RE: Christianity and the 10 Commandments
February 21, 2012 at 11:55 am
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm by Reforged.)
(February 20, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Undeceived Wrote:
Hi RaphielDrake, thanks for your response.
Apart from viruses (small-pox), you gave no examples of long-term adaptation. Creationists agree that viruses mutate and change, but that's because they are entirely different from living organisms. They adapt as they leap from creature to creature. Simple organisms at evolution's beginning would not have had the luxury of reproducing using the host's machinery, nor do viruses explain anything in the fossil tree. Living organisms must self-reproduce, they require a single species into split into several, and they have to develop new structures and tissues--like lungs or ears. I'd like some sources for your 'adapted transitional forms.' What are some models? I appeal to the evidence we have currently, not what we hope to find. Currently, species are converging and becoming more like one another. We've had just under 1000 large-animal extinctions in the last 100 years, but how many new species? Only a handful, and those are only technically their own species because they won't readily breed with the supposed mother species. The fossil record shows which organisms die, not when they came about. If you appeal to our few number of fossils as the reason why we don't see any transitionals, how can you be so certain the first dead member in the fossil record betrays the time it became its own species? That, I believe, is interpreting the evidence in whatever way fits the theory. It's being selective, and science is not supposed to be selective.
I agree with your explanation of bacteria. Yet the fact remains, it's only microevolution. The vast majority of 'evolved' bacteria never actually received a mutation. A few members of the species already had the ability. For example, there is a 'new' strand of bacteria able to digest oil. Scientists found that all that happened was the hardiest bacteria survived and the weakest died. Eventually all we had were the ones able to digest the oil. These bacteria did not gain any new tissues, they were simply pushing boundaries of what had already been possible. The genes haven't changed and no new info has been added to the genetic code. For another analogy, you don't see many seven-foot people. If you didn't have TV you might think they didn't exist. But say there was some change in climate that allowed only the tallest to survive. Soon everyone would be over 6 feet, and then 6.5 and upwards. Did we always have this gene for tallness? Yes, it just wasn't evident. The same goes for bacteria. We're looking for qualitative adaptations, not quantitative. Everything to do with resistance or better ability to do something already possible (like eat and grow) is quantitative. If the bacteria started jumping for its food, that would be qualitative. Qualitative adaptations require mutations. If you have evidence of a mutation leading to a qualitative change like a new tissue I'd love to see it, because I haven't found any yet.
"This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment."
Exactly my point. But your claiming this while maintaining that similarities imply relationship is, once again, being a selective scientist. You're selective with dating fossils by the organisms death and you're selective with similarities. Those, RaphielDrake, are the only two basis for the fossil record. And you've destroyed the scientific honesty of both.
I'll reiterate: macroevolution is not microevolution in the long run. The new species must cease being able to breed with the source species. It must receive random mutations. And there must be a tendency to survive based on these mutations. But if you examined the evidence, you’d find that the majority of mutated organisms die. Scientists test with mice, and most mutations are neutral, but of the remainder the odds are 100 to 1 that the mouse will live with a mutation. A mutation, by tested science, is more likely to kill an organism than help it survive. So the inner-generational tendency is to die, not live. Scientists make a leap of faith here when they assume (and hope like crazy) that the badly-mutated organisms will not pass their genes on while the beneficially-mutated organisms will. Let’s suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Look at mice experiments. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?
If a mutation doesn’t make a species implode, it struggles when introduced to ‘irreducible complexity.’ The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ. Take away one of the 20+ pieces of the eye and it either is severely handicapped or blind altogether. How did evolution achieve this incredible organ? Either there are thousands of organisms in the fossil record, each with a slightly less-developed eye that somehow employs the parts in useful ways, or organisms collect ‘dormant mutations’ until all the pieces have arrived. One could come slightly earlier, but why would natural selection keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? So scientists like Richard Dawkins lauded the dormant mutation theory. This theory, however, has since been debunked because we see no dormant mutations in any current genetic code. Instead, there are only a couple genes scientists consider to be defunct. One would think, given our current evidence, that evolution stopped when humans arrived. How convenient would that be for someone wanting to fabricate a theory about it.
I'm annoyed now, not because of the questions but how easily you could answer them just by googling them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
This planet at one point would of been swarming with billions upon billions of single celled amoebae that multiply like bacteria in the seas. They fed on each other and the algae in their surroundings, the amoeba that survived adapted to their underwater environment becoming better able to survive it and later becoming more similar to animals. Some of these animals would be able to go on land and adapt to it, some would remain in the sea. The ones on land that survived further adapted to their environment.
You seem to have trouble with the concept of slight changes. When you look at evolution you picture an amoebae suddenly sprouting legs, lung, eyes, a suitcase and all other kinds of extremities. That is not the case. All species face trials from their surroundings, their predators and their need to sustain themselves. Those who have what it takes to succeed spread their DNA and pass whatever advantage they had, if any. You are basing your argument on a false premise, please look up "tetrapod" on wikipedia then we can continue this conversation.
To answer other points:
Survival of the fittest means whatever works. Whatevers still here. The ratio of extinct species and new species you described is inkeeping with that theory and would work over millions of years.
As for similarities between species, just because a scientist says two species are similar and share similar properties doesn't mean that a dolphin mounted a shark at some point, it means that they are similar. That they survive in a similar way. How does this statement translate into being "selective"? The only destruction of scientific honesty going on here is the implication you have anything other than a selective knowledge of science.
The idea that evolution has "stopped", a process that takes millions of years to become radically apparent, because in the last thousand years we haven't developed a significant adaptation is so ridiculous as to be laughable. As is the idea that science goes on "faith".
Micro-evolution happens on a cellular level, we are made of cells. Do I really have to finish that sentence?
Some creatures have the misfortune to die because they're just unlucky. Their adaptations were fine but they found themselves in an inescapable situation, sometimes we have the luck that they are fossilized.
If all mutated creatures just died there would be practically no differences between humans of the male gender because there would be no diversity. The olympics would be mostly pointless.
The rest of your argument is just repetition of the same tired points I have countered in this post and in my last post. You attach your assumptions to legitimate facts that have little to do with your point. Its just pointless. Until you actually look into what you're talking about instead of skimming the surface and trying to attach your own meaning to it I might as well be typing messages to a wall. So some bacteria developed an adaptation without developing extra tissue, so what? Bacteria have scarcely any tissue to begin with and need to be the size they are to survive. How does this prove anything you've said? You think on a scale of tens, hundreds, thousands but you don't think on a scale of billions. Natural selection isn't a will, its whatever works and survives. Its not the process of making a super being.
Oh and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_o...Early_eyes
Go nuts.
I'm sorry if that comes across as harsh but it irritates me no end when someone obviously just wants to prove their point regardless of the facts. The facts you do use have very little relevance to the bold assertion you make that evolution is faith based with little evidence as is science. Claiming that evolution is faith based is ridiculous but science? The pursuit of fact through evidence, reason and logical approach? Thats just batshit crazy and the fact that is your interpretation of a scientific approach is very telling of how you have come to these conclusions or why you think Creationism is an acceptable explanation. Science is a constant progression of our knowledge that pushes back the boundaries of ignorance through logical inquiry and the evidence we have at the time. You've left yourself no method to discern what is true.
'Nough said.
(P.S. Hope you appreciate what I had to wade through to shorten this post summer.)
