Help me understand this better.

All of the anti evolution information I've studied, very few at the moment - I'm on the beginning of my learning journey here, say that natural selection cannot create a new species no matter the amount of time.
Natural Selection is taught to be the very thing that preserves species. Adaptation occurs with genetic material already present often reverting back and forth as in the birds Darwin studied on the Gal. islands, and that is why evolutionists rely on mutations to support the theory.
They go on to say that genetic mutations are 1.) Always harmful (not beneficial) and 2.) that they don't provide new genetic material to accomplish the changing from one species to another. The mutations just rearrange, or omit existing genetic material. Mutations may grow a leg where it shouldn't be, but it won't form a new organ.

"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how?. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy."

Pierre-Paul Grass?, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Pierre-Paul Grass?, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88.

What is the standard evolutionist rebuttal for this claim? Is this out dated? How so? Please don't yell at me, or put me down, or call me stupid, or ignorant. Just respond rationally and help me learn.

Also... Sorry but I didn't understand the part about the pets. What are we seeing in these pets now? Were you saying that we are seeing them evolve into a new species or adapting to changing environments? Or both?

That was a good one...

If you ever debate theists or anti-evolutionists, try to use precisely their "How do you explain that, huh?" argument against them.

And what I've had in mind for this one is the problem of water mammals (whales, dolphins, etc.). Now... considering the Creationist thing, would anyone PLEASE explain why these creatures (VERY visible at whales, due to size) have some eerie bones at the back of their abdomen that are unused, just staying there, and that look like... would you believe it... legs ? What would possibly the purpose of that ? Dump the "God testing us" argument, as, according to the Bible, you are not allowed to open a dead body, be it human or animal, in order to perform any medicine operation on it, so you will not SEE those bones... And also, by that time, Jews weren't hunting whales for food, I'm certain of that... And it's pretty damn hard to kill a whale as welleven under present circumstances.

So just ask that and see what answers you get.

It is impossible to ask for a creature, be it human or animal, to react instantly to any drastic environmental changes. There are certain things that the body reacts to: you're in a disco, loud music and such, your ears adapt to it and it won't bother you in a matter of maybe half an hour. But if you hear a blast from a Magnum right next to your ear, that most definitely WILL shred your drums... Macroevolution and environmental adaptation does take time... a whole lot of time... and genetics plays a very important role in it. It's nobody's fault that we can't live 10000 years in order to observe it.

Also, on a different matter: mutation can cause evolution, contrary to what Pierre-Paul Grass? stated. There's been an experiment about 7 years ago with bacteria... We know that the number and shape of chromosomes can and does accidentally change (consider the Down syndrome, the Cri-du-chat syndrome and many others). There is a chance (very low, but there is) that such a mutation can cause a positive effect, thus creating a new species. The platypus is presumed to have evolved such. It's like the comparison most theists really love to say when they disagree with spontaneous life generation: "If you put a plane's parts into a hangar, and a tornado goes in, would it place the plane parts in such a perfect order that they will form a functional plane?" The answer is most probably not, but there is a chance of 1 in 1xE712 for it to actually do it. Very low chance, but there is one.

True, but it only applies to DEVELOPED organisms. Most genetical mutations in the body are harmless even if they remain and are transmitted (there is a "tolerance" system built in the gene pool, by which the same protein can be coded by many different similar combinations of 3 genes; if one of the genes mutates from A to T in a valid combination, for example, the same substance is produced as a result, therefore: no problem at all), some are actually positive (the split muscles syndrome or the troll syndrome), but they all occur in the egg cell... whatever occurs in a developed body must occur in all cells at the same time, otherwise cells will stop recognising each other and consume their neighbours (fagocitosis cancer).

Hope to have proved my point.

The premise or foundation of these arguments is wrong to begin with AND purposefully intellectually dishonest to shut down evolutionary theory.

Natural Selection, does not necessarily preserve species, it can, if the conditions are right....but more importantly what it does is that it guides evolution of species based on selective pressures. It SELECTS certain traits over others or preserves certain traits over others based on selective pressures (ie..predation, food procurement, temperature, arboreal vs. fossorial life etc..) Mutations occur all the time...there are mutations happening right now..in your own body. If these mutations are unfavorable, natural selection, will undoubtedly make sure they do not reproduce. Keep in mind also that Natural Selection works on many levels from Macro to Micro.....

What most creationsts do not take into account, as said, over and over, is that the earth is so old that over time various selective pressures on various organisms have produced, based on the various mutations, the diversity of life we have today; which is all related on both physical and biochemical levels. All organs of all organisms share in function and physical attributes they are all modified. A rhino's horn, for example is nothing but thightly packed hair, not a new organ. A Chameleon's tongue, is just that a modified tongue, Scales on reptiles are made of keratin, the same substance human hair, skin and fingernails are composed of, we have a coccyx, which is a vestige of a tail, a dolphin's flippers or a bat's wing, have 5 "fingers". The fossil record clearly shows the "relative" slow evolution of various species. We will not find all teh missing "links" however, we have more than enough justification.

Keep in mind also that there are not only genetic mechanisms at work here but also epigenetic mechanisms..that function to silence genes etc..under certain selective conditions. So the gene is passed on to the next generation, however it may never be expressed, based on natural pressures.

The theory of Natural Selection is simplified by the creatinosists...so that it fits comfortobaly in their little book. But even within their own arguments they contradict themselves....If the bible is the end all book, why do you not see any of these arguments within the bible? The answer is simple, back then they did not have the understanding of science as we know it today...and the bible, a book of stories, clearly fails to stand up to the scientific evidence of today. So what the creationsist are now cleverly doing is that they are tring to define biblical prophecy using big science words....that is contradictory within their own paradigm, as teh bible clearly refutes all science simply by not mentioning science, therefore rendering all religious science arguments false, and also on a scientific level, because they are twisting and turing science....to fit their creation agenda.

(The following is not a defense of evidence in question to create an argument or any sort of animosity, but merely to show that the evidence is solid enough for rational discussion.)

The evidence does take the old earth into account. Although Natural Selection is not "random," the mutations are. And since mutations are not beneficial, it is questionable that they would have anything to do with Natural Selection besides the mutants themselves dying off b/c of the negative effects they would have on the species. It is difficult to see life spreading, diversifying, and improving under such negative random mutations.

I've also read compelling rebuttals of the fossil line of human evolution like:

"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race? The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree? Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered."

Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.

And the finding of Sahelanthropus tchadensis in Central Africa in 2002 is said to "sink our current ideas about human evolution."
-----John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," , 11 July 2002. http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020708/full/020708-12.html

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated"

John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002

"Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable."

The Guardian, 11 July 2002

Like I said above, there seems to be a general unconcensus among everybody.

Obviously all are entitled to choose to ignore the evidence. Some say the sky is blue and some say there is no sky. Which would you believe? But I think the biology community as a whole is pertty much united. You alwasy have "dissenters" these guys however, work under assumptions and extrapolations. Most have a hidden agenda as well, such as pushing religion.

2 things here,

First many discoveries in the fossil record have been made since he wrote this in 1991.

Second, there are many theories that are building on Darwin's theory. Chaos theory being one. Epigenetics being another. That's the beauty of science. But there is absolutely no one...who thinks that Darwin's theory of evolution as a grand scheme concept is wrong. There may be differences in theoris about mechanisms....but this is the very beauty of science... show me peered reviewed papers....I can write a book about the Flying spaghetti monster... and publish it.

Again, many discovries have been made....since this was written.
I also find intriguing how anti-evolutionsts will pick little points like...see it's been ONE HUNDRED YEARS!!!!! and NOTHING...which is a false claim to begin with..but get out of the anthropogenic time table here for a sec. It's not like we have "map" or a "book" or a convenient " bible" to tell us where to find the fossils...hell we are very luck to find fossils to begin with... All this is red herring. It also seems to me that these authors don't necessarily have a problem WITH evolution, only the mechanics of it..which is exactly how science works....you build a theory and you test it.
Stephen J. Gould as well as Niles Eldredge use Punctuated Equilibrium to interpret fossil data..however...fossil data is still not fully complete..which is fine, however, neither disputes evolution, and theirs, again, is a theory that will be modified as new species in the fossil record are discovered. To deconstruct their arguments into simplistic anti-darwin evolution is a straw man argument that requires no apologetics. Science works this way... plain and simple.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

This small dog-sized animal is the oldest found horse ancestor that lived about 55 million years ago. It had a primitive short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between the front teeth and the cheek teeth). Although it has low-crowned teeth, we see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars.

The earliest evidence of this ?little horse? is found in the middle Eocene of Wyoming, about 2 million years after the first appearance of Hyracotherium. The two genera coexisted during the Eocene, although Orohippus fossils are not as numerous or as geographically widespread as those of Hyracotherium. Fossils of Orohippus have been found in Eocene sediments in Wyoming and Oregon, dating from about 52-45 million years ago.

The "middle horse" earned its name. Mesohippus is intermediate between the eohippus-like horses of the Eocene, (which don't look much like our familiar "horse" and more "modern" horses. Fossils of Mesohippus are found at many Oligocene localities in Colorado and the Great Plains of the US (like Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada. This genus lived about 37-32 million years ago.

Species of Miohippus gave rise to the first burst of diversity in the horse family. Until Miohippus, there were few side branches, but the descendants of Miohippus were numerous and distinct. During the Miocene, over a dozen genera existed. Fossils of Miohippus are found at many Oligocene localities in the Great Plains, the western US and a few places in Florida. Species in this genus lived from about 32-25 million years ago.

Parahippus appears to be the evolutionary ?link? between the old forest-dwelling horses and the modern plains-dwelling grazers. It has 3 toes, like primitive horses, but the side toes are smaller. They are "horse-faced," or long-headed with the eye socket well back from the middle of the skull. Fossils of Parahippus are found at many early Miocene localities in the Great Plains and Florida. Species in this genus lived from 24-17 million years ago.

Merychippus represents a milestone in the evolution of horses. Though it retained the primitive character of 3 toes, it looked like a modern horse. Merychippus had a long face. Its long legs allowed it to escape from predators and migrate long distances to feed. It had high-crowned cheek teeth, making it the first known grazing horse and the ancestor of all later horse lineages. Fossils of Merychippus are found at many late Miocene localities throughout the United States. Species in this genus lived from 17-11 million years ago.

"Grandfather" to the modern horse, Pliohippus appears to be the source of the latest radiation in the horse family. It is believed to have given rise to Hippidion and Onohippidion, genera that thrived for a time in South American, and to Dinohippus which in turn led to Equus. Fossils of Pliohippus are found at many late Miocene localities in Colorado, the Great Plains of the US (Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada. Species in this genus lived from 12-6 million years ago.

Dinohippus is believed to be the closest relative to Equus, the genus that includes the living horses, asses and zebras. Dinohippus fossils are found in the Upper Miocene of North America and date from 13 - 5 million years ago.

Equus is the only surviving genus in the once diverse family of horses. Domesticated about 3,000 years ago, the horse had a profound impact on human history in areas such as migration, farming, warfare, sport, communication, and travel. Species of Equus lived from 5 million years ago until the present. Living species include horses, asses, and zebras. Fossils of Equus are found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica.

Question is: are you willing to LOOK at the evidence or ignore the evidence? The evidence is there.. undisputed. If you are color blind; red is still red.

On the Horse and Hyrax.

It is obvious that there are differences from Hyracotherium to the Hyrax, just as there are differences to the horse. Hyracotherium is also said to have been just as good of an ancestor to the Rhinocerose as the Horse, but was placed with the horse b/c of the other species found that could possibly fit in. The charts are obviously prejudice as to depict the small animal in illustrations to be so horse - like. Our interpretation of fossils can be so misleading. At one time we tagged a fossilized fish from the coelacanth family as a transitional form b/c it had a partial lung. That sounded pretty good until we found one alive despite the "fact" it should have been extinct for 70 million years. They didn't have the primitive lung or the large brain that we had theorized. So is the Hyracotherium relative to the hyrax? the rhino? the horse? To take a line of complete fossilized species, whos relation is scientifically questionable and claim them to be the doctrine of the evolution of the horse is not Intelligibly Responsible. To say that it is possible... ok. But to claim it fact and only teach one side of possibilities does not seem scientific. And no... I'm not saying that teaching more than one side includes creationism, or God, or yada yada... just don't teach these hypothesis as fact. Present truth to people... not propaganda.

first...
I will say this...if you are here for discussion or EVEN debate that's fine. The reason why I was showing animosity towards you was because you were here under false pretences...to push an agenda.... A troll in other words, I've been around a while to know. However, if you put your cards out on the table to begin with (whether you're a creationist, ID, evolutionist whatever)..then we can move forward. But put those cards out on the table, don't come here asking red herring questions and setting up straw man arguments under the guise of "ignorance" or even "friendliness". Since you've mentioned you will put your agenda aside and are willing to discuss...I will take a more friendly tone with you..now...
to my response...
ok, now you're talking a bit more sense. I'll give you that science and scientists do make mistakes. We would not be human if we didn't. But to correct those mistakes science is needed. NOT a fairy tale. Creationsists tend to use mistakes science made to bolster their ideas. I find it kinda funny that they have to do that in order to prove themselves right, becasue essentially they have no proof of their own, so they have to rely solely on the mistakes of scientists...to say " SEE, blah blah blah. It must be god or an intelligent design"

Also, science is biased of course it is..that is why there is a little something called peer review. And believe me there are always competing theories. Most evolutionists' goals in life IS in fact to prove Darwin wrong....not in the sense that evolution is wrong but to find other mechanisms..Chaos theory for example..the complete theory that evolution occurs not because fo genes, but because of other factors...

Example:
"Evolutionary biology rests on the assumption that although events are fundamentally random, some are selected because they are better adapted than others to the surrounding world. This book proposes an alternative view of evolving complexity. Bird argues that randomness means not disorder but infinite order. Complexity arises not from many random events of natural selection (although these are not unimportant) but from the "playing out" of chaotic systems?which are best described mathematically. When we properly understand the complex interplay of chaos and life, Bird contends, we will see that many events that appear random are actually the outcome of order."

Excerpt taken from a review on J. Bird's "Chaos and Life
Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought" book
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/023112662X.HTM

These are arguments from scientists that need to be hypothesized, tested, and withstand time....

Natural Selection has been shown to do that...in the lab, in the field, through the fossil record, in microorganisms, in macroorganisms, on a molecular level..etc...

Testing hypothesis, and theories..is exactly what science is.

I think, much like everthing else from abortion to gay rights, the xtian right takes statistical outliers, and then uses them to say that it's the norm. For example: within the education I've received in Biology, it could not be stressed more that critical thought is the way of biology. When I read scientific journals, I have been trained to look at them critically, to find flaws etc... and to make my own results. What this does is that it allows science to escape the bias. This was TAUGHT to me by the most ardent supporters of evolutionary biologists.. All evolutionary biologists that I have met have been on that page. They teach it that way. To say that science is taught with a bias, may be true in some cases, but the xtian right makes it sound like the norm.

the thing is they do not have ANY evidence themselves, they just try to find the flaws of science, WHICH, scientists find and address themselves..they just don't make a media spectacle of it.

We're getting into topics that I might get yelled at over here. A big reason I'm even on this forum is for personal study and growth through intelligent conversation. I am a theist. But I'm not here to convert or attack. I'm here to learn. Seriously. It'd be awesome to have some civilized discussions on this topic.

The problem with either evolutionists or creationists/ID-ers claiming that logic is obviously completely in their favor, is that logic depends on our premises. Naturalistic Science takes the premise of a materialistic closed system. Those may be some loaded terms so I'll define what I mean: That there is only what is material. Only what is nature. No "supernatural." What you can observe and measure.

The other groups feel that there may be something besides what we usually define as material.

Both of these seem to be just different perspectives. Which ever perspective you begin with is going to filter your logic.

I myself haven't written off the "supernatural."
Who's to say that it isn't "natural" for there to be a god. Maybe this god is just a part of nature... one that is just as much a part of nature as anything else we call "natural." Some theories of evolution that I understand say that the universe began with a big bang. That big bang came from a spinning dot that came from nothing. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very logical, and it sure doesn't sound "natural." What could be more "un-natural" than nothing... the absolute absense of anything, producing anything... it isn't there to make it. It doesn't exist.

Another theory says that the universe always existed. Continually expanding and contracting. Well, then you have a problem with the concept of infinity. It is irrational to say that the time before this moment is infinite. Infinite has no end... it is infinite. So it is impossible for the time before this moment to be infinite, b/c that infinite time before this moment was just ended by this moment. Hence, time is not infinite. It had to begin. So what began time??? It wasn't nothing. And nothing that we usually claim as "natural" has the power to begin time. So I feel it is logical to say there is a god.

Well then... how did God exist for an infinite amount of time? Who made God? Well, that is exactly the point of God. If He is God, then He exists in His own essence. He is not dependent on time, or creation to exist. He is God. How can He just exist... outside of time and space and matter??? That is a testament to the power that it is to be God. If there is a god, which seems logical according to the absense of the infinity of time, it would only be logical for him to have this type of power. Why is that so "un - natural." It is un - natural because our perspective tells us it must be.

Maybe God wouldn't destroy science but revolutionize it. I know I know.

Again... this is not an evangelical attack or attempt to convert. Just a perspective to discuss. Love me.

Also... a few times I've brought up the idea of random mutations and how they are negative events that would be eliminated by natural selection and not a reasonable foundation for evolution. I'd love a perspective on that. If it has already been given and I missed it... just write it off on my ignorance and please have some patience with me.

Left_of, thanks a bunch for saving my horse theory.

Nacker, that jibberish is in fact Afrikaans where on earth did you get the bucket pic? i thought i was being original?

anyway:
Horses: (my gross oversimplification)
small horse . . . time passes . . . medium horse . . . time passes . . . beeg horse.
Evolution via natural selection sounds like a plausible explanation (any other explanations?).

the Bible never mentioned or explained any such change in species, because the people who wrote the bible did not even know that the earth was round!!!

-->to Nacker
here's where i'm getting at:
(and this is not an attack on your character, its my observations regarding the way you conduct your investigations)
it would appear that you don't look for the most credible sources, or the most reasonable explanations, but in stead you accept any material which supports your beliefs.

your academic interest in evolution (anti-evolution theory) is not a search for truth and fact but is reactionary, selective, and warped.

With hindsight it's all too easy for people to comment so ignorantly saying that "life could not have come by chance."

It's reverse probability, that's all.

I recommend you read The Blind Watchmaker, it left none of my questions untouched.

it is by far the most plausible explanation, and it is the only explanation that fits the evidence.

Avenging bucket...

Yes the bucket was original. I spent all of like 2 minutes of my life designing that for you. It would make a great icon.

I study what I can find. I've been taught a lot about the truth of evolution, so yes right now my interest is in getting the other side of what I was taught in high school and college. But I do bounce around and here arguments from each side. And that is also why I am here... to bounce ideas off of you to better understand both arguments and where everyone is coming from.

So yes the majority of my major study is in my interest right now... "anit-evolution," but I am cross referencing, and that is why I am here getting all of your ideas as well.

There may be a slight possibility that not everyone here has researched the other side of their beliefs completely and objectively.

my apologies...

i will try to restrain myself in the future. :oops:

ps: i am an-ex christian. when i was 17 i asked myself 'What if God does not exist?'

Agreed.

There are thousands of unanswered questions, and scientists learn more, discover more, every day. Old theories are replaced by new theories, and the picture of our past and present universe changes constantly, but this picture is converging... 500 years ago people still believed that the earth was flat. these days in stead of changing our knowledge new discoveries usually add to our knowledge.

Ask yourself this: if you had never heard anything of christianity, would there be anything, anything, around you to suggest that a supernatural being was behind your existence? the answer is a simple NO. Because if there were any evidence to suggest a god, there would have been a scientific theory concerning his existence.

People's belief in god can be atributed to certain factors:
1) Everybody else believes. Peer pressure leads to smoking and theism. 500 years ago everyone thought the earth was flat, and now, everyone knows the earth is round.
2) The bible- which contains nothing to suggest that it was dictated by 'God', but contains lots of things that indicate that it was the creative product of men of the time. For example, several passages state that the earth is flat. Also, the bible that i can find today is a collage of what was actually written. How much was changed and omitted?
3) 'I exist. The explanations that science offers are improbable. I believe that God must have created me.' -- !!! i'm sorry? come again? Are you serious? I would rather accept that i don't know everything, than explain everything with an improbable god.

Tell me Nacker, why do you believe?

Allright, with respect to the development of more complex organs, that I would have to pass onto an actual biologist to explain, but I'm guessing if the scientific community couldn?t even begin to show how such things develop with respect to , I seriously doubt that there would be such universal support behind evolution, and just because science doesn?t have the full answer.
As always, just because science doesn?t have all the answers at the moment(and probably wont unless there is a freak discovery that explains it all, scientifically that is), doesn?t mean that it's a)Wrong or b)Never going to find them, but to my understanding, the amount of work, research, confirmation and re-confirmation involved in the modern scientific world for something like evolution or gravity to be so widely accepted could be so much, that when looking back at it, you would of had to think that a creator did it. ^_^ (Sorry, that was just a joke )

May I ask in return: how does a creator create all life? I mean the 'because life is too complex for me to start to fathom, I think a creator must of -had- to of created it' idea does not try to explain a single part of the process involved, if we had an artificial structure that man created, we would either already know how it was made from getting the raw materials to the finished product, or we would be able to reverse-engineer it to some degree. I understand that you are here as someone who wishes to learn about evolution, but out of curiosity, could you explain the mechanisms and processes behind creationism? Do you wish to make a topic on that? I mean, you may not get onboard with evolution, but you may end up seeing creationism as the fraud it is once the science guys shred up any pro-creation idea you post. I personaly will be looking forward to the explination of how a creator creates all life. (I see that alot of your post is questioning evo)