Three examples of macroevolution

[Miles]

In answer to a previous question about macroevolution (evolution at the species level or higher), I posted the following examples in another thread; however, on thinking about it I decided they deserve a better exposure---macroevolution is hotly contested by creationists.

• 1. "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."
  
  
  2. "Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926."
  
  3. "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."
  source

So, can we finally close the book on the creationist's contention that macroevolution is but a fantasy of science?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 218:

...What is impossible is that the finches could sprout longer wings, change their bone structure, entirely rearrange their genetic code, develop hooked beaks, keener eyesight, and become eagles.

Why is this impossible?

I have heard arguments saying that evolution is not coincidence, that species found the need to develop different things in order to survive. Let us examine the giraffe. Because of the giraffe's long neck, blood vessels must work extra-hard to pump blood to the giraffe's brain. The blood gains pressure with all that pumping, and if the giraffe put its head down or raised it suddenly, that blood would hit the brain with so much force it would instantly kill the giraffe. So Mr. Giraffe is lying there, dying, and thinking "Oh gee, I need to evolve!" But by now it is too late; Mr. Giraffe is dead, and his children go make the same mistake!

Nope. Along with the increased neck length the Giraffe also has modifications within that prevent a rush of blood upon lowering the head. The Giraffe also has modifications to the legs, by way of really tight skin, to prevent blood from pooling.

I have also heard that evolution took place through mutation. Mutation HAS NEVER ADDED GENETIC INFORMATION to a genetic code. A mutation harms or destroys a genetic code; it has never improved a genetic code. Example of a mutation: in the miniature horse, a mutation may take place which causes the foal to be a dwarf. This results in deformity, illness, and most often death. Nothing is ever improved.

Wrong. Change is what matters, regardless of whether information is added or subtracted. Even so, there are examples of added genetic information...

Please see the page at Talk Origins on added genetic information.

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

As for the argument listed several times "Three examples of macroevolution" this is false. The resulting organisms could not reproduce, one of the basic criteria for life. Thus, they are not alive...

Is a woman post-hysterectomy dead?

Plus: MACROEVOLUTION is a change so dramatic that it creates entirely new species.

Only when defined so - most biologists don't really use the term. The steps involved can be slight, and there is often disagreement among experts, but we can see that animals change over time, and from this fact we can reasonably deduce that such change creates new species.

Darwin effectively proved incorrect the idea of the immutability of species: the idea that all breeds and species have been created since the beginning of time and can never change. Microevolution takes place; there are thousands of different breeds of dogs, thousands of different breeds of cats, thousands of different fish, thousands of different horses. Many of these species came through natural or man-made selection. But a horse has never become an elephant, or viseversa.

How 'bout land dwelling animals becoming whales?

[Goat]

Let's start with Darwin's finches. When Charles Darwin was in the Galapogos Islands, he found three types of finches, each with a different type of beak. Yes, I believe it is possible that those finches developed different types of beaks for different purposes. What is impossible is that the finches could sprout longer wings, change their bone structure, entirely rearrange their genetic code, develop hooked beaks, keener eyesight, and become eagles.

I have heard arguments saying that evolution is not coincidence, that species found the need to develop different things in order to survive. Let us examine the giraffe. Because of the giraffe's long neck, blood vessels must work extra-hard to pump blood to the giraffe's brain. The blood gains pressure with all that pumping, and if the giraffe put its head down or raised it suddenly, that blood would hit the brain with so much force it would instantly kill the giraffe. So Mr. Giraffe is lying there, dying, and thinking "Oh gee, I need to evolve!" But by now it is too late; Mr. Giraffe is dead, and his children go make the same mistake!

THis is a huge straw man when it comes to the TOE. There is not 'choice' in it. Since 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, then well, 'I am dead and it's too late' is a very common senerio. However, the way that evolution works
is 'random variation' followed by the filter of 'natural selection' to provide the
character traits that are best suited for reproduction in a specific environment.

You will see a lot of 'conserving' of character traits unless there is a shift in environment. And, you will see very small steps, not a huge large one.

I have also heard that evolution took place through mutation. Mutation HAS NEVER ADDED GENETIC INFORMATION to a genetic code. A mutation harms or destroys a genetic code; it has never improved a genetic code.

This is incorrect. For example, a simple mutation in the gene that chooses the shame of high density cholesterol that has been discovered in a family in Italy protects against hardening of the arteries, since it is much more effective in
scraping plaque away from the arterial walls. This is NEW genetic information,
and it is beneficial. Most mutations are neutral. So, your source of information is highly incorrect.

Example of a mutation: in the miniature horse, a mutation may take place which causes the foal to be a dwarf. This results in deformity, illness, and most often death. Nothing is ever improved.

Yes, and that is where the filter of natural selection comes along. The 'deterioration' is filtered out from producing offspring. However, it is a misstatement to say that ALL mutations are bad. Many are, many are neutral, and some can be beneficial.

As for the argument listed several times "Three examples of macroevolution" this is false. The resulting organisms could not reproduce, one of the basic criteria for life. Thus, they are not alive. Plus: MACROEVOLUTION is a change so dramatic that it creates entirely new species. Darwin effectively proved incorrect the idea of the immutability of species: the idea that all breeds and species have been created since the beginning of time and can never change. Microevolution takes place; there are thousands of different breeds of dogs, thousands of different breeds of cats, thousands of different fish, thousands of different horses. Many of these species came through natural or man-made selection. But a horse has never become an elephant, or viseversa.

Thank you for reading!
~Mix

You don't seem to understand what 'Macro evolution' is, what adaptation is, and what the mechanism in place for evolution is. THe source of your information has given very many false claims.

You can say that 'A cat can never become a dog', yet the fossil evidence shows that both cats and dogs evolved from a common ancestor.

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

Please tell me, what fossils show the "stage" between a cat and a dog?
Give me an example of a "good" mutation.
As for the source of my information: a college-level biology book. Fully up-to-date and unbiased.
Really, evolution never left the stage of being a hyptothesis. Darwin observed and developed an explanation for what he saw. But there is more evidence FOR God and AGAINSt evolution. People tend to look more at what seems to support evolution, ignoring the 99% of evidence that points to an intelligient creator.
I've heard the response to monkeys-at-a-typewriter. The atheist's explanation is that if you sat a monkey at a typewriter, it would eventually type the word "it". If you saved this in a file and the monkey kept typing, it would eventually type "was." The monkey could theoretically type out the first sentence of a tale of two cities.
However, there would be so many MISTAKES between those words that there would be more damage done than good, thus destroying whatever was evolving.
As to the giraffe thing: Yes, the giraffe's brain is protected by a sort of "cushion". But how did this cushion evolve before the giraffe died out entirely?
There is another thing against macroevolution: the idea of macroevolution is that simple life forms evolved into complex ones, changing their genetic codes. The simplest life form is a bacteria, followed by a yeast, followed by wheat, followed by tuna, followed by pigeon, followed by horse. But there is more similiarity between the genetic codes of a bacteria and a horse than between those of a bacteria and a yeast!
The words of Dr. David Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and one of the most respected experts on the fossil record. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of hte classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in NOrth America, have to be discarded or modified as the result." The missing links are still missing.
A quote from Jeffrey H. Schwartz, respected biologist. "According to Darwin, the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved...INstead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists find themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species."
Evolution attempts to explain something about earth's past. The first place to look is the fossil record. And the fossil record strongly points against macroevolution.
A definition of macroevolution: the hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism.
It is impossible to truly add information to a genetic code. In order to do this, some process must exist which will add entirely new genes and alleles to an organism's genetic code. There can only be a certain number of genes and alleles in a genotype, unless there is a mutation (which, as I said previously, causes harm). Macroevolution is variation beyond an organisms genetic code.
Also, after the "Big Bang" (and this is frequently asked, don't try to dodge it,) where did the microorganisms come from which evolved? There was no living matter, so where did these cells come from?
A bat's radar is infinitely complex. The most brilliant minds in the world have studied and studied and attempted to reconstruct it, but even the most brilliant minds cannot come close to building something as fine-tuned and perfect as a bat's radar. If the most brilliant minds (intelligient designers) can't come close to nature, how could the radar come about with no thought, no planning, just chance?
If you take apart a watch and shake it in your hand, it will not come together to form a watch. I have heard people oppose this, saying that if you shook it long enough, two parts would stick together and then another two until you eventually built a watch. But this is absurd! A watch is complicated and intricate; each part must fit together exactly right, not just stick on to some random piece. Eventually, you might get all the pieces stuck together, but the watch would not work. You would need a watchmaker to put it together. You would need an intelligient mind to put it together. It doesn't come about by chance.
Tell me one great invention that came together through someone shaking parts around.

Thank you for reading. I am praying for you all.

"It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God."

~Mix

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 221:

Please tell me, what fossils show the "stage" between a cat and a dog?

There are none. Nor do any competent scientists claim there is.

Give me an example of a "good" mutation.

Lactose tolerance.

As for the source of my information: a college-level biology book. Fully up-to-date and unbiased.

Yet you display only an elementary level of education about evolution.

Really, evolution never left the stage of being a hyptothesis.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains some of the mechanisms behind this fact.

Darwin observed and developed an explanation for what he saw. But there is more evidence FOR God and AGAINSt evolution.

Is the Bible a "college-level" book? Please present your argument for the existence of your preferred god and let's see how it stands to scrutiny.

People tend to look more at what seems to support evolution, ignoring the 99% of evidence that points to an intelligient creator.

Please present your argument.

I've heard the response to monkeys-at-a-typewriter. The atheist's explanation is that if you sat a monkey at a typewriter, it would eventually type the word "it". If you saved this in a file and the monkey kept typing, it would eventually type "was." The monkey could theoretically type out the first sentence of a tale of two cities.

That's more the mathematician's argument. The atheist simply doesn't accept belief in a god.

However, there would be so many MISTAKES between those words that there would be more damage done than good, thus destroying whatever was evolving.

Much like the "many MISTAKES" from the ID/creation camp.

As to the giraffe thing: Yes, the giraffe's brain is protected by a sort of "cushion". But how did this cushion evolve before the giraffe died out entirely?

It developed in tandem with the longer neck.

I notice you fail to address the example of the whales I mentioned.

There is another thing against macroevolution: the idea of macroevolution is that simple life forms evolved into complex ones, changing their genetic codes. The simplest life form is a bacteria, followed by a yeast, followed by wheat, followed by tuna, followed by pigeon, followed by horse.

You need to get a better "college-level" book. You've missed so many steps it is laughable.

But there is more similiarity between the genetic codes of a bacteria and a horse than between those of a bacteria and a yeast!

Doesn't matter. All that matters is change over time, which has been observed.

The words of Dr. David Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and one of the most respected experts on the fossil record. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of hte classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in NOrth America, have to be discarded or modified as the result." The missing links are still missing.

Bull feathers. The fossil record establishes evolution as a fact, observation establishes evolution as fact.

A quote from Jeffrey H. Schwartz, respected biologist. "According to Darwin, the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved...INstead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists find themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species."

Nope. There's plenty transitional fossils. Denying reality doesn't refute reality.

Evolution attempts to explain something about earth's past. The first place to look is the fossil record. And the fossil record strongly points against macroevolution.

Wrong. See above.

A definition of macroevolution: the hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism.

You can define it any way you wish. Time is not so much the issue as the changes that occur over time.

It is impossible to truly add information to a genetic code.

Doesn't matter. Whether there's less or more, change in the code is what counts.

In order to do this, some process must exist which will add entirely new genes and alleles to an organism's genetic code.

I pointed you to some of these processes in a previous post within this thread.

There can only be a certain number of genes and alleles in a genotype, unless there is a mutation (which, as I said previously, causes harm).

Yes, some mutations are detrimental. Some ain't, and some are beneficial.

Macroevolution is variation beyond an organisms genetic code.

Define macroevolution however you like. It doesn't change the fact that changes occur.

Also, after the "Big Bang" (and this is frequently asked, don't try to dodge it,)

The Big Bang has no direct correlation to the evolution of life.

where did the microorganisms come from which evolved? There was no living matter, so where did these cells come from?

Who knows? What we do know is that once life got started, evolutionary pressures kicked in.

A bat's radar is infinitely complex.

Bats don't have radar, your "college-level" book is wrong. Bats have sonar.

The most brilliant minds in the world have studied and studied and attempted to reconstruct it, but even the most brilliant minds cannot come close to building something as fine-tuned and perfect as a bat's radar.

Humans have both radar (which bat's don't), and sonar. We can use sonar to find a submarine thousands of feet below the seas, can a bat?

If you take apart a watch and shake it in your hand, it will not come together to form a watch.

A watch is not (yet) a biological entity.

Tell me one great invention that came together through someone shaking parts around.

Condoms.

[cnorman18]

Please tell me, what fossils show the "stage" between a cat and a dog?

There is none. As you have already been told, no one has ever said that a cat could change into a dog or vice versa. Cats and dogs have a common ancestor. Your "clever" retorts are merely emphasizing how little you actually know about this field of study.

Give me an example of a "good" mutation.

You have been given several.

As for the source of my information: a college-level biology book. Fully up-to-date and unbiased.

So why don't you give the reference? Title, authors or editors, publisher, city, date. Without that, you are asking us to take your word that it isn't The Reverend Larry's Bible-Based Biology.

Really, evolution never left the stage of being a hyptothesis.

You never got that from ANY "college-level biology book." No way. Period, full stop.

That's a very basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory" in science - and one that we've seen here a thousand times. Again: Not evidence against evolution, but evidence for your own willful ignorance.

Darwin observed and developed an explanation for what he saw. But there is more evidence FOR God and AGAINSt evolution. People tend to look more at what seems to support evolution, ignoring the 99% of evidence that points to an intelligient creator.

Which no one has ever managed to present.

Bear in mind that I DO believe in God, and I DO believe that God created the Universe; but I also believe that science is the best way to learn and understand how He did it. The Bible isn't much help there.

I've heard the response to monkeys-at-a-typewriter. The atheist's explanation is that if you sat a monkey at a typewriter, it would eventually type the word "it". If you saved this in a file and the monkey kept typing, it would eventually type "was." The monkey could theoretically type out the first sentence of a tale of two cities.

However, there would be so many MISTAKES between those words that there would be more damage done than good, thus destroying whatever was evolving.

All that is a bizarre misstatement of an idea in probability theory (the assertion is that an infinite number of monkeys, typing at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite time, would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. "It" would probably take ten minutes.). It is also an argument that no one here has made, even in its proper form; it is also entirely irrelevant to evolutionary theory, since "random chance" has no role in it, in spite of claims on the part of creationists.

As to the giraffe thing: Yes, the giraffe's brain is protected by a sort of "cushion". But how did this cushion evolve before the giraffe died out entirely?

Well, since it clearly did, perhaps it happened just as evolutionary scientists have proposed; the successful variation had a greater chance of survival than the unsuccessful.

There is another thing against macroevolution: the idea of macroevolution is that simple life forms evolved into complex ones, changing their genetic codes. The simplest life form is a bacteria, followed by a yeast, followed by wheat, followed by tuna, followed by pigeon, followed by horse. But there is more similiarity between the genetic codes of a bacteria and a horse than between those of a bacteria and a yeast!

Since yeasts are fungi and bacteria aren't, that doesn't surprise me. I feel sure that there is more similarity between bacteria and horses than between horses and pine trees, too.

Really, now; do you know ANYTHING about evolution other than what you've read in Creationist books, pamphlets and websites?

The words of Dr. David Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and one of the most respected experts on the fossil record. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of hte classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in NOrth America, have to be discarded or modified as the result." The missing links are still missing.

Ten bucks says that this is a carefully mined quote from an authority who elsewhere declares that creationism is nonsense.

(Don't take that bet. Dr. Raup wrote, among other things, this.)

Phony out-of-context quotes are not a sign of honesty and integrity in debate.

A quote from Jeffrey H. Schwartz, respected biologist. "According to Darwin, the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved...INstead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists find themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species."

Another dishonest mined quote. Dr. Schwartz is a researcher in the area of evolution of primates, including humans; his most controversial assertion is that humans are more closely related to orangutans than to chimps.

Really, this is ridiculous. Three separate cases of blatant dishonesty in three paragraphs; refusing to name your source and grossly and knowingly misrepresenting the views of two prominent biologists. The rest of this consists of points already refuted and arguments already discredited. If this is Creationist "scholarship," conventional (aka "real") science has nothing to worry about.

....

Thank you for reading. I am praying for you all.

Thanks for the gratuitous and insulting patronization. Considering your deliberate lies and distortions above, maybe some of us ought to pray for YOU. Or is lying in the name of Christ OK in your denomination?

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

First of all, lactose tolerance is not a mutation...this is lactose INtolerance, which is caused by mutation resulting in the lack of a certain enzyme.

Evolution never left the stage of being a hypothesis, as there IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!

If you "just don't accept belief in God," then why are you debating? Whether you personally accept something or not does not make it true or false. Let's say I don't believe that trucks drive on the road, so I walk out on the middle of the highway and get hit. Whether I believe it trucks or not, THEY ARE THERE.

Tell me, WHY did a giraffe develop a long neck, if it had to develop many other features in order to accomodate it? It didn't have to eat from the tops of trees; it could have "evolved" to any food source it chose, according to your words.

These steps are a generalization; I am not saying there are no organisms between those. It is the general level of complexity that I am adressing.

The fossil record shows no real missing links. Some evolutionists see Archaeopteryx as a missing link between reptiles and birds, as it has both feathers and claws/teeth. However, there is an entire class for birds with claws/teeth. However, aside from claws and teeth, there is absolutely no similarity between Archaeopteryx and reptiles. There are several problems with the whole theory: One, that the birds we see today are the only representation of birds. It is more likely that this was a species that went extinct, like the passenger pigeon and dodo.
Second, this idea puts more influence on minor structures rather than true defining stuctures. Based on feathers, bone structure, lung structure, inner ear, sense of balance, and brain, Archaeopteryx is a bird. The only slightly reptilian features are claws! Third, if Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, it is a very late one, with only two remaining reptilian features. Of all the transitional forms neccessary to turn a reptile into a bird, it seems odd that the only one found is so incredibly birdlike. Why isn't there one that still has birdlike features, but retains many reptilian characteristics?

I can define macroevolution any way I wish?! This is dangerous ground, to give people permission to change and twist the definitions of scientific terms.

Your claim of change in genetic codes is utterly false. Changes in genetic codes, while the code remains generally the same, only changing within bounds, gives no room for the evolution of millions of organisms. In order for a bacteria to become a human, information must be added and increased. A bacteria cell has DNA contained in the nucleus, while a human has 46 chromosomes, each containint DNA. For this to have happened, genes must have been added to the genetic code!

Oh? If the Big Bang has no correlation to life, where did the cells come from?

Who knows? You are risking a lot on this theory. Spontaneous generation, I believe, has been proven false. People keep a version of it (abiogenesis) which is that in some (unknown) period of time, some (unknown) organism was, in an (unknown) fashion able to spontaneously generate. Evolutionists so want to hold onto this theory, they keep pushing it back into regions they know little about. Spontaneous generation has been proven false throughout the ages.

Yes, it is sonar, not radar. I admit to that mistake. However, I note that you have not answered the question. If the most brilliant minds could not make anything close to a bat's sonar, how could it have come about through random chance and evolution? By the way, that was not in my book...it was something I called up through memory so don't blame the book.

A bat's sonar is approx. 1,000,000,000 times more accurate than anything designed by man.

That is crude and unneccessary. Answer the question seriously or don't answer at all.

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

I see that you have joined "Tolerant, Respectful, and Civil". Yet I saw none of those things expressed in your post.

And I have answered all of them. Lactose tolerance is not a mutation, lactose intolerance is.

Yes, a hypothesis progresses to being a theory once there is a good deal of solid evidence to support it. There is no solid evidence for evolution, as I keep trying to tell you.

Evolution is not compatible with the Bible. God looked down and saw that everything was good. Good. It didn't need improvement or macroevolution. Microevolution certainly took place, but macroevolution...no.

But how did the giraffe develop this cushion? It would die. Too late. It can't evolve once it's dead...or would you like to dispute that?

No. I have weighed evidence from both sides carefully, examine both sides from both perspectives, and made my decision. That is why I am a Christian. I have looked deeply at evolution; have you looked deeply at TRUE Christianity? Really now? Have you? I doubt it...after all, evolution is all that is taught in schools.

The quote is not phony. Both people truly said these things, and these are their views, which I am quoting. They are respected biologists who have studied. While you have "problems with me quoting 'out of context'" which I am not, I doubt that you would have any problem taking a smorgasboard approach to God's word.

It is not an insult. As a Christian, part of my mission is to spread God's word, and I do this in every way possible and pray that Christ will work in people's hearts. Once again, that was not tolerant, respectful, nor civil. Lying in the name of ANYTHING is wrong, by the way. Why would you pray if you don't believe, anyway?

Deliberate lies? God is an undeniable truth.

Thank you. I am praying for you (and I will not stop, no matter what you say!)

~Mix

[Scotracer]

Yes, a hypothesis progresses to being a theory once there is a good deal of solid evidence to support it. There is no solid evidence for evolution, as I keep trying to tell you.

And we'll keep telling you that you're wrong.

Evolution is not compatible with the Bible. God looked down and saw that everything was good. Good. It didn't need improvement or macroevolution. Microevolution certainly took place, but macroevolution...no.

So? Modern biology isn't compatible with a book written by ignorant desert dwellers a few thousand years ago? Who woulda thunk it

No. I have weighed evidence from both sides carefully, examine both sides from both perspectives, and made my decision. That is why I am a Christian. I have looked deeply at evolution; have you looked deeply at TRUE Christianity? Really now? Have you? I doubt it...after all, evolution is all that is taught in schools.

I prefer science over magic.

Deliberate lies? God is an undeniable truth.

If it's undeniable atheists and agnostics wouldn't exist. They do exist, ergo it's not an undeniable truth. QED.

Thank you. I am praying for you (and I will not stop, no matter what you say!)

~Mix

Go ahead but you might want to put your mind and time to something more useful than talking to yourself.

[cnorman18]

I see that you have joined "Tolerant, Respectful, and Civil". Yet I saw none of those things expressed in your post.

Do you know what ad hominem means?

And I have answered all of them. Lactose tolerance is not a mutation, lactose intolerance is.

You are confusing me with someone else. I never said a word about lactose.

Yes, a hypothesis progresses to being a theory once there is a good deal of solid evidence to support it. There is no solid evidence for evolution, as I keep trying to tell you.

Of course there is, and the fact that you don't know this is prima facie evidence that you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss evolution. You don't even have a middle-school student's understanding of it. I can say that, because I used to teach middle-school science. If you handed me information like this after reading the MIDDLE-SCHOOL textbook, I'd have given you an F.

Evolution is not compatible with the Bible. God looked down and saw that everything was good. Good. It didn't need improvement or macroevolution. Microevolution certainly took place, but macroevolution...no.

See, one of the most basic principles of actual science is that one's conclusions and even one's hypotheses are not developed from religious dogma. That's pretty elementary.

But how did the giraffe develop this cushion? It would die. Too late. It can't evolve once it's dead...or would you like to dispute that?

No. I have weighed evidence from both sides carefully, examine both sides from both perspectives, and made my decision. That is why I am a Christian. I have looked deeply at evolution; have you looked deeply at TRUE Christianity? Really now? Have you? I doubt it...after all, evolution is all that is taught in schools.

I am a Jew, as it happens, and believing in science - including evolutionary theory - is not in conflict with any version of Judaism or Christianity except the fundamentalist/literalist varieties. Further, my religious convictions are none of your business in this debate; they are utterly irrelevant.

The quote is not phony. Both people truly said these things, and these are their views, which I am quoting. They are respected biologists who have studied.

Those quotes were absolutely dishonest; they were given with the clear implication that those scientists' statements were contradictory to evolutionary theory and that those scientists did not believe in or support evolution. THOSE CLEAR IMPLICATIONS WERE, AND ARE, ENTIRELY FALSE. You didn't mention nor hint at the fact that both of those respected authorities were IN FACT, OPPOSED to your views.

You lied by implication. Those implications were undoubtedly present, and they were false. Period. []i]Quote-mining is tantamount to lying.[/i]

While you have "problems with me quoting 'out of context'" which I am not, I doubt that you would have any problem taking a smorgasboard approach to God's word.

You know NOTHING about how I approach God's word, and you are trying to distract attention from your blatant dishonesty with a wholly unwarranted personal attack. If your quotes weren't out of context, please explain how and why you posted them to show that those respected scientists SUPPORT and WORK IN the field of evolutionary biology. If you didn't do that, you were plainly lying.

It is not an insult.

To PRAY for someone isn't an insult; to TELL them "I'm praying for you," especially in the context of a debate supposedly between equals, it certainly CAN be. I submit that in this case, it certainly was.

As a Christian, part of my mission is to spread God's word, and I do this in every way possible and pray that Christ will work in people's hearts. Once again, that was not tolerant, respectful, nor civil. Lying in the name of ANYTHING is wrong, by the way. Why would you pray if you don't believe, anyway?

Who said I don't believe? Who are you to talk about civility when you sneer and mock actual scholarship and the beliefs of others right and left?

If you don't believe in lying, why did you blatantly misrepresent those scientists' views? Why won't you give the name of the textbook you claim to be using?

Deliberate lies? God is an undeniable truth.

We weren't talking about GOD. We were talking about YOUR POSTS.

Thank you. I am praying for you (and I will not stop, no matter what you say!)

~Mix

Feel free, but you might consider doing it without smugly and self-righteously rubbing it in my face.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 224:

First of all, lactose tolerance is not a mutation...this is lactose INtolerance, which is caused by mutation resulting in the lack of a certain enzyme.

Once again, your "college-level" book is wrong...

A new genetic analysis of ancient human remains proves that humans were unable to digest milk prior to the spread of agriculture and dairy farming within the last 8,000 years.

Though all people can digest milk in infanthood, most of the world's population lose that ability at between two and five years of age.

At this time their bodies stop producing an enzyme called lactase, which is essential for digestion of lactose sugars found in dairy products. Most Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, native Americans and Pacific Islanders remain lactose intolerant today.

However, a mutation in many European and some African populations allows them to produce lactase into adulthood, and in these cultures dairy products - such as milk cheese and yoghurt - traditionally form a key component of the diet.

Researchers had been unable to agree on whether the ability to digest milk spread along with the practice of dairy farming or, conversely, whether dairy farming spread only in those populations that already had the mutation.

Now, researchers at Mainz University in Germany and University College London in England have settled the debate by extracting DNA sequences from the skeletons of nine Neolithic humans. These people come from sites across Europe and all lived around 8,000 years ago. The researchers found that the version of a gene, which allows Europeans to produce lactase today, was not present in these ancient people.

The absence of this gene, "indicates that the early farmers of Europe were not yet adapted to the consumption of unprocessed milk," write the authors this week in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This is some of the best "direct evidence that natural selection is working on human populations" lead author Joachim Burger told Cosmos Online. "It shows that a genotype that is nearly absent 8,000 years ago, can rise to a frequency of more than 70 per cent today, by natural selection."

Need more?

Evolution never left the stage of being a hypothesis, as there IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!

Holler it all ya want, the fact remains that evolution has been observed.

If you "just don't accept belief in God," then why are you debating?

To show the observer that even if one possesses a "college-level" book, they can still fail to understand that book, or that book can be wrong.

Whether you personally accept something or not does not make it true or false. Let's say I don't believe that trucks drive on the road, so I walk out on the middle of the highway and get hit. Whether I believe it trucks or not, THEY ARE THERE.

Exactly. So we rely on verifiable evidence to support our claims.

Tell me, WHY did a giraffe develop a long neck, if it had to develop many other features in order to accomodate it? It didn't have to eat from the tops of trees; it could have "evolved" to any food source it chose, according to your words.

As the giraffe became taller it was able to eat food not available to shorter forms.

You still don't seem to want to address my example of whales as a great example of evolution.

These steps are a generalization; I am not saying there are no organisms between those. It is the general level of complexity that I am adressing.

Can one describe complexity through simplistic statements?

The fossil record shows no real missing links.

You really need to ditch that "college-level" book that you still have not told us the Title, publisher, date, etc.

there is absolutely no similarity between Archaeopteryx and reptiles.

The experts disagree.

Second, this idea puts more influence on minor structures rather than true defining stuctures. Based on feathers, bone structure, lung structure, inner ear, sense of balance, and brain, Archaeopteryx is a bird. The only slightly reptilian features are claws!

Reckon how a bird can have "slightly reptialian features"? If only there were some theory to explain how that may happen.

Third, if Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, it is a very late one, with only two remaining reptilian features.

Late does seem to fit the observations.

Why isn't there one that still has birdlike features, but retains many reptilian characteristics?

Doesn't matter, when we have a bird that displays reptialian features, we can reasonably and logically conclude it's a transitional form.

I can define macroevolution any way I wish?! This is dangerous ground, to give people permission to change and twist the definitions of scientific terms.

It seems to offer some comfort to those who don't accept evolutionary theory. I personally prefer the term speciation.

Your claim of change in genetic codes is utterly false. Changes in genetic codes, while the code remains generally the same, only changing within bounds, gives no room for the evolution of millions of organisms.

Your claim that my claim is false is false. Change occurs, whether you deny it or not.

In order for a bacteria to become a human, information must be added and increased. A bacteria cell has DNA contained in the nucleus, while a human has 46 chromosomes, each containint DNA. For this to have happened, genes must have been added to the genetic code!

Nope. All that needs happen is for change to create a new species, on up through till we get to humans. It doesn't matter whether there is a net increase or decrease in genetic material, only that new species are created.

Oh? If the Big Bang has no correlation to life, where did the cells come from?

Who knows? You are risking a lot on this theory.

What am I risking?

Spontaneous generation, I believe, has been proven false. People keep a version of it (abiogenesis) which is that in some (unknown) period of time, some (unknown) organism was, in an (unknown) fashion able to spontaneously generate. Evolutionists so want to hold onto this theory, they keep pushing it back into regions they know little about. Spontaneous generation has been proven false throughout the ages.

You got a lot of gall speaking about folks not knowing what they're talking about.

Yes, it is sonar, not radar. I admit to that mistake. However, I note that you have not answered the question. If the most brilliant minds could not make anything close to a bat's sonar, how could it have come about through random chance and evolution? By the way, that was not in my book...it was something I called up through memory so don't blame the book.

I did answer the question. Humans can track submarines thousands of feet below the sea with sonar. Can a bat?

A bat's sonar is approx. 1,000,000,000 times more accurate than anything designed by man.

Please offer some means to show you speak truth.