Ok, so a lot of stuff here to consider. Firstly I would like to remark on one of your final statements:
First of all you talked about mutations, and how it is impossible for mutations to be a raw material for Evolution. This is correct in a very narrow view, because for Evolution to take place, natural selection must also be in effect. A mutation occurs, and if that mutation is beneficial (which in some cases it is) for the species in that specific environment, natural selection will favour organisms with that mutation. For example, in a cold place, a mutation in a mammal that causes longer hair will be beneficial. Animals without the mutation will die earlier, and thereby allowing the mutated animal to pass on the genetic information. The offspring all have the information, and they are in turn more likely to survive. Mutations however, are only beneficial in the short term. If the animal migrated to a warmer climate, then the mutation would cease to be useful. Likewise, sometimes bad mutations get passed down, and whilst they might not be useful to the animal at the time, they could become useful at a later date.
As for producing new information, you are simply ill-informed of how mutations come about. Simply put, a strand of DNA is a long chain containing the letters A,C,G,T. No mutations produce anymore characters (so in this way there is no new information), however mutations can change a number of things about the chain. For example, take the DNA code AACGTA. A mutation on this code could delete, insert, inverse, duplicate, or translocate the letters, causing a completely new chain of DNA.
To put it in simple terms, take the English word: Hello. Through a mutation we can change the word to Helloo (duplication of o). This is a new word, and thereby new information. The same kind of thing happens with DNA, only there are 4 letters, not 26. A nice illustration of mutations is shown below.
![[Image: Types-of-mutation.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F79%2FTypes-of-mutation.png)
As for saying the Peppered moth is not evidence for Evolution, you have redefine the word "Evolution". Evolution is simple a change in DNA. Yes, the Peppered moth is an example of Evolution, because the DNA change that caused the new colour occurred through a mutation. Nobody is claiming this is an example of a new species. However, to say that new species haven't been formed is simple untrue ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ).
For long term "macro evolution" as it is termed, you only need time. Micro evolution (like the e. coli) + time = Macro Evolution. With enough small changes, and 4 billion years to do it, a single celled organism can evolve into the everything we see today. Luckily, we have a way of looking back through time in the form of fossils. We find many fossils with lots of different characteristics that appear to have formed by ever changing mutations. There are only two possible ways you can explain this:
1) Each species was created fully formed out of nothing, and died for some reason (why we don't have them today). Due to issues of overpopulation and the fight to survive, they can't all have been alive at the same time, so this means that animals must have been constantly popping into existence for countless millennia.
2) The creatures evolved from each other.
#1 cannot possibly explain the reason animals kept spontaneously appearing on the planet, nor why they died out, nor why we do not see animals suddenly appearing today.
#2 explains everything very clearly.
Now onto your questions:
1.) What examples of mutations would you cite as a matter of concern for the case of evolution and what examples against? In other words where has mutations produced helpful results.
- The e. coli experiment is a great example, but also the Croatian lizard experiment ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ution.html ) which was left without human contact due to wars, and resulted in a new gut structure being formed for lizards on the island.
As explained before, all mutations are possible "helpful" mutations, and so you cannot simply say there are examples of mutations "against" evolution, since evolution has no goal in mind. Our appendix is currently thought to be a vestigial part of our anatomy left over from our evolution from ape-like beings. However, some research suggests that it may also help the immune system (although people seem to live fine without them).
2.) To what degree would you grant the possibility of these examples being based upon a growing speculation? In other words is this speculation fallible, and to what degree is this relevant?
- Considering that the evolution in the e. coli and lizard were observed, I highly doubt there is any speculation going on. We saw evolution happen. Yes, there is a small amount of speculation in the "macro evolution", but it is backed up by so much fossil evidence that nobody has been able to come up with an adequate scientific theory that both destroys Evolution and provides a better explanation so far.
3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?
- I see a disagreement in that if the Bible is the word of God, and this God knows everything, then why is the Bible wrong about how life arose? We see evolution, we know creatures change. We have the fossil record which dates animals back to very different periods of time. Birds did not come about before land animals like the Bible says. The Bible is not the word on anyone other than confused people who were making guesses.
Quote:I am not interested in debate, or a proving or disproving of our independent thinking. Doing so would be a futile endeavor producing no results.This is a ridiculous thing to say, especially as you have come to a forum of people who accept Evolution and written an entire post that tries to discredit the theory. You will have a debate, because that is what naturally happens when two ways of thinking come together, whether you like it or not. You do not have the choice on whether the debate will emerge, but you do have the choice in whether you wish to engage.
First of all you talked about mutations, and how it is impossible for mutations to be a raw material for Evolution. This is correct in a very narrow view, because for Evolution to take place, natural selection must also be in effect. A mutation occurs, and if that mutation is beneficial (which in some cases it is) for the species in that specific environment, natural selection will favour organisms with that mutation. For example, in a cold place, a mutation in a mammal that causes longer hair will be beneficial. Animals without the mutation will die earlier, and thereby allowing the mutated animal to pass on the genetic information. The offspring all have the information, and they are in turn more likely to survive. Mutations however, are only beneficial in the short term. If the animal migrated to a warmer climate, then the mutation would cease to be useful. Likewise, sometimes bad mutations get passed down, and whilst they might not be useful to the animal at the time, they could become useful at a later date.
As for producing new information, you are simply ill-informed of how mutations come about. Simply put, a strand of DNA is a long chain containing the letters A,C,G,T. No mutations produce anymore characters (so in this way there is no new information), however mutations can change a number of things about the chain. For example, take the DNA code AACGTA. A mutation on this code could delete, insert, inverse, duplicate, or translocate the letters, causing a completely new chain of DNA.
To put it in simple terms, take the English word: Hello. Through a mutation we can change the word to Helloo (duplication of o). This is a new word, and thereby new information. The same kind of thing happens with DNA, only there are 4 letters, not 26. A nice illustration of mutations is shown below.
As for saying the Peppered moth is not evidence for Evolution, you have redefine the word "Evolution". Evolution is simple a change in DNA. Yes, the Peppered moth is an example of Evolution, because the DNA change that caused the new colour occurred through a mutation. Nobody is claiming this is an example of a new species. However, to say that new species haven't been formed is simple untrue ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ).
Quote:Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs, mutations cannot account for overall evolution - why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.Nobody claims that roses blossom camellias, or that goats give birth to lambs. This is not Evolution (and in fact this would disprove Evolution if it ever happened). In Evolution, a new species is where mutations have occurred on such a scale that the resultant organisms can no longer breed with their ancestors. In larger animals, this process takes hundreds of thousands of years, because of long gestation periods, and the slow rates of mutations. In bacteria however, you can see Evolution happening in a very small amount of time. For instance, Richard Lenski's e. coli experiment has seen Evolution happen within bacteria over the course of 20 years, culminating in a new species of e. coli that can utilize the citrate in it's environment as a source of energy.
For long term "macro evolution" as it is termed, you only need time. Micro evolution (like the e. coli) + time = Macro Evolution. With enough small changes, and 4 billion years to do it, a single celled organism can evolve into the everything we see today. Luckily, we have a way of looking back through time in the form of fossils. We find many fossils with lots of different characteristics that appear to have formed by ever changing mutations. There are only two possible ways you can explain this:
1) Each species was created fully formed out of nothing, and died for some reason (why we don't have them today). Due to issues of overpopulation and the fight to survive, they can't all have been alive at the same time, so this means that animals must have been constantly popping into existence for countless millennia.
2) The creatures evolved from each other.
#1 cannot possibly explain the reason animals kept spontaneously appearing on the planet, nor why they died out, nor why we do not see animals suddenly appearing today.
#2 explains everything very clearly.
Now onto your questions:
1.) What examples of mutations would you cite as a matter of concern for the case of evolution and what examples against? In other words where has mutations produced helpful results.
- The e. coli experiment is a great example, but also the Croatian lizard experiment ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ution.html ) which was left without human contact due to wars, and resulted in a new gut structure being formed for lizards on the island.
As explained before, all mutations are possible "helpful" mutations, and so you cannot simply say there are examples of mutations "against" evolution, since evolution has no goal in mind. Our appendix is currently thought to be a vestigial part of our anatomy left over from our evolution from ape-like beings. However, some research suggests that it may also help the immune system (although people seem to live fine without them).
2.) To what degree would you grant the possibility of these examples being based upon a growing speculation? In other words is this speculation fallible, and to what degree is this relevant?
- Considering that the evolution in the e. coli and lizard were observed, I highly doubt there is any speculation going on. We saw evolution happen. Yes, there is a small amount of speculation in the "macro evolution", but it is backed up by so much fossil evidence that nobody has been able to come up with an adequate scientific theory that both destroys Evolution and provides a better explanation so far.
3.) To what degree would you, with what I assume with little knowledge of your personal devotion to Biblical studies is substantial, would you have found a disagreement with the Bible and the theory of evolution? In other words, put simply, do you see a disagreement between the two and if so what is it. If not would you admit there is some disagreement which is unsubstantiated?
- I see a disagreement in that if the Bible is the word of God, and this God knows everything, then why is the Bible wrong about how life arose? We see evolution, we know creatures change. We have the fossil record which dates animals back to very different periods of time. Birds did not come about before land animals like the Bible says. The Bible is not the word on anyone other than confused people who were making guesses.
