evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by saint4God
Again though, misses all the meaty questions asked on the thread.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by saint4God]

I think there is a LOT more meaty questions un-answered in regards to creation, and of the bible wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by saint4God
If you're saying microevolution = adaptation, I'll not agrue. But, if you're saying microevolution leads to macroevolution, that's the point I think is lacking.

The only problem here is that you and creationists alike seperate microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is a substantial amount of microevolutional changes over a period of time.

Originally posted by saint4God
Here's the problem. Adaptation does not include mutation, then passing of alleles through very strong gametic and phenotypic barriers. Also, Adaptation does not mean a new trait is formed, rather a shifting along the genetic code from one end to the other. For example, eye color can be green or brown or shades in between. You will not have a child born with purple eyes that reflect light in the dark. The reason is because that combination of alleles is not available to humankind. To "invent" that is what macroevolution pruports out of some mechanistic need such as natural selection, flukeology, undeveloped but amusing chaos theory, or druidic luck.

Who said that human's will have purple eyes that reflect in the dark?

Originally posted by saint4God
Specifics. Observation. Mechanism. Model. Data. Testing. Reproducibility. Got any?

The concept of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. If you care to read Origin of Species you'll notice that Darwin's ideas came from observing nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. What's more, that idea is and has been tested repeatedly. So, the general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method.

www.kenyanthropus.com...

And again, all you have is "Bible said so!" When the bible also says Pi=3.0 and that the Earth is flat.

Also, it could be flat, after all the Earth being round is "just a theory"

change of allele frequency is considered to be evolution.

Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.



soruce

I brought up tiktaalik a while back in this thread, it was pretty much ignored and brushed over. Like it's being now. That's just the problem, people ask for evidence, you give it to them and they deny it.

Originally posted by Termite197
I think there is a LOT more meaty questions un-answered in regards to creation, and of the bible wouldn't you say?

Absolutely! Hence the need to study it. We can start a thread on it if you like, but there are some existing already.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
The only problem here is that you and creationists alike seperate microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution is a substantial amount of microevolutional changes over a period of time.

Negative, mechanistically we can explain adaptation (or as you would say "microevolution") whereas we cannot for "Macroevolution". We can test adaptation, model it, produce data, predict and verify results with adaptation. Not the case with "macroevolution", hence the misnomer. Using the word is nothing more than propaganda, not scientific relationship.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Who said that human's will have purple eyes that reflect in the dark?

The example is one that demonstrates that yes in fact there are barriers in a single organism's ability to express variability. This encoding is in the Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Evolutionists seems to enjoy ignoring the barriers (I guess because of their faith/idolatry/worship of humanity to overcome anything/everything), whereas Mendel was discovering them.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by saint4God
Specifics. Observation. Mechanism. Model. Data. Testing. Reproducibility. Got any?

The concept of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. If you care to read Origin of Species you'll notice that Darwin's ideas came from observing nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. What's more, that idea is and has been tested repeatedly. So, the general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method.

Saying this is not enough Shauny, I've read Origins and it does not have any more observational information than a birdwatcher's book. Darwin was a great birdwatcher, certainly, but birdwatching alone does not justify any daydreams of lineage, taxonomic relationships or genotypic transpeciation.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by saint4God]

Heh, no mechanism for macroevolution. Maybe time and normal evolutionary processes like drift, mutation, natural selection etc are sufficient. Maybe new mechanisms will be found.

But to suggest there is no mechanism is just wrong.

Saint, would you define an ape-like ancestor to man as macro or micro? And why?

Originally posted by saint4God
The example is one that demonstrates that yes in fact there are barriers in a single organism's ability to express variability. This encoding is in the Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Evolutionists seems to enjoy ignoring the barriers (I guess because of their faith/idolatry/worship of humanity to overcome anything/everything), whereas Mendel was discovering them.

And you seem to enjoy bringing evolutionists down to your level of 'faith', because it makes your own faith therefore look credible. When infact yours is pure faith, the faith you suggest evolutionists have is nothing but a figment of your imagination. You do this to try and make it seem as though anyone who thinks evolution is right is less credible and not scientific, you try and seperate science and evolution to further your own agenda.

Yes there are certain barriers. For example a chimpanzee will not suddenly tomorrow give birth to a human. Elephants have long trunks for a reason, they're not merely there for the sake of it, they have long trunks so they can pull food in to their mouths or drink.

I'm not really sure what your stance is on why/how everything is the way it is. Obviously you don't believe that everything today evolved from simple organisms over billions of years, and you don't believe man and apes share an ancestor, but as far as this 'adaption' you seem to be game for that. If you're game for adaption, then why are you so certain that over millions and billions of years of adaption that significant change can't happen.

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, no mechanism for macroevolution. Maybe time and normal evolutionary processes like drift, mutation, natural selection etc are sufficient. Maybe new mechanisms will be found.

They are indeed insufficient. Let's review:

Drift - Variability within a genomic sequence. No magic here, you're just sliding up and down the gene going from wrinkled yellow peas to green smooth peas. No purple square peas result.

Mutuation - See previous posting on phenotypic and genotypic reasons why mutations are not passed along to successive generations.

Natural Selection - A model that's been under review and revision a number of times because it doesn't quite seem to work. Natural Selection may have a use in discussing drift but is not an omni-anwer, rather a single case scenario that may happen now and then to go from wrinkled yellow peas to smooth green peas.

Originally posted by melatonin
But to suggest there is no mechanism is just wrong.

Correct me

Originally posted by melatonin
Saint, would you define an ape-like ancestor to man as macro or micro? And why?

You've made an assumption that the ape-like critter is an ancestor. If the question were unbiased, I'd answer.


[edit on 24-7-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
And you seem to enjoy bringing evolutionists down to your level of 'faith', because it makes your own faith therefore look credible.

Why is faith down? Faith is up my friend . If I'm in error, it's due to putting it into a catagory that is perhaps undeserved.

Although I don't, there are those that say God exists because of evolution not in-spite of it. I haven't chosen either way. Evidence is required to make a decision.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
When infact yours is pure faith, the faith you suggest evolutionists have is nothing but a figment of your imagination. You do this to try and make it seem as though anyone who thinks evolution is right is less credible and not scientific, you try and seperate science and evolution to further your own agenda.

This thread is not about my faith or an agenda. If evolution is strong enough, it could stand on its own. I'm merely showing that it isn't.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Yes there are certain barriers. For example a chimpanzee will not suddenly tomorrow give birth to a human. Elephants have long trunks for a reason, they're not merely there for the sake of it, they have long trunks so they can pull food in to their mouths or drink.

I'm not asking for a miracle, just a Scientific Method.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm not really sure what your stance is on why/how everything is the way it is. Obviously you don't believe that everything today evolved from simple organisms over billions of years, and you don't believe man and apes share an ancestor, but as far as this 'adaption' you seem to be game for that. If you're game for adaption, then why are you so certain that over millions and billions of years of adaption that significant change can't happen.

Adaptation already exists in the DNA. It's part of the code. We're not inventing anything new in the nitrogenous base sequence. We've just mapped the Human Genome. We can know in that blueprint what a human can and can not develop. Unfortunately, transpeciation is not one of them. Unless some alien comes along to doodle on that blueprint, it isn't going to change. Only vary along the same strand.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Mutuation - See previous posting on phenotypic and genotypic reasons why mutations are not passed along to successive generations.

Mutations can be passed along to new generations.

Natural Selection - A model that's been under review and revision a number of times because it doesn't quite seem to work. Natural Selection may have a use in discussing drift but is not an omni-anwer, rather a single case scenario that may happen now and then to go from wrinkled yellow peas to smooth green peas.

Natural selection works very well. Even if we ignore the effect of new variation from novel mutations, how do you think pre-existing variations show large changes in allele frequency in respone to the environment?

For example, when we see lizards with shorter legs come to fore in a population due to predation.
www.livescience.com...

Or a mutation aiding male butterflies to survive.
www.sciam.com...

Correct me

We've been here before. Mutation, drift, evo-devo, natural selection - all the known mechanisms of evolution. They may be sufficient alone, there may be more mechanisms to be discovered.

You've made an assumption that the ape-like critter is an ancestor. If the question were unbiased, I'd answer.

Not an assumption. A supported inference. But don't bother answering, as I can see it will cause you problems, heh.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by melatonin]

There is NO alternative to the Theory of Evolution.
Creationism is not a theory as it lacks ALL the scientific requirements to make it a theory.

Evolution passes ALL the tests to make it a theory which is the highest form of scientific acknowledgment that an idea is correct.

Evolution is correct.

Creationism is not.

Nothing personal, just based on facts in evidence.

The difference between science and mysticism is as follows:
science has no preconceived notion of what is true or not.
creationists have already decided they are correct and are simply trying to find a way to prove it.

Originally posted by saint4God
This thread is not about my faith or an agenda. If evolution is strong enough, it could stand on its own. I'm merely showing that it isn't.

Then why would it still be taught as science? Evolution didn't HAVE to be right. It was just an idea that Darwin had, yet over 150 years later there's an absolutely vast amount of evidence for evolution. This shows evolution can stand on it's feet. All you're clearly doing, is clearly showing that faith and belief can affect your decision making when it comes to rational concepts like evolution.

Originally posted by saint4God
Adaptation already exists in the DNA. It's part of the code. We're not inventing anything new in the nitrogenous base sequence. We've just mapped the Human Genome. We can know in that blueprint what a human can and can not develop. Unfortunately, transpeciation is not one of them. Unless some alien comes along to doodle on that blueprint, it isn't going to change. Only vary along the same strand.

But no one is saying that Humans are going to evolve in to something they cannot. Why would you think this?

Let's all take a lesson in how Saint formulates his arguement:

1) We've just mapped the Humane Genome.

This is scientific fact. Opening with this makes Saint seem like he's ''making a point'' that is based on fact.

2) Unfortunately, transpeciation is not one of them.

Then he hits home with this statement. Because he opened with the scientific fact, he attempts to pass this one off as fact because of it.

3) Unless some alien comes along to doodle on that blueprint, it isn't going to change.

Then he throws this sarcastic, yet witty, comment in to the arguement. By starting with the scientific fact, he can then pass something else off as scientific fact (the part about transpeciation), and he can then validate his whole arguement by saying the only way evolution is possible is if aliens came down and doodled on our blueprint (a highly unlikely scenario).

Just thought it was an interesting method.

Originally posted by melatonin
Mutations can be passed along to new generations.

Example? Then we can discuss mechanism, viability, etc.

Originally posted by melatonin
Natural selection works very well.

It may or may not work well.

Originally posted by melatonin
Even if we ignore the effect of new variation from novel mutations,

Sure, let's do that until we can define novel mutation and demonstrate what that is.

Originally posted by melatonin
how do you think pre-existing variations show large changes in allele frequency in respone to the environment?

That's what adaptation is all about. No miracle here. Ever wonder why people at the equator have darker skin than those who live at 60 degrees north latitude? Silly me, your name here is melatonin

Originally posted by melatonin
For example, when we see lizards with shorter legs come to fore in a population due to predation.
www.livescience.com...

Again, so? That's what adaptation is. DNA did not spontaneously 'create' shorter or longer legs, it's already coded for both. Even if it did, what is the conscious motivator that drives it?

Originally posted by melatonin
Or a mutation aiding male butterflies to survive.
www.sciam.com...

I like this article, it makes some very strong claims. Yet doublebacks to "That demonstrated that the observed pattern was due to suppression and not due to another phenomenon," he said." And some other things where they say they are unsure. If it were really hot, they'd publish a paper with all the details as the final proof of definition. I'd like to see more. I'd like to see where they apply the Scientific Method to what they claim...unfortunately, they can't.

This situation is akin to the Bubonic plague. Did the plague wipe out everyone? No? Why not? Well, some people expressed the gene for the resistance. Instead of complete wipeout of humanity in the region, it was more like 2/3rds. The principle behind it is used for vaccinations.

Originally posted by melatonin

Correct me

We've been here before. Mutation, drift, evo-devo, natural selection - all the known mechanisms of evolution. They may be sufficient alone, there may be more mechanisms to be discovered.

They're not sufficient else we'd not be having this conversation. I'm not opposed to trying to discover more, I hope we go in that direction. I'm opposed to accepting it as fact an NOT trying to find the actual answer.

Originally posted by melatonin

You've made an assumption that the ape-like critter is an ancestor. If the question were unbiased, I'd answer.

Not an assumption. A supported inference.

Call it whatever you want. A pig in a dress is still a pig.

Originally posted by melatonin
But don't bother answering, as I can see it will cause you problems, heh.

What is a loaded question?

A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

www.fallacyfiles.org...



[edit on 25-7-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by jfj123
There is NO alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

So what if there isn't? Is that an excuse to accept it as true?

We don't have any other explanations other than to say aliens created crop circles...therefore aliens created crop circles. C'mon...

Originally posted by jfj123
Creationism is not a theory as it lacks ALL the scientific requirements to make it a theory.

Rice in China is a primary food source and export.

Originally posted by jfj123
Evolution passes ALL the tests to make it a theory which is the highest form of scientific acknowledgment that an idea is correct.

This is either an ignorant statement or a lie. The speaker's heart knows which. Please see outline of The Scientific Method and previous discussion here.

Originally posted by jfj123
Evolution is correct.

Creationism is not.

Nothing personal, just based on facts in evidence.

False assumption not based on fact else this discussion would not exist.

Originally posted by jfj123
The difference between science and mysticism is as follows:
science has no preconceived notion of what is true or not.

Bull. If you worked in science you'd know what science is about $_$

Originally posted by jfj123
creationists have already decided they are correct and are simply trying to find a way to prove it.

Blanket generalization. Let's see your statistics to support your claim.

Refer to your original statement:

Natural Selection - A model that's been under review and revision a number of times because it doesn't quite seem to work.

Make your mind up. Either it does work or it doesn't. It is the same process for pre-existing variation and new variation.

Novel Point Mutations in the Dihydrofolate Reductase Gene of Plasmodium vivax: Evidence for Sequential Selection by Drug Pressure
Received September 16, 2002; Revised November 27, 2002; Accepted January 30, 2003.

Abstract

Mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr) genes of Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax are associated with resistance to the antifolate antimalarial drugs. P. vivax dhfr sequences were obtained from 55 P. vivax isolates (isolates Belem and Sal 1, which are established lines originating from Latin America, and isolates from patient samples from Thailand [n = 44], India [n = 5], Iran [n = 2], and Madagascar [n = 2]) by direct sequencing of both strands of the purified PCR product and were compared to the P. vivax dhfr sequence from a P. vivax parasite isolated in Pakistan (isolate ARI/Pakistan), considered to represent the wild-type sequence. In total, 144 P. vivax dhfr mutations were found at only 12 positions, of which 4 have not been described previously. An F→L mutation at residue 57 had been observed previously, but a novel codon (TTA) resulted in a mutation in seven of the nine mutated variant sequences. A new mutation at residue 117 resulted in S→T (S→N has been described previously). These two variants are the same as those observed in the P. falciparum dhfr gene at residue 108, where they are associated with different levels of antifolate resistance. Two novel mutations, I→L at residue 13 and T→M at residue 61, appear to be unique to P. vivax. The clinical, epidemiological, and sequence data suggest a sequential pathway for the acquisition of the P. vivax dhfr mutations. Mutations at residues 117 and 58 arise first when drug pressure is applied. Highly mutated genes carry the S→T rather than the S→N mutation at residue 117. Mutations at residues 57 and 61 then occur, followed by a fifth mutation at residue 13.

Novel mutations.

Here's a few more:

Hall, B. G. 1981. Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Biochemistry 20: 4042-4049.
Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel. 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
Hansche, P. E. 1975. Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 79: 661-674.
Hartley, B. S. 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In: Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution, R. P. Mortlock, ed., New York: Plenum, pp. 23-54.
Lang, D. et al. 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also: Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Lin, E. C. C. and T. T. Wu. 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in mutants of Escherichia coli. In: Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution, R. P. Mortlock, ed., New York: Plenum, pp. 135-164.
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.

As I said earlier, we've been here before, Saint. I tend to present this sort of evidence, then you disappear and have forgotten by time you come back.

They're not sufficient else we'd not be having this conversation.

No, what you should say is that they are not sufficient to satisfy you. You have no evidence that they are not sufficient. All we need is millions of years, and little changes accumulate to become big changes.

As for the loaded question statement, yeah I guess it is. It happens to put you in a very tight position, because there is little real morphological or genetic difference between all us apes, just a case of microevolution



[edit on 25-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Then why would it still be taught as science? Evolution didn't HAVE to be right.

My head hurts just from reading these two sentences next to each other. I'll just disagree and say "If it is right, then it should be taught as a science. Anything that is not proven to be right should be taught as an idea/belief/faith."

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It was just an idea that Darwin had, yet over 150 years later there's an absolutely vast amount of evidence for evolution. This shows evolution can stand on it's feet. All you're clearly doing, is clearly showing that faith and belief can affect your decision making when it comes to rational concepts like evolution.

You're making an assumption that my faith has anything to do with this. Let's stick to the science, shall we?

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by saint4God
Adaptation already exists in the DNA. It's part of the code. We're not inventing anything new in the nitrogenous base sequence. We've just mapped the Human Genome. We can know in that blueprint what a human can and can not develop. Unfortunately, transpeciation is not one of them. Unless some alien comes along to doodle on that blueprint, it isn't going to change. Only vary along the same strand.

But no one is saying that Humans are going to evolve in to something they cannot. Why would you think this?

Is that not what this discussion is about? What is the mechanism for transpeciation?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Let's all take a lesson in how Saint formulates his arguement:

1) We've just mapped the Humane Genome.

This is scientific fact. Opening with this makes Saint seem like he's ''making a point'' that is based on fact.

2) Unfortunately, transpeciation is not one of them.

Then he hits home with this statement. Because he opened with the scientific fact, he attempts to pass this one off as fact because of it.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to supporting evidence stating otherwise. Let me amend my statement then if it's too much black coffee and not enough sugar: "It has never been shown to me where transpeciation is a capability within the mapping of the human genome". Better?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
3) Unless some alien comes along to doodle on that blueprint, it isn't going to change.

Then he throws this sarcastic, yet witty, comment in to the arguement.

Thank you for considering it witty. I thought it was merely sarcastic.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
By starting with the scientific fact, he can then pass something else off as scientific fact (the part about transpeciation), and he can then validate his whole arguement by saying the only way evolution is possible is if aliens came down and doodled on our blueprint (a highly unlikely scenario).

Unlikely, but not impossible.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Just thought it was an interesting method.

I could diagram your side of the discussion as well, but it does nothing to further the thread nor is on topic. Although I appreciate the time on the couch, I'll pay the secretary and be on my way if you're done playing Dr. Shaun.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by melatonin
Make your mind up. Either it does work or it doesn't. It is the same process for pre-existing variation and new variation.

When you flip a coin, sometimes it comes up heads, sometimes it comes up tails. Does it not? Natural selection does not have as many constants as flipping a coin does.

Originally posted by melatonin

Novel Point Mutations in the Dihydrofolate Reductase Gene of Plasmodium vivax: Evidence for Sequential Selection by Drug Pressure
Received September 16, 2002; Revised November 27, 2002; Accepted January 30, 2003.

Novel mutations.

Got it, but is the same thing as I was saying about the Bubonic plague example except in more detail. It's an interesting read since I work with proteins for influenza vaccines and others.

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said earlier, we've been here before, Saint. I tend to present this sort of evidence, then you disappear and have forgotten by time you come back.

I left business after a decade of work, went back to college, got my Bachelors in biology and started with a science company. I've been busy and didn't recall an attendance requirement for ATS. What did I miss that was so valuable? By the way, I have read every page of this thread.

Originally posted by melatonin
No, what you should say is that they are not sufficient to satisfy you.

What satisfies me may not be sufficent for everyone else as evidence. Not sure your point. Surely if the facts were clear, the mods would have closed this pages ago.

Originally posted by melatonin
You have no evidence that they are not sufficient.

I don't require it. I've shown its non-compliance with The Scientifc Method. Show its compliance and I am wrong. It's that simple.

Originally posted by melatonin
All we need is millions of years, and little changes accumulate to become big changes.

Lovely daydream.

Originally posted by melatonin
As for the loaded question statement, yeah I guess it is.

I appreciate the concession to the point, it's very respectable.

Originally posted by melatonin
It happens to put you in a very tight position, because there is little real morphological or genetic difference between all us apes, just a case of microevolution

Claim all you want. I'm looking for facts.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by saint4God]