That's the ticket. More change. More.

Do this one hundred thousand times.

Tell me, is what you end up with after all those "micro" changes still the same species/genus/family that you originally started out with?

Believing in the "micro" and not the "macro" is like believing in inches and not in miles.



Simple. Mutation.

Mutation is totally random. Harmful sometimes, helpful other times. The process is fubar'ed just enough to allow a change to occur. What life does with that change is all it's own.

You misuse science AGAIN. The proper definition of "Macroevolution" is the process of change ABOVE the species level. Macroevolution does NOT happen within species. Never has, never will. Darwin never stated anything to the contrary.

Of course, if you knew the science you try to use, you'd be aware of this and wouldn't ask such silly questions.



Let's give the simplest example: The Bubonic Plague.

Ten thousand people died DAILY. One quarter of England's population was wiped out. China lost half it's population. One fifth of the world's population just up and gone by this ONE factor.

The Antonine Plague, Typhoid fever, the Black Plague (2nd bubonic outbreak), these factors wiped out population in MASS numbers.

I don't think you can get more "EMPIRICAL" than that.



That's you guys and your C14 dating that take these variables and call it infallible.



Then tell me, what factors did you use? Why are these factors static? Have babies been popping out at the EXACT same rate over the years? Have people been taking dirt naps at the EXACT same rate over the years? Taking a current stat and applying it to several thousand years is hilarious and doesn't prove anything. Population shrinks as well as grows. Do you take THAT into account? No, of course not... numbers just keep going up!

Once again, given YOUR factors, the eight Flood survivors would make today's population by the year 14,000. Now THAT's called being off by a longshot.


Again... spending so much time attacking evolution and none defending your beliefs. Tell me, where's your "EMPIRICAL" evidence? Where's your proof? Why do you hide behind the "I don't have to!" curtain? C'mon... you've apparently got a better theory, let's see your evidence.

Can you? The answer as of now is "No".

Really i see no reason to continue this argument any further as much as i enjoy it...the truth is no matter what evidence you present to them they will reject it, and they will do so on the basis of their religion, they find evolution to be a challenge to their faith and this is why they will continue their relentless zealous assault on accepted scientific theory, yet much more absurd theories such as quantum physics goes unchallenged, their demand for evidence is simply unreasonable.




------------------


"The mature believer, the mature theist, does not typically accept belief in God tentatively, or hypothetically, or until something better comes along. Nor, I think, does he accept it as a conclusion from other things he believes; he accepts it as basic, as a part of the foundations of his noetic structure. The mature theist commits himself to belief in God: this means that he accepts belief in God as basic."


-----------------------





so basicly as that quote says is that theists will accept their belief as foundation for their other knowledge and if that "other knowledge" doesn't fit with their foundation then it is the "other knowledge" that is wrong not the foundation, whereas scientists and rationalists accept their beliefs as a conclusion from their own knowledge. This is the difference, and this is why it is pointless to argue with them (devout theists) it is simply a waste of time!

You continue to try and "lump" evolution into one huge ball of wax. As I said, only microevloution is a valid theory, as it can and is backed by reproducible conclusions and confirmed by natural observation. Yet, micro-evolution does not "encompass" "macro-evolution" due to several reasons. First, microevolution is a "theory" of microbiology and microbiology is simply a branch of biology dedicated entirely to the study of "micro-organisms" in the study of minor changes WITHIN A SPECIES or a group of organisms usually within a SHORT period of time. And as, I said, does in no way confirm any macroevolutionary changes....specifically the changing from one species to another over an extended period of time, requiring millions of years. There is no "empirical" proof that even validates it as a theory....only a "hypothesis" that sprang from Mr. Darwin's study of micro-evolution in the "speculation" that BIOLOGICAL LIFE has in its entirety evolved from non-living organic mass. And offers further speculation that "all" life is capable of evolving into any different form of species by adding information to its species DNA coding. Yet nothing has been proven to have ever evolved from the biological confines of one species to another in all the digs throughout history, in all the experiments, none have been able to be deemed reproducible or observed in history. While on the other hand biogensis (the generation of living things produced from other pre-existing life), is observed on a daily basis in nature. While "Abiogenesis" (the hypothesis that life evolved from organic non-living mass), has yet to even be theorized with any validity, even from within the confines of modern technologically advanced, climate controlled labs.

You continue to "trumpet" the small microevolutionary changes confined to any one species as "EVOLUTION", it simply is not proof of marcoevolution. Please produce the valid empirical studies that have shown marcoevolution and the morphing of one species into another as shown by observation in nature in real time or in fossil remains of history.

In fact, show me the empirical proof that correctly dates the earth as being billions of years old. Radiocarbon dating in neither infallible nor calibrated from any constant standard ranging past 5000 years.

As far as proving my faith, I do not have to prove it, because I accept it. But I do have to limit Pseudo Science from presenting theory as factual information that may destroy the faith of some that are not well founded in "science" actual, and simply take the words of those that politically trumpet an antiquated unprovable theory only for the purpose of wealth, greed and political power. As the majority of the research is funded by "we the people", and indoctrinated with bias in our public systems and educational institutions to the "exclusion" of other scientific theory. RD

You claim sound science, yet your evidence is built on shifting sand, and as often as not will be tossed out tomorrow for new evidence that will be tossed out again and again. The Bible is built on evidence that cannot be denied. With each passing year, the evidence for the Bible does not have to be tossed out, just the oppsite, it only confirms all the more of the Bibles truth. And that is a truth you simply donot want to believe, regardless of how true it is. And that is a fact. Your truth for Evolution changes, the Bibles truth is only confirmed.

you don't realize it but you just proved everything i just said!

So you agree that your truth is only good for a short time, until your new truth proves your old truth untrue? Which appears to happen a lot with the Theory of Evolution. And the evidence for the Bible only confirms what has already been stated? Is that the point you were trying to make?

Wealth, greed, and political power, you hit the nail on the head Sabz 5150. Never notice that some of these people don't even talk much about the teachings of Jesus or his Serman On The Mt. They seem to be using religion to explot people ,as they have down through history. Example the colonization of weaker nations, example the colonization of Mexico by Spain. Freewebs.com - Free website, free hosting, free webpage, online photo album, free blog, more!

no, my point is that you question evolution because it is a challenge to your faith and that is the ONLY reason you question it!

Evolution would of been tossed out as a Theory long ago because of it's lack of evidence. Yet, Science did not want to accept the Bible, so they embraced the Theory of Evolution.

I do not believe in the Theory because it does not agree with the Scriptures, and on that point you are correct.

Yet, Scripture has mounting evidence that things once thought of as myths of the Bible are actually true. And we are finding this on many fronts.

For years non believers in the Bible said King David did not exist, and that they said was just another Bible myth. Now they found another stone that gives a short history of King David and his role in Jerusalem.

So if we are now finding that the Bible is being confirmed as a Book of truth, why would one embrace a Theory that is not?

Evolution would of been tossed out as a Theory long ago because of it's lack of evidence. Yet, Science did not want to accept the Bible, so they embraced the Theory of Evolution. I donot believe in the Theory because it does not agree with the Scriptures, and on that point you are correct. Yet, Scripture has mounting evidence that things once thought of as myths of the Bible are actually true. And we are finding this on many fronts. For years non believers said that there was no record of Pontius Pilot being a official in Jerusalem. They said that was just a Bible myth. Now they found a dedication stone with Pilots name on it in Jerusalem. For years non believers in the Bible said King David did not exist, and that they said was just another Bible myth. Now they found another stone that gives a short history of King David and his role in Jerusalem. Many ancient and lost cities are being discoverd by useing the Bible as a road map. Skepties once rejected the Bible's claim that the Hittite Empire existed until they saw the evidence with their own eyes. So if we are now finding that the Bible is being confirmed as a Book of truth, why would one embrace a Theory that is not?

This is not so, science tosses out old theories when better ones come along, and scientists do not support any theory to keep it alive because their loyalty lies in the scientific process not in the theories, also even if evolution was wrong that does not by default make the bible right, there are many other religions books who make such similar claims, but you would have to independantly verify those claims, even if science wanted to embrace a religious book as completely true they could not, becuase science works only with natural phenomena.




yes, this was my point, and what i'm insenuating is that you are much more critical of it becuase it is a challenge to your faith, yet other more far-fetched theories receive little or no criticism from you or your ilk.



that is a different debate all togather!



I am unaware of any non-theist who ever questioned the existance of king david one way or the other, i simply lack adequet knowledge about king david to make such a judgement. I am also unaware of this evidence, and as a seeker of truth i will ask you for a link to this evidence.



you must realize that the existance of a god would not negate evolution. In-fact many theists now believe that god started and guided the process of evolution. The two beliefs do not stand in opposition!

The truth of the Biblical God would negate Evolution, because the Bible is not a Book of make believe stories. The Creation story would not be a myth, but a description of what actually happened.

There has been an on going debate as to the reality of the Biblical David. Just in recent times many were starting to say all we have for Davids existance is the Word of the Bible, which for a number of scholars was not enough. One such scholar wrote these words.

http:partners.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mckenzie-david.html

This is all starting to change. As I have stated before, the Bible just continues to reveal it's truth. It is a Book that can totally be trusted, because it is a Book of truth.

why did you not respond to my other statements?



...and how do you know this? can you prove to me that it was not meant as a metaphor?



sorry i'm not apart of that debate, i don't know enough on the subject yet.




thanks, i'll check it out and let you know what i think



the egyptians had a book of truth too, no more truthful than yours...

If I don't respond to all your statements it's usually because of a time factor.

When the Bible describes something as a metaphor, it makes that obvious.

The Bible is not a Book of long stories with obscure meanings. The Bible is very direct, and to the point.

The Egyptians had a book considered the truth, yet unlike the Bible, their book is not backed up with fulfilled prophecies, or prophecies that speak of the future.

And the reason for this is because only god knows the future.

i have a feeling it's not. My questions were quite simple.



If it is sooo obvious as you make it sound why is there so much heated debate about the actuall meanings and literality of certain parts? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's not so obvious.



correct, the bible is a book of short stories with obscure meanings.




How do you know? I have a feeling you don't know much about egyptian polytheism, in-fact there is tellings that Osiris recieved a prophecy about a child who would replace him, so Osiris sought out to kill this child while he was still a baby, but the child's (Anubis) mother, nephysis hid him from Osiris, but Osiris was unable to kill the child and the prophecy was fullfilled when Anubis was older and Osiris was killed....Does this story sound familiar?



Every religion has their god(s).

Time for a science lesson, kids! Yaaaaay!

What is this micro and macro evolution thing?

"These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population. In general, macroevolution is the outcome of long periods of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the difference is simply the time involved. However, in macroevolution, the traits of the entire species are important. For instance, a large amount of variation among individuals allows a species to rapidly adapt to new habitats, lessening the chance of it going extinct, while a wide geographic range increases the chance of speciation, by making it more likely that part of the population will become isolated. In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution can sometimes be separate."

So, kids, basically the difference between micro and macro evolution is merely time. There are a few times when they can be separated, but for the most part it's all the same.

Now, moving on to this one bolded line.

macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as speciation

Speciation has been recorded. Quite a bit.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughoutSpeciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Look at "Observed Instances".



Why would I radiocarbon date anything that old? After 50,000 years radiocarbon goes from flawed to useless.

You date by another isotope, and here are the locations, isotopes used and dates found.

Type - No Dated - Method - Age (billions)

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) - 13 - Sm-Nd - 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites - 4 - Rb-Sr - 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) - 38 - Rb-Sr - 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) - 50 - Rb-Sr - 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) - 17 - Rb-Sr - 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites - 15 - Rb-Sr - 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) - 6 - Rb-Sr - 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites - 5 - Rb-Sr - 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) - 13 - Rb-Sr - 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites - 10 - Rb-Sr - 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) - 8 - Rb-Sr - 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites - 8 - Rb-Sr - 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) - 23 - Rb-Sr - 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites - 11 - Rb-Sr - 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites - 13 - Lu-Hf - 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites - Rb-Sr - 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) - 8 - Re-Os - 4.57 +/- 0.21

There you go. Are you ready to contest ALL of these? Four and a half billion years, give or take less than a percent.



You still haven't explained it. You can't. I don't have to prove science, either. If you can't see it, too bad. I'm not going to let religion destroy hard evidence with a supernatural being that nobody can explain. You have no REAL evidence to support this supernatural being, and you know it. Yet you do the "I don't have to!" dance in hopes that it will let you dodge that simple fact.

Wealth, greed and political power? Sorry, that's YOUR game. 700 Club anyone? Faith Based Initatives? Intelligent Design?