Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

reply to post by BBalazs


I'm certainly no expert or scholar, but who is to say where the chain of creation started? Not me, or you. I love the subject and i keep an open mind. Consider this, after a meteor wipes out 98% of the current population, our ancestors in the future may have written accounts of the story i posted. It can be told from generation to generation and people will argue its validity. Kinda like we do now with ancient texts of creation.

Another thread in which people will try and argue against the collected and combined knowledge of 150 years worth of biologists, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, palaeontologists, physicists....

reply to post by type0civ



Yes, but evolution is not about creation.
Anyone could have started life, etc. but they sure as hell programed it to evolve.
You can make many arguements for god, and even design.
But that design is evolution.

reply to post by BBalazs

Anyone could have started life, etc. but they sure as hell programed it to evolve.

That's one of the most profound statements i've seen in support of evolution...well said.

Oh, and i'm not arguing for God. I'm just not convinced we started off as a mixture of liquid stuck by lightning.

I question why there are no obvious animals in transition everywhere.

reply to post by type0civ


It doesnt matter if you believe in god or not.
If you can imagine it, you can believe in it.
But how about believing in yourself fellow humans, rather then some far of entity that never visits?

reply to post by type0civ

You want me to answer the animal part?

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by BBalazs
Evolution aint no theory at all.
Its a fact.
An astute observation. Like there are males and females (and in rare cases androgyns). Is that up for debate?
Besides, anyone who breads animals can pretty much do some mini evolution at home.
Its an eloquent and poignant observation.
Now you may believe something else, but it remains a fact.
And it is so incomprehensibly beautiful, why would anyone want to deny this fact?
It is about our Earth.
It is about the very soul of being human.

Oh, where to begin - yes, Darwinian evolution is in fact a theory, and science just generally acknowledges is as currently the best explanation for the evidence and observations we make. While there are many lines of interpretation that lead to this conclusion, they are nevertheless debated on various sides for various reasons, with alternate explanations.

To say it is a fact is incomplete and inaccurate - opinion, despite how weighty an opinion it might be with the suggestive evidences.

As far as "mini evolution", I'd guess you're talking about genetic diversity and yielding desirable traits - these are functions of the variations within a species' genetic code (AKA manipulations of micro evolution/natural selection) and have nothing to do with the overarching theory of common descent.

While I applaud your goal, I can't approve the inaccuracies or misunderstandings.

I was going to make that comment. Breeding and Evolution arent equal, but are similar. Not the best argument for the theory of evolution into fact.

"mini evolution" is the best way to explain phenomenom

evolutionfairytale.com...

this is a fascinating article on the amount of harmful/deleterious mutations that occur on average per human. the study that the paper is based on was done by evolutionists and published in nature magazine. ill post quotes to summarize the main points.

Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).

It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6)

Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7).

if the rate of mutation U=3 is used in the formula, that means statistically a human female must have 40 children to have 1 child that doesn't have a harmful mutation. that's 40 children to genetically break even. it would require many more to get a single beneficial mutation.

personally i haven't arrived at a date for when humans began, but from the journal Science they made this calculation based on mutation rates:

Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. ...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.

evolution is not science, nor is it feasible.

oh yes, i forgot to add a bit about "synergistic epistasis". simply stated, it assumes that harmful mutations always interact and produce a harmful effect greater than the individual sum of the harmful mutations. firstly, this has never been demonstrated, and secondly you would have to assume that women have more than 40 children each, and that statistically 39 would likely die before they could breed. this is obviously not the case.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
i quoted the above from a post i made in another thread, though no one has wanted to touch on it yet. i thought i'd post it here and see some of the responses.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


does the 200,000 - 300,000 bench mark they have given for "mitochondrial eve" relate to how humans are today or the begininning of the human form all together?

This is interesting and I believe we will find more answers once Lake Voltok is contaminated... sorry I mean once they have extracted some of the primordial ooze from the lake that is estimated to be million of years old and untouched.

Honestly god save us all once evil scientist and greedy pigs get their hands on these ancient secrets. if there was ever a time to say we are # is once the lake has been breached.

I think the more accurate way to describe evolution is:

Evolution is scientific theory BASED ON facts. The entire thing isn't a fact, simply because we don't have all the answers. The facts that support evolution, however, are undeniable.

Evolution = tons of facts to support it
Creation = 0 facts to support it

Oh, and i'm not arguing for God. I'm just not convinced we started off as a mixture of liquid stuck by lightning.

Thanks for pointing out that you know absolutely nothing about evolution.

reply to post by ImmortalThought

mitochondrial eve is supposed to be the woman from whom all humans today descended. basically she is supposed to be the first fully human female, and everyone is related to her. see, mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring directly, so it never recombines, and therefore should stay the same.

as for the 6000 years old bit, i don't think it is correct, but probably in the ballpark. it is based off the assumption that mutation rates today have been constant since humans first began. this isn't provable, though i suspect the true number is closer to 6000 than it is 200,000-300,000.

now evolutionists can make one of two arguments. they can either say that human females have averaged 40 kids each, and the 39 that had harmful mutations always perished and never procreated. then the 1 who is baseline procreates with someone else who is baseline and they do that hundreds of times until a single beneficial mutation arises. this is impossible, as it would require humans following a strict breeding (even impossible) program and have knowledge of harmful mutations and how to spot them for the past 250,000 years.

option two is that we're devolving, and always have been. this argument would say that the first cell had all the genetic information of every variation of animal, plant, and organism that has ever existed. over time as mutations and natural selection (primarily due to environmental stimuli) whittled down the genetic code, every variation came to be. though even this theory doesn't explain how life began or where the information came from.

there is one more option: realize macro-evolution has never occurred, and can't ever occur, then go back to the drawing board.

Evolution = tons of facts to support it Creation = 0 facts to support it

the "evidence" that supports evolution disappears when you look at it. i'd like you to address my last post. [

reply to post by BBalazs


The thing about this theory for me is it fails to tell us how life began. Nevermind that creation is given an actual historical account because that isn't science. It's scientific history. Those who cling to this option are afraid of the authority that comes with creation. The Creator always has authority over his creation. Have breeders ever bred a dog into a bird ? It's hard for people who don't know better to see their mistake. But they will.

reply to post by randyvs


Evolution doesnt deal with creation.
It deals with evolution.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by randyvs

 

Evolution doesnt deal with creation.
It deals with evolution.

I think at it's very best ? Evolution claims adaptation as Evolution.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ImmortalThought

 

mitochondrial eve is supposed to be the woman from whom all humans today descended. basically she is supposed to be the first fully human female, and everyone is related to her. see, mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring directly, so it never recombines, and therefore should stay the same.

as for the 6000 years old bit, i don't think it is correct, but probably in the ballpark. it is based off the assumption that mutation rates today have been constant since humans first began. this isn't provable, though i suspect the true number is closer to 6000 than it is 200,000-300,000.

now evolutionists can make one of two arguments. they can either say that human females have averaged 40 kids each, and the 39 that had harmful mutations always perished and never procreated. then the 1 who is baseline procreates with someone else who is baseline and they do that hundreds of times until a single beneficial mutation arises. this is impossible, as it would require humans following a strict breeding (even impossible) program and have knowledge of harmful mutations and how to spot them for the past 250,000 years.

option two is that we're devolving, and always have been. this argument would say that the first cell had all the genetic information of every variation of animal, plant, and organism that has ever existed. over time as mutations and natural selection (primarily due to environmental stimuli) whittled down the genetic code, every variation came to be. though even this theory doesn't explain how life began or where the information came from.

there is one more option: realize macro-evolution has never occurred, and can't ever occur, then go back to the drawing board.

Evolution = tons of facts to support it Creation = 0 facts to support it

the "evidence" that supports evolution disappears when you look at it. i'd like you to address my last post. [

edit on 23-1-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Option two devolving sounds interesting. It sounds much like the pardoxial and fractal view I have on life. Is there any printed or online sources about this theory or is this yours? I'd like to hear more.

And though it doesnt explain how life began, I'm willing to bet there is a clue. hmm this has got me thinking...

reply to post by randyvs

The thing about this theory for me is it fails to tell us how life began.

That would fall into the category of "abiogenesis". This is separate from evolution. However, the concept of life beginning from combinations of various interactive chemicals is perfectly reasonable, even if the "exact" processes are still to be defined.

Life is all about chemistry, after all. Think about it.....every biological process involves a chemical interactions. I'm told by physician friends that some found the course on Organic Chemistry to be some of the hardest in Med School.


Here is a YouTube that does a fine job of describing a plausible scenario, at least in terms of how life processes related to Earth-type organisms relate. Chemistry combinations in other extraterrestrial environments could lead to very exotic and different results:

This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Jack Szostak's LAB. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine for his work on telomerase.

It's been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don't be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about.

Things dont devolve.
They evolve.
Wether back or forward is human wishful thinking.
Enjoy your time on Earth!

reply to post by ImmortalThought

well...devolving may be an imprecise way to describe it. all the different kinds of dogs we have today came from a single species of wolf, or some other old dog-species. that original canine ancestor had all the genetic information to make all the different variations of dogs that we have today.

for example. lets say the wolves were domesticated and the humans started breeding the largest two together, and continued to do this with all the offspring. eventually they'll end up with a different looking dog as the genes for size are preserved, but others are lost because they weren't focused on. this new variation has more corrupted genetic information, but that damage has caused it to adapt. there is a limit to how far things can adapt, as has been proven time and again by experiments. the offspring will never have more undamaged genetic information than the parents.

this is called micro-evolution, or variation, and it has been proven many times over. evolutionists take it to an unproven level, and say that instead of losing information, the offspring gain more information than their parents through beneficial mutations and can eventually become a completely separate species. this is unproven and it contradicts the evidence.

Evolution is a fact based on creation is how we started out here! Once we were created, we then evolved into the creatures we are today!

There "aint no" doubt about it.....It is fact!!

Was my response as convincing to you as yours was to me???

Originally posted by BBalazs
Things dont devolve.
They evolve.
Wether back or forward is human wishful thinking.
Enjoy your time on Earth!

the paper i posted, based on research done by three evolutionists and published in numerous magazines, says otherwise. variations of species arise out of the loss of genetic information. however, this cannot lead to a new species. if you keep breeding the animal in the same line, the genetic code becomes too weak, and the organism becomes sterile.

Evolution doesnt deal with creation.
It deals with evolution.

i see lots of evolutionists tout this as support for evolution, but in the end it is a kind of bravado to shield against criticism because evolutionary theory has no answer for how life began from non-life. so instead of address this glaring issue, evolutionists say "not our problem".

if you have nothing to fear, and all evidence points to evolution, then why don't you offer your opinion of the article i posted?