Alternate THEORIES of evolution:

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

LOL, once in awhile I'll imagine that I had an original thought and then one of you guys come along. I'll try to track down that book, thanks.

Your local library might have it. It just came out in February.

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I am still waiting for the creationists to tell me what is their definition of a "species". I keep on hearing that one species cannot change into another, but no creationist can tell me what they mean when they talk about a species.

Is a species any creature that can mate with another and have offspring?
or is it a any creature that can mate with each other and have fertile offspring?

if so, what about creatures that reproduce asexually, with self-fertilization, or with parthenogenesis, etc, etc, etc.......?

One species cannot mate with another and have fertile offspring. Simple definition regardless of belief.

OK, then what about creatures that reproduce asexually? Do they constitute a species?

Yes.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

There is a huge flaw in your argument. There is no such thing as "devolution." Creatures do not suddenly revert to more primitive forms. Natural selection doesn't depend on increasing advances in complexity but in the most efficient and effective use of resources for better reproductive success.

Here's an example. The loss of eyes or vision in species that inhabit dark places like caves or the deep ocean isn't a step backwards on the evolutionary scale. It is an adaptation to their environment.

In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.

Where are your calculations showing that the rate of mutation is too fast?

Please browse this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... Also, it may well be of interest to you to read the whole thread from the beginning to get the full gist of what I'm describing.

If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.

100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.

The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.

Originally posted by Barcs

If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.

100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.

The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.

edit on 25-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

This.

That's precisely why I was asking for the calculation.

Originally posted by HappyBunny



I'm still not understanding how you've come to the conclusion that the rate of mutation is too fast.

I say it is not too fast, I agree with you on what you say. I don't believe in de-evolution..it's just evolution... two eyes is efficient for nature...

There are two parts to a brain one is size and the other is the amount of energy pumped into it, and the energy part is more important than size. Chimps have smaller brains than Gorillas but are smarter because of the energy a chimp uses is much greater.

It is true our brains are smaller than a few homos in our past, but not that much smaller, and our brains are probably growing once again with the huge amount of calories we intake these days, but that all takes a long time. One thing we do not know is the amount of energy these other creatures actually provide to their brains...at 25% of all our energy going into our brains is a crazy number when compared.

reply to post by Iason321


You've not said anything new at all - I think what you've said is obvious!

Originally posted by Megatronus

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Iason321

 

Actually he is right. Your getting mad at them for pointing out your inaccuracy. Which is why creationists usually FAIL in the evolution debate, because most don't understand the basic terminology of science.

edit on 19-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Amen and then when you do pull them up on this they cry foul. I dont know what the true history of evolution is but id be more inclined to believe science with actual evidence then a book written by man. The only species on earth proven to lie, twist and manipulate facts when it suits thier agenda.

Im not a Bible believer BUT!!

What's the difference between the bible (written by man) and science (written by man)?

reply to post by Romekje

Science changes as new evidence is collected.

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by Megatronus

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Iason321

 

Actually he is right. Your getting mad at them for pointing out your inaccuracy. Which is why creationists usually FAIL in the evolution debate, because most don't understand the basic terminology of science.

edit on 19-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Amen and then when you do pull them up on this they cry foul. I dont know what the true history of evolution is but id be more inclined to believe science with actual evidence then a book written by man. The only species on earth proven to lie, twist and manipulate facts when it suits thier agenda.

Im not a Bible believer BUT!!

What's the difference between the bible (written by man) and science (written by man)?

One has all the answers which you cannot question and will never change.

The other is an ongoing search to expand human knowledge which admits to having very few of the answers and will constantly change as that knowledge increases.

I think you know which is which....

reply to post by Iason321


Isn't one of the main problems with any theistic view of evolution, or anything for that matter, that it seems you just pick any arbitrary point and say 'God did it' to justify not looking any deeper.

If you want to say god invented biology or organic chemistry fine, but realize that it does not substitute for knowledge of how any of these processes work.

Originally posted by DakotaCensus
If you want to say god invented biology or organic chemistry fine, but realize that it does not substitute for knowledge of how any of these processes work.

It also doesn't discriminate between the 10s of thousands of Gods that humans have written and told stories about.

Originally posted by Barcs

If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.

100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.

The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.

edit on 25-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

If the mutations happening too fast has been debunked, please provide references.

Originally posted by chr0naut

If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.

100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.

The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.

If the mutations happening too fast has been debunked, please provide references.

Here's an article about the more recent experiment I was referring to:

www.sciencenews.org...

Plus nobody has provided the original link, which I'm assuming you are referring to this?

www.genetics.org...

Now even in that link it doesn't say anywhere that the deleterious rate is too high for evolution to occur. People read the crap on a creationist website that loosely references this experiment from 2000 with faulty math and old numbers based on an old result. Typical of most creationist "science".

reply to post by Iason321


Finally!
Was wondering when someone would figure this out.
As an ATS member said, would we really have evolved from monkeys, there would be no monkeys. We can't just have become ultra--sophisticated in less than 450 000 years, like Darwinism think. I agree that the Bible might have been half-right: no we didn't appeared 6000 years ago, but someone or something did played with us to make us who we are now.
Star and Flag!

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by chr0naut

If random mutation drives Evolutionary Theory then the absence of devolutionary examples IS indicating that the theory doesn't work that way.

100% false. Creatures adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY direction they head. Of course the mutations are random, but the environment is not. Evolution as a whole is not. There is no backwards evolution or sideways evolution or even forward evolution. It's all about the environment and creatures surviving environmental changes. If a creature has a mutation that isn't favorable for that environment, they die out, not "devolve". The fact that there are no creatures that have "devolved" is further proof of natural selection and darwinian evolution.

The "mutations happening too fast" argument has already been debunked. First it was based on an older study. Newer studies show a lower rate of mutation, and that the rate varies from individual to individual. There is no actual merit in that claim, and not a single scientist working on the project has stated or concluded that the rate is too high for evolution to occur. It may lead to less diversity down the road OR pose a danger to our species at some point, but we simply don't know enough about it to say for sure that darwinian evolution is wrong because of a rate of mutation that we don't even know the full cause. It could be pollutants, environmental factors, or something else. Assuming that it means darwinian evolution is wrong, is jumping the gun.

If the mutations happening too fast has been debunked, please provide references.

Here's an article about the more recent experiment I was referring to:

www.sciencenews.org...

Plus nobody has provided the original link, which I'm assuming you are referring to this?

www.genetics.org...

Now even in that link it doesn't say anywhere that the deleterious rate is too high for evolution to occur. People read the crap on a creationist website that loosely references this experiment from 2000 with faulty math and old numbers based on an old result. Typical of most creationist "science".

edit on 13-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

This was only for Human mutation rates. I was referring to other species mutation rates.

Also please not the following from your second link, in regard to your last paragraph:

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 Down; WALLACE 1981 Down; CROW 1993 Down; KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 Down). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

Admittedly the deleterious Human mutation rate is not as bad as suggested in the last article, but it still represents a significant problem for evolutionary biologists.

The (newer) article quoted from Nature Genetics also only measured mutations in six people, which was an extremely small sample upon which to base their findings.

It is likely that the signal is occluded by the noise in this case.

Originally posted by chr0naut
This was only for Human mutation rates. I was referring to other species mutation rates.

Can you please refer me to those studies? Humans have higher mutation rates than most other observed mammals. I'd like to see one that suggests the rates are too fast for evolution to occur, especially when you consider that the environment drives evolution more than the mutation rate. Wouldn't a faster rate be more conducive to surviving a drastic change in environment?

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 Down; WALLACE 1981 Down; CROW 1993 Down; KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 Down). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

Yes, exactly what I was talking about. U=3.

www.genetics.org...

Here's an even more recent one

The human mutation rate per nucleotide site per generation (μ) can be estimated from data on mutation rates at loci causing Mendelian genetic disease, by comparing putatively neutrally evolving nucleotide sequences between humans and chimpanzees and by comparing the genome sequences of relatives. Direct estimates from genome sequencing of relatives suggest that μ is about 1.1 × 10−8, which is about twofold lower than estimates based on the human–chimp divergence. This implies that an average of ∼70 new mutations arise in the human diploid genome per generation. Most of these mutations are paternal in origin, but the male:female mutation rate ratio is currently uncertain and might vary even among individuals within a population. On the basis of a method proposed by Kondrashov and Crow, the genome-wide deleterious mutation rate (U) can be estimated from the product of the number of nucleotide sites in the genome, μ, and the mean selective constraint per site. Although the presence of many weakly selected mutations in human noncoding DNA makes this approach somewhat problematic, estimates are U ≈ 2.2 for the whole diploid genome per generation and ∼0.35 for mutations that change an amino acid of a protein-coding gene. A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is “hard,” but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis. I argue that in the foreseeable future, an accumulation of new deleterious mutations is unlikely to lead to a detectable decline in fitness of human populations.

Admittedly the deleterious Human mutation rate is not as bad as suggested in the last article, but it still represents a significant problem for evolutionary biologists.

The (newer) article quoted from Nature Genetics also only measured mutations in six people, which was an extremely small sample upon which to base their findings.

It's certainly not the only other recent study, but regardless it DOES show that the mutation rate can vary from individual to individual, and that parents don't always pass down the same amount of genes. It seems like the study from 2000 only sampled 2 human and 1 chimp unless I'm reading that wrong. There's still a lot more to be done before anyone can draw any ridiculous conclusions from them such as "the rate is too high for evolution to occur". Nowhere in any experiment or study does it say that.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

I am asking you politely to stop trolling my threads and posts if you can't think of anything worth saying or intelligent,

You're showing your immaturity and lack of ability to objectively observe by continually making crude, smart alec remarks to my posts,

Umm, no. You're showing your ignorance of scientific terminology; therefore you're wrong and should apologize. Theory is not the word that should have been used, as a theory is something that stands up to experiment, and is basically something that has been proven to be correct. What you meant was hypothesis, or a possibility. As far as the subject of this thread, I do not think anyone can disagree with the idea that if God exists, he could have used evolution as a tool.

How can anyone who believes in God and say he is all powerful, yet deny him the ability to use evolution as a tool at his disposal...And there are people like that. Most people that argue for religion do so without proof or logic, which sometimes is understandable...but most of the time these people pick and choose what science and logic they want to believe, while disregarding the rest.

reply to post by Iason321


Creationism and evolutionism, to me, go hand in hand - for what is controlling the evolutionary process? What began us - for it certainly cannot be a pond of ooze that randomly came together to produce life. This science/religion debate is old and outdated because it's apparent now that they fit together better than previously imagined.