[_ Old Earth _] Does Evolution have any actuall evidence?

[Heidi]

But man has decided that he knows better than God. So he invents all sorts of strange theories to explain how things were created. Evolution? Hogwash. Man is closer to annihilating himself than ever before. TV's & movies are filled with infantile impulses having to do with genatalia. Man has no more evolved into a different & superior species than apes have. We are now being reduced to animal instincts more than we ever have. Even our "inventions" are based on greed, lust, and power. And the pride in these inventions has taken such grandiosity to be close to delusional.

People used this type of thinking to support the immovable Earth theory. They were wrong. How do you explain that? Did people just not understand the Bible back then? Does the Bible say things that are not literally true?

Quath

:o Your point? What's that have to do with the fact that nothing has evolved in recorded history?

 

[Barbarian]

The evolution of new species has been recorded from time to time. The first carefully documented one, was the evolution of a new species of evening primrose, by Hugo DeVries in 1908, I think.

 

[Heidi]

The evolution of new species has been recorded from time to time. The first carefully documented one, was the evolution of a new species of evening primrose, by Hugo DeVries in 1908, I think.

What did it evolve from, and what makes it superior?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The evolution of new species has been recorded from time to time. The first carefully documented one, was the evolution of a new species of evening primrose, by Hugo DeVries in 1908, I think.

What did it evolve from, and what makes it superior?

Differing superiority does not a species make. That line of primroses was different enough not to be able to readily produce fertile offspring with other primroses. This is how species is defined.

 

[Barbarian]

It evolved from another species of flower. We even know the mechanism by which it happened. This one was the result of polyploidy.

 

[Heidi]

The evolution of new species has been recorded from time to time. The first carefully documented one, was the evolution of a new species of evening primrose, by Hugo DeVries in 1908, I think.

What did it evolve from, and what makes it superior?

Differing superiority does not a species make. That line of primroses was different enough not to be able to readily produce fertile offspring with other primroses. This is how species is defined.

The only way two animals can breed and produce offspring is if they are in the same species. A dog & a bird cannot produce offspring because the genetic components cannot produce a fertilzed egg. A horse & a donkey are in the same species and are alike enough to produce offspring. There are very few species that are programmed to do that. An ape cannot produce offspring with anything other than another species of ape. It cannot mate with a wolf & produce offsrping. This is the way animals & humans were created and is precisely why humans cannot produce offspring with an animal! This is a no-brainer. But the imagination of the human being can create all sorts of science fiction. Evolution will one day become the biggest hoax of the 19th & 20th centuries and be an embarrassment to "science." Evolution is a "what if?" scenario just like Godzilla is.

 

[Heidi]

But man has decided that he knows better than God. So he invents all sorts of strange theories to explain how things were created. Evolution? Hogwash. Man is closer to annihilating himself than ever before. TV's & movies are filled with infantile impulses having to do with genatalia. Man has no more evolved into a different & superior species than apes have. We are now being reduced to animal instincts more than we ever have. Even our "inventions" are based on greed, lust, and power. And the pride in these inventions has taken such grandiosity to be close to delusional.

People used this type of thinking to support the immovable Earth theory. They were wrong. How do you explain that? Did people just not understand the Bible back then? Does the Bible say things that are not literally true?

Quath

Job 26:7, "He suspended the earth over nothing."

Isaiah 40:22, "enthroned over the circle of the earth."

The authors of the bible were the only ones who knew that the earth was round thousands of years before Columbus. Yet you believe fallible human wisdom over the bible? The authors of the bible didn't have to rely on telescopes or machinery in order to know the truth. The words in the bible come from the inspirations of the Holy Spirit which is why they knew it was round without having to see for themselves.

 

[Darth Rave]

The example of the primrose does not go against Creation theory.

Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?[/url]
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.]Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks, ‘jumping genes’, natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognising a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.

So the difference comes down to how evolutionists and creationists classify animals. Creationists use 'kinds' as the definitive line between groups of animals.

Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?[/url]
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.]But creationists point out that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

So the problem with using the primrose as an example of evolution is that you can not prove that there was the addition of any new information from one speises to the development of the other. It could very well be (and is more probable) that there was actual a loss of information. What is need to prove evolution is for there to be an information gain in the new speises created. What actually happened with the primrose was genetic drift, this cannot then be used to prove that humans evolved from bacteria.

 

[Barbarian]

Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?

This guy:
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

You should be extemely careful about believing anything Sarfati says. He has, for example claimed that human lysozyme is more like that of chickens than any other animal. Totally and completely false, of course.

He also doctored the statements of astronomers to make it appear that they thought the distribution of supernovae remnants in the galaxy was a "mystery." (In fact they wrote that the "mystery is solved")

But let's see what he's done, now:

Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks, ‘jumping genes’, natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive.

Or it can produce new information, such as a recent mutation in humans that produced the information for a new lipoprotein that reduces the risk of arteriosclerosis. Or the new information in some bacteria that lets them digest a form of plastic.

Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognising a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed.

That's how it starts. As soon as there are two non-breeding populations, they start to diverge, because any genetic changes in one will not be shared with the other. They will then become increasingly different.

So the difference comes down to how evolutionists and creationists classify animals. Creationists use 'kinds' as the definitive line between groups of animals.

I once point-blank asked Sarfati to define "kinds", and he declined to do so. It's not hard to figure out why. You see, if he draws it too tightly, then the Ark story fails, because there's not enough room. But if he makes it loose enough to make the Ark work, then humans and apes are one "kind."

So the problem with using the primrose as an example of evolution is that you can not prove that there was the addition of any new information from one speises to the development of the other.

You've been misled. New information is not necessary for speciation. There could be a loss of information. In fact, there is no way to analyze which species has more "information." I asked Sarfati to do that, too. He made excuses and left.

It could very well be (and is more probable) that there was actual a loss of information. What is need to prove evolution is for there to be an information gain in the new speises created.

See above. New information can evolve without even forming a new species.

What actually happened with the primrose was genetic drift,

Nope. Polyploidy.

this cannot then be used to prove that humans evolved from bacteria.

You've been misled on that, too. Humans evolved from other primates.

 

[Heidi]

And how, praytell, did a human evolve from a primate? Primates mating with humans cannot produce offspring. So how did the cell charcteristics of humans come from primates? :o

 

[Quath]

And how, praytell, did a human evolve from a primate? Primates mating with humans cannot produce offspring. So how did the cell charcteristics of humans come from primates? :o

Ok. Look at this simplified version:

Some primates (chimp-like) come down from the trees and onto the plains for food. They have children. Some are able to walk upright better, which allows them to use their hands and carry food or children. Some grow taller to run better across a field and escape prey easier. Some get stronger to be able to fight off some predators.

As the primates improve to deal with life on the plains, they start to look more and more human. Eventually they are tall and strong enough to kill animals. Intelligence makes some better hunters than others. This intelligence allows for other things like wearing animal skins.

So you don't get a primate having a human baby. You get a primate that has a baby that appears a tiny bit more like us. If this helps them live, then these genes pass on until millions of years later, you get humans (or whatever is best suited for the environment).

Quath

 

[Heidi]

And how, praytell, did a human evolve from a primate? Primates mating with humans cannot produce offspring. So how did the cell charcteristics of humans come from primates? :o

Ok. Look at this simplified version:

Some primates (chimp-like) come down from the trees and onto the plains for food. They have children. Some are able to walk upright better, which allows them to use their hands and carry food or children. Some grow taller to run better across a field and escape prey easier. Some get stronger to be able to fight off some predators.

As the primates improve to deal with life on the plains, they start to look more and more human. Eventually they are tall and strong enough to kill animals. Intelligence makes some better hunters than others. This intelligence allows for other things like wearing animal skins.

So you don't get a primate having a human baby. You get a primate that has a baby that appears a tiny bit more like us. If this helps them live, then these genes pass on until millions of years later, you get humans (or whatever is best suited for the environment).

Quath

So why are apes still around today? Why haven't they bred apes who look "a tiny bit more like us" than they did before? :o They're fit, which is why they're still around to day. Why didn't they die out?

This theory that there were beasts who produced human beings over time but have died out so there is no proof is a little too convenient to be believable. And evolutionists say they need evidence for their beliefs? :o Their assertion that this all happened before recorded history is purposely designed so that there is no proof! There certainly hasn't been any proof of this in recorded history!

 

[reznwerks]

apes

[So why are apes still around today? Why haven't they bred apes who look "a tiny bit more like us" than they did before? :o They're fit, which is why they're still around to day. Why didn't they die out?
You still don't understand evolution is. Man is not decended from other apes. Man is decended from himself. He was ape like in the beginning but is now evolved into what we are today.
This theory that there were beasts who produced human beings over time but have died out so there is no proof is a little too convenient to be believable. So you think it is more believable to accept as true that a supernatural being exists which has never shown any evidence what soever to being true. You think it is more believable that this supernatural being is so powerful yet so weak that he needs mans bidding to do his will. You think it is more believable that this superbeing is so lonely that he wants a relationship with his creation but is somehow unable to communicate so all can understand him equally. You think it more believable that he chose some people who were able to change rods into snakes, part the waters, walk on water , rise from the dead, make claims that you could have eternal life for the simple act of "believing" because no evidence exists. On top of all that you think it makes perfect sense that not only does a God exist but under him are a whole bunch of lesser powers , angels , demons and Gods arch rival Satan whose sole purpose for existing is to confound the creation that God supposedly created. Then all these lesser beings belong to one or the other and have no other duty but to help either God or Satan achieve their goals. Then you have the audacity to ridicule evolution which has a whole lot of evidence as compared to Christianity which has absolutely none.

And evolutionists say they need evidence for their beliefs? :o Their assertion that this all happened before recorded history is purposely designed so that there is no proof! There certainly hasn't been any proof of this in recorded history!
Remember this, outside of the bible there is absolutely no other evidence for what you believe. Of all the fantastic stories in the bible no one records them outside of it. Don't take my word for it, prove it to yourself at any library. The Brittanica only uses the bible as reference for any info on what is claimed in the bible. If any thing more substantial were available don't you think it would be included?

 

[Heidi]

And you don't understand reality, my friend. The evolution theory presupposes the "survival of the fittest" which is not shown in any reality today. Men are no more fit than they have been in recorded history, only greedier and more arrogant. we also breed babies with defects and are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before.

When you say men came from themselves, then where did the first man come from? Also, how do genes passed on through the centuries become superior? If that's the case, then again, why haven't we produced humans that are as superior to us as we are supposed to be from hominims? :o

The evidence that there is a God is inherent in every natural creation, especially in the human being...unless of course you don't value yourself as anything more than an accident or mutation. Even one cell whose design is so miraculous that scientists are still trying to figure out how it works. And the very fact that they are looking for an order to it shows they know there's a design or they wouldn't be looking for one! The beauty of one flower who miraculously grows with only food and water into a thing of majesty that can't be duplicated by any human being shows the presence of God.

Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

The evidence of God is all around us. But those who have contempt for his creation try to reduce it into a petrie dish which only bring about more unanswered questions than solutions. God & life are much bigger than we are which is why bacterial cells will eventually become resistant to any medicines and new "solutions" bring on bigger problems.

It is man's arrogance thinking he can solve his own problems which si why we are closer to annihilating ourselves than we ever have been. There is still disease, STD's are reaching pandemic porportions, we have weapons that can wipe out more people in less time than ever before, more children who commit murder than ever before, too many people on the planet which necessitates arbitrary baby-killing through abortion, people living longer through "medical technology" which increases health care costs to insurmountable prices, & produces euthanasia.

Sorry, but men, left to themselves, make a mess of things to the point of self-destruction. But you can continue to believe that man knows better than God. God has warned us repeatedly what will happen if we do things our way, but most don't listen to Him. So he says, "Okay have it your way. Since you don't listen to me, you'll have to find out the hard way that you did not creae the universe and only I know how things should work."

As God tells us in Romans 1:21-

"For although the knew God, they neither gloridied him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurities resulting in the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and receieved in themselves due penalty for their perversion.
Further more, since they did not think it worhtwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gosspis, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; the invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

That sure sounds like today's society! God-haters and arrogant men who claim to be wise. Well, I got news for you, there is a Creator who determines the weather and our fate. Unfortunately, some people are so arrogant, have to wait until they die to find out just who their Creator is.

 

[Barbarian]

The evolution theory presupposes the "survival of the fittest" which is not shown in any reality today.

We can make predictions on that theory, and they verify that it is true. Agronomists, for example, regularly predict the fitness of different populations of plants, because their business depends on it.

Men are no more fit than they have been in recorded history, only greedier and more arrogant. we also breed babies with defects and are closer to annihilating ourselves than ever before.

It appears that we are much healthier than our predecessors.

When you say men came from themselves, then where did the first man come from?

Define what you mean by "man." There are all sorts of humans in a line going back millions of years. Do you mean man as he is today? That would be "anatomically modern humans."

Also, how do genes passed on through the centuries become superior?

Natural selection.

If that's the case, then again, why haven't we produced humans that are as superior to us as we are supposed to be from hominims?

We have seen a number of improvements in historical time. Would you like to learn about some of them?

The evidence that there is a God is inherent in every natural creation, especially in the human being...unless of course you don't value yourself as anything more than an accident or mutation.

We are all mutants. We all have a mutation or two. Most don't do much of anything. That doesn't mean there isn't a God; it just means He's a lot more powerful and intelligent than you think.

 

[Darth Rave]

Or it can produce new information, such as a recent mutation in humans that produced the information for a new lipoprotein that reduces the risk of arteriosclerosis. Or the new information in some bacteria that lets them digest a form of plastic.

Please give a reference to this as I would like to study it further. This is not me saying you are right just keeping an open mind and wanting to look at the facts. Not your interpretation of them.

That's how it starts. As soon as there are two non-breeding populations, they start to diverge, because any genetic changes in one will not be shared with the other. They will then become increasingly different.

This still does not prove evolution, just variation and adaptation.

You've been misled. New information is not necessary for speciation. There could be a loss of information. In fact, there is no way to analyze which species has more "information." I asked Sarfati to do that, too. He made excuses and left.

You are correct, "New information is not necessary for speciation." It is, however, necessary for evolution.

Nope. Polyploidy.

Still not evolution.

You've been misled on that, too. Humans evolved from other primates.

I am looking at the big picture of evolution. According to evolution the first thing out of the goo would have been some kind of bacteria this would have eventually evolved, through intermediaries, into a human. That is a lot of new information.

 

[Barbarian]

Or it can produce new information, such as a recent mutation in humans that produced the information for a new lipoprotein that reduces the risk of arteriosclerosis. Or the new information in some bacteria that lets them digest a form of plastic.

Please give a reference to this as I would like to study it further. This is not me saying you are right just keeping an open mind and wanting to look at the facts. Not your interpretation of them.

Lipoproteins here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

In one case, they can, by genetic analysis, even identify the person who first had the mutation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

The evolution of nylon-digesting enzymes?
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.

The Barbarian wrote:
That's how it starts. As soon as there are two non-breeding populations, they start to diverge, because any genetic changes in one will not be shared with the other. They will then become increasingly different.

It still does not prove evolution, just variation and adaptation.

That is evolution. What did you think it was?

The Barbarian wrote:
You've been misled. New information is not necessary for speciation. There could be a loss of information. In fact, there is no way to analyze which species has more "information." I asked Sarfati to do that, too. He made excuses and left.

You are correct, "New information is not necessary for speciation." It is, however, necessary for evolution.

Speciation is what is sometimes called "macroevolution." Variation that does not cause the evolution of new species is sometimes called "microevolution."

Evolution is defined as "A change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Barbarian on the cause of the evolution of a new species of primrose:
Nope. Polyploidy.

Still not evolution.

That's what evolution is.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that, too. Humans evolved from other primates.

I am looking at the big picture of evolution.

You first have to know what it is. And even in the big picture, humans still evolved from other primates, not bacteria.

According to evolution the first thing out of the goo would have been some kind of bacteria

Evolutionary theory does not say how life began. It's indifferent to the way the first organisms began. But no matter what, it does not say that humans evolved from bacteria. Humans evolved from other primates.

this would have eventually evolved, through intermediaries, into a human. That is a lot of new information.

As you see, new information is evolving constantly. Over a few billion years, that's a lot of new information.

Would you like to learn how it happened? I've tried this several time, to show how the transitions occured, and so far, no creationist has been willing to stay with me. After a couple of rounds of evidence, they usually see where the evidence is leading, and bail out.

I'll do it, if you promise to stay with me on it.

 

[Darth Rave]

Lipoproteins here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

In one case, they can, by genetic analysis, even identify the person who first had the mutation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

The evolution of nylon-digesting enzymes?
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.

Thank you I will look in to these.

[quote="Darth Rave":9f785]It still does not prove evolution, just variation and adaptation.

That is evolution. What did you think it was?[/quote:9f785]
No those are examples of "micro-evolution", as evolutionists like to call it, adn there is no proof that they lead to macro-evolution. You state this next yourself.

Speciation is what is sometimes called "macroevolution." Variation that does not cause the evolution of new species is sometimes called "microevolution."

See here is where we, for the most part, disagree. Speciation is just the widening of genetics between two sets of animals so that they can no longer breed. I think that this is only caused by the loss, or maybe the neutral mutation, of genetic information. For evolution to have occured there would have been massive gains in information. Something you have not shown me, in my opinion. (I am keeping an open mind and looking into above links.) It is my opinion that variation only ever causes micro-evolution.

Evolution is defined as "A change in allele frequency in a population over time."

No that is variation. You need more than just a change in the frequency of alleles for evolution. You need a net gain in information for evolution to work. A change in allel frequency give you the same amount of info just different info.

Barbarian on the cause of the evolution of a new species of primrose:
Nope. Polyploidy. [quote="Darth Rave":9f785]Still not evolution.

That's what evolution is.[/quote:9f785]
Polyploid=Having extra sets of chromosomes. That is having extra copied info. This does not give new information. Going from "I am." to I am.I am." does not give us new information. This does not equal evolution.

You first have to know what it is. And even in the big picture, humans still evolved from other primates, not bacteria.

And the primate evolved from something that evolved from something that evolved from something.........that evolved from bacteria. Some where along the lines evolution says that humans evolved from bacteria. And as i have stated that is a huge information gain that can not be proven.

Evolutionary theory does not say how life began. It's indifferent to the way the first organisms began. But no matter what, it does not say that humans evolved from bacteria. Humans evolved from other primates.

Your right ToE does not say how life began this is one of its major stumbling blocks. How can you just ignore how life got here but go on to say that you know how it evolved form that point on.

[quote="Darth Rave
added to show full context":9f785]
According to evolution the first thing out of the goo would have been some kind of bacteria

this would have eventually evolved, through intermediaries, into a human. That is a lot of new information.

As you see, new information is evolving constantly. Over a few billion years, that's a lot of new information.

Would you like to learn how it happened? I've tried this several time, to show how the transitions occured, ...[/quote:9f785]So you agree that evolution says that humans evolved from bacteria?

I'll do it, if you promise to stay with me on it.

Not sure what you mean by stay with you on it. If you mean just agree with you then no. If you mean am I smart enough to understand what you are saying then I am insulted by the insinuation that just because I am a creationist mean that I am not as intelegent as you, but yes. Go ahead prove to me that humans evolved from bacteria.

 

[Heidi]

Human beings evolved from bacteria? Is this a sci-fi forum? :o The human imagination is endless, but has little if anything to do with reality. 8-) If humans evolved from bacteria, then again, why not leave all bacteria alone to develop into healthy cells? By trying to kill them off, scientists are not only losing the opportunity to prove the theory of evolution but also the opportunity to let a super race develop! Thus by killing off bacteria, they are again contradicting their own premise! This gets more bizarre with each argument. :fadein:

 

[Barbarian]

It still does not prove evolution, just variation and adaptation.

Barbarian observes:
That is evolution. What did you think it was?

No those are examples of "micro-evolution", as evolutionists like to call it, adn there is no proof that they lead to macro-evolution. You state this next yourself.

We have directly observed speciation as a result of mutation.

The Barbarian wrote:
Speciation is what is sometimes called "macroevolution." Variation that does not cause the evolution of new species is sometimes called "microevolution."

See here is where we, for the most part, disagree.

There is nothing to disagree about. That's the way the terms are used. If you mean something else, you'll have to use another term.

Speciation is just the widening of genetics between two sets of animals so that they can no longer breed. I think that this is only caused by the loss, or maybe the neutral mutation, of genetic information.

More commonly by adding information, although macroevolution does not have to increase information. Some species are formed by simplifying the genome.

For evolution to have occured there would have been massive gains in information.

Not required, but it sometimes happens.

Something you have not shown me, in my opinion. (I am keeping an open mind and looking into above links.) It is my opinion that variation only ever causes micro-evolution.

We know that macroevolution can also be caused by mutation. The earliest documented case was in 1908, or thereabouts.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is defined as "A change in allele frequency in a population over time."

No that is variation.

That's the formal definition of evolution. If you want to use the terms, you must use them as they are defined. Or you can be continuously misunderstood.

You need more than just a change in the frequency of alleles for evolution.

Nope. That's all there is.

You need a net gain in information for evolution to work.

Or a reduction, or even no net gain or loss. Depends on what's happening to the organism.

A change in allel frequency give you the same amount of info just different info.

Nope. For example, there are often multiple copies of a single gene. Mutation of one will increase the total information, because there will then be two forms of the gene.


Barbarian on the cause of the evolution of a new species of primrose:
Nope. Polyploidy. Darth Rave wrote:

Still not evolution.

Barbarian observes:
That's what evolution is.

Polyploid=Having extra sets of chromosomes. That is having extra copied info.

Right. And yet we see that the evolution of a new species occured. Macroevolution, in this case, involved no new information, even though a new and quite different plant evolved.

This does not give new information.

Right. Do you see what's wrong with the information argument, now? A new species evolved, yet this macroevolutin required no increase in information.

Barbarian obsrves:
You first have to know what it is. And even in the big picture, humans still evolved from other primates, not bacteria.

And the primate evolved from something

Right. Another primate, not humans.

Some where along the lines evolution says that humans evolved from bacteria.

Nope. It says they evolved from other primates. I think you're trying to get the concept of common descent. Your great, great, great, great grandfather is not your father.

And as i have stated that is a huge information gain that can not be proven.

We now know exactly how this new information evolves.

The Barbarian wrote:
Evolutionary theory does not say how life began. It's indifferent to the way the first organisms began. But no matter what, it does not say that humans evolved from bacteria. Humans evolved from other primates.

Your right ToE does not say how life began this is one of its major stumbling blocks.

Nope. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, it doesn't matter how the first organisms got here. You might as well claim chemistry is wrong, because chemistry doesn't say how atoms got here.

How can you just ignore how life got here but go on to say that you know how it evolved form that point on.

Evidence.

Darth Rave
According to evolution the first thing out of the goo would have been some kind of bacteria

No. That is not something evolutionary theory addresses.

this would have eventually evolved, through intermediaries, into a human.

Right. Very gradual steps over a long time.

That is a lot of new information.

The Mississippi Delta is a lot of land. But it also became itself grain by grain.

As you see, new information is evolving constantly. Over a few billion years, that's a lot of new information.

Would you like to learn how it happened?

[quote:b3292]So you agree that evolution says that humans evolved from bacteria?

Nope. Evolutionary theory says humans evolved from other primates.

Barbarian observes:
I'll do it, if you promise to stay with me on it.

Not sure what you mean by stay with you on it.

I'll show you some organisms. You decide if the changes in them are microevolution or macroevolution, and what features made you decide.

Fair enough?

Go ahead prove to me that humans evolved from bacteria.

[/quote:b3292]

Sorry. Evolutionary theory doesn't say humans evolved from bacteria.