Science, Creation & Evolutionsubstitute biology teacherresponse to Helix -- I am going down your posts point by point, so there may be some repetition, but to actually sit down and write an entire essay at this point would be difficult -- and also probably not read! Yes, it was a quote from the text. But the point is that if they are so survival-adapted, there was no reason to change. And, if there was a reason to change, they the old ones which were not so well-adapted should have died out. What we actually see in the fossil record are plants and animals which are EXACTLY the same in appearance as those today. When we see different plants or animals in the fossil record, there is NO indication in the fossils that they were the results of change from anything else. They simply appear. And sometimes they simply disappear as well. They do not show any gradual changes coming or going. It was precisely for this reason that Gould and Eldridge resurrected Schmidt's old hopeful monster theory in the form of punctuated equilibrium. You stated What do you mean evolution is not forced on animals? Of course it is! In evolutionary theory it is only because of a change in the environment that the pressures of natural selection produce a change in a population. The forcing mechanism is the change itself. In addition, please be aware that there are no mutations which do not take away from some cellular process. They NEVER add to it. NEVER. Most mutations are 'silent', meaning we do not see a physical result from that particular genetic change. Of those mutations which are expressed, however, it is a thousand to one deleterious to potentially beneficial. Of the deleterious, a very high percentage are lethal. Of those that are slightly beneficial, it is always the result of an interrupted or downgraded cellular process, whether we are talking about sickle cells or antibiotic resistance. Mutations have NEVER been seen to add cellular complexity or functional complexity. And it is the added complexity which is require for the type of evolution which will change some proto-bacteria into a penguin or a person. So when natural selection is in operation, it can only 'favor' variations already in existence. If those variations favored are too specific, then you have a species which will rapidly become endangered when the environment changes. In addition, and as discussed at length before, 'survival of the fittest' is a silly statement, for it means nothing. Who survives? The fittest. Who are the fittest? Those that survive (and have progeny). It is a circular definition, and thus means nothing. You then wrote I didn't say it did disprove evolution. You need to read more carefully. In addition, please understand that NO ONE is arguing with variation. But variation is a natural part of any given kind of organism, whether orchids, or dogs, or sharks. But orchids never become non-orchids. Dogs never become non-dogs. Sharks remain sharks. Variations do not change the basic kind or type of organism that it is. If you are going to argue evolution, you are going to have to get past simple variation and delve into the region of massive changes of form and function. This is not the result of natural variation. Helix wrote: You are parroting the evolutionary spiel very nicely, but where is your data? Helix wrote: When you use the term 'another sequencing of their genes' you have just given away that you know literally nothing about genetics. And again, survival of the fittest is a meaningless phrase. What you are trying to get at, it seems to me, is natural selection, but natural selection only deletes from the population in terms of ability to vary, thus, in time, sending the remaining members of the population up a 'fitness peak' from where there is no escape but extinction. On to the next of Helix's posts: Evolution is said to take millions of years, but environmental changes can happen overnight, almost literally. Thus there would not be time for any population to evolve. OF COURSE it is true that animals cannot adapt fast enough to avoid extinction in those circumstances! But then you are literally arguing out of the other side of your mouth in your parenthetic by saying that evolution needs extinctions in order to leave niches open. When a species becomes extinct, it most certainly cannot evolve! However, just as an addendum here, I think you will find that the argument for the empty niches increasing the rate of speciation is one that explains quite nicely what happened after Noah's Flood. Helix goes on: Could you please tell me what the dodo evolved FROM? And please note that you yourself mentioned that the introduction of predators gave no time for adaptation to the situation. Yet the introduction of predators, by any means at any place, is a sudden event. This would deny the ability of evolution to 'do its thing' in any area where predators appeared. Helix continued: The very long time is a matter of the number of generations needed for a change to be established and built upon, right? In other words, it would presumably require less time for a fish to become, say, an amphibian (as both can mature and produce the next generation in less than a year for the most part) than it would for an ape ancestor to become either ape or human, as the generation times here run up to ten and fifteen years ! In other words, the time is not needed just for the sake of time, right? But for the sake of the number of generations needed to build up the evolutionary changes in a population. OK, the argument we presented earlier about E.coli is that we have been working with over 2.5 linear generations of these little beasties and no matter how many mutagents are thrown at them (mutagents are agents encouraging or forcing mutations), we can't get anything but a few fat E.coli, one changed metabolic pathway, and most dead E.coli. Now, if we can't get a simple prokaryote to change in 2.5 MILLION generations, how are we going to get much more complex organisms to change in less time? Or consider that evolutionists state that it took about 1 billion years for the first unicellular organisms to become multicellular with differentiated cells. Many unicellular organisms have generation times of less than one hour (E.coli, for instance, is about 20 minutes). But let's say the environment was not always friendly, which is probably an understatement, and give each generation a full day. 365 days in a year. Times a billion years. That's at least 365,000,000,000 generations to get from single-celled to multi-celled. Now, how many generations would it have taken for the fish to get a functional, weight-bearing hip joint? We need the mutations to provide for elongaged bones, specialized ends, a revamped nervous system, new muscles, the cartilege, the bursa, the special synovial fluid, the tendons and ligaments, the extended circulatory system....that's just a list of basics. There's more needed. How many generations? Even if it is a hundred times less than the original cellular organisms needed to become multicellular, there is no way the entire universe has enough time for evolution to happen. The data we have and the mathematics we can derive (with nothing fancy, just a little simple addition and multiplication!) totally deny the reality of evolution. It is a myth designed to eliminate God from life. Helix wrote: Well, we've had examples here of species which have not needed improving, as they are shown to exist from quite far down in the fossil record, and species which have been wiped out because they could not deal with whatever changes they were dealt. Neither of these sets of examples says anything about evolution being true. Where is the data that evolution improves anything -- or that it has ever even happened past the simple variation we find in all basic kinds? Helix then said Please, tell me you are not a blonde...... Then it was stated AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!! Scales are folds in the epidermis. Feathers are entirely unique structures apart from the epidermis. The kind of ignorant statement just made by Helix here is absolutely typical of the enforced ignorance promoted by biology courses (high school and early college) today. It is both sad and nauseating to read this kind of statement made in good faith by someone who has swallowed the lie of evolution hook, line, and sinker. from Helix again: We are just another species of animal? My goodness. Please, where did our sense of ethics evolve from? What other animal is individually and persistently inventive for the purpose of personal expression and preferences regarding beauty? What other animal composes music, paints art, communicates in symbols, etc. etc. To state that we are just another species of animal is to exhibit profound ignorance of humanity itself. What animal ever felt responsibility for its environment. What animal ever spent time studying itself, either personally or as a species? What animal group ever argued over how to raise its young, or how to govern itself, or how to worship God? We live in mammalian bodies, but we are ever so much more than mammals. Helix then referred to a Talk Origins link on transitions. First of all, Talk Origins has never been famous for its honesty in presentation. Secondly, they show two things in general on that section on transitionals. First they show variation of kind. No one is arguing this. We know variation exists. What Talk Origins refuses to mention is that we have at no time in history seen where a variation either inches or catapaults an organisms out of its basic type or kind. The second thing Talk Origins has there are imaginary scenarios. There is zero evidence whatsoever regarding the actual change of one type of organism to another. They have simply strung fossils together to try to make it look like one MIGHT have changed into another. However no mechanism is known which would accomplish this! Mutations certainly can't do it. And no cell manufactures a de novo protein, which is what would be required for such changes (and not just once, but on a rather massive scale). Talk Origins exists for the purpose of trying to mock creation science. And they do not care whether or not they wander from the honest truth about the data or not. If you want to show evidence for evolution that will be seriously considered by anyone familiar with the debates, then find references which give primary data and stay as far away from TO as possible. Helix, you tried to use the peppered moth as an example of evolution. That doesn't work for a variety of reasons! 1. The two types of moths (dark and light) existed before the pollution. 2. The two types of moths existed after the pollution. 3. Thus the variation was present at both times and all the time in between. 4. The moths remained moths, with the same genetics. 5. I want to quote to you from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution, in which he examines the peppered moth story. This is from p 138 "Most introductory biology textbooks now illustrate this classical story of natural selection with photographs of the two varieties of peppered moth resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks....What the extbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980's that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged." Wells then goes on to explain, with references, how biologists have found that the entire idea of the peppered moth being an example of evolution in action is entirely flawed, to the extent that in 1998, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, writing in Nature, a review of Michael Majerus's book Melanism: Evolution in action, wrote the following: "From time to time evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong." Coyne goes on to state that this "prize horse in our stable of examples [of evolution] is in bad shape..." Helix, please do not believe everything you read in the popularized material or even in the texts. Look for any opposing arguments to anything and see if they are reasonable or not. In his Icons of Evolution, Wells takes ten 'icons' used by evolutionists to 'prove' evolution and shows that they have been known to be false for ten or more years, and this evidence was not hidden away but presented in peer-reviewed journals. Later Helix asks Please show me where anyone has been using the Bible in this discussion to present biological evidence. I'm dealing with data and logic and math. Your reverting to Bible was entirely a red herring. Please stick to the subject. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame