Evolution & Mutation in front of our eyes

So, by this logic, Man in the early stages of his so called "evolution" used the other 90% of his brain that he does not now use. If it was not intended to be used why was it evolved? As all evolution is based upon need, the survival of the fittest. So, by this logic man had the capacity for more intelligence and has lost it due to there not being a need, which would be a valid point, judging by some of mans perceptions of nature. And if both man and His brain have evolved, then both mans breasts and gray matter are to be deemed "Evolved"....No? Why would nature evolve something that it does not need? And as always, when unable to comprehend an intelligent answer the point is attempted to be "deflected"....you sure, that that there is not a little "liberalism" in your cognation to reason? The Spirit of man enters upon conception, the moment that life begins, concluded by the fact it is death that brings the release of mans spirit, then it must be life actual that brings about the Spirit, When two different imprinted strains of DNA join to form one "NEW" soul, individual from the hosting parents, yet carrying the same DNA blueprint. RD

So, by this logic, Man in the early stages of his so called "evolution" used the other 90% of his brain that he does not now use.

READ MY LIPS: The brain is not a vestigal organ!


If it was not intended to be used why was it evolved? As all evolution is based upon need, the survival of the fittest. So, by this logic man had the capacity for more intelligence and has lost it due to there not being a need, which would be a valid point, judging by some of mans perceptions of nature. And if both man and His brain have evolved, then both mans breasts and gray matter are to be deemed "Evolved"....No?

...and again those are NOT vestigal structures!

Why would nature evolve something that it does not need?

If you're talking about vestigal structures then let me answer: They have a purpose when the are first developed but lose their purpose and evolve into a form where such an organ/structure is not needed.

The Spirit of man enters upon conception, the moment that life begins, concluded by the fact it is death that brings the release of mans spirit, then it must be life actual that brings about the Spirit, When two different imprinted strains of DNA join to form one "NEW" soul,

I'd love to see you prove this statement!

RD

Vestigial is deemed as something that is not used due to it being obsolete. To claim that something is not vestigial, because is does not fit into the "pigeon hole" of some theory is a common method used by "evolutionists". According to the "theory" of evolution, everything has evolved to promote the survival of the fittest. If man's brain has evolved to promote this hypothesis, of survival of the fittest, then by logic it must be Vestigial.

To make the theory of evolution work and have a "reasonable" explanation for the Big Bang theory and the process of evolution to breach the law of mass/matter conservation and promote biological life from the inert stableness of fully formed inert elements not to have breached this law due to the universe being in a closed system(an example of theory being stacked upon theory to conform to existing theory, pseudo science has redefined the universe as being a "CLOSED" system.

The obvious reason for such is so that any theory that is presented can be explained as conforming to this LAW. If that were the case, Mr. Einstein certainly wasted an extra ordinary amount of his time, explaining how, "Special Relativity" is the only exception to the law of mass matter conversion, you think not? If there was nothing in the universe that was a qualifier to the breaching of such.

I did not read every post on this thread, so forgive me if I am a little off key here, I only read the first post and I would just like to give a short response.

Any creationist that said evolution and mutation are not real, is an idiot. An intelligent creationist would say that while things certainly evolve and mutate, nothing EVER evolves into a completely different species. That is the difference between Macro and Micro evolution. Without a current example of MACRO evolution, the whole theory of evolution will never be anything more than a theory, and a pretty feeble one at that.

Well, I believe the world is less than ten thousand years old, so if I showed you any of those things, I would proving myself wrong.

Why dont you show me a current example of one species evolving into another? Ill make it even easier for you. Why dont you show me some proof that it is even possible? And dont waste your time talking about the fossil record, I have seen it, and it dosent work, way to many gaps.

Why dont you show me a current example of one species evolving into another?

Evolution has been observed of the Finches of the galapogos islands.

What have they evolved into,some other species or are they still of the same kind? All this points to and confirms is the fact that both microevolution and biogenesis both are valid theories and work within the confines of species as science and nature do not teach the change of species as designed. There has been no DNA added, only reconfigured to allow for adaptation to their environment. This always takes place, someone trying to slip in mircoevolution and biogenesis off as MARCOEVOLUTION and ABIOGENESIS.
Since we are back on the subject, here is a simple scientific fact for you to ponder.

THE POPULATION OF THE EARTH.

The Earth has been dated at around 4 billion years old. We've got evidence of that one too.



Ah, trying to rule out the fossil record. Well, since you have shown no education in other fields of science, I will be using the fossil record anyway.

Archaeopteryx. No matter how many times you cry hoax, the evidence is in our favor. All ten times. This was laid to rest over 20 years ago. Transitional between reptile and bird. Other evidence to support this is in fossilized tissue which greatly resembles birds.

Tiktaalik. Here's the big one. Tik's existence isn't what's important. What's neat with this is that Evolution theory told us where to look for this. Guess what we found. A creature with both features of fish and features of tetrapods.

Now, here's where I get technical and wipe the floor with you.



First. Your descriptions of evolution (Dog turns into Cow) and your above quote again show your ignorance in science. Firstly, you give two impossible examples. Dogs and Cows aren't even in the same family or order! The genetics would be impossible. You'd have to go BACKWARDS through the line to make that work. Not understanding this elementary concept shows you are not fit to discuss evolution.

Secondly, and getting to the point.



See that? It's a liger. No, not the magical beast of Napoleon Dynamite fame.

Now, that creature comes about by mixing the genetics of a lion with that of a tiger. Hence the name. No other way does that animal exist. There were no ligers on the Ark.

So... you mix the two and come out with what... a brand new animal. Still a cat, but not a tiger and not a lion. What is it then? Could it be genetics creating something new... possibly evolving into something just a bit different?

It is said that these new animals cannot reproduce, however we now know that is not always the case. So, if this mating of lion and tiger were to happen naturally (and it has on rare cases... nowadays lions and tigers really don't see much of each other), and fertile offspring were produced, what would that be?

A new species.

Anything more you want to know?

The finches have evolved into different variations becuase of their rapidly changing evoirment. You see there was one large galapagos island where the finch inhabited, through geothermic and techtonic movement the island split into several differnt islands and the finch gradually changed to better servive on the different islands. One island has more nuts, so the finches on that island because stronger, and the finches with thicker beaks prospered there, while on another island where few tress were the finches had to survive by pecking bugs and worms out of the ground, so the faster more narrow beaked finches prospered on that island, and so on.... this type of adaptation was predicted of wildlife throught the theory of evolution.



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.
QUOTE]

The finches have evolved into different variations becuase of their rapidly changing evoirment. You see there was one large galapagos island where the finch inhabited, through geothermic and techtonic movement the island split into several differnt islands and the finch gradually changed to better servive on the different islands. One island has more nuts, so the finches on that island because stronger, and the finches with thicker beaks prospered there, while on another island where few tress were the finches had to survive by pecking bugs and worms out of the ground, so the faster more narrow beaked finches prospered on that island, and so on.... this type of adaptation was predicted of wildlife throught the theory of evolution.




hmmm... sorry i don't see the relevance!

Now Sabz, can you show us the Archaeopteryx that has not been call a hoax, one that everyone can agree is the real thing?

The adapting of birds to survive in their environment is not proof of either Marcoevolution nor Abiogenesis as neither have been proven to evolve pass the original imprinted coding of their DNA structure by having more information introduced into said structure.

How many different strains have K-9s split into to adapt to climate, geographical location, etc.? Wolves, Dogs, Fox, and so on. 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)

which as been both reproducible in experimentation and observed in nature, a fact of which Marcoevolution, the hypothesis that one species has evolved into a totally different species via natural random happenstance of adding information to DNA base structure, has never been able to accomplish.

And if you can not see the relevance of how the human population has "naturally" been proven to exponentially expand by more than 7.5 billion people in a little over 5000 years would put into question the theory that man has existed for some 3,000,000 years, I might suggest a pair of dark glasses and a German Shepard.

Would we not now have a population exponentially expanded by 7.5 Billion multiplied by 3000000/5000? Which would be another Paradox to the theory of evolution and radiometric dating?

As the earth would have reached its threshold of sustainability long before this number could have been breached. And if one might suggest the consideration of unexplained variables and how this might effect the population growth, why does Pseudo Science not hold carbon dating in the same consideration and calculate the probability of water leaching and the effect that the earth's magnetic field holds on all C-14 element dating?

And speaking of radiometric dating one might consider......Atmospheric Helium. As it is formulated by the constant decay of the radioactive elements URANIUM and THORIUM. Our present atmosphere should contain 1.4 parts per million of Helium if the earth was in the billions of years in age. However the present atmosphere contains enough to suggest thousands of years in age, not billions. (3.5 x 1011 grams/year). Atmoshperic chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earths magnetic field is decaying.
Earths magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has lost almost 6% of its power in the last 150 years. Based on figures from 1835 to 1965, the half-life of the magnetic field is calculated to be only 14,000 years old in its current polarity. Extrapolated backward to just 20000 years, the heat produced by the magnetic field would make life on the planet earth non viable. If the earth is billions of years old and held true to calulations it would be in molten liquid state in less than double that figure. Also one must consider the effect that fewer cosmic rays reaching the earth due to the strength of the field. Would it not drastically alter C-14 dating, which depends upon cosmic rays? Another Paradox to the absolute methodology of dating fossils by Pseudo Science? These facts have been presented by "science actual" in its claims to the "knowledge of the truth". RD

Incorrect. Increases in genetic information have been recorded. Plants can easily increase their genetic information. Sometimes by a factor of two or three.



Proven theory? You are no longer capable of speaking science.

Primula kewensis is a flower that is a new species. There is a new mosquito. Yes. New. You admit that dogs split to adapt to climate. THAT DESTROYS BIOGENESIS. THAT IS A CHANGE IN SPECIES. You admit yourself that is true! If wolves (one species) can beget dogs (another species) as you and Campbell have admitted, and has been shown time and time again, then your "Proven theory" is shot dead in the water.

Wolves gave rise to dogs. One species to the next. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?



You once again fail to see how science works.

Macroevolution means changes ABOVE

And plants being studied in "MIRCO" biology and remaining in the same "SPECIES" provides "PROOF" that animals, and or plants have "CHANGED" species or gained DNA coding......HOW?

When the claims that are questioned are in 'MACRO' evolution not 'MICRO' evolution and How BIOGENESIS has been somehow disproven by what "empirical" proof of "MACROEVOLUTION". AS I SAID PLEASE PRESENT EITHER THE EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION OR ABIOGENESIS, with either providing a reproducible experiment or a natural observation.

And present the "experimental" observed proof that scientifically concludes that a plants ability to adapt to its environment has been altered by adding information to its DNA foundation of structure

when it has been proven that animals cannot "cross" pollinate between species as plants do, thus borrowing DNA Coding from other plants not creating new codes.

And while you are looking for those proofs that do not exist, try explaining how a 3000000 year old earth could support a population that has been proven to grow at a rate of 7.5 billion over only a 5000 year period.

And presenting more "theorized" proof does not "trump" empirically observed evidence of magnetic decay, especially when they conclude that they do not know the cycles, when we are speaking of an age of only less than 20,000 years(and a recorded or calibratable history of only 5000 years) not some "imagined" billions of years that has not been empirically proven, only "theorized"....what you present by pasting is exactly that, a temporary glue that actually does not do any "permanent" bonding. RD

No. New species of plants that have been studied and found to be direct (like parent/child) descendants of different species does.

DNA can increase. That has been PROVEN.



The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Hmmm... evidence for abiogenesis. Well... we're here, aren't we? Didn't we come from nothing, as claimed in your religion? Isn't that abiogenesis?

Again, your lack of science knowledge shines. Abiogenesis isn't needed for evolution. Whatsoever. Nope. Not needed. Try again.

Your so-called macroevolution is shown in transitional forms. Evolution itself is about several small changes eventually adding up to become big ones. It's a simple concept, I do not see how you cannot understand it.

Show me evidence for PURE biogenesis.



Polyploidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The occurrence of polyploidy is a mechanism of speciation and is known to have resulted in new species of the plant Salsify (also known as "goatsbeard")

Polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30-80 % of living plant species are polyploid, and many lineages show evidence of ancient polyploidy (paleopolyploidy) in their genomes [3]. Huge explosions in Angiosperm species diversity appear to coincide with the timing of ancient genome duplications shared by many species [4]. Polyploid plants can arise spontaneously in nature by several mechanisms, including meiotic or mitotic failures, and fusion of unreduced (2n) gametes [5]. Both autopolyploids (eg; potato) and allopolyploids (eg; canola, wheat, cotton) can be found among both wild and domesticated plant species. Most polyploids display heterosis relative to their parental species, and may display novel variation or morphologies that may contribute to the processes of speciation and eco-niche exploitation [6]. The mechanisms leading to novel variation in a newly formed allopolyploids may include gene dosage affects(resulting from increased copies of genome content), the reunion of diverged gene regulatory hierarchies, chromosomal rearrangements, and epigenetic remodeling, all of which affect gene content and/or expression levels [7]. Many of these rapid changes may contribute to reproductive isolation and speciation.



Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




1 This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years.

2 There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years.



If they don't know the cycles, then how do you know YOUR information is correct? This could be a normal thing.

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).

Sorry dude, you don't know science. Stop acting like you do.