[_ Old Earth _] Theory of Evolution crash course/Q&A

[cupid dave]

I see the periodic table here ... good show.

Very interesting comment.

The Periodic Table is what I would call a complete human thought on a subject.

It contains just about all the information, order, and inter-relationships between all the 118 different Atoms that exist.
The pattern to this table is now being replicated as we investigate the Elemental articles which are utilized by Nature to create the very Atoms which we studied and organized, ordered, and related to one another and the various properties, chemical and physical, inherent in Atoms and amongst them.

What see is the same pattern to the Temple which numerically (3, 7, 12), and geometrically hints at the Urim and Thummim which was discussed back many thread ago.
As we discover more about these Elemental Particles, a pattern of order emerges which is essentially in the same format as that of the discovery and development of the Periodic chart of the Elements created by the science of the last Century.

(When these graphics were created there had not yet been any suspicion of a Higgs Particle (field) yet. The items in the triangular spaces were still debated to an extent, and the search for some of them shown was still theorical and not yet experimentally seen.)

 

[Milk-Drops]

Very interesting comment.

The Periodic Table is what I would call a complete human thought on a subject.

It contains just about all the information, order, and inter-relationships between all the 118 different Atoms that exist.
The pattern to this table is now being replicated as we investigate the Elemental articles which are utilized by Nature to create the very Atoms which we studied and organized, ordered, and related to one another and the various properties, chemical and physical, inherent in Atoms and amongst them.

What see is the same pattern to the Temple which numerically (3, 7, 12), and geometrically hints at the Urim and Thummim which was discussed back many thread ago.
As we discover more about these Elemental Particles, a pattern of order emerges which is essentially in the same format as that of the discovery and development of the Periodic chart of the Elements created by the science of the last Century.

(When these graphics were created there had not yet been any suspicion of a Higgs Particle (field) yet. The items in the triangular spaces were still debated to an extent, and the search for some of them shown was still theorical and not yet experimentally seen.)

Hey Cupid, do you think you could move this to another thread where you can focus on drawing the lines between the Bible and science more directly? I don't mind the conversation, which is why I didn't say anything about your posts sooner, but this thread is more geared towards the Biology and working of the Theory of Evolution and not necessarily a Science/Bible Q&A. Please and thank you.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I beg to disagree. I think if you're not sure you owe it to yourself to find out for sure, after all, if you think there's a chance that there may be an after life that lasts for an eternity, it would be beneficial to find out what it's all about, just in case you're wrong.

Believe me when I say that I do look into such matters, and I have done a lot of studying. Religions interest me alongside Biology, Art, and technology. So don't worry about my investigative side. ;)

There's a truth out there, and it doesn't matter what you or I believe, it is what it is. Your unbelief in God doesn't get rid of Him any more than my belief in Him makes Him so.
Christian ideals exist for a reason. They weren't formed out of nothing. 2000 years ago a man named Jesus existed. That is confirmed with writing that are not biblical. These writing also confirm that he was crucified. Also, the 12 apostles changed from scared and lost (they all scattered and hid during the crucifixion except one) to people who died a horrible death for something. It wasn't for a lie, because people don't die for a lie that they know is a lie. People may die for a lie that they think is truth, but nor for the latter. You can look up in the internet some of the apostles burial sites. They were real people. What did they experience that made them change, enabling them to die horribly for something? The truth is they saw the resurrected Jesus and realized what he was promising them.
As for God not being involved, I would say giving up His Son to save all of us is getting quite involved.

I understand that you mean well, and I'm familiar with CS Lewis style apologetics and have read some of his work on the subject. I have done research on my own and have found that several other religions have historical facts and figures that line up with them as well such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and many of the Northern European religions. I find this stuff fascinating but I don't invest myself in any of them particularly because I think that there is more to the picture then what we have perceived.

Thank you for your concern, but this is my journey and I believe I'll figure it out sometime. I think if there is a God, then he/she/it will understand my trials and tribulations because I don't do my searching out of malice but curiosity and understanding.

Though I would like to point out that this thread is focused more on understanding the biological Theory of evolution and not about my personal dramas. Thank you for taking an interest though.

 

[Narwhalist]

I hope you do find the truth. I had to try at least for knowing what the alternatives are, I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have to endure one of them. God bless you.

 

[cupid dave]

I hope you do find the truth. I had to try at least for knowing what the alternatives are, I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have to endure one of them. God bless you.

I think Meatball should focus ahead here, now that he has listed amd enumerated what he understands about ToE.

If he contemplates the next matter, Omega Point, the one beyond the list he made in his Opening Post, OP,... he will consider Directed Evolution, DE.

That stage is the process wherein man has begun to consciously and complicitly work hand-in-hand with the sole creator to this moment.
It is the moment in time when Free Will and a more evolved Consciousness, one which allows the Truth that has accummulated in the Collective Unconscious mind to speak" more openly and be heard more audibly than ever before.

Our Salvation as a species depends upon this advent.
We MUST see more of the Truth about the ever unfolding and almighty Reality which both nurtures us and traps us in its bosom, as it changes, eternally, demanding we adapt to "Him."

 

[Arch Angle]

right, cupid

The periodic table just sums it up at"our level" of existence fairly easily I think. Our level, being defined by electron movements. We can go up, or down, if you will, to see other interactions.

The periodic table, the books, the temple, are our representations of the observation around us. I would expect thereare many similarities in them when trying to depict the events around us.

there are no nouns cupid, only verbs. It will hold true right down to the fabric of space itself. "christ" is a verb, so was jesus,as are we. "I and the father areone".

You are awake.

 

[cupid dave]

right, cupid

The periodic table just sums it up at"our level" of existence fairly easily I think. Our level, being defined by electron movements. We can go up, or down, if you will, to see other interactions.

The periodic table, the books, the temple, are our representations of the observation around us. I would expect thereare many similarities in them when trying to depict the events around us.

there are no nouns cupid, only verbs. It will hold true right down to the fabric of space itself. "christ" is a verb, so was jesus,as are we. "I and the father areone".

You are awake.

"I hear you."

"A crash course on Evolution" (the OP here), needs to end with the observations of Father Teilhard (a RCC priest), and his intuitive concep tof Omega Point, which was written long before the Religious Right of Jerry Falwell re-directed American Christianity so as to use their sheer numbers to bully pulpit a Stone walling of simply, (in Falwell's opinion),... "God said it, end of discussion."

 

[Sparkey]

Hey Cupid, do you think you could move this to another thread where you can focus on drawing the lines between the Bible and science more directly? I don't mind the conversation, which is why I didn't say anything about your posts sooner, but this thread is more geared towards the Biology and working of the Theory of Evolution and not necessarily a Science/Bible Q&A. Please and thank you.

General Warning: Let's respect the OP and the purpose of the thread.

 

[Sparkey]

I have had the pleasure of having discussion with many different people on this board, and thought I'd share some thoughts as to why the whole theory of evolution debate keeps going ever onward. I think its because the topic of the theory of Evolution is so bogged down with misinformation and confusion, that its becomes very hard to follow or understand in the context of Biology. There is a ton of misinformation floating around about the topic, that I felt the need to make a topic that can answer some common questions as to what the theory of evolution is.

• The Theory of Evolution
• Natural Selection
• Mutations
• Specieation

Anyone have any questions that they want addressed. Such as different selection pressures, what defines the difference between the taxonomical ranks, etc?

Click on the double arrow in the quote, next to the OP name, in order to review the original post in its entirety.

 

[cupid dave]

Click on the double arrow in the quote, next to the OP name, in order to review the original post in its entirety.

oh...
neat

I wondered wha tthat quote mark meant.
Thanks.

...
Hey, I tried the double click and nothing happened...

 

[cupid dave]

I have had the pleasure of having discussion with many different people on this board, and thought I'd share some thoughts as to why the whole theory of evolution debate keeps going ever onward. I think its because the topic of the theory of Evolution is so bogged down with misinformation and confusion, that its becomes very hard to follow or understand in the context of Biology. There is a ton of misinformation floating around about the topic, that I felt the need to make a topic that can answer some common questions as to what the theory of evolution is.


The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is the observation that organism adapt and change to their surroundings through selection pressures from one generation to the next. Those that don't adapt die and go extinct. That is about it. The theory is pretty much a well duh. What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt. Trough years of observation, Charles Darwin noticed and created the first selection pressure that became the foundation of his theory, Natural Selection.

From this perspective, which limits the discussion to that one small part of the whole Cosmic Evolution which both Genesis and Science refer to, the focus of all debate should be merely Genesis 1:11.

Here we read that the Bible agrees with Science inthat it claims a Spontaneous Generation of initial life appeared, while Science calls that exact same event Abiogenesis.
Both agree further that from that "first sprouting of Life on Earth," (i.e.; deshe), the whole Plant Kingdom "evolved."
Genesis continues in agreement with scince, telling us that the Animal Kingdom followed that previous event described in Gen 1:11.


But in difference to your claim above, in your OP, this limited focus is not the issue in the now world wide, well recognized debate, and ridicule of the church people, especially in America and on TV.

 

[Milk-Drops]

From this perspective, which limits the discussion to that one small part of the whole Cosmic Evolution which both Genesis and Science refer to, the focus of all debate should be merely Genesis 1:11.

Actually no, this thread isn't concerned to much with the aspect of answering of whether or not their is a God or about either Atheistic or Theistic evolution. I would rather avoid such debates on the ground that it makes threads heated and would rather concentrate on just addressing what the theory is in the realm of pure scientific inquiry.

Here we read that the Bible agrees with Science inthat it claims a Spontaneous Generation of initial life appeared, while Science calls that exact same event Abiogenesis.
Both agree further that from that "first sprouting of Life on Earth," (i.e.; deshe), the whole Plant Kingdom "evolved."
Genesis continues in agreement with scince, telling us that the Animal Kingdom followed that previous event described in Gen 1:11.

Actually Protozoa evolved before plants and plants did come on land first, but in the oceans the animal and fungal kingdoms where already formed. Bacteria and Archea also predate plants and algae.

But in difference to your claim above, in your OP, this limited focus is not the issue in the now world wide, well recognized debate, and ridicule of the church people, especially in America and on TV.

This thread is not focused on ridicule of those that Believe in Young or Old earth Creationism, or criticizing Theistic evolution. Just the Theory of Evolution itself.

 

[cupid dave]

1) Well, if this thread is exclusive to the review of Biological Evolution then I just agree with the list you made and add the simpliest overview is that a Spintaneous Generation of life was the starting point for the appearance of protoplasm on earth, which has merely doubled and doubled and split into many different separate parts of that same initial jelly like matter.

The opposite idea to this is separate individual abiogenetic appearances for each and every different specimen of life now existing and all that we find extinct.
This second idea is rather preposterous and we ought still be seeing the dden appearance of some new species from nothing if it were true.

 

[Vaccine]

I have had the pleasure of having discussion with many different people on this board, and thought I'd share some thoughts as to why the whole theory of evolution debate keeps going ever onward. I think its because the topic of the theory of Evolution is so bogged down with misinformation and confusion, that its becomes very hard to follow or understand in the context of Biology. There is a ton of misinformation floating around about the topic, that I felt the need to make a topic that can answer some common questions as to what the theory of evolution is.


The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is the observation that organism adapt and change to their surroundings through selection pressures from one generation to the next. Those that don't adapt die and go extinct. That is about it. The theory is pretty much a well duh. What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt. Trough years of observation, Charles Darwin noticed and created the first selection pressure that became the foundation of his theory, Natural Selection.

Natural Selection

Natural selection is the mechanism Darwin named in his book "The Origin of Species". Natural selection is basically the observed concept that as long as organism are capable of surviving to procreate, they are considered fit for their environment. Those that don't survive in their ecosystems go extinct. Now natural selection is there to weed out mutations that causes noticable hindrance to an organism. However, neutral mutations and minor damaging mutations can pass from generation to the next and won't be weeded out unless something in the environment changes.


Mutations

Mutations are changes in genetic information that causes differences from each generations. Most mutations are neutral and are observable from generation to the next. Such as height, body proportion, hair color, eye color, facial features, muscle density, etc. basicly all a mutation is, is slightly changing the build or function of an organisms. For Instance we can look at breeds of dogs. We see various aspects of mutations because dogs have multiple fur patterns, colors, eye colors, body types, muscle density, endurance, health problems, jaw strength, etc. do to the specific needs of each breed, the mutations become specific to that breed.

Specieation

Specieation is where biologists draw a line in the genetic boundaries of organisms. Usually this is done when a breaded line can no longer breed with the corresponding lines, but there are exceptions of course. Organisms that share very similar and close genetic similarities can occasionally breed. Examples are Mules and Ligers which are hybrids of Horse/donkey and Lion/Tiger.

Species is a term that is from a long list of terms used in taxonomy and phylogenetic to classify organisms. The order of classification terms are Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and sub-Species.


Anyone have any questions that they want addressed. Such as different selection pressures, what defines the difference between the taxonomical ranks, etc?

I have a question, I was reading through an article and came across this: "Although the mechanism of initiation of DNA replication is well conserved, its control is diverse. In addition to evolutionary variation, DNA replication is regulated in response to developmental events in multicellular organisms."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/24/1000587107.full.pdf

What the article is telling me is there is a known, observable, repeatable, testable process of reproduction, and starfish have a unique antibody trigger involved. My question is what is the separate "evolutionary" variation on reproduction? And how are "adaptations" passed from one generations DNA to the next?

 

[Milk-Drops]

I have had the pleasure of having discussion with many different people on this board, and thought I'd share some thoughts as to why the whole theory of evolution debate keeps going ever onward. I think its because the topic of the theory of Evolution is so bogged down with misinformation and confusion, that its becomes very hard to follow or understand in the context of Biology. There is a ton of misinformation floating around about the topic, that I felt the need to make a topic that can answer some common questions as to what the theory of evolution is.


The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is the observation that organism adapt and change to their surroundings through selection pressures from one generation to the next. Those that don't adapt die and go extinct. That is about it. The theory is pretty much a well duh. What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt. Trough years of observation, Charles Darwin noticed and created the first selection pressure that became the foundation of his theory, Natural Selection.

Natural Selection

Natural selection is the mechanism Darwin named in his book "The Origin of Species". Natural selection is basically the observed concept that as long as organism are capable of surviving to procreate, they are considered fit for their environment. Those that don't survive in their ecosystems go extinct. Now natural selection is there to weed out mutations that causes noticable hindrance to an organism. However, neutral mutations and minor damaging mutations can pass from generation to the next and won't be weeded out unless something in the environment changes.


Mutations

Mutations are changes in genetic information that causes differences from each generations. Most mutations are neutral and are observable from generation to the next. Such as height, body proportion, hair color, eye color, facial features, muscle density, etc. basicly all a mutation is, is slightly changing the build or function of an organisms. For Instance we can look at breeds of dogs. We see various aspects of mutations because dogs have multiple fur patterns, colors, eye colors, body types, muscle density, endurance, health problems, jaw strength, etc. do to the specific needs of each breed, the mutations become specific to that breed.

Specieation

Specieation is where biologists draw a line in the genetic boundaries of organisms. Usually this is done when a breaded line can no longer breed with the corresponding lines, but there are exceptions of course. Organisms that share very similar and close genetic similarities can occasionally breed. Examples are Mules and Ligers which are hybrids of Horse/donkey and Lion/Tiger.

Species is a term that is from a long list of terms used in taxonomy and phylogenetic to classify organisms. The order of classification terms are Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and sub-Species.


Anyone have any questions that they want addressed. Such as different selection pressures, what defines the difference between the taxonomical ranks, etc?

I have a question, I was reading through an article and came across this: "Although the mechanism of initiation of DNA replication is well conserved, its control is diverse. In addition to evolutionary variation, DNA replication is regulated in response to developmental events in multicellular organisms."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/24/1000587107.full.pdf

What the article is telling me is there is a known, observable, repeatable, testable process of reproduction, and starfish have a unique antibody trigger involved. My question is what is the separate "evolutionary" variation on reproduction? And how are "adaptations" passed from one generations DNA to the next?

Actually Mendel discovered that organisms pass daptations and traits through their genes. Genes are duplicated and shared during the process of sexual reproduction. In the cases of organisms or starfish and other asexual creatures, the genetics are duplicated as whole during reproduction.

 

[Vaccine]

I thought Mendel discovered the alleles that were passed on. From my point of view "nature" seems to "select" traits like an increased risk of cancer or heart disease to pass on, while "adaptations" like immunity to chicken pox, or measels get passed over.
How does macro-evolution overcome the barriers in reproduction?

 

[Milk-Drops]

I thought Mendel discovered the alleles that were passed on. From my point of view "nature" seems to "select" traits like an increased risk of cancer or heart disease to pass on

Well when we talk about point of view, you are admitting that you are not talking about the subject as a whole. Also evolution is by no means a perfect process.

, while "adaptations" like immunity to chicken pox, or measels get passed over.

in order for something to be passed up, it has to come forth to begin with. Do you have a specimens with a natural immunity to such diseases?

How does macro-evolution overcome the barriers in reproduction?

considering macro evolution isn't a single event but an applied time scale to a lineage. You would have to be more specific. For example, do you have a lineage that you want to examine such as dogs?

 

[Vaccine]

in order forsomething to be passed up, it has to come forth to beginwith.

I was taught improvements came forthgradually over time. How does a process like blood clotting comeforth? Without it an organism would bleed to death from theslightest cut. Without every component it won't function, it's anall or nothing system. How does a cell sensitive to light comeforth? Another system that the parts on their own are useless buttogether they make a light sensitive cell. These traits are written in the DNAfully formed, which seems contrary to evolution.
From my point of view the only “newtraits” that come forth are ones we don't want like heart disease,cancer, diabetes, auto-immune diseases. Which makes me believe weare devolving. Since DNA is a copy of a copy, of a copy, overgenerations and only deteriorates over time, it seems to bear thatout.

Do you have aspecimens with a natural immunity to such diseases?

Me, I never got the vaccine yet I amimmune to chicken pox now. I can adapt to chicken pox but I know thatadaptation will not get passed to my offspring. It's becauseadaptations are not written to DNA. DNA comes with the informationthat allows an organism to adapt to its environment. If theinformation isn't there, the organism can't adapt and dies, or movesto an environment it can adapt to.

How does macro-evolutionovercome the barriers in reproduction?

considering macroevolution isn't a single event but an applied time scale to alineage. You would have to be more specific. For example, do you havea lineage that you want to examine such as dogs?

How about echinoderms. They go all theway back to the Cambrian explosion and still exist today. Plus,there is some separate “evolutionary variation" on reproduction Ican't find any material on.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I was taught improvements came forthgradually over time.

In the case of a lineage, impactful improvements show up over several generations, yes.

How does a process like blood clotting comeforth? Without it an organism would bleed to death from theslightest cut. Without every component it won't function, it's anall or nothing system.

I all ready know this is leading into an ireducible complexity issue. I'll go ahead and point out that just because you don't understand how a current system in a body would fucntion without the parts it has now, doesn't mean that there isn't a funciton that the system used to have. To understand something such as the origin of blood clotting, we'd have to study the lineage of mamals that all have warm blooded systems and see where they diverged off. We can then examine the origins of the group to see when the cardiovascular system we understand today arose.

How does a cell sensitive to light comeforth? Another system that the parts on their own are useless buttogether they make a light sensitive cell.

You are now using the old eye argument. Before I even attempt this, can you even name the parts of a light sensitive cell?

These traits are written in the DNAfully formed,

I don't recognize terms such as fully formed because they really have no meaning in biology. If you are saying that you see organisms with functioning organ systems and that the genetic information is within DNA, we both agree.

which seems contrary to evolution.

Considering that your statements haven't addressed anything about the theory of evolution, I would say you haven't made a case. So far you have stated that you don't understand the origins of Blood clotting and don't understand the origins of light sensitive cells. Neither of this is contrary to evolution

From my point of view the only “newtraits” that come forth are ones we don't want like heart disease,cancer, diabetes, auto-immune diseases. Which makes me believe weare devolving.

Most of the diseases you mentioned are more than likely caused not by new traits but more around dietary habits and living habbits. Diabetes isn't new but the wide spread nature of it is in first world country. This is mostly because the human digestive and endocrine system didn't evolve to fit a diet of high cholesterol and Carbohydrates mixed with a sedentary life style. There is no such thing as devolving, because that would require the complete loss of alleles obtained when the 2 gametes combine in fertilization. In short, for something to devolve, the offspring would have to be a clone of the parent's parent. However, in cases of several generations of incest Atavisms tend to pop up. This also happens in very small communities with low populations. Attavisms are mutations that are usually harmful that where naturally suppressed but due to being exposed through several generations to the same gene combination, are able to emerge.

Since DNA is a copy of a copy, of a copy, overgenerations and only deteriorates over time, it seems to bear thatout.

I wonder if you are aware that DNA is coppied everytime a cell divides? Meaning that you as a person have repeated copies of your own DNA in your own body. What I think you mean is when alleles and genes are encoded on sperm or eggs. In this process, the DNA is copied and then the 2 gametes combine their halves and form the DNA structure.

Me, I never got the vaccine yet I amimmune to chicken pox now. I can adapt to chicken pox but I know thatadaptation will not get passed to my offspring. It's becauseadaptations are not written to DNA. DNA comes with the informationthat allows an organism to adapt to its environment. If theinformation isn't there, the organism can't adapt and dies, or movesto an environment it can adapt to.

You are misunderstanding something here. Your physical adaptations isn't what gets passed on, but the ability for your body to adapt is passed on. What we would expect to see get passed on is areas where chicken pox is rampant is a gradual immunity to pop up or a resistance because those that have a strong genetic factor to their immune system will survive lo

How about echinoderms. They go all theway back to the Cambrian explosion and still exist today.

There are several different species of echinoderms, and many of have gone extinct and many new species have popped up since after the Cambrian explosion. I don't think you understand that I already pointed out that we are talking about lineages, and echinoderms are just another lineage.

Plus,there is some separate “evolutionary variation" on reproduction Ican't find any material on.

Then we probably shouldn't discuss something you can't find material on.

 

[Vaccine]

In the case of a lineage, impactful improvements show up over several generations, yes.

Can you provide an example of an improvement showing up both over several generations and over one generation?

I all ready know this is leading into an ireducible complexity issue. I'll go ahead and point out that just because you don't understand how a current system in a body would fucntion without the parts it has now, doesn't mean that there isn't a funciton that the system used to have.

That sword cuts both ways, evolution has no explanation either. Your OP says “What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt.”
How does a single cell adapt light sensativity?

To understand something such as the origin of blood clotting, we'd have to study the lineage of mamals that all have warm blooded systems and see where they diverged off. We can then examine the origins of the group to see when the cardiovascular system we understand today arose.

Again, your OP says “What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt.” How does an organism adapt blood clotting?

I don't recognize terms such as fully formed because they really have no meaning in biology.

Good point, I will rephrase the question, can evolution explain how functional blood clotting or vision arose?

You are now using the old eye argument. Before I even attempt this, can you even name the parts of a light sensitive cell?

This is my post from another thread that never got answered. These are the four major proteins, I left out the rest since they are useful in other functions in the cell.

1. • 
     
     11-cis-retinal
     ​
   • 
     
     rhodophsin
     ​
   • 
     
     transducin
     ​
   • 
     
     phosphodiesterase
     ​
     Linked together in a cell with pumps, resynthesizers, and other cell proteins they interact to produce vision. This is oversimplified but, 11-cis-retinal is linked with rhodophsin, only 11-cis-retinal reacts to light but since they are linked they both change shape and rhodophsin triggers transducin to bind to Phoshodiesterase and cuts the molecule GMP. When enough GMP is cut it causes an imbalance of charge which is something the nervous system recognizes. And all this has to be reset back to its original state for the next cycle. On its own 11-ris-retinal can't trigger transducin or cut GMP, rhodophsin doesn't react to light or have the ability to cut GMP, Transducin and phosphodiesterase don't react to light and simply serve to cut GMP. On their own these proteins can not produce vision. Only when they all exist together do they make a light sensitive cell. This system is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Most of the diseases you mentioned are more than likely caused not by new traits but more around dietary habits and living habbits. Diabetes isn't new but the wide spread nature of it is in first world country. This is mostly because the human digestive and endocrine system didn't evolve to fit a diet of high cholesterol and Carbohydrates mixed witha sedentary life style.

Your OP says: The theory of evolutionis the observation that organism adapt andchange to their surroundings through selectionpressures from one generation to the next.

Let me make sure I am getting this right. You're telling me we don't adapt or change to our “living or eating habits” from one generation to the next?

I wonder if you are aware that DNA is coppied everytime a cell divides? Meaning that you as a person have repeated copies of your own DNA in your own body. What I think you mean is when alleles and genes are encoded on sperm or eggs. In this process, the DNA is copied and then the 2 gametes combine their halves and form the DNA structure.

I am aware of what mitosis and fertilization are, I said “over generations”, I was pointing out degeneration.

Since DNA is a copy of a copy,of a copy, over generations and only deteriorates over time, it seems to bear that out.

There are several different species of echinoderms, and many of have gone extinct and many new species have popped up since after the Cambrian explosion. I don't think you understand that I already pointed out that we are talking about lineages, and echinoderms are just another lineage.

First, what “new species” are you referring to. Second, let's go through the lineage of starfish.

Plus,there is some separate “evolutionary variation" on reproduction I can't find any material on.

Then we probably shouldn't discuss something you can't find material on.

Your OP says: “What makes the theory so useful and revolutionary is not that it states that organisms adapt, but explains how they are able to adapt.”

The reason I can't seem to find material on this separate “evolutionary variation” is because it doesn't exist. That article is from the Tokyo Institute of Technology and they don't have the same commitment to evolution as western science does. They might give evolution a nod, but then proceed to actual science and explain reproduction in starfish. They don't provide any evolutionary explanation because they don't see any.

Considering that your statements haven't addressed anything about the theory ofevolution, I would say you haven't made a case.

I've given several examples of how evolution isn't useful for explaining things in biology. Degeneration of DNA explains things better than evolution.

Your OP you said: “natural selection” is “there to weed out mutations that cause noticeable hindrance to an organism”

I explained Cancer would be a “noticeable hindrances”, but that mutation is not being “weededout”. Cancer, heart disease, and auto-immune diseases are in fact being passed on with an alarming increase. Natural selection is demonstrably false.

You provide another argument against evolution when you said our digestive system didn't evolve and can't adapt to our own eating and living habits.

And another with this statement:

Your physical adaptations isn't what gets passed on, but the ability for your body to adapt is passed on.

Adaptations do not get passed on. I agree, adaptations are not written to DNA. DNA already comes with the information that allows an organism to adapt. If the information isn't there the organism can't adapt, it either dies or moves to an environment it can adapt to.