Evolution - A serious question.

[Darkwing Duck]

Snow and gravity ain't speculative like Darwinism is.

Gravity and Evolution are in the same scientific classification.

The conclusion I make when you can't show me evidence of random mutation leading to a new species is that you don't have the evidence to support your theory.

What sort of evidence would you be looking for? Besides, you're asking for step one to prove step nine.

How do you document a mutation as random?

How do you document it as deliberate?

 

[PearlWatson]

Gravity and Evolution are in the same scientific classification.

You mean biology or physics? LOL!

What sort of evidence would you be looking for? Besides, you're asking for step one to prove step nine.

If mutations were really random, then for every desirable mutation, they should have been a host of undesirable ones. Otherwise the mutations are deliberate...or "reactionary." Where is the evidence for all these undesirable mutations?

How do you document it as deliberate?

You claimed random mutation is documented. How was it done?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You mean biology or physics? LOL!

I mean theories.

If mutations were really random, then for every desirable mutation, they should have been a host of undesirable ones. Otherwise the mutations are deliberate...or "reactionary." Where is the evidence for all these undesirable mutations?

Do you even know what a mutation is?

You claimed random mutation is documented. How was it done?

Do you even know what a mutation is?

 

[Beantown]

But if man DID descend from apes, how is Adam the first man then, and where does he fit in within history? Was the part in Genesis that he was the first man, created from dust... all just a lie? Everything, eating apples to the snake being punished to be a snake? All lies?

See, what I think is that Genesis makes more sense than evolution, so I'm more inclined to believe in that.

- Craig

So if you believe in the Bible you cant believe in evolution? That makes absolute no sense. They dont even refer to eachother in anyway.

Man did not descend from Apes so dont worry about it.

 

[The-Joker]

If mutations were really random, then for every desirable mutation, they should have been a host of undesirable ones. Otherwise the mutations are deliberate...or "reactionary." Where is the evidence for all these undesirable mutations?

Undesirable mutations don't survive, it's like the difference between being born with a 12 inch ***** and being born with a ***** on your forehead... if you're wondering where the guy with the ***** on his forehead is? He didn't reproduce.

You claimed random mutation is documented. How was it done?

Here's the intro to Bio summation

You have a thing in biology called DNA, DNA is made up of base pairs, base pairs are classified by 4 letters (ATCG) based on the molecule in the base pair. You literally have billions (maybe even a trillion) base pairs made up of those 4 molecules, which form a double helix called DNA, which forms chromatids which form chromosones, which are the genetic makeup of cells. Mutation occurs in about 1 in a million base pairs, but when you add it all up it occurs a lot in just one person's replication of DNA. Most base pairs are dormant and are leftovers from evolution and don't do anything, but the few that do, control anything from alcoholism to skin pigment to cancer (that's right evolution explains cancer)... some base pairs when mutated will kill you, others will make you Lebron James (the proof is Lebron James). This is science, I have observed it with my own eyes as a 1st year Biology student.

Its hard to document mutation because it occurs on such a large scale, but we do know of the existence of mutation and what it can do (kill you). We can usually even mark on which chromosome and where the mutation is (given controlled and uncontrolled variables).

 

[Beantown]

Mutations are not always negative, mutations fuel evolution.

 

[Bronco70]

So if you believe in the Bible you cant believe in evolution? That makes absolute no sense. They dont even refer to eachother in anyway.

Man did not descend from Apes so dont worry about it.

Bean -

He's trolling. Leave it alone.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I would think of all people that you wouldn't believe something on faith. I would think you would want to be shown the evidence by these so called "relevant" experts...would want to SEE it with your own eyes.

Is a biochemist a "relevant" expert?

Look, first of all, I do believe in a God, despite my username... although it's somewhat different from the traditional Christian conception of God.

But here's the thing with religion based solely on authority: which one am I supposed to believe? In case you hadn't noticed, Hinduism and Christianity say quite different things. They both claim to be authoritative, and ultimately only because they say they are.

The only way to solve such a dilemma is to come up with some criteria to judge religions with competing claims. What those criteria are is majorly up for grabs. I'm not going to believe in something just because some religious organization tells me I should when there are other religious organizations that have equally viable but mutually exclusive claims, because one of them must be wrong. Ultimately, their authority is based on nothing but air. Why aren't you a Hindu, anyway, Millsapa? Why not believe in that religion instead?

In the end, a "relevant expert" is someone who has some evidence to back up their claims. Evolution as a theory emerged to help explain the data. Creationism emerged the same way, but now it no longer fits the data, so creation scientists are trying to fit the data to the theory. But it just doesn't work that way. You can't ignore evidence contrary to your theory just because you find it distasteful, and that's exactly what creationists are doing.

 

[One Brow]

What is the possibility that the great apes are not related but because it is such a successful model that very different species are converging rather than diverging from a common ancestor?

Converge from what? There are many features of apes that are exclusive to primates and have no paticular adaptive advantage.

For example, there are similarities between gray wolves and Tasmanian wolves based on convergent evolution, but eacdh retained the basic skeletal characteristics of placental mammals (for gray wolves) or non-placetal (for Tasmanian wolves).

 

[Scat]

Converge from what?

Primordial goo... duh!

 

[One Brow]

Bacteria and viruses are phenomenally successful, with very limited genetic diversity.

Bacteria share their DNA with each other in a process separate from cell division, and as a result exhibit enormous genetic diversity, even within a species.

Viruses use the machinery of other beings to reproduce, introducing diversity during that process.

And as the first single-cell organisms developed the mutation requiring sexual reproduction of some sort, did a "male" a "female" develop at the same time?

Bacteria share their DNA with each other in a process separate from cell division, and as a result exhibit enormous genetic diversity, even within a species.

Probably not. Even today, there are sexually reproducing species that have one sex (earthworms, many types of fruit trees).

What was the mechanism that allowed 2 of them to mate to begin passing along separate genetic material? This seems like a fairly substantial jump in mutation and evolution.

Bacteria share their DNA with each other in a process separate from cell division, and as a result exhibit enormous genetic diversity, even within a species.

There are eukaryotes that exchange DNA via syzygy (similar to bacterial plasma exchange), such as amoebas. Sexual reproduction is less of a leap if it is a combining of functions.

 

[One Brow]

If mutations are reactionary ...

The selection of mutations is reactionary, and the selection is not random.