[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Milk-Drops]

There are two theories of evolution, the special theory is about changes and small variations, which can be observed today...its also a part of Creation theory predictions, within kinds there should be variation up to certain boundaries.

What is a kind?
What are the boundaries?
What do you mean by Small variation?
What is creation theory, and are you saying its a scientific or theological theory?

Then there is the general theory of evolution, and this has never been observed, nor has any part of the this theory even remotely true...the predictions this theory make is false...even modern scientists who are atheists acknowledge the general theory or Neo-Darwinism theory is dead.

Can you define this theory as to what it means. I think that would be more fruitful than shooting into the dark about what you mean.

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1122.htm See my link for further studies....

Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) of the University of California beginning In 1930, and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, have developed a new theory of general evolution called the "hopeful monster theory" or "punctuated equilibrium" in which large changes to the DNA sequences occurred all at once suddenly. They proposed this new theory because the older one is dead, and will never work, because genetics have well and truly destroyed the general theory of evolution.

I really wish claiming Gould was a supporter of creationism when he was a vehement denouncer of many creationist theories and many people don't seem to understand what PE even is. Gould figured out that when large niches become available there are great and "rapid" bursts in experimenting with the new niche. Then there is a great dieing off. This still takes millions of years, all it changed in Evolutionary Biology, is that that it became another explanation that fit better than Gradualism.

There is no such thing as the General Theory of Evolution, there is just the theory of evolution. That includes allele frequencies and population mechanics. The thoery of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

For example the very atoms and molecules of proteins have to arrange themselves at atomic levels of nano-scale structure to get new information, and nearly all such changes are neutral and natural selection will not select them....

Actually that means natural selection will let it pass. Its the main reason why we have variation within species. However many neutral mutations can become beneficial or detrimental based on the ecosystem.

the other problem is most mutations are destroyers of DNA so too many mutations and the organism dies...

I split this off from the last statement because the paragraph is saying to contradictory things. You can't have 2 majorities. You can have 2 incidents that are just as likely to happen, but not the other way around. Also this is genetics and Chemistry, not Evolutionary biology.

today we see a massive rise in mutations in humans for example, around 4% of the human genome and most scientists now see the human race is heading for extinction due to mutations happening too rapidly....

Source please. Also, the entire population wouldn't die because of instances of bad mutations. Mutations aren't viruses. It would be years down the line that specific lineages would be hurt, and guess what, that would be natural selection.

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1120.htm The bacteria flagellum is but one example of genetic information that cannot be inherited simply by small changes...over 40 proteins, 10,000 amino acids, 40 DNA genes, and regulation proteins, the machine is just way too complex....its not rocket scientist is a person sees an old machine lying on the sea floor we know intelligent design made it...but somehow living biological motors are not given the same credit?

This old thing? Its been debunked a long time ago, like back in the 80s. Plus the bacteria flagellum is found in many types of bacteria with variations on how it works and what parts are there. What we see is a highly specialized part that adapted to its specific task.

The real killer of evolution is the DNA code....code comes from coders, not materials....ACTG are letters of DNA code, and arranged in information sequences.... even neural networks do not write themselves new code based on their environment stimuli...code only comes from a intelligent coder....

This is based on the encode project, but as a dude who is both into computer science and biology, its not impressive. DNA doesn't have a "code" it functions similar to how code functions, but no where near as sophisticated or as complex. DNA follows the rules of chemistry and reacts like how chemicals react. For instance in human coding language, we have bodies, headers, footers, shortcuts, hyperlinks, etc.

DNA is a sequence of proteins and appears to look like code, because we write it to look similar to code, In reality, it looks like molecules and we just named the structures.

At the physics end evolution is also dead....matter and energy are running down and wearing out....physical laws do not create, laws only describe... in fact evolutionists have to believe things came into being by nothing and using nothing....

Shalom

Wrong, now you have butchered Evolutionary biology and Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian Mechanics the first law states that matter can't be created nor destroyed, it just changes phases. This is debatable when we get to the quantum level, but that isn't my field.

the second law of thermo dynamics means that within a finite system, eventually the energy will come to rest. That means all energy in known universe. This Law can be shown if you light a match and throw it into a vacuum. Eventually the match will stop burning because the vacuum runs out of oxygen. If you allow more oxygen in, the match will continue to burn until the match is gone.

On this planet organisms feed on resources to survive, the resources are converted to energy to help sustain the organism, and to create offspring. The offspring carries genetic information and mutations, natural selection weeds out the organisms that can't survive, evolution occurs when species become genetically isolated from the mother or father species, or due to an incident that causes a shift in the ecosystem, the gene pool is reduced and then bounces back with traits replacing other traits as dominant.

As long as the Earth has resources, and the Sun exists, evolution will continue. Evolution will end when there is no long a sustainable amount of resources.

 

[rthom7]

What is a kind?
What are the boundaries?
What do you mean by Small variation?
What is creation theory, and are you saying its a scientific or theological theory?


Can you define this theory as to what it means. I think that would be more fruitful than shooting into the dark about what you mean.

I really wish claiming Gould was a supporter of creationism when he was a vehement denouncer of many creationist theories and many people don't seem to understand what PE even is. Gould figured out that when large niches become available there are great and "rapid" bursts in experimenting with the new niche. Then there is a great dieing off. This still takes millions of years, all it changed in Evolutionary Biology, is that that it became another explanation that fit better than Gradualism.

There is no such thing as the General Theory of Evolution, there is just the theory of evolution. That includes allele frequencies and population mechanics. The thoery of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.


Actually that means natural selection will let it pass. Its the main reason why we have variation within species. However many neutral mutations can become beneficial or detrimental based on the ecosystem.

I split this off from the last statement because the paragraph is saying to contradictory things. You can't have 2 majorities. You can have 2 incidents that are just as likely to happen, but not the other way around. Also this is genetics and Chemistry, not Evolutionary biology.

Source please. Also, the entire population wouldn't die because of instances of bad mutations. Mutations aren't viruses. It would be years down the line that specific lineages would be hurt, and guess what, that would be natural selection.

This old thing? Its been debunked a long time ago, like back in the 80s. Plus the bacteria flagellum is found in many types of bacteria with variations on how it works and what parts are there. What we see is a highly specialized part that adapted to its specific task.

This is based on the encode project, but as a dude who is both into computer science and biology, its not impressive. DNA doesn't have a "code" it functions similar to how code functions, but no where near as sophisticated or as complex. DNA follows the rules of chemistry and reacts like how chemicals react. For instance in human coding language, we have bodies, headers, footers, shortcuts, hyperlinks, etc.

DNA is a sequence of proteins and appears to look like code, because we write it to look similar to code, In reality, it looks like molecules and we just named the structures.

Wrong, now you have butchered Evolutionary biology and Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian Mechanics the first law states that matter can't be created nor destroyed, it just changes phases. This is debatable when we get to the quantum level, but that isn't my field.

the second law of thermo dynamics means that within a finite system, eventually the energy will come to rest. That means all energy in known universe. This Law can be shown if you light a match and throw it into a vacuum. Eventually the match will stop burning because the vacuum runs out of oxygen. If you allow more oxygen in, the match will continue to burn until the match is gone.

On this planet organisms feed on resources to survive, the resources are converted to energy to help sustain the organism, and to create offspring. The offspring carries genetic information and mutations, natural selection weeds out the organisms that can't survive, evolution occurs when species become genetically isolated from the mother or father species, or due to an incident that causes a shift in the ecosystem, the gene pool is reduced and then bounces back with traits replacing other traits as dominant.

As long as the Earth has resources, and the Sun exists, evolution will continue. Evolution will end when there is no long a sustainable amount of resources.

Well Milk Drops, since we aren't allowed to debate, and I can tell your biased in your thinking, as we are all biased and come with our own religion of understanding things, it is pointless to explain anything to you...
You just admitted in your own words that matter and energy will continue to evolve as long as matter continues to exists, but as you describe a match burns for as long as entropy and thermodynamics allow...so a universe trillions of year old will in time run down to chaos and cease to exist...in fact life only exists because GOD is pouring His zero point energy into it, and this life force opposes the thermodynamic theory for living things because life is not a closed system....indeed even quantum itself is forced to remain "moving" because of the existence of God's zero point energy...this energy field is so abundance only brave scientists like Tesla and others invented machines using it.

I could supply you additional support for my ascertains but you would not read the links anyway....and I don't blame you, otherwise you might have to abandon your own theories of faith....

Read the material of any evolutionist and you will find two theories of evolution my friend....

This video by Don Patton is a good summary of both theories of evolution and he quotes evolutionist's.

Now if you have a really good hour long video showing convincing proof of molecules to bacteria, or bacteria without flagellum to bacterial cells with flagellum, or how life came from non living cells, or even the origin of DNA from random chemicals, I would love to watch the evidence.... but please don't show me stuff we already know about small changes within certain boundaries....

The only evidence of a mutation causing some benefit to a species is the mutant black squirrel in the UK. It has lost DNA and thus testosterone regulation, so the black squirrel is out competing the grey squirrel introduced into the UK. All mutations do not add information to the DNA, mutations cause devolution, a loss of information.

Dr Patton is a good summary of my view...please watch it. Now please supply a really good video to counter my claims presented. Shalom

 

[jay55]

Why are there no half monkey half humans?. Where did all the Humonks go?.

A few politicians might fit the bill among others.

 

[rthom7]

Why are there no half monkey half humans?. Where did all the Humonks go?. Is there anything half evolved or in the process of evolution. I want to look at something weird, like a talking zebra. I wonder if in a billion years my avatar will turn human. It has 2 eyes and mouth and a nose, thats a start.

That's a joke, scientists can't even get bacteria loaded up with dozens of additional DNA material to hang unto them and thus evolve...ie deliberate DNA insertions....for example adding new DNA into the junk DNA region causes the bacteria to die and not develop...so where does one add new DNA material to allow the bacteria to survive ? The so called adding DNA into plants using GMO, is more like an infection using viruses, as far as I can tell, they are not splicing open plant DNA and adding the new DNA, the science of genetic modification is so barbaric it truly primitive and dangerous...

Anyway as far as I know, there is no good movie of evolution explaining the general theory of evolution as I posted before, where it really matters....they are silent because there is no proof. I have found research where even two DNA strands broken can be repaired within a minute, in fact up to 150 double broken strands per cell per hour can be repaired, so if a change was done in a bacterial cell, it would be repaired and changed back within a minute of it happening....there are 4 copies of every code in bacteria, two chromosome's carrying 2 copies each, making 4 in total. to get a permanent change all 4 copies of DNA would have to change at the same time, and in the right place...if the changes are destroying existing necessary genes, the bacteria dies.
How on earth do we get additional information to stay inside bacteria, one has yet to provide a mechanism.

I have read some say bacteria with 16 chromosomes divided but did not divide fully, so the new cell ended up with 32 chromosomes instead of 16....that might work, would the bacteria continue on dividing with a set of 32 for generation after generation? That might be the first science experimental test for evolution...Does bacteria allow this ? Then you could change the other chromosomes one at a time or mix several at a time until new information was jumbled together.

This supposes that information in the DNA is just chemical as one said, not unique code for specific proteins...
I have heard evolutionists say the flagella protein can be very different, its the hair pin loop that matters? Is this true ? Have anybody listed all DNA sequences of the all flagella and tested this idea ? How random can the sequence be ? I suspect the coded DNA codes not just protein sequences, but functional regulation, feedback mechanism, decision processes, neural network decision mechanisms, emotional mechanisms and even thought process within cellular membranes, protein motor decision regulation, and so forth...meaning far more than just the mere sequence of proteins, ie chemicals.... proteins alone is not life...you need code to regulate them, you need code for decision processes....one thing that puzzles me with human code, is we cannot code mind processes in computers, we come close but not really...obviously God has figured this out and we have not, because living things at a protein level do think and make decisions, making the DNA code more than chemical information, it's truly a code, man has not figured it all out yet....

Shalom

 

[Milk-Drops]

Why are there no half monkey half humans?.

Its actually because Modern Monkies descended from Old world Monkies. Apes split off from old world Monkies, humans are part of the great Ape group knonw as hominids. Along side Humans/Cromagnuns, we have found Neanderthal and a few smaller groups.

Where did all the Humonks go?.

Humonks never existed, but Neanderthal went extinct due to it not being able to compete with modern Man.

Is there anything half evolved or in the process of evolution.

Nothing is ever half evolved, evolution refers to change in species over time, its taking a lineage and tracing it back and observing how it got there. Its like genealogy.

I want to look at something weird, like a talking zebra.

You probably wouldn't find it since a zebra is very far removed from humans and there are no selection paterns that would push the zebra line at this moment int that way.

I wonder if in a billion years my avatar will turn human. It has 2 eyes and mouth and a nose, thats a start.

No, the reason is because slots are on a completely different lineage removed from humans. They could one day resemble humans, but they would never be genetically human.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well Milk Drops, since we aren't allowed to debate, and I can tell your biased in your thinking, as we are all biased and come with our own religion of understanding things, it is pointless to explain anything to you...

Thank you for being upfront that you are going to spin and twist what I say.

You just admitted in your own words that matter and energy will continue to evolve as long as matter continues to exists

No I didn't. It seems I can guess how this is going to go, you have a predetermined idea of my world view, so you are going to twist what I say into fitting that world view. How about we actually have a conversation instead of you talking over me? Does that sound fair?

but as you describe a match burns for as long as entropy and thermodynamics allow...

Newtonian Mechanics doesn't allow the match to burn, it explains why it burns.

so a universe trillions of year old will in time run down to chaos and cease to exist...

In physics and cosmology, its called heat death.

fact life only exists because GOD is pouring His zero point energy into it,

Its not a fact because there is no such thing as zero point energy. If you want to make a case for zero point energy, you are free to do so, but you'll have to define and explain what it is.

and this life force opposes the thermodynamic theory for living things because life is not a closed system....

In what ways does your X(zero point God energy/life force) oppose Newtonian Mechanics? How can something with zero energy be a force?

indeed even quantum itself is forced to remain "moving" because of the existence of God's zero point energy...t

You need to define what Zero Point energy is.

this energy field is so abundance only brave scientists like Tesla and others invented machines using it.

I'm very familiar with Nickola Tesla. Enough to know he wasn't experimenting with Zero Point Energy, he was doing experiments with Electro-Magnetism, Alternating Current, and Direct Current. He figured out how to utilize electricity in ways we had not thought of before and the field he helped to pioneer is now being used to use Radio, blue tooth, cell phones, wireless technology in general.

I could supply you additional support for my ascertains but you would not read the links anyway....and I don't blame you, otherwise you might have to abandon your own theories of faith....

You don't have to play this game. You don't know anything about my beliefs and I can tell you that Evolution is one of the least impact things that formed it. I'm pointing out your errors in Newtonian Mechanics using the work of a Creationist named Issac Newton. Tesla believed in Ghosts and he is one of the sources people use for EMP. If you could explain ZPE, I will listen, it doesn't mean I'm going to accept it, But I'll read it.

Read the material of any evolutionist and you will find two theories of evolution my friend....

I've read Darwin, Ghould, Wienberg, Lemark, Dawkins, etc. Big people that influence the theory. How about you back up your claim and point out which "evolutionist" said what you claim?

This video by Don Patton is a good summary of both theories of evolution and he quotes evolutionist's.

How about you link me to papers and studies, because a speaker can manipulate quotes to say whatever they want. Don Patton is also outside of his field and isn't presenting this in a research paper, and hasn't submited research papers on this subject. Patton's PHD is also in education and according to his own educational resume, he don't hold any degrees in Geology or Archeology, all his degrees are in education, and he minored in geology.

Now if you have a really good hour long video showing convincing proof of molecules to bacteria, or bacteria without flagellum to bacterial cells with flagellum, or how life came from non living cells, or even the origin of DNA from random chemicals, I would love to watch the evidence.... but please don't show me stuff we already know about small changes within certain boundaries....

You want an hour long video that goes into Bacteria lineages, Genetics, ORigins, the theory of evolution, etc. It would take more than an hour. Heck my intro to Biology class I took Freshman year of College spent a week with 3 hour lectures defining life and explaining the basics of cells alone. I would sugest picking up a freshmen level biology book on amazon for a few bucks and reading that. It would be better than any hour long you tube video.

The only evidence of a mutation causing some benefit to a species is the mutant black squirrel in the UK.

Actually you missed the development of eyes, the spine, beaks, wings, legs, sexual reproduction, chlorophyll, disease resistance, changes in body weight, the diversification of Birds and insect. etc.
My focus in college when I was studying biology was Anatomy and Phylogeny.

has lost DNA and thus testosterone regulation,

Humans lost the larger more powerful jaw and physical prowes of many other apes, but we gained a better bipedal movement and a more developed cerebral cortex alowing us to be more creative and intuitive.

so the black squirrel is out competing the grey squirrel introduced into the UK. All mutations do not add information to the DNA, mutations cause devolution, a loss of information.

No, and this shows that you don't know much about genetics. Deletion is only one type of mutaiton, there is also duplication that adds more to the protein chain that changes the sequence.

Dr Patton is a good summary of my view...please watch it. Now please supply a really good video to counter my claims presented. Shalom

I would sugest watching some lectures on the foundation of biology and actually listening to biologists.

This is the beginning of a lecture series that delves into General Biology, its a good start.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That's a joke, scientists can't even get bacteria loaded up with dozens of additional DNA material to hang unto them and thus evolve...

Individuals don't evolve, by the way you might want to look into something bacteria is good at called utilizing plasmids.

ie deliberate DNA insertions....for example adding new DNA into the junk DNA region causes the bacteria to die and not develop...so where does one add new DNA material to allow the bacteria to survive ?

Usually during the stages of reproduction, otherwise the organims will begin developing and swaping out genetic chains while its already developed will cause the organism to die because it doesn't know how to utilize the chain.

The so called adding DNA into plants using GMO, is more like an infection using viruses, as far as I can tell, they are not splicing open plant DNA and adding the new DNA, the science of genetic modification is so barbaric it truly primitive and dangerous...

That is not how GMOs work at all and nothing similar to to GMOs are created. GMO's are manipulated through specific breading and by geneticists turning genes off. Not ramming genes into each other. Also Infections don't use Viruses, Viruses cause infections. Viruses high-jack cells and replace or alter the DNA in a cell by making the cell make more viruses.

Anyway as far as I know, there is no good movie of evolution explaining the general theory of evolution as I posted before, where it really matters....they are silent because there is no proof.

Probably because General Evolution doesn't exist and its a strawman used by your speaker.

I have found research where even two DNA strands broken can be repaired within a minute, in fact up to 150 double broken strands per cell per hour can be repaired, so if a change was done in a bacterial cell, it would be repaired and changed back within a minute of it happening....there are 4 copies of every code in bacteria, two chromosome's carrying 2 copies each, making 4 in total. to get a permanent change all 4 copies of DNA would have to change at the same time, and in the right place...if the changes are destroying existing necessary genes, the bacteria dies.
How on earth do we get additional information to stay inside bacteria, one has yet to provide a mechanism.

That is because you are using cells that are mature and not in development. When organisms reproduce the genome is copied and any mutations that occur during the development stage will survive into maturation.

I have read some say bacteria with 16 chromosomes divided but did not divide fully, so the new cell ended up with 32 chromosomes instead of 16....that might work, would the bacteria continue on dividing with a set of 32 for generation after generation? That might be the first science experimental test for evolution...Does bacteria allow this ? Then you could change the other chromosomes one at a time or mix several at a time until new information was jumbled together.

Yes, what you explained is what biologists call evolution, The generations after the 32 will continue to copy into more 32 cells. Natural selection will then determine if the 32 is nuetral, beneficial, or beneficiary. The model you are describing is called the Harty Wienberg model.

This supposes that information in the DNA is just chemical as one said, not unique code for specific proteins...

The Protien sequence, will always be chemical.

I have heard evolutionists say the flagella protein can be very different, its the hair pin loop that matters? Is this true ? Have anybody listed all DNA sequences of the all flagella and tested this idea ? How random can the sequence be ? I suspect the coded DNA codes not just protein sequences, but functional regulation, feedback mechanism, decision processes, neural network decision mechanisms, emotional mechanisms and even thought process within cellular membranes, protein motor decision regulation, and so forth...meaning far more than just the mere sequence of proteins, ie chemicals.... proteins alone is not life...you need code to regulate them, you need code for decision processes....one thing that puzzles me with human code, is we cannot code mind processes in computers, we come close but not really...obviously God has figured this out and we have not, because living things at a protein level do think and make decisions, making the DNA code more than chemical information, it's truly a code, man has not figured it all out yet....

Shalom

I really suggest you watch the 2 videos I Posted above and even pick up some Chemistry lessons. It will help you a lot. ;)

 

[rthom7]

Individuals don't evolve, by the way you might want to look into something bacteria is good at called utilizing plasmids.

Usually during the stages of reproduction, otherwise the organims will begin developing and swaping out genetic chains while its already developed will cause the organism to die because it doesn't know how to utilize the chain.

That is not how GMOs work at all and nothing similar to to GMOs are created. GMO's are manipulated through specific breading and by geneticists turning genes off. Not ramming genes into each other. Also Infections don't use Viruses, Viruses cause infections. Viruses high-jack cells and replace or alter the DNA in a cell by making the cell make more viruses.

Probably because General Evolution doesn't exist and its a strawman used by your speaker.

That is because you are using cells that are mature and not in development. When organisms reproduce the genome is copied and any mutations that occur during the development stage will survive into maturation.

Yes, what you explained is what biologists call evolution, The generations after the 32 will continue to copy into more 32 cells. Natural selection will then determine if the 32 is nuetral, beneficial, or beneficiary. The model you are describing is called the Harty Wienberg model.

The Protien sequence, will always be chemical.


I really suggest you watch the 2 videos I Posted above and even pick up some Chemistry lessons. It will help you a lot. ;)

I am glad you got back to me MilkDrops, sorry if we got off to a bad start, but I am happy to keep an open mind on the material you comment about, for one thing I too am a Science Teacher with 2 Batchelor degrees, ( my first degree had 2 years of Biology and Chemistry, my second degree has units in Computer engineering) and over 20 years teaching Science but only at a secondary level, so I really don't need a basic intro in cellular biology. However since you posted them here I will look at them, and you must also look at mine, by Don Patton...if you look up his evolution quotes, which I have also, they are genuine and He quotes them correctly...I have no idea which religion he is and I always check my presenters, so I can assure you, his research is good.

I would also like a video on how bacteria are able to inherit additional DNA code....that would be a good start of evolution, assuming the theory has any chance of being viable as a theory, which as a Christian I know it is false...so despite somewhat bias on my part, I have a lot more respect than most, at least I am happy to keep an open mind and look at other evidence....

I will get back to you regarding the Hardy - Weinberg equation...the speaker I am already familiar with his lecturers....

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

I am glad you got back to me MilkDrops, sorry if we got off to a bad start, but I am happy to keep an open mind on the material you comment about, for one thing I too am a Science Teacher with 2 Batchelor degrees, ( my first degree had 2 years of Biology and Chemistry, my second degree has units in Computer engineering) and over 20 years teaching Science but only at a secondary level, so I really don't need a basic intro in cellular biology. However since you posted them here I will look at them, and you must also look at mine, by Don Patton...if you look up his evolution quotes, which I have also, they are genuine and He quotes them correctly...I have no idea which religion he is and I always check my presenters, so I can assure you, his research is good.

I would also like a video on how bacteria are able to inherit additional DNA code....that would be a good start of evolution, assuming the theory has any chance of being viable as a theory, which as a Christian I know it is false...so despite somewhat bias on my part, I have a lot more respect than most, at least I am happy to keep an open mind and look at other evidence....

I will get back to you regarding the Hardy - Weinberg equation...the speaker I am already familiar with his lecturers....

Shalom

Well Milk Drops I watched you video on the Hardy - Weinberg equation....you have to be kidding ? I mean it was nice to know and all, brought back memories of my 2 year Biology classes....but how does this explain evolution ? It doesn't.... If you really want to support your theory of faith...please supply a video presenting in great detail any research on any or all of the following....

(1) Bacteria inheriting additional DNA code and maintaining that code generation after generation....the code could be artificially spliced in by scientists, but at least it would be nice to see if cells tolerate new additional strange of code....not swapping alleles, or changing existing alleles, but tolerating brand new alleles of code.

(2) Bacteria flagella / motor mechanism for how its evolution came about in molecular detail at the nano scale technological level....I have read one scientist surmise some hypothesis - but I want to watch actual video of experimental testing of a mechanism

(3) Fruit flies have been deliberately infected with lots of mutations, over millions of generations - let's watch a video of the evidence of evolution occurring with these mutated flies and their having on the inherited traits they find useful? I read in my first degree over 30 years ago now they bred mutated flies with useless wings for over thousand generations and some started to repair the loss of flight and repaired all the damage, and started flying again...Surely we have evidence mutation in these flies can be inherited indefinitely and thus creating a benefit...

(4) Any example of an organism in which the mutation and natural selection process has increased the DNA code of the genome, or given the organism a real environmental benefit? Sickle cell to overcome malaria is hardly an overall environmental benefit....

Videos on the dominate and recessive alleles of a population is a science tool used by Creationist's and Evolutionist's alike. Both Creationist's and Evolutionist's alike believe in small changes to gene pool, both use the Hardy - Weinberg equation to explain dominant and recessive genes...both believe in natural selection, and population genetics...but Evolutionist's believe bacteria evolved into jellyfish, where as Creationist's believe bacteria have always been bacteria, and jelly fish have always been jellyfish ....God programmed change within kinds of animals only up to a limited ability (boundaries) and this difference of opinion requires evolution to have differences in their belief system. Hence general evolution and special evolution are different terms.

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Actually Milk Drops and for interested, here is a really good video explaining how bacterial flagellum evolved....now I am not sure if evolutionists admonish the contents of the video, but at least its a theory on how bacterial flagellum might have evolved...

It looks convincing, but while I am no scientist, it looks to be its like placing existing machines in bacteria together and saying one machine evolved into another machine,...so I look at the Ecoli example of the Tol-Pal system, and read about this poorly understood machine...and it's so super complex and nothing at all like the gene regulations in the Bacteria Flagellum. I mean let's keep it simple, suppose of all the 42 proteins in the flagellum, we have all 41 in place...the motor is not spinning, as this is found to be the case...we need just the DNA sequence for one more protein, and its gene regulation sequence.... well the calculation of the random process of increasing surely could be calculated ? Could not a scientists seriously work out what are the chances for a single gene/ protein sequence for finishing the fully function bacterial flagellum and spare us with all this conjecture....could random / natural selection / have even a good chance ?

The change for a biological soup making a DNA sequence is way too small, around 10 to the 164 power, there are only 10 to the 80th power of particles in the entire universe, and 10 to the 16 power seconds since the supposed Big Bang... so somehow can we get the probability of a living bacterial cell to complete a single gene
sequence by some mechanism ? What is this probability ? And it will have to be less than 10 to the power 6, otherwise there is not enough time for anything else to evolve ?

I have yet to see any scientist calculate the probability of bacteria making new DNA code sequences by purposeful random mechanical means ? So I can't even see how you get from To Pal system to the next Intermediate, let alone anything else ... so lets stop placing unrelated biological motors and mechanisms together and start proposing real biological mechanisms for evolution to work.

Shalom

 

[Milk-Drops]

I am glad you got back to me MilkDrops, sorry if we got off to a bad start, but I am happy to keep an open mind on the material you comment about, for one thing I too am a Science Teacher with 2 Batchelor degrees, ( my first degree had 2 years of Biology and Chemistry, my second degree has units in Computer engineering) and over 20 years teaching Science but only at a secondary level, so I really don't need a basic intro in cellular biology.

I'm sorry but I have to say it, I don't believe you. Let me be more specific, I don't believe what you are trying to imply. Do you mean you had 2 years of Biology and Chemistry focused classes, or 2 classes over 2 years of Biology 101, and Chemistry 101? Also you claim 20 years of teaching science, yet you poorly understand Newtonian Mechanics, which is very basic stuff. You were not aware of the Hardy Weinberg Equation nor plasmids. This raises massive alarm bells because almost all of this would be considered basic concepts.

However since you posted them here I will look at them, and you must also look at mine, by Don Patton...

I have, and you aren't the first to show me that video. Its garbage, its filled with quote mines, arguments from authority, straw men, and special pleading. Its disingenuous.

if you look up his evolution quotes, which I have also, they are genuine and He quotes them correctly...

No, they aren't, because their context and revisions were removed. As I said, the quotes are being manipulated. Instead of using data, you uses the words of others, this isn't research, this is quote mining.

I have no idea which religion he is and I always check my presenters, so I can assure you, his research is good.

You didn't look hard then. Plug his name into google and the first entry is for Bible.com and the second is for the Creation Institute. More disingenuous pleading from you.

I would also like a video on how bacteria are able to inherit additional DNA code....that would be a good start of evolution, assuming the theory has any chance of being viable as a theory, which as a Christian I know it is false...so despite somewhat bias on my part, I have a lot more respect than most, at least I am happy to keep an open mind and look at other evidence....

How about we start with the basics of what the theory actually means and how its implamented, then move onto specifics. I don't feel like spending time finding videos you are either going to ignore or not understand.

I will get back to you regarding the Hardy - Weinberg equation...the speaker I am already familiar with his lecturers....

Shalom

Then you just admitted that you are a liar. You claim that you want to be shown certain aspects, then when I bring it up, you say you've already seen it. Sorry, I'm not going to feed the troll. good day.

 

[rthom7]

I'm sorry but I have to say it, I don't believe you. Let me be more specific, I don't believe what you are trying to imply. Do you mean you had 2 years of Biology and Chemistry focused classes, or 2 classes over 2 years of Biology 101, and Chemistry 101? Also you claim 20 years of teaching science, yet you poorly understand Newtonian Mechanics, which is very basic stuff. You were not aware of the Hardy Weinberg Equation nor plasmids. This raises massive alarm bells because almost all of this would be considered basic concepts.

I have, and you aren't the first to show me that video. Its garbage, its filled with quote mines, arguments from authority, straw men, and special pleading. Its disingenuous.


No, they aren't, because their context and revisions were removed. As I said, the quotes are being manipulated. Instead of using data, you uses the words of others, this isn't research, this is quote mining.

You didn't look hard then. Plug his name into google and the first entry is for Bible.com and the second is for the Creation Institute. More disingenuous pleading from you.

How about we start with the basics of what the theory actually means and how its implamented, then move onto specifics. I don't feel like spending time finding videos you are either going to ignore or not understand.

Then you just admitted that you are a liar. You claim that you want to be shown certain aspects, then when I bring it up, you say you've already seen it. Sorry, I'm not going to feed the troll. good day.

Sorry you feel that way MilkDrops, I added probably the best video helping your cause with the evolution mechanisms of Bacterial flagella, and all you can do is attack me, and my science background...Why?

If I am a dummy and your the expert, why are you feeling so threatened if I ask questions ? You do not have to be super indoctrinated with the world to ask sensible questions. My first degree was only leading towards a Bachelor of Agriculture, yet even Jesus never went to University school, He taught Creationism, not Evolutionism.

As I have said before, I did look up Don Patton's sources and read the material first hand myself :-

Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) of the University of California beginning In 1930, and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, have developed a new theory of general evolution called the "hopeful monster theory" or "punctuated equilibrium" in which large changes to the DNA sequences occurred all at once suddenly. Why have evolutionists changed their minds ? Because the older general theory of evolution does not work, and the Neo-Darwinist theory of general theory also does not work. Source Link

Macbeth explains why Goldschmidt abandoned neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory in favour of this new concept:
" After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Professor Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

As an evolutionist Jay Gould explains :-

"I well remember how the synthetic theory [neo-Darwinism] beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid1960s. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first [DNA, etc.], followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" in Paleobiology, 61(1):120.
There are no records of intermediate forms of life in the fossil record, and no possibility of intermediate forms even when fruit flies are forced to live with thousands of mutations, the fruit flies do not change into newer forms.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, " in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467

So Gould says neo-Darwinism general theory is dead, he comes up with a new theory...

So as I said I did check out Don Patton's quote, his source and read the material around the context. It is true and his assessment is correct. My studies on this are seen here: http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1122.htm

Shalom

 

[Milk-Drops]

all you can do is attack me, and my science background...Why?

Originally I offered to clear up some misconceptions. Then you made statements you refuse to clarify, you are being deceptive, and made glaring errors on very basic scientific concepts. Forgive me if I throw up caution flares.

If I am a dummy and your the expert, why are you feeling so threatened if I ask questions ? [\quote] Here is another reason. You are playing the vixtim and projecting onto me. Several times in the last few posts you have use projecting language and assumed my ideas, thoughts, and motives. So im not falling for your game.

You do not have to be super indoctrinated with the world to ask sensible questions. My first degree was only leading towards a Bachelor of Agriculture, yet even Jesus never went to University school, He taught Creationism, not Evolutionism.

There is no such thing as evolutionism. Also if someone came up to you and claimed that5 cars were an evil plot by the illuminati to eat grape nuts. Chances are you would question the person's cred. Especially if they couldnt describe what a car is.

As I have said before, I did look up Don Patton's sources and read the material first hand myself :-

Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) of the University of California beginning In 1930, and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, have developed a new theory of general evolution called the "hopeful monster theory" or "punctuated equilibrium" in which large changes to the DNA sequences occurred all at once suddenly. Why have evolutionists changed their minds ? Because the older general theory of evolution does not work, and the Neo-Darwinist theory of general theory also does not work. Source Link

Macbeth explains why Goldschmidt abandoned neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory in favour of this new concept:
" After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Professor Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

As an evolutionist Jay Gould explains :-

"I well remember how the synthetic theory [neo-Darwinism] beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid1960s. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first [DNA, etc.], followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" in Paleobiology, 61(1):120.
There are no records of intermediate forms of life in the fossil record, and no possibility of intermediate forms even when fruit flies are forced to live with thousands of mutations, the fruit flies do not change into newer forms.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, " in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467

SO when you said you checked the sources, did you actually pull up the papers and books and read them?

So Gould says neo-Darwinism general theory is dead, he comes up with a new theory...

nope Ghould pointed out that Darwin's theory had a weaknes and added to it. Ghould went on to do many interviews because creation sites always quote that paragraph but never point out or include that in the next paragraph he shows how he strengthen the thoery of evolution as a whole.

[Qupte]So as I said I did check out Don Patton's quote, his source and read the material around the context. It is true and his assessment is correct. My studies on this are seen here: http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1122.htm

ill read that when I get the chance.

 

[rthom7]

Originally I offered to clear up some misconceptions. Then you made statements you refuse to clarify, you are being deceptive, and made glaring errors on very basic scientific concepts. Forgive me if I throw up caution flares.

ill read that when I get the chance.

Thanks for a better and cordial reply Milk Drops....first let me admit that I did not know about "Quote mining" and agree with you that Creationists might also be guilty of making biased opinions, from "Quote Mining"....I show this link as a good example of this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

In an effort to be open minded and fair to all on this topic, perhaps you can supply me with some links or videos about evolution that really are from evolutionist scientists tackling their theory with certain and observational science. There is much confusion out there, in the www, and if it really is all so convincing where is the evolutionist material I can read or watch?

I note with "punctuated equilibrium" that evolutionists no longer thinks it necessary to find intermediate forms of animals surviving as fossils....is there are reliable quote for an evolutionist that this is so ?

I am also interested in your claim the DNA is just "chemical sequence for proteins" and not "computer coded information"....My prediction is man will find much more code than just protein sequence.... For example at the lowest level of computer programme is "binary" or "machine assembly" if I remember just to add integers together is a sequence of over 20 steps of binary code...so as this level we find the code is more mechanical rather than showing Intelligent Design for some programmer. Would we also not expect to program living systems, once would reach a mechanical level of programming since we are dealing with molecules of proteins ? How do the motor proteins know where to carry the cargo of proteins to ? Why they need to go there ? And what feedback mechanism tells the motor proteins to stop the more transport ? Such regulation and feed back loops implies more than just chemical sequence of proteins in DNA code? Perhaps you can enlighten me with more scientific research in this area ?

Shalom

 

[Milk-Drops]

Thanks for a better and cordial reply Milk Drops....first let me admit that I did not know about "Quote mining" and agree with you that Creationists might also be guilty of making biased opinions, from "Quote Mining"....I show this link as a good example of this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

In an effort to be open minded and fair to all on this topic, perhaps you can supply me with some links or videos about evolution that really are from evolutionist scientists tackling their theory with certain and observational science. There is much confusion out there, in the www, and if it really is all so convincing where is the evolutionist material I can read or watch?

I note with "punctuated equilibrium" that evolutionists no longer thinks it necessary to find intermediate forms of animals surviving as fossils....is there are reliable quote for an evolutionist that this is so ?

I am also interested in your claim the DNA is just "chemical sequence for proteins" and not "computer coded information"....My prediction is man will find much more code than just protein sequence.... For example at the lowest level of computer programme is "binary" or "machine assembly" if I remember just to add integers together is a sequence of over 20 steps of binary code...so as this level we find the code is more mechanical rather than showing Intelligent Design for some programmer. Would we also not expect to program living systems, once would reach a mechanical level of programming since we are dealing with molecules of proteins ? How do the motor proteins know where to carry the cargo of proteins to ? Why they need to go there ? And what feedback mechanism tells the motor proteins to stop the more transport ? Such regulation and feed back loops implies more than just chemical sequence of proteins in DNA code? Perhaps you can enlighten me with more scientific research in this area ?

Shalom

I have a long work day today, but as soon as I get a chance I'll grab some videos that talk about the theory of evolution, and if you have more questions or want more specifics, I can provide it.

I want to be clear, you are not demanded to accept the theory, my frustration comes from people trying to critique it and simply not knowing what it actually is. Instead, some people rely on made up jargon, such as "evolutionism, Darwanism, Micro Evolution, Macro Evolution, and insert various made up Kent Hovind term here". Considering my field of study was in biology with a specialization on Anatomy and Phylogeny, you could understand what I would be upset to be informed that "quote A disproves evolutionism". I can say after spending as much time in labs and through direct observation, lecture, and through research, that evolution makes the most sense.

 

[rthom7]

I have a long work day today, but as soon as I get a chance I'll grab some videos that talk about the theory of evolution, and if you have more questions or want more specifics, I can provide it.

I want to be clear, you are not demanded to accept the theory, my frustration comes from people trying to critique it and simply not knowing what it actually is. Instead, some people rely on made up jargon, such as "evolutionism, Darwanism, Micro Evolution, Macro Evolution, and insert various made up Kent Hovind term here". Considering my field of study was in biology with a specialization on Anatomy and Phylogeny, you could understand what I would be upset to be informed that "quote A disproves evolutionism". I can say after spending as much time in labs and through direct observation, lecture, and through research, that evolution makes the most sense.

Sounds good to me MilkDrops, talking to a scientist first hand is a great opportunity for me, and I look forward to being enlightened with modern research.....

Shalom

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sounds good to me MilkDrops, talking to a scientist first hand is a great opportunity for me, and I look forward to being enlightened with modern research.....

Shalom

I'm not acutally a scientists. I didn't receive my bachelors, I decided to finish out my degree in the computer sciences. I became very burnt out after a few years.

 

[rthom7]

I'm not acutally a scientists. I didn't receive my bachelors, I decided to finish out my degree in the computer sciences. I became very burnt out after a few years.

Yeah I am familiar with the pressure of university studies, when I enrolled in Physics 101 and Biology 101, I remember the lecturers saying in 3 weeks we will teach you everything in Years 11 and 12, and then move on...the pace was so hot, over 250 students dropped out in just three months....The secular naturalism of university lecturers concentrate on mankind unravelling and reverse engineering natural processes, unfortunately with lots of names, big words and fancy jargon, and processes and simulations on the computer, but if you get to understand it all at a child like level of simplicity, it's absolutely fascinating...

What I found disappointing is most professors I ran into didn't know much, they were experts yes, but there applications of expertise was very poor. I remember one day in a building architecture of computer configuration's, ask a tech guy, can we get to build a computer in it's simplest form.... He said no, he didn't know how to.... I remember listening to another speak ok of the leading and lag phase of magnetic flux in electric motors, so I asked a tech guy in a laboratory, if a electric motor is also a generator but the leading factor is different, hence one could swap one for the other...such elementary conclusions were child's play to them, but profound to me....many so called experts go over our heads, but miss the really important stuff little children know....

I remember one Einstein was ridiculed for math tutoring year 8 students...He said his best ideas come from teaching to lowly ones....I have had similar experiences...teaching grade 5 Paint lessons, a very primitive Microsoft program, we did stuff I have never seen before....I used to get them to program hangman games in Excel, a program not designed for such things, but with conditional formatting you can get the program to draw primitive pixel pictures of colour.

Yes science is a fascinating subject...I look forward to your video and lessons...
Shalom

 

[Malachi]

I can say after spending as much time in labs and through direct observation, lecture, and through research, that evolution makes the most sense.

As opposed to Divine creation? Since the universe is perfectly designed and nothing happens by "chance" in the universe -- the Law of Cause and Effect -- why would evolution make the most sense?

Even ardent evolutionists have given up on evolution. And here's the reason why:

1. Evolution is not accepted on the basis of scientific merit but as a religious preference by it's proponents.
2. Science has no more proven the doctrines of evolution than it has proven the existence of Peter Pan.
3. Evolution is entirely a faith based religion; the evidences that have been fabricated to support it under the banner of science are entirely without mreit and falter under the most benign scrutiny.
4. It is a weak satanic deception standing in mortal opposition to the scriptures to undermine your chances for eternal salvation.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Yeah I am familiar with the pressure of university studies, when I enrolled in Physics 101 and Biology 101, I remember the lecturers saying in 3 weeks we will teach you everything in Years 11 and 12, and then move on...the pace was so hot, over 250 students dropped out in just three months....The secular naturalism of university lecturers concentrate on mankind unravelling and reverse engineering natural processes, unfortunately with lots of names, big words and fancy jargon, and processes and simulations on the computer, but if you get to understand it all at a child like level of simplicity, it's absolutely fascinating...

I think it has more to do with there just being so much to understand and only so much time to actually teach it. Its the main reason why specialization and concentrations are so large once you expand outside of the 101 classes. For instance I mentioned that my specialty is on Anatomy and Phylogeny/Taxonomic classification. A microbiologist would be better suited for explaining the flagellum because a microbiologist is more versed in the minutia of cellular development and interaction. Especially among bacteria.

What I found disappointing is most professors I ran into didn't know much, they were experts yes, but there applications of expertise was very poor. I remember one day in a building architecture of computer configuration's, ask a tech guy, can we get to build a computer in it's simplest form.... He said no, he didn't know how to.... I remember listening to another speak ok of the leading and lag phase of magnetic flux in electric motors, so I asked a tech guy in a laboratory, if a electric motor is also a generator but the leading factor is different, hence one could swap one for the other...such elementary conclusions were child's play to them, but profound to me....many so called experts go over our heads, but miss the really important stuff little children know....

As I mentioned, this has a lot to do with specialization and concentration. The first example being about Code vs hardware. The professor doesn't really need to know much about overall computer functions on the mechanical level to create architecture for, say chipset function with the main processing power. He would just need to be able to do the math to figure out that specified needs for the chip set. Me and my cousin both have our degrees in the computer sciences but we difference in our fields of knowledge, where is I specialized in troubleshooting and repair work, he focused on coding. I don't know how to code In Java, HTML, or C/C+. He is next to useless when it comes to networking and configuration a workstation. I started picking up Networking as well and that is expanding outside his level even more. He is more on the design side, while I'm on the trades side.

I remember one Einstein was ridiculed for math tutoring year 8 students...He said his best ideas come from teaching to lowly ones....I have had similar experiences...teaching grade 5 Paint lessons, a very primitive Microsoft program, we did stuff I have never seen before....I used to get them to program hangman games in Excel, a program not designed for such things, but with conditional formatting you can get the program to draw primitive pixel pictures of colour.

Basic is awesome. I need to spend more time on the coding side of Compute science to fully grasp it. I know some kids that can run circles around me when it comes to setting up servers, so Its going to be an interesting world.

Yes science is a fascinating subject...I look forward to your video and lessons...
Shalom

Sounds good, I'm relaxing for a minute since I just woke up from a nap. Helped family out when I got off work and will be helping them a little later today. I think I'm going to focus the videos on explaining the basics of evolution first so that anyone who has any fundamental problems will be able to see where I'm coming from, then I'll move on after questions are gathered. Talk to you later.