Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Anomalocaris]

What is "upward evolution"?

From a bacteria that cannot do things like man can.

For example, invent calculus, play baseball, paint the night sky, write a book, etc.

Nor can a creationist. So clearly your ilk can be the result of a mistake in bacterial genes, even if you are not quite an "upward"step from bacteria.

[Whateverist]

What the hell is upward evolution?

---

So Grace, what do you study, what is your education?

You're thinking maybe he should ask for his money back?

---

For God's sake just stop. You know nothing. You've squandered your brain's development on a leap of faith. Now all you can do is belittle what you don't understand. No one who has actually given thinking a try will be impressed with these bullshit 'arguments'. What a shame. A human mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Searching4truth]

especially on a close-minded system of beliefs that inhibit the ability to think reasonably and astutely about... well anything

[Lemonvariable72]

JUst one thing to add, you know there never was a theory of upward evolution right?

[Esquilax]

So Grace, I've slept on it: do you have a scientific source to back up your claims that evolution is dogs breeding not-dogs, yet?

If not, are you ready to admit that this was a deliberate distortion?

Oh, and hey, since in these last few pages you seem to have a real boner for evidence, how come you just ignored the many links I gave you to some real science? Why not go back, look at them, and refute them, if you can?

PS: You can't.

[Lemonvariable72]

Saved by grace, I asked you privately now I ask publicly, to a debate thread with me. any topic you choose.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Saved by grace, I asked you privately now I ask publicly, to a debate thread with me. any topic you choose.

We are discussing the topic at hand.

You have failed to refute the post for this topic.

The conclusion stands.

---

So Grace, I've slept on it: do you have a scientific source to back up your claims that evolution is dogs breeding not-dogs, yet?

If not, are you ready to admit that this was a deliberate distortion?

Oh, and hey, since in these last few pages you seem to have a real boner for evidence, how come you just ignored the many links I gave you to some real science? Why not go back, look at them, and refute them, if you can?

PS: You can't.

Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" In it Darwin tried to explain where all the species in the world came from. His thesis was not dogs produce dogs. His thesis was all dogs come from some species way back in time that were not dogs through evolution.

Creationists dispute that.

Creationists do not dispute dog breeding.

If you are saying that you are only claiming dog breeding as evolution, then you are a creationist.

---

JUst one thing to add, you know there never was a theory of upward evolution right?

The evolutionist world disagrees with you.

Go google it.

---

a mainstream source "says".
Are you saying actual observation or is it just a conclusion based on assumptions?

Also the definition of species is important.

How about chimps and humans? We have a common ancestor.

Happenings are sometimes organised at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast of the United States, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we will have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach.

The daughter that she is holding in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick to females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters. If you walked up the line like an inspecting general -past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always And this hand-in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.

Richard Dawkins, Ph.D.

Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor. Did anyone actually see that happen? Or is it just a conclusion from assumptions.

Your assumption is not evidence.

[NoraBrimstone]

Mutations are part of Evolution, you total gimp. They are part of the proof. *facepalm*

Seriously, get up off your arse and visit a natural history museum. You might learn something.

[Cyberman]

The term 'evolutionist' only exists in the same place as 'upward evolution' and 'atheistic origins science' and that is not the mainstream scientific arena. It's the creationist world of conspiracy theories. ICR, AiG, DI and similar extreme fringe organisations are not recognised as anything other than comedy material by actual scientists. Three guesses why.

[Esquilax]

Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" In it Darwin tried to explain where all the species in the world came from. His thesis was not dogs produce dogs. His thesis was all dogs come from some species way back in time that were not dogs through evolution.

So, have you read the book in question?

Let's get educational, and talk about what's actually in Darwin's work, shall we? So, you're aware of the concept of mutations, right? And you know that each successive generation of organisms is slightly different from any other due to mutations? That's how dog breeding works, incidentally.

So, generation over generation, organisms become subtly different from the ones that came before; you don't look exactly like your father, and you look even less like your grandfather, and his father, and his father, and so on. This is simply fact.

Your contention is that no matter how many little changes add up, they'll never become accumulate into bigger changes, and that's just absurd. Furthermore, since each of those mutations will only be small, you wouldn't be able to draw a line down the middle of the lineage and say that there is the point that it stops being one animal and starts being a modern day dog.

Do you understand?

Creationists dispute that.

They can dispute whatever they want; what I care about is evidence.

Creationists do not dispute dog breeding.

If you are saying that you are only claiming dog breeding as evolution, then you are a creationist.

Dog breeding is evolution happening live, just with artificial selection taking the place of natural selection.

The evolutionist world disagrees with you.

No, actually they wouldn't; for example, did you know that the ancestors of modern day whales are actually ungulates that returned to the ocean and developed flippers again?

Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor. Did anyone actually see that happen? Or is it just a conclusion from assumptions.

Your assumption is not evidence.

So, first of all, did you see god creating everything? If not, then I guess it didn't happen, according to your logic.

Second of all, I did see the common ancestor of man and chimp. I was there. Prove me wrong: were you there to see if I was? And if you can't prove me wrong, then clearly the opposite, me being right, is correct.

Third of all, you seem to be ignoring the links to evidence of this precise thing, both in genetics and the fossil record, that I posed to you last night. How interesting...