Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Not just a theory
06-15-2011, 05:21 AM
Post: #1
Not just a theory
This is a really simple, short and exact explanation of scientific theories and evolution. It is the intro from http://www.notjustatheory.com/

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-15-2011, 09:24 AM
Post: #2
RE: Not just a theory
(06-15-2011 05:21 AM)Garrett Fogerlie Wrote:  This is a really simple, short and exact explanation of scientific theories and evolution. It is the intro from http://www.notjustatheory.com/

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

Thank you for replying to my post. Before I take you further into the depths of the Bible and reply to your thoughts, give answers to some contradictions (in time all!), show you that what I believe is nothing like the lies that are told by many so called Christians who do not truly study the Bible, I would like you to read the following with an open mind and consider Evolution and Creation.

The question is – Creation or Evolution

• Creation involves a Creator
• Evolution is a random process, based purely on chance.

Most of the material that we shall consider is that advanced for evolution and will display the inadequacies that are involved. This will lead to a consideration of creation and its implications.

The theory of Evolution was actually proposed jointly by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace (came from a small place called USK 4 miles from where I live!) and it was a mechanism by which it was thought new species might arise.

Simply expressed the survival of the fittest. Alfred Russell Wallace actually came to the conclusion that the human Brain was far too large to account for how Evolution works in the terms of survival of the fittest. Of course Darwin had to publish his work because there was great pressure on him by Wallace when he discovered that his work was of the same thought process.

Problems of natural selection
The late Professor H. Graham Cannon, fellow of the Royal Society and formerly of Manchester University said how do we recognize the fittest? The answer of course is the fittest are the ones that survive. He then goes on to say that the fittest must be the survival of those that survive! Not very profound!

Darwin himself knew that there were problems. He assumed that the natural variation in species would be adequate to explain evolution and he believed that natural selection would slowly eliminate the less fit variations and by a series of steps a new species would result. This process would occur slowly and simply select those characteristics that were already present in the species in much the same way someone might breed horses to produce a faster horse or productive corn plant. It would not produce any dramatic changes, which are one of the weaknesses of Darwin’s idea, and evolutionists soon recognized that this was a problem. It was only with the science of the development of genetics that evolutionists were provided with a possible solution to their problem.

These Neo or new Darwinists believes that natural selection acts on mutation, which are random genetic changes.
The idea then is that random mutations in the genes of all organisms would lead to small changes in that organisms form or function and natural selection should favor those organisms with beneficial mutations and increase their chances of survival and reproduction hence survival of the fittest.
Over a long period these changes would accumulate and eventually an organism would change perhaps into a more highly evolved kind.

One problem with this idea which still remains is that by and large all the mutations that have been observed are not beneficial, indeed we have within our genetic material in the DNA methods for repairing errors, example forms of cancer.

Darwin published his origin of species on the 24th Nov 1859 and became a best seller. Every one of the 1250 copies was sold on the very first day. Of course publicity of the book would say that men developed from monkeys, which would have been enough of a scandal in Victorian times to ensure good sales. Very few people it seems actually read the book. Professor Cannon only knew of one other person that read the book from cover to cover and he was a Japanese Scientist who thought that a book could change Biology so much should be read. Professor Canon warned that it was not an easy book to understand!

I would like to mention at this point that we couldn’t truly understand Evolution or Creation unless we are willing to read, study and learn. Unfortunately there are many such so called Christians like this and people who think they know about so called Evolution!

What is the evidence for Evolution?

1. Observation of “evolution in action”
2. The fossil record

Evolution in action
The peppered moth and the industrial revolution

The peppered moth Biston betularia which exists in two forms: the normal black and white form and a melanic (mutant) form which is black.
When it rests on bark it will be seen or not seen according to the colour of the bark. The example that was put forward was that in the Industrial Revolution many trees of course were blackened and the black form resting on the tree trunk would have been much better camouflaged than the black and white form which would stand out.

Is this evolution in action? Hardly!

So why not? It’s quite simple

• The melanic form is still the same species!
• Correlations between the ratio of melanic forms and industrial fall-out were not convincing.
• The experiments were unrealistic: dead moths were pinned to the trunks but in life the moths hide under the joint between the trunk and the branches.

Jeremy Cherfas “Exploding the myth of the malanic moth” New Scientist Dec 1896/Jan 1987, p 25

This so called experiment has even been dropped now from modern scientific textbooks!

So there is nowhere even today where we can observe Evolution in action!

So if we can’t observe Evolution in action then we might be able to see it from the fossil record

The existence of fossils – the remains of animals and plants – in the rocks and the changes, which are observed over geological epochs, is advanced as evidence that evolution has occurred.
The presence of fossil forms, which are now extinct, is also said to support the concept of natural selection.
Darwin was aware that in order to establish his theory it would be necessary to find intermediate forms in the fossil record.
Their absence in his day was attributed to the small amount of geological research and he was confident that these “missing links” would be found.

It was thought that we should be able to trace how evolution occurred from very simple organisms back in the pre-cambrian period through the various epochs to the modern forms today and we should be able to see fossils. But in fact in many cases no fossils of particular groups could be found.

This caused problems for the evolutionists but they came up with a solution:
In spite of almost 150 years of paleontological research, these “missing links” are still missing!
In order to account for this, some evolutionists have suggested that evolution does not occur smoothly but in sudden bursts that are by “punctuated equilibria”.

Evolution by “punctuated equilibria”
• Organisms change very little over long periods and then evolve quickly
• Since the fossil formation is haphazard the likelihood of their being represented in the record is greatly reduced and so they are “missing”

So the necessity to propose the concept of “Punctuated Equilibria”, in order to explain the absence of intermediate forms, is a desperate attempt to rescue a bankrupt theory.

It is based on the assumption that evolution must have occurred, even though the evidence is lacking!

There is actually better evidence that creatures don’t change very much over large periods

“Living Fossils”
Many examples of plants and animals, found as fossils and previously thought to be extinct, have been discovered.
Examples include the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis) and the Coelacanth fish (Latimeria chalumnae).
There are also many other examples that have been found in scientific books!
So there are probably many other “living fossils” yet to be found!

This raises the question how do we date the fossils?
Fossils are not found in igneous rocks such as granite but only in sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, limestone and chalk.
Igneous rocks may be dated by radioactive decay measurements but this is much more difficult for sedimentary rocks and the various methods often give conflicting results.
For these reasons it is customary to date sedimentary rocks by means of the characteristic fossils found in them.
This means, of course, that the age of the fossils is determined by the age of the rocks in which they occur.
A circular argument!

Whilst some people might argue that’s been broken by the use of radioactive decay methods and more absolute measurements, in reality the geological periods were made long before radioactive methods were actually thought of.

For example characteristic rocks in Britain and Europe are named from regions. The Cambrian, the oldest rocks are derived from a tribe in Wales (a country where I live). The famous Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains, the cretaceous from the English chalk, carboniferous from the coal measures and so on.
This system is still in use and hasn’t been modified even though some scientists believe you can derive ages from radioactive methods.
You can ask then if that’s the problem can’t we just look at a cliff and work out the oldest rocks must be at the bottom and the youngest must be at the top.
That is true although it is interesting sometimes that the sequence does get out of kilter and geologists have to come up with quite complicated explanations as to how that might be the case, example:

Nowhere is it possible to find a cliff with all the geological strata evident in the presumed sequence.
Such a cliff, with all the geological periods from the Cambrian to Recent would have to be 84 miles (134km) high, or more than 12 times the height of Mount Everest!
The Grand Canyon is only a mile (1.6 km) deep at its maximum. It would have to be 85 times deeper to contain all the strata!

Lets now look at the mathematical probability of evolution

If evolution is based on random events – what are the chances it would result in life and eventually human beings?

It has been claimed, as you should probably know that if a large number of monkeys were to type randomly on enough typewriters we would eventually get the whole works of Shakespeare!

This was actually tried with 6 monkeys and after a month there were 50 pages of type which did not contain a single word of English not even the indefinite article a or the personal pronoun I.

One Scientist actually sat down and worked out how probable it would be. He took a single Shakespeare sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a rose” in which there are 488 letters ignoring the spaces.
He did the calculation – The probability that we would obtain a single Shakespeare sonnet at random is 10^690, that is 1 followed by 690 zeros!

He went on to calculate that if you had every particle in the universe working like a computer doing a million calculations per second from the beginning of time you still wouldn’t get at random a single sonnet of Shakespeare. The Universe would have to be 10^600 times bigger than it actually is and yet everyone seems to accept that monkeys could do it.

So how likely is evolution?

It is possible to calculate the probability of evolution occurring by estimating the rate at which favourable mutations would occur and how many would be required to transform a relatively simple organism (such as an amoeba) into a complex one (such as a horse). How probable is that?

A quote by Gavin De Bier – a former director of the natural history museum in London

“..those who invoke mathematical improbability against natural selection can be refuted out of their own mouths. H.J. Muller has estimated that on the existing knowledge of the percentage of mutations which are beneficial and a reasoned estimate of the number of mutations which would be necessary to convert an amoeba into a horse, based on the average magnitude of the effects of mutations, the number of mutations required on the basis of chance alone if there were no natural selection, would be of the order of one thousand raised to the power of one million”

This is 1 with another 3 million noughts after it! It is worth reflecting that there are only 10^80 particles in the whole universe! But the evolutionists’ are not deterred. Sir Gavin goes on.

“…This impossible and meaningless figure serves to illustrate the power of natural selection in collecting favourable mutations and minimizing waste of variation, for horses do exist and they have evolved”

Sir Gavin de Beer, (1970) A Handbook on Evolution, British Museum (Natural History), p 19, [italics original]

This reminds me of that comment – don’t confuse me with facts my mind is made up!

Another problem for evolutionists – The concept of Irreducible complexity

The book, “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, challenges evolutionary theory by demonstrating that biochemical systems have an “irreducible complexity”.

He defined it such:
Irreducible Complexity “…a single system composed of well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”

This means that if there are parts of organisms that can’t be any simpler than their present complexity without failing they must have evolved fully made because anything less just wouldn’t work. Darwin himself recognized that the idea was an important one.

He actually says: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 1995 says this:
“Evolution is very possibly, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all…we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation”

Notice he uses phrases very possibly, in actual fact. Which is it possible or fact!

McGrath and others have effectively answered Professor Dawkins!

An example by Behe to demonstrate what he has in mind.
He points to the mouse trap which has no more than 7 essential moving parts including the cheese, yet if any one of these is missing the trap fails to work.
A simple but very useful example of “irreducible complexity”

Much of molecular Biology is like this. If you take any part from it the system won’t work.

A wonderful example is the Molecular Motor
The Molecular motor, which powers the flagellum of a bacterium, has a construction that is remarkably reminiscent of a modern electric motor but far more efficient! An example of a complex structure that would not work if any part of it was missing. Evolutionists have to explain how it could come together complete, perfect and functional just like that.

What is the explanation then for the large changes that must be accounted for in evolutionary theory?

How did the vertebrates (back-boned animals) arise?
This is one of the most pressing problems for evolutionists! The problem is that the body structure of those invertebrates, which might have given rise to vertebrates, is inverted.
Invertebrates have their nervous system on the ventral side while in vertebrates it is dorsal.
Invertebrate hearts and circulatory systems are dorsally located while in vertebrates they are ventral.

The present favored explanation is even more remarkable.
It is claimed that the Adult Ascidians or Sea Squirts are our ancestors. These sessile, marine creatures have a free-swimming larva, which is tadpole-like.

Many of the larval features are said to resemble those of a primitive vertebrate.
This little larva is very much like a tadpole and it is suggested that the vertebrates (chordates) are supposed to have originated from a sea-squirt by neotany, that is, by attaining reproductive capacity while in the mobile larval state and failing to mature into the adult sedentary sea-squirt. In other words it never grew up like peter pan, it remained sexually mature as was able to reproduce.

That is the best that can be done! Yet there is no real evidence that this even occurred but an explanation has to be found! And you would be amazed at the number of ideas that have been put forward in order to get around this particular type of problem!

Is Evolution still credible?

A quotation that sums it up beautifully, Andrew Brown

“Evolution theory is now one of the main myths of our time”

Michael J. Behe made this point…”The fact that none of these [fundamental] problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems”

So we can reasonably ask Is Evolution actually Scientific?

1. Science advances by
• Observing phenomena
• Proposing explanations (hypotheses / theories)
• Testing these by prediction and experiment
• Rejecting those that fail these tests

2. Scientific hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved

So Is Evolution Scientific?

3. “Evolution” is a theory which cannot be tested by experiment (past) nor by prediction (future)

4. Any evidence, which is contrary to the theory of evolution, demolishes it.


Since evolution is untenable, then creation is the only alternative.

A simple statement in the beginning of the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth Genesis 1:1. This theme runs through the whole Bible.

It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. Isaiah 45:12

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3
This is a current theory by science that the Big Bang came into existence. The writer of Hebrews said that 2000 years ago!

The Lord Jesus endorsed the Genesis account of Creation

“Haven’t you read,” he [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’…Matthew 19:4

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’… Mark 10:6

Creation or Evolution?

There can only be one answer!

As a scientist I have no problems with the early chapters of the book of Genesis because the stages of creation are strikingly similar to scientific thinking and I’m not talking about the age of the earth! Also because I also take into account other evidence like Bible Prophecy, which has, been fulfilled with remarkable detail!

Or the evidence of the conviction of the first Christians and the rapid growth of the early church in spite of persecution.


It is not Christians who are deluded but those who prefer to avoid the flaws in the theory of evolution!

Ref: Dr John Hellawell

Thanks for listening – More to come and follow up, Mike (BSc Honours in Marine biology and Oceanography), Studied in Evolution and continue to study the Bible
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-16-2011, 02:25 AM
Post: #3
RE: Not just a theory
Evolution is not “based purely on chance,” far from it, evolution is akin to trying to open a combination lock, and each time you get close to the correct number it opens slightly.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “One problem with this idea which still remains is that by and large all the mutations that have been observed are not beneficial”

You are using an argument from ignorance, that is to say that because you can’t think of how eye placement or feather coloring etc, can possibly be beneficial therefore you conclude that there are no beneficial mutations. When in fact there are a great many beneficial mutations, here are six easy ones:

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

In the wild it is usually impossible to determine when a mutation occurred. Usually all we know (and often we do not even know that) is the current distribution of particular traits.

The situation with insects and pesticides is similar to that of bacteria and antibiotics. Pesticides are widely used to kill insects. In turn the insects quickly evolve in ways to become immune to the pesticides.

2) Bacteria that eat nylon
Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab.

3) Sickle cell resistance to malaria
The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage.

4) Lactose tolerance
Lactose intolerance in adult mammals has a clear evolutionary explanation; the onset of lactose intolerance makes it easy to wean the young. Human beings, however, have taken up the habit of eating milk products. This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

It should be understood that it was a matter of chance that the lactose tolerance mutation appeared in a group where it was advantageous. It might have been established first by genetic drift within a group which then discovered that they could use milk.

5) Resistance to atherosclerosis
Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan (see Appendices II and III for biological details) whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.


6) Immunity to HIV
HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “indeed we have within our genetic material in the DNA methods for repairing errors, example forms of cancer.”

Of course our cells have methods of error testing and some ability to correct mismatches and such, but this often does not work, example: forms of cancer.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “I would like to mention at this point that we couldn’t truly understand Evolution or Creation unless we are willing to read, study and learn.”

The creation myth is not a complicated idea to understand, and it is very similar to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing only in its monotheistic outlook.

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (God), by means of divine incantation in six days and the designation of the seventh day as Sabbath, a holy (set apart) day of rest. Man and woman are created to be God's regents over his creation. Chapter two tells of YHWH (God) creating the first man, whom he forms from clay and into whom he "breathes" the "breath of life". The first woman is formed from the side of the first man, and God plants a garden "east of Eden" into which he places them.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “Unfortunately there are many such so called Christians like this and people who think they know about so called Evolution!”

I completely agree, unfortunately there are still some people who are scientifically ignorant when it comes to science, and they ignore the fact of evolution because of some bizarre predisposition against knowledge. Do you honestly think that your god may send you to hell for trying to comprehend the amazing-ness of life?

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “What is the evidence for Evolution?
1. Observation of evolution in action
2. The fossil record”

Those are some of the evidence for evolution, there is so much more! To give you a starting place here are some of the basics, this is just the super simple stuff that the average freshman in college, who studies biology and evolution, like you said you have (but I somehow doubt,) knows. Please take the time look this up, it’s not something you can do in an hour or a day, especially if you work and want to have a life; but if you put 1/10 of the vigor you do into trying to decrypt some cryptic (apparently cryptic since you seem to have some special information that others do not) meaning from the bible, you will have a vastly better understanding life and how it works, and it really will open your eyes to how special and amazing it is.

So to reiterate, here are some of basic evidence for evolution:

Phylogenetics
Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
Maximum parsimony
Maximum likelihood
Distance matrix methods
Statistical support for phylogenies
phylogenetic inference
Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
Unity of life
Nested hierarchies
Convergence of independent phylogenies
Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
Transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows
Chronology of common ancestors
Anatomical vestiges
Atavisms
Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs
Humans tails
Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology
Mammalian ear bones
Reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches
Branchial arches
Snake embryos with legs
Embryonic human tail
Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
Present biogeography
Past biogeography
Anatomical parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Anatomical convergence
Molecular convergence
Anatomical suboptimal function
Molecular suboptimal function
Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses
Genetic Change
Morphological Change
Functional Change
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “Darwin was aware that in order to establish his theory it would be necessary to find intermediate forms in the fossil record.
Their absence in his day was attributed to the small amount of geological research and he was confident that these ‘missing links’ would be found.
It was thought that we should be able to trace how evolution occurred from very simple organisms back in the pre-cambrian period through the various epochs to the modern forms today and we should be able to see fossils. But in fact in many cases no fossils of particular groups could be found.”

Once again you are making a blatantly false statement. This is the same logical fallacy that you made before, an argument from ignorance.

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features between an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

Here are some of the intermediate species from our tree, hominids. With some citations so you can easily look it up for yourself.

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
And there are fossils intermediate between these.

Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape.

There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).

The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).

A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).

Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “There is actually better evidence that creatures don’t change very much over large periods”

I agree, especially in creatures with a longer life expectancy, most of these fall within a timescale of millions of years worth of minor, MINOR changes. That’s why it is simple to see drastic changes in bacteria, flies and other short lived life forms. When I say changes, I mean, from one species to another. Defined by the new species no longer being able to reproduce with the species it evolved from.

I am going to stop here, I’m only half way through your post, but I have to get to work. I’m working a 32 hour shift, so I may not get back to this in a couple days. This will give you some time to look up and gain a better understanding of evolution and some of the information I have provided. So far all I have heard form you is an argument that was offered in the very early 1900’s and from the perspective of maybe 3 people.

This is why science is so great, and works as well as it does (if you think contrarily, let me remind you that we live on opposite sides of the world yet we can communicate with each other practically anywhere we go.) Science consists of thousands and thousands of people who have an idea, find a way to prove it, then others try to disprove it. Once it is well vetted it works its way to the highest place a scientific idea can get to and is called a theory. Then scientists realize that some other theory fits with theirs like a puzzle piece and society benefits by getting a better (more defined) understanding of how things work.

It is such an amazing process; it almost brings a tear to my eye to think about it. For me it is one of the best examples of people helping people for people’s sake.

I am not an expert in evolution, the information I have presented is BASIC and is an absolutely must be known for someone to make the claim that evolution is incorrect. No one would listen to me bitch about religion if I had no clue of what I was talking about. I am far more knowledgeable when it comes to physics, the bible, and religion; I know it seems contradictory but I have taken several years of college classes on both, in a hope to gain a better understanding of people and the universe in which we live. Not to mention I thought there must some possible evidence for a God, and I hoped to find it. I haven’t which is why I am an Atheist, and I will be until I discover extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim; although I no longer hold out hope of such a discovery.

I hope you will truly take the time to learn, if not about evolution, then just basic science because you will quickly come to understand why myself and others thought you were literally joking when you said the bible is full of science. Regardless of if you want to believe the bible, at least you will understand that things in it like ‘washing your hands in non-stagnant water’ and ‘man and creatures having different kinds of flesh’ are not the revolutionary scientific breakthroughs that you think they are.

Garrett Fogerlie

PS,

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. Isaiah 45:12
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3
This is a current theory by science that the Big Bang came into existence. The writer of Hebrews said that 2000 years ago!
The Lord Jesus endorsed the Genesis account of Creation
Haven’t you read he [Jesus] replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female Matthew 19:4
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female Mark 10:6”

This is another logical fallacy, it’s called circular logic or circular reasoning. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible, it would be the same as me saying at the beginning of this post that “Everything in this post is completely true” then arguing that evolution is true because it is in this post and according to this post, this post is true. You wouldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) accept that.

You should google “logical fallacies” (I haven’t but assume) you will find a list of illogical proofs, and once you understand them, you will be much better at conveying the message you want to.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “It is not Christians who are deluded but those who prefer to avoid the flaws in the theory of evolution!”

You stated that the bible is a scientific source, I don’t think I have ever heard someone this deluded that would think that a compiled book of works from a nomadic people, written thousands of years ago as a way to pass down their culture, morals, and laws; should also be interpreted as a science book.

Science consistently evolves, and becomes more precise. That is why science books are replaced almost on a yearly basis. I assume you would think it outrageous if I said I get my understanding of death from the ‘science’ in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Written in a similar time scale, and with similar ideas as the bible, if you haven’t read it.

And your idea that the prophecies in the bible have come true to some great level of precision, what? You can make that claim but you really have to stretch and contort the scriptures to make it fit. Not to mention some prophecies came true because of the acceptance of the prophecy in the first place, like Israel. And the ones that came true within the bible, like the story of Jesus, if looked at logically and with an open mind, it begs the question that since this prophecy was common place in their folklore, did the writers of the later books possibly modify their stories to fit the predictions of the older ones?

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “Scientific hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved”
Not all can, but some of them can. I don’t mean to quibble over semantics though.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-19-2011, 02:12 AM
Post: #4
RE: Not just a theory
(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  “Living Fossils”
Many examples of plants and animals, found as fossils and previously thought to be extinct, have been discovered.
Examples include the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis) and the Coelacanth fish (Latimeria chalumnae).
There are also many other examples that have been found in scientific books!
So there are probably many other “living fossils” yet to be found!

This is true, and of course there are many, many more fossils that are form extinct creatures. I say many, many more however when compared with the ones thought to be extinct that weren’t, it can be stated that there are exponentially more. I think you would agree with me that somewhere near 99% of the animals form the Jurassic period and probably upwards of 90% of the plants from that same period are extinct and some of the creatures that are around now are direct descendants of them. Like birds for example are said to be descended from feathered dinosaurs, and they in return are descended from non-feathered carnivorous dinosaurs, so forth and so on.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  This raises the question how do we date the fossils?
Fossils are not found in igneous rocks such as granite but only in sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, limestone and chalk.
Igneous rocks may be dated by radioactive decay measurements but this is much more difficult for sedimentary rocks and the various methods often give conflicting results.
For these reasons it is customary to date sedimentary rocks by means of the characteristic fossils found in them.
This means, of course, that the age of the fossils is determined by the age of the rocks in which they occur.
A circular argument!

This is the exact argument Henry Morris (one of the starters of the creationist movement) put forth over 40 (maybe even 50) years ago; and it has since been debunked by numerous sources (along with a large amount, if not all, of the other things he has said.) I will dismiss it with a 2 brief explanations, if for some reason you feel I haven’t answered it and you would prefer to hear it from me rather than google the thousands of scientists who have explained it away, let me know and I will come back to it.

1) There are a lot of different, completely different methods for dating fossils and strata, and while they may not agree on an exact date, they are all very close to each other. This could be a difference of thousands, tens or even hundreds of thousands of years different (in some cases) but on geological timelines, they differ by 0.01% to .1%.

2) The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy. Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  You can ask then if that’s the problem can’t we just look at a cliff and work out the oldest rocks must be at the bottom and the youngest must be at the top.
That is true although it is interesting sometimes that the sequence does get out of kilter and geologists have to come up with quite complicated explanations as to how that might be the case, example:

Nowhere is it possible to find a cliff with all the geological strata evident in the presumed sequence.
Such a cliff, with all the geological periods from the Cambrian to Recent would have to be 84 miles (134km) high, or more than 12 times the height of Mount Everest!
The Grand Canyon is only a mile (1.6 km) deep at its maximum. It would have to be 85 times deeper to contain all the strata!

I fail to see your “quite complicated explanations” example. Never the less, of course no one cliff shows or even contains all strata. Plate tectonics, (more evidence that is in DIRECT contradiction with a ‘young earth’ idea) would most likely have warped and disposed of such a wonderful ‘every strata cliff’ even if one existed. That’s why different methods are used in combination determine the age of an area. It is similar to when asking 100 people how many jelly beans are in a jar, any one answer is likely to be incorrect but when the mean is taken, it is far more likely to be correct than any one person’s answer chosen at random. (Keep in mind that dating is not like guessing in the above example, all methods of dating have undergone the scientific process, and are of course repeatable, unlike guessing.)

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  If evolution is based on random events – what are the chances it would result in life and eventually human beings?

If you are dealt 16 cards out of a deck, the odds that you get all 16 cards of the same suit is 1 in 635,013,559,600 but the odds that you get the random hand you got are also 1 in 635,013,559,600 however the odds that you got the hand you got are 1 in 1 or 100%. I’m a bit of a number junkie, in fact I enjoyed calc and trig so much that I re-took them after 5 years just as a refresher. I’m currently writing an article that goes into great detail on this and other probabilities, so I won’t go into it much here.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  It has been claimed, as you should probably know that if a large number of monkeys were to type randomly on enough typewriters we would eventually get the whole works of Shakespeare!
This was actually tried with 6 monkeys and after a month there were 50 pages of type which did not contain a single word of English not even the indefinite article a or the personal pronoun I.

Wow, I think you totally missed the point of that saying. Also I have never heard of that trial, but it made me laugh; however I don’t doubt it actually happened.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  One Scientist actually sat down and worked out how probable it would be. He took a single Shakespeare sonnet “Shall I compare thee to a rose” in which there are 488 letters ignoring the spaces.
He did the calculation – The probability that we would obtain a single Shakespeare sonnet at random is 10^690, that is 1 followed by 690 zeros!
He went on to calculate that if you had every particle in the universe working like a computer doing a million calculations per second from the beginning of time you still wouldn’t get at random a single sonnet of Shakespeare. The Universe would have to be 10^600 times bigger than it actually is and yet everyone seems to accept that monkeys could do it.

Like I said before you completely do not grasp this concept! Not to mention you are using this completely unrelated information as some kind of justification against evolution! This, as perhaps you may have guessed, is another logical fallacy! If is called a ‘Red Herring’ fallacy, and it is when someone puts forth irrelevant information in order to divert attention from the original issue. Example:

We all know the earth circles the sun in a bit more than 365 days therefore evolution is correct.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  A quote by Gavin De Bier – a former director of the natural history museum in London
“..those who invoke mathematical improbability against natural selection can be refuted out of their own mouths. H.J. Muller has estimated that on the existing knowledge of the percentage of mutations which are beneficial and a reasoned estimate of the number of mutations which would be necessary to convert an amoeba into a horse, based on the average magnitude of the effects of mutations, the number of mutations required on the basis of chance alone if there were no natural selection, would be of the order of one thousand raised to the power of one million”
This is 1 with another 3 million noughts after it! It is worth reflecting that there are only 10^80 particles in the whole universe! But the evolutionists’ are not deterred. Sir Gavin goes on.
“…This impossible and meaningless figure serves to illustrate the power of natural selection in collecting favourable mutations and minimizing waste of variation, for horses do exist and they have evolved”

Either yourself or Gavin De Bier, or perhaps even HJ Muller are misquoting the original statement; Huxley is the person who originally made this statement and he is saying the exact opposite of what you claim. The odds you gave are for a horse arising WITHOUT the evolutionary processes, specifically without selection. The odds you gave are the odds of a horse being produced by chance alone, the calculation appears in Evolution in Action from page 43, and here is the text preceding your quote:

A little calculation demonstrates how incredibly improbable the results of natural selection can be when enough time is available. Following Professor Muller, we can ask what would have been the odds against a higher animal, such as a horse, being produced by chance alone: that is to say by the accidental accumulation of the necessary favorable mutations, without the intervention of selection.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Another problem for evolutionists – The concept of Irreducible complexity

This is not a problem for anyone except for Michael Behe, who coined the phrase Irreducible Complexity. I’m surprised that you have heard of this unfounded idea, it literally got laughed out of court in America when Michael Behe was presented with hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that directly refuted his claim and he admitted to never having read a single one of them! America is known for exalting idiotic ideas and their hair brained creators, and yet this one is considered a joke! I am surprised that anyone outside of America would think of it any differently.

The mere fact that you put this forth as some kind of evidence that you came across while ‘researching evolution’ makes me question your claim that you have actually done any real research at all. If you had this would not have been mentioned because you would understand things like the Lenski's experiments which showed how a community can have a mutation (let’s call it mutation X) and this mutation has no benefit whatsoever and another community has mutation Y that also has no benefit whatsoever, but if a community develops both mutation X and Y it is suddenly able to metabolize citrate. This is amazing! And the entire experiment is impeccable; I highly suggest you take the time to research it. Another ‘must read’ for you is, Irreducible Complexity Demystified, by Pete Dunkelberg. It goes into far more detail about the problems of IC, way more than I can in this short reply.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  He [Darwin] actually says: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

Yep and this has never been demonstrated. In fact, Michael Behe never demonstrated that a system was irreducibly complex, he only asserted it. That is, of course, an argument from ignorance. He stated he can’t think of any possible way something like a flagellum motor could have evolved therefore God created it (sorry, the intelligent design people shy away from ‘god’) I mean therefore the genie from I Dream of Genie created it. Behe probably could understand how the flagellum motor came to be if he had bothered to read any number of the scientific research on the flagellum motor.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Notice he uses phrases very possibly, in actual fact. Which is it possible or fact!

The only science that puts forth or labels things as facts or proofs is mathematics, and it is rare even in that field. The theory of evolution is more proven than the theory of gravity, the theory that the earth circles the sun, and the theory that the earth is round. This is how science works, I’m sorry you don’t understand it.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  McGrath and others have effectively answered Professor Dawkins!
An example by Behe to demonstrate what he has in mind.
He points to the mouse trap which has no more than 7 essential moving parts including the cheese, yet if any one of these is missing the trap fails to work.
A simple but very useful example of “irreducible complexity”
Much of molecular Biology is like this. If you take any part from it the system won’t work.
A wonderful example is the Molecular Motor
The Molecular motor, which powers the flagellum of a bacterium, has a construction that is remarkably reminiscent of a modern electric motor but far more efficient! An example of a complex structure that would not work if any part of it was missing. Evolutionists have to explain how it could come together complete, perfect and functional just like that.
What is the explanation then for the large changes that must be accounted for in evolutionary theory?

This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

The main point is that adding or removing one part from a system changes the system. It is not necessary for it to maintain its original function. This is the backbone of evolution and change.

Lookup bacteria eating Pentachlorophenol, this alone is proof of evolution, and there is tons of other over-whelming evidence out there. Every new idea, study, or technological test adds to the over-whelming proof of evolution. However a scientist will never call it a fact unless they do it just for people like you to understand.

I am done refuting each similar claim of yours, I was hoping to at the least here of something from this decade, but alas this was not the case.

(06-15-2011 09:24 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Since evolution is untenable, then creation is the only alternative.

This is a false dichotomy! For Christ’s sake, is this how your thought process works? When your car runs out of gas, do you think, “Hmm, won’t start, I better buy a truck.” Actually that isn’t nearly as extreme as your statement, perhaps it should be, “Hmm, won’t start, aliens must have stole my real car and replaced it with a non-working replica.” You do see the problem with your statement, “Since evolution is untenable, then creation is the only alternative.” No, if in fact evolution is somehow incorrect, which it is not, it’s fallibility by no means lends any credibility to creationism.

Creationism is not science, because science is peer reviewed, repeatable and most importantly science makes predictions! Creationism does not, it does nothing to aid comprehensions of life or the processes involved with change. In fact it, if taken literally, suppresses the desire to understand, with phrases similar to ‘God created it, and he is so far above our level that we cannot comprehend how he did it, so don’t bother to try.’ As I have said so many times before, “Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand. With ideas like God created it and we can never comprehend how so don't try, religion wipes out the one thing that makes mankind great, our mind!”

I will leave you with this, theories and facts are not opposite things. Theories are not fact exempt. Theories explain facts, and are therefore themselves built upon facts. In science, theories are a higher level than facts because what theories do is unite facts. Atomic theory will never be called atomic fact. Just the same as evolution theory will never be re-labeled evolution fact.

It is easy to make false, scientific sounding claims when discussing such ideas, I recommend you stop repeating religious mantras and have an original unbiased idea.

If I came across as mean or angry, I am not. I just get aggravated in the face of so much miss-information.

Garrett Fogerlie

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-21-2011, 03:34 PM
Post: #5
RE: Not just a theory
Garrett Fogerlie wrote:

You are using an argument from ignorance, that is to say that because you can’t think of how eye placement or feather coloring etc, can possibly be beneficial therefore you conclude that there are no beneficial mutations. When in fact there are a great many beneficial mutations, here are six easy ones:

1) Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

Fxmikey

Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change.

Analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”).

All known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.

The mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.

Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.

Reference:
Anderson, K., 2005. Is bacterial resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of evolutionary change?

2) Bacteria that eat nylon
Fxmikey
Discovered by a team of scientists in 1975, a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory and capable of digesting byproducts of nylon 6 manufacturer.
The recent appearance of nylon degrading bacteria presents an interesting demonstration of bacterial ability to adapt to an ever changing environment and substrate. It has also lead to a few highly exaggerated claims regarding bacterial evolution.
The most studied of the nylon degrading bacteria is Arthrobacter sp. K172 (formerly Flavobacterium ). This bacterium employs three enzymes for nylon degradation, EI (NylA), EII (NylB), and EIII (NylC), which are found on the plasmid, pOAD2.
At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.

1. Yasuhira, K., Y. Tanaka, H. Shibata, Y. Kawashima, A. Ohara, D. Kato, M. Takeo, and S. Negoro, 2007. 6-Aminohexanoate oligomer hydrolases from the alkalophilic bacteria Agromyces sp. Strain KY5R and Kocuria sp. Strain KY2. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73:7099–7102.
2. Negoro, S., 2000. Biodegradation of nylon oligomers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 54:461–466.
3. Yasuhira, K., Y. Uedo, N. Shibata, S. Negoro, M. Takeo, and Y. Higuchi, 2006. Crystallization of X-ray diffraction analysis of 6-aminohexanoate-cyclic-dimer hydrolase from Arthrobacter sp. K172. Acta Crystallographic F62:1209–1211.

3) Sickle cell resistance to malaria

I agree the mutation is not beneficial to those who have two copies of the mutated gene in their cells (the HbS homozygotes); they suffer greatly and often die before reaching reproductive age. But heterozygotes (HbA HbS) do receive a benefit: they are less likely to succumb to malaria.

However, the mutation is nonetheless a loss of information. The hemoglobin's normal function is impaired, not improved, and the protection from malaria is simply an incidental side benefit — the pathogen happens to be destroyed along with the person's own defective cells. This mutation does not introduce a new level of complexity; there is no new functional information or novel structural feature for evolution to build on.

References:
Cerami, Anthony, and Charles M. Peterson. 1975. "Cyanate and Sickle-Cell Disease." Scientific American 232(4):44-50.
Keeton, William T., and James L. Gould. 1986. Biological Science. (4th edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Lehninger, Albert L. 1975. Biochemistry: The Molecular Basis of Cell Structure and Function. (2nd edition). New York: Worth Publishers.
Raven, Peter H., and George B. Johnson. 1988. Understanding Biology. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing.
Starr, Cecie, and Ralph Taggart. 1989. Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

This is what Garrett Forgerlie said to me:
You started your 'randomly picked' refute with a absurd lie! Either you are intentionally lying to make your point or you are repeating someone else’s claim and you are just too ignorant to even check if what they said was bullshit or not.

Now take a look at all those examples Garrett has used as so called favourable mutations. I have answered 3 until i came across this web site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

It is a web site by Richard Harter and as you can see Garrett has basically copied and pasted his examples exactly from there. What does this say about him - Hypocrit!

I couldn't be bothered to answer anymore for obvious reasons!!

Also this is what it said before he pasted down that information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q: Are there favorable mutations?
A: There are, but it can be hard to tell.

For a number of reasons it is not simple to give examples of favorable mutations. First of all, as we have seen, traits [6] may be favorable or unfavorable, depending upon the environment. Secondly it is not usually known to what extent a trait is genetically fixed and to what extent it reflects a reaction to the environment. Thirdly we don't usually know what genes effect which traits. Moreover a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment.

Need i say anymore!!!!!!!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 12:36 AM (This post was last modified: 06-23-2011 01:13 AM by fxmikey.)
Post: #6
RE: Not just a theory
In Conclusion

As the longtime head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins is one of America's most visible scientists. He holds impeccable scientific credentials -- a medical degree as well as a Ph.D. in physics -- and has established a distinguished track record as a gene hunter. He's also an evangelical Christian, someone who has no qualms about professing his belief in miracles or seeing God's hand behind all of creation.

The cover of his new book illustrates this unusual mixture: The book's title, "The Language of God," is superimposed on a drawing of the double helix.

Collins hopes to stake out the middle ground between Darwinian atheists and religious fundamentalists. "Both of these extremes don't stand up to logic, and yet they have occupied the stage,"

One Final Thought - I like this, reminded me of the fundamental atheists of late!

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield, speaking in Februrary 2002, on evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knows; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-23-2011, 01:05 PM
Post: #7
RE: Not just a theory
In Answer to your counterargument for Irreducible complexity

I understand that evolutionists will always have to come up with an answer to a very valid and logical argument against it otherwise it would be embarrassing and detrimental for them but it is only speculation and Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity is still a very probable argument and problem for evolutionists.

Read this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/mic...44511.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2011, 09:28 AM
Post: #8
RE: Not just a theory
Just as an FYI, you can quote someones post with a [ quote='Garrett Fogerlie' ] or [ quote='fxmikey' ] and then at the end of the quote with [ /quote ] Just don't put a space after the [ or before the ] like I did to show you.

(06-21-2011 03:34 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems.

Exactly, this change allowed this bacteria to metabolize a new source of nutrients. Now say their origianl food source is depleted, all the bacteria that depend on that will die off, and the ones that have a mutation that allows them to eat 'new food' will live on. This process can repeat over and over again. Not to mention, the ones without the mutation don't have to die off.

Also, I haven't read the book you mentioned, but I think Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist. He considers evolution to be correct, but this doesn't conflict with his religion. (And why should it, I doubt anyone lost their religion when it was finally understood that Earth wasn't at the center of the solar system)

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-26-2011, 01:24 AM
Post: #9
RE: Not just a theory
I have bought "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" by Francis Collins. I am looking forward to reading it after i have finished reading "Darwin's Black Box" because i find his conversion and belief interesting and so far in keeping with what i believe.

Francis Collins was an atheist who converted to believing in creation and believes that Jesus is the son of God and the resurrection.
I believe the same and also don't believe in a young earth because of my understanding of the scientific world. I believe in adaptation but not evolution as the sole driving force for the universe that came about from nothing and without a creator.

Also what i have read of Francis Collins, i like his thought process. He seems to be a more humble scientist that will argue reason and hopes to steak out the middle ground between the religious fundamentalists and extreme Darwinian atheists.
I have watched countless videos of Hawkins and Hitchens of late and in my opinion they definitely come into the latter category.
I think once someone takes this extreme view the debate becomes useless and all logic and reason gets thrown out of the window.
I personally do not understand why any of us need get angry for holding what we truly believe. Mockery and the like is just pointless and a waste of time for everyone.
Not one person can know it all and that's why i enjoy reasonable debate because really we can all learn from each other and decide for ourselves which areas we choose to believe.

Whether we believe in evolution as the complete driving force for all that existed or the universe came into existence because it was created is entirely up to each individual. So to finish off, i think more respect is required from those extreme religions that science does have it's place and those extreme atheists that people do believe in God and that a creator would obviously leave the information for us to learn about him and his plan hence the Bible.

A debate will continue but only in humility!

Mike
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Linkedin Technorati Twitter Digg MySpace Delicious

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)