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?

[Goat]

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

Between? That is not what I said. I said they shared a 'common ancestor'
However, bears and dogs are more closely related to each other than dogs and cats.

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.

I told you..the mutation in the cholesterol shape for the HDL in that one Italian family is a beneficial mutation. It helps protect against arterial plaque building up.

Another benefitial mutation is the delta 26 mutation. A person with one copy of this gene is highly resistant to infection with HIV. A person with two copies of it is immune to HIV infection. That sounds beneficial to me.

As for your 'college level biology book, what 'college level biology book'. The only place I have seen those claims were on creationist web sites, and not in biology books.

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!

Again, you are making false claims that are often made by creationist web sites.
Things happen in evolution one small step at a time. The 'cushion' around the brain evolved as the brain evolved.

And no, the simplist life form is not a bacteria. You are making a lot of inaccurate claims, and building straw man arguments. I bet you can't show your source from your claims without it being a creationist web site.

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

Ah yes.. . quote mines.. These are examples of 'quote mines' . you can find out how these quote mines are dishonest here Taking lines out of context is pretty much a dishonest tactic that is used by ..well guess who?? Creationist web sites.

And then the whole 'watchmaker' logical fallacy. That analogy falls apart because a watch is not a self replicating mechanism which replicates imperfectly.

Rather than praying for me, I would much rather you examine your sources about evolution critically, and stop making such claims as 'a college level biology book', when I know full well that is not the case. How effective can you be trying to pray for someone when you get caught in statements that are known to be false?

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

On mutations: Most mutations do fall into the category of being either harmful or neutral. Are there beneficial mutations? In short, no. But there are mutations with beneficial outcomes in a restricted environment. For example, people with mutations in the CCR5 gene are virtually immune to HIV. However, these people are at higher risk of developing West Nile Virus, hepatitis C, and various other diseases. Thus, the mutation is not wholly beneficial.

On quotes: Yes, I understand that these scientists do not believe in intelligient design. But even though they do not believe in it, they can still see obvious flaws in the hypothesis of evolution.

On the fossil record: A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. The fossil record should be rife with examples of all stages of transition. As with Archaeopteryx, the only stage found is the one with claws/teeth remaining. I understand that man has not discovered all the fossils in the world. We have, however, discovered a great many. In all of these fossils, we can find no other stages. Isn't that odd? Also, the blank spots in the fossil record occur where, according to Darwin's theory, the most crucial changes must take place. There is no fossil for the "grandparent" of the primate; it simply springs into being. If land animals came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this (fossils of fish with fins turning into legs, etc). However, there is none of this. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.

joeyknuccione: You say that lactose tolerance is a mutation. A mutation is an abrupt, unusual variation within a genetic code. I believe most people are tolerant to lactose, correct? It is unusual to find someone who can't drink milk. Also, you say "You have a lot of gall speaking about folks not knowing what they're talking about". What don't I understand? Would you like to please define abiogenesis for me? You ask, "What am I risking?" Without believe in God, you are risking your immortal soul.

On my closing sentence: People have called me "self-righteous" for mentioning that I am praying for you. Righteousness is completely unobtainable without Jesus Christ. I understand this. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Me and you. ALL HAVE SINNED. Also, the words of Jesus "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Not through ourselves, but through Jesus do we gain salvation. "For by grace we have been saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." So yes, I will continue to pray.

Still praying,

~Mix

[Flashpoint]

On mutations: Most mutations do fall into the category of being either harmful or neutral. Are there beneficial mutations? In short, no. But there are mutations with beneficial outcomes in a restricted environment. For example, people with mutations in the CCR5 gene are virtually immune to HIV. However, these people are at higher risk of developing West Nile Virus, hepatitis C, and various other diseases. Thus, the mutation is not wholly beneficial.

Evolution depends on limited environment - it's called a niche. I doubt that a whale would do to well on land with a body built for swimming; does that mean that when whales evolved into marine mammals that it was harmful or useless?

Do you know of gene amplification? It results in the addition of select extra genes to the genome (a mutation of sorts) which allows for a far quicker transcription of the needed mRNAs; most certainly not harmful.

Some other lovely examples

joeyknuccione: You say that lactose tolerance is a mutation. A mutation is an abrupt, unusual variation within a genetic code. I believe most people are tolerant to lactose, correct? It is unusual to find someone who can't drink milk.

Almost every single person is asia is lactose intolerant, and a third of africa is. The only reason europeans can drink milk is because a beneficial mutation occurred which allows us to do so.

Lactose Intolerance

On the fossil record: A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. The fossil record should be rife with examples of all stages of transition. As with Archaeopteryx, the only stage found is the one with claws/teeth remaining. I understand that man has not discovered all the fossils in the world. We have, however, discovered a great many. In all of these fossils, we can find no other stages. Isn't that odd? Also, the blank spots in the fossil record occur where, according to Darwin's theory, the most crucial changes must take place. There is no fossil for the "grandparent" of the primate; it simply springs into being. If land animals came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this (fossils of fish with fins turning into legs, etc). However, there is none of this. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.

The predicted large number of transitional fossils was an error, fossilisation is far more rare than Darwin ever would have realised. Beside that, what do you call the likes of Pakicetus? We'd be lucky to have one fossil showing a common ancestor - turn out we are lucky, because we have several.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 230:

On mutations: Most mutations do fall into the category of being either harmful or neutral. Are there beneficial mutations? In short, no. But there are mutations with beneficial outcomes in a restricted environment. For example, people with mutations in the CCR5 gene are virtually immune to HIV. However, these people are at higher risk of developing West Nile Virus, hepatitis C, and various other diseases. Thus, the mutation is not wholly beneficial.

That doesn't address the fact the mutation occurs, and affords positive benefit in one regard. Take sickle cell anemia, the mutation has a more positive benefit than negative, in that it affords a better chance of surviving various ailments, while normally allowing one to live long enough to procreate.

On quotes: Yes, I understand that these scientists do not believe in intelligient design. But even though they do not believe in it, they can still see obvious flaws in the hypothesis of evolution.

Call it a hypothesis all ya want, the ToE is one of the most well established, and fundamental theories in science. It is the foundational understanding in biology.

Yes, there's legitimate disagreement over the particulars, but one scientist's disagreement on one part doesn't negate the whole.

On the fossil record: A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to.

We are all transitional forms. The fossil record exhibits multitudes of transitional forms, regardless of what your "college-level" book (That you thus far refuse to properly attribute) tells you.

The fossil record should be rife with examples of all stages of transition. As with Archaeopteryx, the only stage found is the one with claws/teeth remaining. I understand that man has not discovered all the fossils in the world. We have, however, discovered a great many. In all of these fossils, we can find no other stages. Isn't that odd?

Not so much odd, given the factors involved in fossilization. As with archaeopteryx, we see a transition occurring from the therapsids to birds.

Also, the blank spots in the fossil record occur where, according to Darwin's theory, the most crucial changes must take place. There is no fossil for the "grandparent" of the primate;

An incomplete fossil record in one area does not negate the whole.

If land animals came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this (fossils of fish with fins turning into legs, etc). However, there is none of this. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.

You seem to wish to ignore my references to whale evolution, which represents the inverse of amphibian evolution.

joeyknuccione: You say that lactose tolerance is a mutation. A mutation is an abrupt, unusual variation within a genetic code. I believe most people are tolerant to lactose, correct? It is unusual to find someone who can't drink milk.

Actually it's common to find entire races that are lactose intollerant (asians, etc.).

Also, you say "You have a lot of gall speaking about folks not knowing what they're talking about". What don't I understand?

The use of ad hominem attacks to support your case.

Would you like to please define abiogenesis for me?

Ain't it in that "college-level" book of yours? I make no overt claims regarding how life came to be.

You ask, "What am I risking?" Without believe in God, you are risking your immortal soul.

Please offer some means (beyond the book making the claim) to show you speak truth.

On my closing sentence: People have called me "self-righteous" for mentioning that I am praying for you. Righteousness is completely unobtainable without Jesus Christ.

Please offer some means (beyond the book making the claim) to show you speak truth.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Me and you. ALL HAVE SINNED. Also,

Please offer some means (beyond the book making the claim) that a god has an opinion on how humans act.

Also, the words of Jesus "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Not through ourselves, but through Jesus do we gain salvation. "For by grace we have been saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." So yes, I will continue to pray.

Please offer some means to show you speak truth.

I'd prefer you seek truth, and stop with the praying for salvation from a god that can't be shown to exist.

[Goat]

On mutations: Most mutations do fall into the category of being either harmful or neutral. Are there beneficial mutations? In short, no. But there are mutations with beneficial outcomes in a restricted environment. For example, people with mutations in the CCR5 gene are virtually immune to HIV. However, these people are at higher risk of developing West Nile Virus, hepatitis C, and various other diseases. Thus, the mutation is not wholly beneficial.

Yet, it is a beneficial mutation. And, you did not address the HDL density mutation of the italian family which protects against aterial disease. Is this known as 'selective response?

On quotes: Yes, I understand that these scientists do not believe in intelligient design. But even though they do not believe in it, they can still see obvious flaws in the hypothesis of evolution.

Yes, there are flaws in some of the minor details of evolution, that is why we are still researching it. I bet if you went and discussed evolution with any one of those
scientists that creationist mine quoted from , you will find they do accept evolution
as a valid and true scientific theory.

[/quote]
On the fossil record: A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. The fossil record should be rife with examples of all stages of transition. As with Archaeopteryx, the only stage found is the one with claws/teeth remaining. I understand that man has not discovered all the fossils in the world. We have, however, discovered a great many. In all of these fossils, we can find no other stages. Isn't that odd? Also, the blank spots in the fossil record occur where, according to Darwin's theory, the most crucial changes must take place. There is no fossil for the "grandparent" of the primate; it simply springs into being. If land animals came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this (fossils of fish with fins turning into legs, etc). However, there is none of this. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.
[/quote]

Yes, not all the gaps have been filled in, but new fossils are being discovered all the time. The problem with the argument you have is every time a transitional fossil is found, you claim it 'we haven't found blah blah blah, or 'blah blah blah', beause two gaps are created.. This is just an appeal to ignorance. No, we don't have all the pieces, but you seem to be desperately denying the pieces we do have.

[/quote]

joeyknuccione: You say that lactose tolerance is a mutation. A mutation is an abrupt, unusual variation within a genetic code. I believe most people are tolerant to lactose, correct? It is unusual to find someone who can't drink milk. Also, you say "You have a lot of gall speaking about folks not knowing what they're talking about". What don't I understand? Would you like to please define abiogenesis for me? You ask, "What am I risking?" Without believe in God, you are risking your immortal soul.
[/quote]

Now, here you are showing your ignorance. Most people of European decent are not lactose intolerant. However, people of Asian and African decent most often are.
The difference?? Milk was a very important source of nutrition in Europe from domesticated cows, and the lactose tolerant gene was beneficial in times of famine.

As for 'abiogensis', it means the formation of self replicating chemicals known as 'life' from non-living material. It is the study how organic chemical reactions might have kick started life into existence.

As for 'without belief in god' is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to consequences. It's juxtoposition in this thread makes a number of errors.

1) It assumes that if someone's accepts evolution, they are atheists. There are a number of very religious Christians on this very board that accept evolution. One
strongly religious Christian that had no problems with accepting evolution was Pope John Paul the 2nd.

2) You assume that God can not use evolution as his method.

3) You assume that God exist's at all.

On my closing sentence: People have called me "self-righteous" for mentioning that I am praying for you. Righteousness is completely unobtainable without Jesus Christ. I understand this. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Me and you. ALL HAVE SINNED. Also, the words of Jesus "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Not through ourselves, but through Jesus do we gain salvation. "For by grace we have been saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." So yes, I will continue to pray.

Still praying,

~Mix

Pray all you want. I noticed you made a number of claims you were not able to back up. In this sub forum , if someone asks you to back up a claim, you have to.

I would like to see what 'college level biology text book' that said that there are no non-beneficial mutations. Please give me what 'text book' this is, and where is says there are no beneficial mutations.

As for 'all have sinned', that is a religious dogma, and makes certain assumptions.

Please give objective and tanigible evidence there is a god,
Please give objective and tangible evidence that 'all have sinned' . Has this person sinned?



How about this person??

[nygreenguy]

On mutations: Most mutations do fall into the category of being either harmful or neutral. Are there beneficial mutations? In short, no. But there are mutations with beneficial outcomes in a restricted environment. For example, people with mutations in the CCR5 gene are virtually immune to HIV. However, these people are at higher risk of developing West Nile Virus, hepatitis C, and various other diseases. Thus, the mutation is not wholly beneficial.

When one calls a mutation "beneficial" what that means is it increases the organisms fitness. Now this begs the question to what fitness is, well its an organisms ability to increase its gene frequency in the population.

Now, we have observed countless times bacteria which develop resistance to antibodies both in vitro and in our own bodies. This is a beneficial mutation because it allows a tremendous increase in fitness of the organism.

To say there is no such thing as beneficial mutations is to simply ignore decades of established fact.

As for a restricted environment, well, duh. Mutations need a selective pressure in order to stick. Its all about whats good right now. If the mutation helps the organism right now, it'll become fixed, if it doesnt, it wont.

On the fossil record: A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. The fossil record should be rife with examples of all stages of transition. As with Archaeopteryx, the only stage found is the one with claws/teeth remaining.

Absolutely incorrect. We have found many, many transitional reptile/bird fossils.

Also, the blank spots in the fossil record occur where, according to Darwin's theory, the most crucial changes must take place. There is no fossil for the "grandparent" of the primate; it simply springs into being.

Really? What exactly would this look like?

If land animals came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this (fossils of fish with fins turning into legs, etc). However, there is none of this. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.

I have a friend published in nautre a few times for just this. Look up Tiktaalik

joeyknuccione: You say that lactose tolerance is a mutation. A mutation is an abrupt, unusual variation within a genetic code. I believe most people are tolerant to lactose, correct? It is unusual to find someone who can't drink milk.

It depends on where you live. Like someone said, in asia, milk is rare, africa is a little bit different and europe is almost all tolerant. You are simply speaking from your own anecdotal, not scientific, evidence.

I could tell you that I work at starbucks and we go through buttloads of soy milk. We have a ton of asians that come in an lactose intolerant people of European decent.

[a_Pirates_pride2000]

On the fossil record: What I am saying is that even with the large number of fossils we have discovered, the only stage found between in a bird and reptile is like Archaeopteryx. If you disagree, please send me a picture.

joeyknuccione: You claim that sickle cell anemia is a "beneficial mutation." Here's an overview of sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia " a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen throughout your body.

Normally, your red blood cells are flexible and round, moving easily through your blood vessels. In sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid, sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregularly shaped cells can get stuck in small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to parts of the body.

There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and help prevent further problems associated with sickle cell anemia.

Symptoms
Signs and symptoms of sickle cell anemia usually show up after an infant is 4 months old and may include:

Anemia. Sickle cells are fragile. They break apart easily and die, leaving you chronically short on red blood cells. Red blood cells usually live for about 120 days before they die and need to be replaced. However, sickle cells die after only 10 to 20 days. The result is a chronic shortage of red blood cells, known as anemia. Without enough red blood cells in circulation, your body can't get the oxygen it needs to feel energized. That's why anemia causes fatigue.
Episodes of pain. Periodic episodes of pain, called crises, are a major symptom of sickle cell anemia. Pain develops when sickle-shaped red blood cells block blood flow through tiny blood vessels to your chest, abdomen and joints. Pain can also occur in your bones. The pain may vary in intensity and can last for a few hours to a few weeks. Some people experience only a few episodes of pain. Others experience a dozen or more crises a year. If a crisis is severe enough, you may need hospitalization so that pain medication can be injected into your veins (intravenously).
Hand-foot syndrome. Swollen hands and feet may be the first signs of sickle cell anemia in babies. The swelling is caused by sickle-shaped red blood cells blocking blood flow out of their hands and feet.
Jaundice. Jaundice is a yellowing of the skin and eyes that occurs because of liver damage or dysfunction. Occasionally, people who have sickle cell anemia have some degree of jaundice because the liver, which filters harmful substances from the blood, is overwhelmed by the rapid breakdown of red blood cells. In people with dark skin, jaundice is visible mostly as yellowing of the whites of the eyes.
Frequent infections. Sickle cells can damage your spleen, an organ that fights infection. This may make you more vulnerable to infections. Doctors commonly give infants and children with sickle cell anemia antibiotics to prevent potentially life-threatening infections, such as pneumonia.
Delayed growth. Red blood cells provide your body with the oxygen and nutrients you need for growth. A shortage of healthy red blood cells can slow growth in infants and children and delay puberty in teenagers.
Vision problems. Some people with sickle cell anemia experience vision problems. Tiny blood vessels that supply your eyes may become plugged with sickle cells. This can damage the retina " the portion of the eye that processes visual images.
Sorry to tell you, but this does not sound beneficial to me! You claim it is beneficial because it allows the individual to live long enough to procreate. Most people live long enough to procreate, correct? Sickle cell anemia is a disease and is not beneficial. You say "an incomplete fossil record in one area does not negate the whole". Yet the fossil recorde is incomplete in the one area that is absolutely neccessary that evidence be given. That stage (the blank spots) are the entire foundation of Darwin's theory, and they are still missing. You are also unwilling to define abiogenesis, "making no overt claims as to how life came to be." That's a lot of speculation and a pretty big "plothole." You ask me to give claims beyond the Bible that you are risking your immortal soul. I feel safe in assuming that you don't believe the Bible is true. Do you believe you have a soul? Of course, once you've asked that, you have to ask...do you believe in absolutes? Is there right and wrong? If you have no soul and we are merely a process of evolution, the answer to all of these must be no. But we still feel what is right and wrong. It's wrong to murder someone. If we are just a product of evolution, why would shooting someone in cold blood be any wronger than exterminating mice from your house? You ask me to back up my belief that humans are sinners and cannot attain perfection on their own without using the Bible. Believe me, humans have been trying to perfect the world for as long as we've been around. But we still have wars, we still have sin, we still have corruption, we still have greed, we still have hate. And those things feel wrong because it's not how we are designed to live. It's called a fallen nature. You ask me to prove that God has an opinion on how humans act. We are God's creation. Would you pain the Mona Lisa, then throw it to gather dust in a closet and forget about, not caring if it got mildewed, stolen, or destroyed? We are not only God's creation, we are His most precious creation. Also, God does exist. You can't prove it with numbers, but you can disprove evolution. Belief in God is called faith. I believe it, because it's the truth. Prove to me with hard numbers that it's wrong to kill someone. You can't do it. It's a matter of morality, the soul, and the conscience. And I would say that there is definitely more evidence for God than for the lack of Him.

goat: You claim that there flaws in some of the "minor details" of evolution. The flaws are in the places that are most vital for the hypothesis to survive. Not in small, irrelevant places. You also claim that it is "blah blah blah" for me to say it is strange we have only found one stage of transition. WHY have we only found that one stage, since it is absolutely necessary that there be a large number of transitional forms between reptile and bird? You have defined abiogenesis, and it matched my definition. This (unknown) chemical reaction in an (unknown) period of time was able in an (unknown) way to spontaneously generate. There are several problems with the idea of evolution being compatible with the Bible. First of all, Genesis states that the world was created in six days. These six days do not mean six million years! Why on earth would God tell us six days when He meant six million years? The Bible is pretty clear. Also, God saw that it was good, after he created. To believe in evolution, it is impossible to take Genesis 1 literally. And it is a literal chapter. The Bible repeatedly affirms that the world and life within it are a result of divine creation. References: Genesis 1, Acts 17:24, Jeremiah 10:12, Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1. The Bible also teaches that God was personally, directly involved with each and every step of creation. Also, you claim that all have NOT sinned. Have you ever: told a lie? Stolen something (whether it's robbing a bank or taking a piece of your sister's candy)? Told someone you hated them? Been greedy? Jealous? All of these are sins. If you have committed any, you have sinned. "And if he breaks but one part of the law, he is guilty of all."

nygreenguy: What are these other transitional bird/reptile fossils? Could you post some pictures? I was unable to find any. There must obviously be some "grandparent" of the monkey, if it evolved from chemical reactions.

On the genetic code: It has been stated by several people that increase in the genetic code is not necessary for evolution, merely change. A bacteria is single-celled and has one DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes. There is a pretty big difference between 1 and 46. Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information of the genome? This doesn't mean doubled or triple chromosomes through mutation; this means entirely new chromosomes. It increases the information.

By the way, I have been accused of looking at only the creationist side. Evolution is all that's taught in schools. Though not fully proved (as I have stated,) and with several large holes, it is the generally accepted theory. It's what we hear all around us. How could I possible have only heard the creationist side? It is illegal to teach creation in the US schools, or even to suggest it, or to mention it, or to give both sides and let students decide for themselves. How could I only hear the creationist side? I have looked long and hard at both sides. Creation simply makes more sense. Yes, some (but not all; not even most) of my information is taken from books/websites/other written by a person who believes in creation. Their facts are still correct.

Praying,

~Mix

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 235:

joeyknuccione: You claim that sickle cell anemia is a "beneficial mutation." Here's an overview of sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia " a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen throughout your body...

My point is that one copy of the gene affords increased resistance to malaria, and only when one has two copies does one run into the negative.

I'm getting tired of taking the time to respond to your challenges while you ignore my (and perhaps others') challenges.

I'm in the middle of a computer issue right now, so I'll refrain from re-listing my challenges at this time. However, I am not going to continue playing the game of supporting my claims while you ignore challenges to your own.

I humbly request you go back through the thread and start supporting your claims.

[Goat]

On the fossil record: What I am saying is that even with the large number of fossils we have discovered, the only stage found between in a bird and reptile is like Archaeopteryx. If you disagree, please send me a picture.

joeyknuccione: You claim that sickle cell anemia is a "beneficial mutation." Here's an overview of sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia " a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen throughout your body.

Normally, your red blood cells are flexible and round, moving easily through your blood vessels. In sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid, sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregularly shaped cells can get stuck in small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to parts of the body.

There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and help prevent further problems associated with sickle cell anemia.

Symptoms
Signs and symptoms of sickle cell anemia usually show up after an infant is 4 months old and may include:

Anemia. Sickle cells are fragile. They break apart easily and die, leaving you chronically short on red blood cells. Red blood cells usually live for about 120 days before they die and need to be replaced. However, sickle cells die after only 10 to 20 days. The result is a chronic shortage of red blood cells, known as anemia. Without enough red blood cells in circulation, your body can't get the oxygen it needs to feel energized. That's why anemia causes fatigue.
Episodes of pain. Periodic episodes of pain, called crises, are a major symptom of sickle cell anemia. Pain develops when sickle-shaped red blood cells block blood flow through tiny blood vessels to your chest, abdomen and joints. Pain can also occur in your bones. The pain may vary in intensity and can last for a few hours to a few weeks. Some people experience only a few episodes of pain. Others experience a dozen or more crises a year. If a crisis is severe enough, you may need hospitalization so that pain medication can be injected into your veins (intravenously).
Hand-foot syndrome. Swollen hands and feet may be the first signs of sickle cell anemia in babies. The swelling is caused by sickle-shaped red blood cells blocking blood flow out of their hands and feet.
Jaundice. Jaundice is a yellowing of the skin and eyes that occurs because of liver damage or dysfunction. Occasionally, people who have sickle cell anemia have some degree of jaundice because the liver, which filters harmful substances from the blood, is overwhelmed by the rapid breakdown of red blood cells. In people with dark skin, jaundice is visible mostly as yellowing of the whites of the eyes.
Frequent infections. Sickle cells can damage your spleen, an organ that fights infection. This may make you more vulnerable to infections. Doctors commonly give infants and children with sickle cell anemia antibiotics to prevent potentially life-threatening infections, such as pneumonia.
Delayed growth. Red blood cells provide your body with the oxygen and nutrients you need for growth. A shortage of healthy red blood cells can slow growth in infants and children and delay puberty in teenagers.
Vision problems. Some people with sickle cell anemia experience vision problems. Tiny blood vessels that supply your eyes may become plugged with sickle cells. This can damage the retina " the portion of the eye that processes visual images.
Sorry to tell you, but this does not sound beneficial to me! You claim it is beneficial because it allows the individual to live long enough to procreate. Most people live long enough to procreate, correct? Sickle cell anemia is a disease and is not beneficial. You say "an incomplete fossil record in one area does not negate the whole". Yet the fossil recorde is incomplete in the one area that is absolutely neccessary that evidence be given. That stage (the blank spots) are the entire foundation of Darwin's theory, and they are still missing. You are also unwilling to define abiogenesis, "making no overt claims as to how life came to be." That's a lot of speculation and a pretty big "plothole." You ask me to give claims beyond the Bible that you are risking your immortal soul. I feel safe in assuming that you don't believe the Bible is true. Do you believe you have a soul? Of course, once you've asked that, you have to ask...do you believe in absolutes? Is there right and wrong? If you have no soul and we are merely a process of evolution, the answer to all of these must be no. But we still feel what is right and wrong. It's wrong to murder someone. If we are just a product of evolution, why would shooting someone in cold blood be any wronger than exterminating mice from your house? You ask me to back up my belief that humans are sinners and cannot attain perfection on their own without using the Bible. Believe me, humans have been trying to perfect the world for as long as we've been around. But we still have wars, we still have sin, we still have corruption, we still have greed, we still have hate. And those things feel wrong because it's not how we are designed to live. It's called a fallen nature. You ask me to prove that God has an opinion on how humans act. We are God's creation. Would you pain the Mona Lisa, then throw it to gather dust in a closet and forget about, not caring if it got mildewed, stolen, or destroyed? We are not only God's creation, we are His most precious creation. Also, God does exist. You can't prove it with numbers, but you can disprove evolution. Belief in God is called faith. I believe it, because it's the truth. Prove to me with hard numbers that it's wrong to kill someone. You can't do it. It's a matter of morality, the soul, and the conscience. And I would say that there is definitely more evidence for God than for the lack of Him.

goat: You claim that there flaws in some of the "minor details" of evolution. The flaws are in the places that are most vital for the hypothesis to survive. Not in small, irrelevant places. You also claim that it is "blah blah blah" for me to say it is strange we have only found one stage of transition. WHY have we only found that one stage, since it is absolutely necessary that there be a large number of transitional forms between reptile and bird? You have defined abiogenesis, and it matched my definition. This (unknown) chemical reaction in an (unknown) period of time was able in an (unknown) way to spontaneously generate. There are several problems with the idea of evolution being compatible with the Bible. First of all, Genesis states that the world was created in six days. These six days do not mean six million years! Why on earth would God tell us six days when He meant six million years? The Bible is pretty clear. Also, God saw that it was good, after he created. To believe in evolution, it is impossible to take Genesis 1 literally. And it is a literal chapter. The Bible repeatedly affirms that the world and life within it are a result of divine creation. References: Genesis 1, Acts 17:24, Jeremiah 10:12, Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1. The Bible also teaches that God was personally, directly involved with each and every step of creation. Also, you claim that all have NOT sinned. Have you ever: told a lie? Stolen something (whether it's robbing a bank or taking a piece of your sister's candy)? Told someone you hated them? Been greedy? Jealous? All of these are sins. If you have committed any, you have sinned. "And if he breaks but one part of the law, he is guilty of all."

nygreenguy: What are these other transitional bird/reptile fossils? Could you post some pictures? I was unable to find any. There must obviously be some "grandparent" of the monkey, if it evolved from chemical reactions.

On the genetic code: It has been stated by several people that increase in the genetic code is not necessary for evolution, merely change. A bacteria is single-celled and has one DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes. There is a pretty big difference between 1 and 46. Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information of the genome? This doesn't mean doubled or triple chromosomes through mutation; this means entirely new chromosomes. It increases the information.

By the way, I have been accused of looking at only the creationist side. Evolution is all that's taught in schools. Though not fully proved (as I have stated,) and with several large holes, it is the generally accepted theory. It's what we hear all around us. How could I possible have only heard the creationist side? It is illegal to teach creation in the US schools, or even to suggest it, or to mention it, or to give both sides and let students decide for themselves. How could I only hear the creationist side? I have looked long and hard at both sides. Creation simply makes more sense. Yes, some (but not all; not even most) of my information is taken from books/websites/other written by a person who believes in creation. Their facts are still correct.

Praying,

~Mix

Sickle cell anemia IS a beneficial mutation, in the RIGHT ENVIRONMENT. When a person has a single copy of the gene, it makes people highly resistant to malaria.

It does have detrimental effects to be sure.. but in an environment where there is a high amount of death due to the disease Malaria, the mutation which would ordinarily be filtered OUT of the population due to it's side effects is retained due to the beneficial effects of letting people who only carry a single copy of the gene to survive their childhood, and reproduce.

And no, your websites dealing with creation and christianity are incorrect when it comes to Evolution. They give purposely misleading or false information about what specific biologist say.

And , discussing that..

What 'college level biology book' says there is no beneficial mutations. Please give that specific book and which edition it is, and the page number it is on (or at least which chapter).

And, are you going to respond to the mutation about the change in the HDL in that Italian family that helps protect against arterial disease because it is a much more effective scrapper of plaque away from the arterial wall?


As for Genesis, you seem to be taking it literal. Why do you think it is a literal account? I have a Jewish background, and the vast majority of Jewish people I know take it as an allegory, not as a literal account. The narrative story and the puns in the account (if you know the Hebrew) make it quite clear it is not meant to be history, but rather meant to contain deeper spiritual truths.

So, since you are bringing up the bible as evidence, I would like you to back up the bible is literally true, I would like you to back up the claim that God even exists, and that he 'Saw it was good'.

As for it being illegal to teach creationism, why, it is illegal to teach religion as truth in the United states public school system. That is because creationism is religion, and not science. "scientific creationism" is not good science, nor is it good theology.

Also, your asking for transitional fossils between dino's and birds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

[nygreenguy]

On the fossil record: What I am saying is that even with the large number of fossils we have discovered, the only stage found between in a bird and reptile is like Archaeopteryx. If you disagree, please send me a picture.

Microraptor
sinosauropteryx
shuvuuia
beipiaosaurus
etc.
etc.

joeyknuccione: You claim that sickle cell anemia is a "beneficial mutation." Here's an overview of sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia " a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen throughout your body.

Normally, your red blood cells are flexible and round, moving easily through your blood vessels. In sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid, sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregularly shaped cells can get stuck in small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to parts of the body.

You forget that there is a heterozygous state and a homozygous state. In the heterozygous state, the anemia is quite mild and in many cases goes totally unnoticed.

Why on earth would God tell us six days when He meant six million years?

Because it was what people wrote, and had nothing to do with gos.

nygreenguy: What are these other transitional bird/reptile fossils? Could you post some pictures? I was unable to find any. There must obviously be some "grandparent" of the monkey, if it evolved from chemical reactions.

you want to sit here, and talk about science, making these great claims, that you have examined the evidence and you cant find ANY examples of transitional bird/reptile fossils? Seriously? This right here exposes you for being dishonest with us. The evidence can be found by anyone ding a simple google search.

On the genetic code: It has been stated by several people that increase in the genetic code is not necessary for evolution, merely change. A bacteria is single-celled and has one DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes. There is a pretty big difference between 1 and 46. Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information of the genome? This doesn't mean doubled or triple chromosomes through mutation; this means entirely new chromosomes. It increases the information.

Please, if you do not understand the science, dont make outrageous claims.

Chromosomes are irrelevant for complexity. A very simple plant, Equisetum, the horsetail, has 216 chromosomes. There are ferns with over 1000 chromosomes. These are very low-level plants as well. This right here disproves your claim that somehow more genetic information = greater complexity.

Then you have the balls to say that we cant count polyploids. What sort of credibility do you have to determine what evidence is valid and what is not? You dont even understand basic genetics.

Evolution very often relies on redundancy. See, whats great about having an entirely extra chromosome is that if things in that extra chromosome dont function properly, it doesn't matter! This allows for there to be an accumulation of mutations, without interrupting the functions of necessary genes. This is how entirely new chromosomes can arise. From redundancy in extra chromosomes.

I have looked long and hard at both sides.

Your actions speak otherwise.

Creation simply makes more sense

Argument from incredulity.

Yes, some (but not all; not even most) of my information is taken from books/websites/other written by a person who believes in creation. Their facts are still correct.

I have yet to see any.