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

I didn't mean wiki isn't footnoted and based on research. I meant that Olivier has not taken the time to read the footnoted articles and do the research into what his beliefs are based on. I have read a lot of them and they mostly support similar arguments as the one farmer and you suggest i read, which are not studies of the feasibility of random mutations providing the new information.

Of course I have researched the issue perhaps 20 times more than you have but nevermind.

wait a wee, If genetic variability(of which mutation is but one means) does NOT provide the "New information" what, in your thinking, does?

What other ways does new information enter DNA besides mutations since, they are only one means? In the end all changes enter the physical world are entering either randomly, intelligently. Or, is there something in between?

Its not always the quantity of the data but the quality of the interpretation of the data. I like to see where you got your information, and discuss the interpretation. I enjoyed farmer providing a document, and then discussing an interpretation of the information it is providing. I like comparing interpretations from opposing views like we started to do with farmers proposed document on th evolution of the eye. I think that is the best way to reach the so called truth.

lets start with fertilization where entire strands are unzipped and recombined between 2 organisms from different families

Please excuse my poor grammar in that last post since it was short I didn't proof read it.

If any changes occur at fertilization i would say they are randomly or intelligently introduced. But, if they are random they have boundaries put on their randomness because, of the order that was already preexisting in the DNA code before fertilization. Those boundaries were in turn established by random or intelligent actions that had boundaries also. Because of the preestablished boundaries the changes are usually minute. I see no evidence of intelligence entering DNA today, nor macro evolution happening today. How is 'this relevant to random mutations being the driver macroevolution.

how old are you really?

Sorry about my ramble. I was thinking out loud. I shouldn't have posted it. Please continue. Your point that unzipping of DNA during sexual reproduction provides a mechanism for random changes to provide the necessary new info for macro evolution is backed up by what evidence to support this assumtion. Please give me one article to read. not a the subject of sexual reproduction.

Indeed, that's exactly your problem. You find it impossible to understand the simplest idea because you never really studied genetics. You lack the adequate scientific basis. So you write massive amounts of text but there's almost no knowledge or truth in them. It's just verbiage.

For instance, you ask for a model again and again, and once given the proof that they exist, you change the subject. Why? Because you lack intellectual structure and discipline.

You dont seem to understand gene sequencing (Snger sequencing), so your questions seem to be quite out of "sequence".
Theres a bunch of good texts on DNA
( I recommend Watson's book called, amazingly enough DNA, or Molcular Biology for dummies)

These texts discuss how we can display the genomes of mice and men, so e can actually measure the rates of mutation at a site [per yqr per gene] So the 5x10 -e10 is not model , its a lab count ,and its got a definite use in evolution (sorta likke what we used to call Avogadros number)and it is the basis of how we know that certain mutations, and other gene variability occurs and (actually what they look like) .
You realize we can actually look at the gene structure using what I called knokout structures tht stand in for ACTG and U. SO many things can be done with equipment you have in a modern HS chem lab. (chromatography, PCR, electrophoresis) I think weve patiently discussed this with you and youre still floating about this "I dont think theres enough "mutation" to account for new "information"

Sounds pretty much like defiant ID to me.

Like this one doesnt even make sense. an entire series of alleles are entered into the new mix, where do you get the "intelligently introduced"? unless your now talking about arranged marriages??. Also, sexual selection for mating is another "red Queen" display of coevolution's bag of tricks

I am saying we are no longer seeing macroevolution. Are you seeing it? If so, where? All we see now is selective breeding by nature, or by man. Show me evidence supporting anything else. Why am I the defiant one, all I ask for is sighted sources to support your belief. All I get is Brian you need to read about this broad subject and that other broad subject and you will have an ahaa moment. Give me sighted sources supporting your point of view please.

will you accept macroevolution at scales of lifetime? about 1000 years ? maybe 10000years? How about the entire Pleistocene?.

You guys , on one hand, revel at the "Cambrian Explosion supposedly only 20 MILLION yars, but you only accept macrovolution in your lifetime? Kinda inconsistent neh?

Ill ask my paleontologist when I get back home next week. Im not the company expert on paleo xcept where "INDEX" fossils are concerned

Ive "cited" sources over and over. You seem to dismiss everything that doesnt support your worldview. I dont
"BELIEVE" , I evaluate where the bulk of evidence lies and conclude. You seem to conclude and then try to find anything that agrees.

Could you show me where i dismissed your evidence, and you provided an explanation of where my reasoning was wrong.

Usually Christians and science can at least agree and be humble enough to admit that our lives are shockingly short and inconsequential to the universe and that things we think we know in our lifetime are but pale imaginings compared to what truly exists out there all around us.

Religious folk compare their knowledge to an omnipotent god while scientists simply marvel at the scope and grandeur of the universe and the unfathomable timeline that the universe has existed and realize that the speck of time that humans have been on Earth, amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things.


Here we have BrianJakub not even able to be that humble.....

We have decent recorded history of a few thousand years. We have been breeding animals for that long. No evidence. Could still be happening. I don't know for sure. I think you are just assuming it is still happens and some day we will observe it. I think intelligence factors into macroevolution, and until we learn to engineer DNA well enough we wont see macroevolution. In the end we are both making assumptions that are nearly impossible to prove.

Mircoevolution and macroevolution explained. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I'm sorry Brian, but even 'thousands of years' isn't even an eyelash in the blink of an eye that humans have been on this earth.

Can you admit that it's completely unfathomable (in the literal sense of that word) to understand or comprehend what even 10,000 years would be like much less millions of years (or billions).