Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

you need to read up a bit on stuff like gene sequencing (Sanger sequencing) as well as the replication methodology of DNA and RNA. Also specific "unzipping chemicals like DNA polymerase can all be found in an intro molecular biology text.
I find it fascinating that, not only are fossils of "the losers" separated by expanses of time, we have contemporary(alive today) different phenotypic daughter species that are separated biogeographically from their parent spcie by some environmental chqnge (like plate tectonics, closing of a rift valley or isolation by desertification or inundation like the Med.

How are troglodytic daughter species genetically related to non cave dwelling members of common species( determined by DNA sequencing). Is this not a neat bit of adaptation and taking over an available niche??

Cave spiders , fish, mammals and insects are basically all different from other cave spiders etc... as seen from different cave systems throughout the planet.

Lake Baykal has demonstrated the evolution of animals like carnivorous amphipods the size of giant shrimp. Since the lake is over 25 million years old, about 80% of its plants and animals re endemic to this one place on earth.


PS, also, Nowhere on earth is there any geologic evidence of a planet wide biblical flood.

You sound like a precocious young person who's trying to learn, yet you need to delve further into some of the principles before you get somehow "stuck" on "WHAT you need to believe or disbelieve.

The prinicple of Irreducible complexity hqs nothing to do with "engineers on the job"> IT has only to do with wht you can PROVE is an organisms lowest common denominator of its biology. SO far, this hs never been determined by ID "scientists"

Aren't humans part of nature?

She's the goddess of time. She will outlast them all.

Of coarse, but many believe humans were created by god. +
The fact is, humans created many gods.

I have read up on all those topics you've suggested. If the answer to how random mutations can introduce the correct info into the DNA in the right sequence, it should be there. Instead it's like reading a very technical manual explaining how a printing press works. It explains in great detail how the press does a great job of reproducing blueprints. It even explains how errors in the machine might introduce a typo that could cause a slight improvement in the blueprints. But it does not produce a model that can produce macroevolution.

You can suggest reading but, eventually after everyone is familiar with the subject, you have to discuss the subject by asking and answering questions.

I proposed some ideas, and asked a lot of questions, why don't you answer them, or explain where my hypothesis is wrong?



Ps i agree about the flood.

could you expound on that? I don t get your point.

Yes, humans have created a lot of things. I have never witnessed one creating a god. Have you?

So sorry to interrupt, Brian but noticed your comment and I have a contribution.
We have all (most) witnessed the creation of gods. It happens when a great man dies. No one wants to speak ill of the dead, and so when remembering a great man his friends and acquaintances will often exaggerate his stories and his abilities and his wisdom etc. His descendants are even more likely to do so. Sometimes, if this goes on for long enough, the great man becomes a legend. His attributes take on a super human aspect. Imagine how this must have played out in ancient times, and you can see how some of the gods were created.

Me too. When farmerman asked me why all that time for creation of man I explained that God knew it would take that long for oil to form so I'd have gas for my toys.

It goes on: thus ensuring that we would pump all that stored carbon in the air, thus dooming our species through a new type of flood called climate change, which will lead in a few eons to our remains forming the oil necessary for the next criter's toys...

The case of Jesus comes to mind. Or the Roman emperors. It's pretty easy to make up a god.

One problem with the narrative being presented here is harping on "random mutation." Random does not mean what the religionists seem to think it means, or disingenuously define it as meaning. It does not mean rare, and it does not necessarily mean haphazard. It simply means indeterminate, unpredictable. If one flips a coin, there is always a 50-50 chance of it coming up heads. It may come up tails 15 or 20 times in a row, but for each iteration, the odds remain the same. Over time, with many, many iterations, the statistical probability will be borne out.

Therefore, a random mutation may in fact be a quite common occurrence--one simply cannot predict its occurrence for any particular iteration. Over time--and with evolution one deals in hundreds and thousands of generations--mutations can be written into the genetic code through the repetition of statistical probability. At any time that such a mutation confers a reproductive advantage, the probability of the effect of the mutation being inscribed in the genetic code of a species approaches one, and the probability of taxonomic change, over the stipulated long period of time, also approaches one. Macroevolution specifically means exactly that--the alteration of the genetic code over long periods of time, up to an including taxonomic change. The young earth creationists are not, of course, disposed to listen to any argument involving macroevolution, as a condition of the belief set to which they are fanatically dedicated. But they also don't subscribe to reasonable and demonstrable definitions of geologic time, and therefore cannot either see or accept the mechanisms of macroevolution

Random does not mean rare or unlikely. Mutation certainly can effect change in DNA. Macroevolution takes place over long periods of time. The geologic record demonstrates that such long periods of time have been available to the evolutionary process.

I strongly doubt it. Youve not presented any argument that represents a moderately full quiver of information about the subject. Your argument mostly harkens bck to your" worldview beliefs" and a consistent avoidance and denial of my points .

Thats kinda information-free Bullshit. I began my discussion with you with a recommendation thqt you become aware of the recent complex multivariate model that was presented in This past March' s American Scientist magazine. It looked at the contingency of evolution through time. It tested whether evolution would "repeat itself" in manner similar to the path it had taken. Much modelling based on single, and multivariate analyses has been done to exhaustion (YOU are apparently merely ignorant of the literature and merely like to "throw around" the term statistical modelling(as if you thought if it), perhaps so you could introduce some "math" so you wouldnt sound obtuse .

You can do a quick search of several evolution journals, and go read at U libraries (Im limited to the number of downloads I can make based on our subscription) and Im getting a sneaking suspicion that your really not interested in any objectiveinformation,

YOU are the one who brought up the issue of the number of engineers building a car, not me!!. Perhaps you should spend some time making notes of what you say.
By"lowest common denominator" I applied a term that is based on simple long division. Irreducible complexity (for IDers), is about a recognizable genotypic or somatic variable within an organism that
1 controls a specific phenotypice shape or function in that organism and

2 whose underlying genetic structure cannot be broken down into any simpler observable genic function

So far, all attempts at ferreting out these IC's have failed. Thats where the ID defense at the Dover Pa trial failed to make one of its keystone hypotheses.(It was on its way to becoming one of their theories).

The fact that you dont "believe" in macro evolution is no skin off my back.However, The fact that you reinforce this belief by mostly ignoring others is rather rude when you then claim that others dont answer YOUR questions.

All I can do is assign some pertinent sections of texts. How did you like what Carroll said about the evolution of a black mambas venom or "ice fish" blood? and the repetition of calcium channel blockers serving many functions in many phyla of animals? Or how bout the repetition oof pseudo genes (fossil genes) in severeal unrelated species in their coding of their opsin genes?
When common function of a chemical like that supports a common ancestry that goes back to the beginnings of life itself, dont you find that fascinating to be able to see these connections through time and species?

Fascinating. I had to google ice fish blood.

BTW, mutations are only one possible source of new DNA code. Another very important source for new DNA code would be the recombination of parental DNA through appariement of chromosom pairs during meiosis. Such random exchange of info between the genome inherited from one parent and the genome inherited from the other parent leads in some cases to brand new "frankenstein" code with part of a gene coming from parent A and the rest from parent B.

Details here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover

Viruses can also insert new code into DNA.

the pseudigenes (fossil genes) for making hemoglobin are right there in their genomes, just turned off as their environment migrated steadily southwards. They traded haemoglobin for antifreeze (and to top it off), theyve inherited a number of unique body features such as huge pecs and bug eyes and a modified bunch of teeth that gave it the "crocodile" name. Yet all in all, these fiash, after carefule study since their discovery by Ruud and confirmed by Shackelton (1928) are daughter species of the Black Cod whose ,opportunistic , neutral mutations , by necessity began performing a needed function in providing an antifreeze as the southern oceans chilled over the last 30 million years or so.

The opportunities of genomics now allows us to look at founder and daughter species , genera, families and higher taxa and evaluting their fossil genes and epigenes. Its as if we can follow the path that natural selection, being provided the plateful of mutations, has resulted in the evolution of strange and wonderful beings that , when looked at objectively, one can only reach the simple conclusion of how they really came to be.(Hint: an it doesnt seem that some cosmic brain was on the job)

I sorta feel a bit of pity for the deniers of these simple facts. Searching for "Darwins God" seems to me to be such a foundationless task, where all ones science discoveries have to fit some kind of mythology.

yep yep

and yep. However We always seem to focus on environmental effects since they are somethings we can get on soapboxes over.

You are less subtle than the rest but this really makes up the bulk of the criticism of ID here.

I haven't seen a 'young earth creationist' around here in a long time, but it makes a nice straw man argument I guess.