Macro Evolution Fact or Fiction

[TheWay]

Well given the current discussion that is occurimg all around academia. I thought it time to bring this intellectual topic to realm of SGW lol. So simply put wher do you stand and why? Use facts and be ready for those facts to be called into question.

My view:
Since Evoltion is a current theory it is then open to scientific critisim and as such I have looked into the issue and found absolutly no evidence for Macro evolution. Here are some of my current issues.

The origin of life
The origin of protein…the odds against a simple protein forming by chance are 100 to the 160th power to 1. The simplest organism requires at least 100 different kinds of protein molecules to live and reproduce!

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy): universal tendency towards greater randomness. (disorder) This law has never been violated.

The origin of one celled organisms. (Protozoa) There are over 30,000 types with vastly different structures and systems. Common ancestry even of these is impossible.

The gap between protozoa and metazoa (many celled animals) is huge, and no transitional forms exist. The simplest metazoa have thousands of cells.

No intermediate or "transitional" forms exist. (No "missing links") The oldest bat is a fully formed bat, etc.etc.

Unbridged gaps between body structures. (Reptiles-amphibians, invertabrates-vertabrates, mammal-cetacean, etc.)

Sudden appearance of fossils. Pre-Cambrian fossils are non-existent, while the Cambrian period has a host of complex fossils!

Sudden appearance of flowering plants.

Origin of birds & the origin of flight. (Insects fly, birds fly, and bats fly!)

The number of chromosomes does not increase with complexity.

The necessity of perfection in both plants and animals for cross-pollination. (Survival of either impossible without perfection)

The necessity of complete and perfect instincts. (Job 38 & 39)

Reproduction: the sex mechanics had to be completely functional and accompanied by contact/desire!

Irreducible complexity! Per Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe

and

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).


(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes

which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is

damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,

Nobel Prize for Chemistry )

(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,

the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as

incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )

(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change

in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things

are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now

quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an

animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and

his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a

gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random

changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

well I figure that should peak the interests of some intellegent people, I look forward to your responses, and remember be nice

[papa~smurf]

are u suggesting intelligent design ? the arguments between evolution and creation have become so rapped in our social frame work of believing science is an end to all, and that faith can not stand under the microscope. Maybe some where in the middle is the truth, where it alway seems to end up. we can endless speak of the chances of evolution working ( slim to none) and faith based beliefs that it all happen in the link of the eye ( my faith says things happen a bit slower than that) . This should be interesting....a nod of approval to u weapon zero

p.s. while walking the museum of natural history in NYC one day, marveling at the evolutionary plates, all written on nicely edged glass, i looked closer to fine, in small letters, near the bottom, almost to small to read.."evolution is only a theory and has not....."

[Come_Forth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
That is a video of Ken Miller who is a Christian, but he is also a well-known scientist who debunks Creationism. Here is a link to a good site that provides tons of evidence for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... tml#chance

[TheWay]

halamander, thank u for posting m8, and I agree truth is a hrad thing to discover. I am christian so by that very fact I admit I have my own presuppisitions that would lead me to question Evolution. With that said there is not a person in the world who does not enter into this debate with their own presuppistions lol. I intend to be honest and fair in this post though if so one brings forth evidence for Evolution or suffieciently answer my questions I will give them credit and I will even contemplate their ideas.

Come forth I have a great deal of respect for you from our debates at Christian Central so I am glad to see you here m8.

Let me then address each one of these points one by one.

1st point, The author of this post makes this statement "First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact." Again this is completely ridiculus because the fact of the matter is you cant just go and chnage the defenition of an entire theory then state that the new defenition is law. In actuality Evolutions defenition is

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

This is evolution not the idea that species adapt but the idea that one species becomes another one. This is the idea of Macro Evolution which has absolutly no evidence not one drop none zero zilch. If you claim it is true then please give us one piece of evidence.




2nd point, The you tube video by Ken Miller was laughable at best, and show cases the exact problem with todays current evolutionaty scientist. To take an idea an add into it your own biased assumptions then state them as fact is ridiculus and doesnt hold up to scientific critisim. Ken Miller made the statement that the fact that there are fused chromosomes proves the evolutionary theory because apes have 48 and we have 46 chromosomes which proves that we evolved from apes. I dont know about you but I see no real evidence that we ever had less chromosomes only that currently they are fused according to his info that for now I will accept as true although I am not familar with his credentials. The idea that a scientist would estrapulate such a ridiculus and unproven asertion from a small and inaine fact is beyond me and beyond scientific integrity. He also makes a statement that if this fusion was not found that the theory of evolution would be proven false. That statement cracks me up because actually if the fusion wasnt found they would just say that in time it would be lol. If you have ever read Darwins book Origin of the species you will know that he makes the statement that if no intermediarys are found that his theory would completely fall apart. Well we ahvent found them not a one and yet here we are having scientist making ascertions with absolutly no evidence.

[papa~smurf]

for me this issue of eloution is mote. The issue is, how, through trial and error ( the very base of evolution ), could such a mulity dependent system form. To wit, the amount of regenerative mutations to make a tounge to eat ants in tree bark would fill volumes of panalogical volumes. yet there is that tougue, perfect in it's use. i am willing to say evolution could take place, but why then is a notion of a guiding hand of the devine is unthinkable, yet in some ways the only pausable explation.

[Come_Forth]

I am an accounting major so I don't have much of a science background, but I strongly believe in evolution and will try to explain. The first thing we have to get used to is billions of years, humans are only a speck when put in that reference. Then next we have to get used to is that evolution is not random. Sure mutations have a place in evolution, but the driving force is natural selection. Natural selection provides us with blind design, things have apparent design but it is only a natural process. Before I give a long defense of evolution, I want to know what proof you have for intelligent design. Even if you could someone disprove evolution it does not prove your theory. How could you prove intelligent design? Many people confuse the fact that they can't see how something evolved means that it could not have evolved, a common example is the eye but it is quite simple how the eye evolved. The main attack on evolutions seems to be the idea that all parts are needed for the organism to function, the mistake here is that any advantage gives an organism an edge. Let's take the eye for instance, a small improvement in vision will give a vast advantage, in the world of the blind the one eyed person is king. Another example given is cameoflage that is used by animals to hide from predators. As with the eye a slight improvement is still a great improvement, the farther one gets from an object the fewer details one can see so the cameoflage that is not good will provide an advantage as long as the predator does not get too close. The better the cameoflage gets the more the advantage increases, but even crappy cameoflage will be favored. There really is no difference between macro and micro evolution, they are the same thing just with a different time scale. About the video that I linked to, Ken Miller is one of the most respected experts on evolution in the United States. His point in the video is that either God used evolution or made it appear that evolution is correct by fusing the chromosomes, and showing a direct link between primates and humans.

[Fear Of The Duck]

this is a task for the systems theory. i'm not an expert at biology but i'd say this: God intelligently designed the system to produce the results we have and then just let it go.
so i have no problems with this issue whatsoever.

[Bad Wolf]

To be honest this is the first thread in ALL the SGW forums Ive really loved.

Please broker me 100 bill naq, very few people have views on topics which really matter. Im glad to see you have one.

BW

[TheWay]

lol Bad wolf thats awesome m8 thanks for the encouragement lol. I wont broker you for naq but the offer was nice enough in any case.

Comeforth You ahve explained evolution farely well m8 which shows you have a better then average grasp for the ideas behind the theory. You had said that one thing you must understand is that this process took millions of years and I agree that is the theory but if indeed it took millions of years then there should be millions of missing links, there must be tons of fossil record supporting thsi so called macro evolution. You mentioned the formation of the eye, well if indeed there were ever a creature that evolved an eye there should be a huge number of examples showing the process of eye formation in each species since each species would have had to have grown an eye. Here is where the idea gets even rougher for evolution the idea that natural selection can be a mechanism for evolution is ridiculus at best. Think about it, lets use the famous three winged fly for an example (this fly was used to support evolution so I find it ironic that it actually does the opposite lol) The Fly did indeed mutate a third wing but because the mutation was only one step (meaning the wing appeared but no muscles or nerves or anything to make the wing work) the wing was not able to be used for flight and in actaulity the third wing was not an improvement but a hinderance, it kept the fly from being able to well fly lol. As a matter a fact this fly is a perrfect example of natural selection protecting the species of fly from reproducing and possible creating more abnormal flies. The fly died quickly unable to exist with its negetive mutation. You see natural selection actually works against evolution by containing the species in its present state. The thing is no new addition to a species is fully developed right away as Darwin said it takes many many intermediaries to get to a new working form.

As of intellegent design and the evidence for it I would encourage you to read Micheal Behe's book Darwin's Black Box and focus on his theory of irreducible complexity which shows through biology how the very DNA in our body is perfectly ordered and is actaully small mechanisms that function much like machines. It is an excellent account for the idea that there must be an intellegent designer in any ordered system. The main point of intellegent design is not to say that they have the answer or even a new scientific law to present the point is there are a bunch of scientist who have come to the point where the study of science points to the fact that we as creation were not an accident and couldnt be accounted for as such. Let me just say this when Darwin came up with his theory he was working under the theory of a simple cell in our creation and we now know that it is not a simple cell but a very very complex one. Random mutation cannot account for the order in creation as a matter a fact the very laws of science make that idea impossible. The second law of thermo dynamics which is entropy states that all things head towards chaos.

Corran Horn, the idea you are suggesting is reffered to as Theistic evolution and I dont believe this is the case because well I believe its possible God used natural process, there is no evidence that it was evolution becausse well that theory doesnt hold water lol. So in all I think He could have used natural process that were controled by him but that would not be called evolution since evolution is indeed dead lol I like that niche is rolling over in his grave lol

[Fear Of The Duck]

You see natural selection actually works against evolution by containing the species in its present state.

only when the given population occupies the peak of it's fitness landscape. if it's in the fitness "valley" natural selection selects these mutations that put the population on a higher ground.

the idea you are suggesting is reffered to as Theistic evolution and I dont believe this is the case because well I believe its possible God used natural process, there is no evidence that it was evolution becausse well that theory doesnt hold water lol. So in all I think He could have used natural process that were controled by him but that would not be called evolution since evolution is indeed dead lol I like that niche is rolling over in his grave lol

whatever the name. the point is i can't see any contradiction between the involvement of God in the process and scientific evidence.
i wouldn't say evolution is dead but it's definately confused.

btw: why if some ppl accept the intelligent design they're more likely to say 't was space aliens than God? who designed them aliens then?

[papa~smurf]

http://www.venganza.org/


now a break for some laughts before we go back in to it

[TheWay]

Corran Horn, your absolutly right there are some that say aliens seeded our genes and DNA here on earth because well contrary to the rhetoric the ID movement doesnt explain what intellegent designer is responsible since that cannot be answered by science, this then leaves the door open for people to theorize that aliens seeded this planet lol. The good news is that this theory is losing alot of its following and there arent any currently in the ID movement that hold to this (when I say in the ID movement I mean scientist that would be classified ID)

halamander, lol I think that is very funny m8, although I clearly see its at the exspense of the ID movement and motivated by ignorant people but its still hilarious and if you cant laugh at your own ideas who's can you laugh at. lol

[papa~smurf]

glad u could take that in the way it was indented, just to make people laugh. In reviewing the massive amount of data out there, this is my conclusion.

the basic issue is ....is there a god.

the id movement is trying to use science facts to prove it, the evo's are using science facts to help disprove it. In between are a bunch of people waiting for the mother ship so they can drink there cool aid and go to the home planet.

What for me is troubling about the id movement is that god can never really be proved through science. It is a faith base belief. And with faith, there is no need for the tangible. To chase a tangible "fact' to hang your faith on is contrary to what i believe in my faith. Any time in my life i have doughted my faith, i have been shown in the most personal and intangibles ways that god dose in fact exist.
inversly, the same can be said of the evo's. Every time they have a new "thorey", some one comes along with facts to make there opions less valid. The very age and time of the rise of man on this planet is being pushed back all the time. You can not disprove faith through facts. Yes you can weaken faith, but never disprove it.

For me, well, in this whole thread, i began to think on an even smaller level. that being, what we and every thing is made of. And how science is yet to explain how all things can share such common elements, held together by the unseen energy, yet grow, contect and become so different, yet so dependent on each other. If your really looking to prove God is there, i believe it will be in the atomic and sub atomic.

[TheWay]

I agree science cant prove God, my point in this post was to addrees Evolution which is widely held to be fact and taught in schools as fact. I was wondering what the sgw community thought on this issue. For debates about the existance of God stop by Christian Central here in the this or that area of the forum we have addressed a ton of material on that issue. For the sake of this post though I would like peoples oppinion about evolution. So far I ahvent seen many evolutionists comming out to dfened the great Darwin which surprises me I thought this would stir you scientific types all up lol.

[Come_Forth]

I think the problem is that lots of people have strong opinions on the subject, but there are few who see a point in debating it.