Science indicates evolution of species.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No thanks xtro
Think we are done here

Think it’s pretty clear you havnt a clue what science really is
Think you are more interested in winning than understanding

Thanks it’s been a fun experiment

a reply to: Xtrozero

What natural influences are we talking about? Or is DNA simply an evolving matter?

Is it in the air we breathe?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Science indicates an evolution of species, and not just among species but literally beings transforming into other beings and all descending from a common ancestor.

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?

What do many scientists claim? Many give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor.

What does the Bible say? The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 20-25) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.

What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN



In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29*

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”31* [It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.]

WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”32

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.


In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” ...
...
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms​—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34*

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35*

WHAT DOES THE “FILM” REALLY SHOW?

An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”36 Consider the implications of that illustration.

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?

How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils​—the 95 frames of the movie—​showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”37

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee [wiki: paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the scientific journal Nature], pp. 116-117

What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?* [See, for example, the box “What About Human Evolution?”]
...

Evolution​—Myths and Facts

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* [The changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.] Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”

Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes​—which no one has observed—​are also possible.17 He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth.18

To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* [While the word “species” is used frequently in this section, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.] In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Consider the following.

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations​—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—​can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection​—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—​could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. ...
...
Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. ...

Belief in Evolution​—An Act of “Faith”
...
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
For humans to break away from chimps it took just 1% DNA

You see, this is the semantic manipulation your church uses to generate belief in its adherents. the 99% similarity between chimps and humans is not 99%, instead, if you read carefully, they say:

"The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical."
genome.gov

So essentially they're saying the strands that are almost identical, are 99% similar. Which really is saying nothing, considering the true overlap match percentage is about 84%. 16% discrepancy in a genome about 3,200,000,000 bases long, means that around 500,000,000 base pair mutations is the estimated leap chimpanzees would have had to make.



"identical bases between humans and chimps", is the number that's important. They want you to believe that number is 99%, but it's actually around 84%.

500,000,000 successful base pair mutations is absolutely insurmountable, even given 5 million years.

Beware of the deceptive tactics of the mainstream scientism church

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

But there is DNA floating all around in ambient air.

Air-borne viruses have RNA or DNA in their shell.

a reply to: andy06shake

Your point being?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You asked the question "Is it in the air we breathe?" pertaining to DNA.

I answered said question.

Just a common courtesy mate the points rather obvious.

a reply to: andy06shake

So you're stating air is the cause of evolution?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Can't see how you take that away from the composition of air.

There is DNA in the viruses that float around in our air.

Our atmosphere was probably formed from the gases given out by volcanoes.

It is believed that there was intense volcanic activity for the first billion years of the Earth's existence.

The early atmosphere was probably mostly carbon dioxide.

a reply to: andy06shake

Again, point being?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

The information presented is simply for assimilation.

Derive from it what you will.

My bet is on evolution unless a more credible theory arises, put it that way.

a reply to: andy06shake

There's nothing to be derived from and it would be silly to do so.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

There is nothing to be derived from evolution?

Or there is nothing to be derived from the composition of our atmosphere?

I would argue there is plenty of useful information gleaned from such data.

For a start knowing the evolutionary relationships among species allows scientists to choose appropriate organisms for the study of diseases, such as HIV.

Scientists are even using the principles of natural selection to identify new drugs for detecting and treating diseases such as cancer.

As to our atmosphere, the particular mix of elements, notably oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, along with water vapor, are necessary for “life as we know it” to be sustained, knowing the composition of such is of obvious importance.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here, some evidences for you

Oh, i don't believe in wikipedia

ok, another one


"Oh, show me the evidence that proves one animal turning into another one"

You don't have to be a genius to understand that if we put the species in question into a long enough timetable their traits are going to change enough to be called a new one

a reply to: Peserc

well, we prefer to be geniuses and not understand.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You can do that, but it doesnt mean evolution is wrong and certainly nobody cares

a reply to: Peserc

Obviously

originally posted by: Peserc
You don't have to be a genius to understand that if we put the species in question into a long enough timetable their traits are going to change enough to be called a new one

So ... name that one. You can't.

Your link to the mosquito BS. So the mosquitos that were susceptible to DDT all died. Hence they weren't around to breed. So only the one resistant to DDT survived to breed.

But they're still frikkin' mosquitos.

Once more. Show us. Put up or shut up. Your stupid birds are still birds. They didn't grow arms or shed their feathers.

Your evidence isn't just weak ... it is non-existent. Thank you for playing.

a reply to: Deplorable

there are more than 25 thousand words in the wiki page and your answer is only about the "mosquitos not growing arms"?

LOL