Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

Idev says

You are the one who seems to think EII' is a hybrid. Even though clearly in your very next statement, you quote the paper saying that its not. EII' and EII are 2 of the enzymes. Hyb-24 (hyb for hybrid) is the hybrid.

No actually I'm not the one who thought that,you said "EII' is not the hybrid created in the experiment. Hyb-24 is. Hence the name."

What you failed to realize is that the hybrid was a hybrid of the 2.

Idev says

exactly.... an EII/EII' hybrid. AKA a hydrid of the two. hyb is for hybrid. hyb-24. What do you think hyb-24 is if not the hybrid that they use throughout the paper? They are only using one hybrid. They needed to create the hybrid because they were having issues using EII. So the created the hybrid and used it for comparisons with other enzymes.

I love how when I expose you,you try to turn around and say that I made the claim that EII' is the hybrid when I corrected you the entire time.

Please go back 1 page and read exactly what I said "I think you are reading wrong, EII' is not the hybrid,the nylon eating enzyme is EII,EII' is the carboxylesterase. "

Sorry nice try though,I have no problem correcting you by the way.

Idev says

EII' is the nylon digesting enzyme that mutated from a prior enzyme. EII' is the one with low activity. We dont know where the original protein would even use ser without its structure.

Wrong.

The preceding protein to EII is EII'.

Idev says

Ill ask for permission to do so first.

Go ahead. Because I know for a fact that what you're saying is completely absurd.

IDev says

All you have to do now, if you truly believe such a structure exists and does use ser in the particular active site of the EII' or EII enzymes, is find such research that such a thing exists.

Ya know, these guys have enough trouble crystallizing already existing enzymes for studies. I cant imagine how they would be able to determine details about proto enzymes.

Don't you realize how idiotic that statement is ? I'm not trying to be mean but do you really think that we don't know what was before it?

Teruko Nakazawa, Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama

Says in his book on page 277

Molecular Biology of Pseudomonads.

"We found that EII enzyme and its probable antecedent, the EII’ protein encoded by POAD2."

So in the face of clear evidence,will you now admit you're wrong?

Idev says

And really, there is no argument here. We've agreed 95% of the time. Here we have gene duplication and subsequent mutation. Passed on and spread throughout a population over generations. By the very definition, what we are discussing here, is evolution. You just dont want to call it that for whatever reason.

I have already showed you why it isn't,please refer back to my previous post.

Idev says

You talk about the enzyme having a deficiency with use of its ser active site. But you ignore its enhanced ability to digest nylon, as if it were a fluke or something and that the organism overall was being harmed by the mutation. Even though clearly the benefits of the mutation outweigh any detriments, demonstrated by the plethora of bacteria that now hold the trait.

Already answered this point.

Idev says

Beyond that, the bacteria has both EII and EII', so its not like the organism has lost anything. It still has its original traits just as it has its new ones.

I'm glad you realize that EII' is still existent.

Idev says

Beyond that further, nobody knows the structure of the enzyme pre dating EII'. So its not like we can even determine if the original enzyme even used the current ones ser active site.

You keep saying pre dating EII',what are you talking about? EII' is still a carbyoxlterase and STILL exists.

Idev says

So, your argument, to supposedly disprove evolution doesnt hold up. You either agree with me in what happened, or you take a subjective stance and say "oh no, thats not evolution because I say its not", even though everyone else does. You seem to believe that understanding homology mandates recognizing a common ancestor. Which is beyond wrong. Now you seem to think that EII is a hybrid.

An enzyme losing specificity is not a good example of how this can lead to the life we see today.

Idev says

The reason my rebuttals do not appear to be consistent is because ive found a multitude of flaws in your arguments. So it leaves fair game for a multitude of rebuttals.

You haven't rebutted anything,my points still stand.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Questions such as: What is the point of theory of Evolution? Are neglected and are not encouraged. For the answer proves that it is pointless. Academic Scholars and Scientist are i

I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evoluti

How is Prophet Adam’s (A.S.) creation (about 5,764 years ago) make sense when fossils found from human beings are almost 25 million years old? question From the beginning

Posted Images

Idev says

No actually I'm not the one who thought that,you said "EII' is not the hybrid created in the experiment. Hyb-24 is. Hence the name."

What you failed to realize is that the hybrid was a hybrid of the 2.

Thats what Ive been saying the whole time. Hyb-24 is. aka Hyb-24 is the hybrid. We are speaking the english language.

I love how when I expose you,you try to turn around and say that I made the claim that EII' is the hybrid when I corrected you the entire time.

Well, when I said that hyb-24 was the hybrid, you were saying I was wrong.

Please go back 1 page and read exactly what I said "I think you are reading wrong, EII' is not the hybrid,the nylon eating enzyme is EII,EII' is the

Wrong.

The preceding protein to EII is EII'.

Yes

Go ahead. Because I know for a fact that what you're saying is completely absurd.

IDev says

Don't you realize how idiotic that statement is ? I'm not trying to be mean but do you really think that we don't know what was before it?

Teruko Nakazawa, Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama

Says in his book on page 277

Molecular Biology of Pseudomonads.

"We found that EII enzyme and its probable antecedent, the EII’ protein encoded by POAD2."

So in the face of clear evidence,will you now admit you're wrong?

Ive never said we didnt have the precursor to EII, if I had, I apologize. But if you look at my original statement, it was in reference to EII'. The reason I mention EII' as opposed to EII, is because...if we arent talking about what pre dates EII', then we are only comparing EII and EII', in which case, both are used with digestion of nylon, and the descendent is far more efficient at cleaving nylon, which is a benefit to the organism. So, it doesnt make sense that you would...think the addition of EII to EII' is a detriment to the organism. However, if you are saying EII' mutated to a poorly efficient nylon cleaving enzyme from an enzyme that previously effectively used an ser site, then you would have more of an argument. But such a thing doesnt exist.

I have already showed you why it isn't,please refer back to my previous post.

Idev says

Already answered this point.

Idev says

I'm glad you realize that EII' is still existent.

Idev says

You keep saying pre dating EII',what are you talking about? EII' is still a carbyoxlterase and STILL exists.

Idev says

An enzyme losing specificity is not a good example of how this can lead to the life we see today.

Idev says

You haven't rebutted anything,my points still stand.

Your points never stood to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what Ive gathered from our discussion. And if your points are different from what I state here, then just say so.

But basically. Ok so, there is this bacteria, its...yea its a bacteria, flavobacteria. When you have a mutation that alters the morphology of an organism, and that mutation propagates throughout the population...that is evolution.

And that is what happened, and both you and I both agree with the physical existence of this mutation.

However, you are saying that, when this mutation happened, it basically made this serine residue using active site, less specified toward certain compounds. So basically, this enzyme once reacted with certain groups of compounds, now it simply acts on more and is less effective at its original use. And because of this, it is therefore detrimental to the organism.

Now, there are multiple reasons this is a useless argument. First off, we already both agree that its evolution, though you dont want to call it evolution because...well I don't know why you arent calling it evolution. Anyone and everyone else would.

So, your response is...because there appears to be a detriment, life could never prosper with this in the long run.

But, the rebuttal to this is...the organism is currently, before our eyes, flourishing and prospering with this mutation. And as we know, if a mutation is detrimental and harms an organism, the harm to the organism would cause it to die off...harm would not lead to the organism prospering. Its like, if a human mutated a broken arm. The broken arm gene wouldnt prosper because humans with broken arms couldn't prosper.

So, its pretty black and white that the mutation for digestion of nylon is not detrimental to the organism, but rather a benefit in that the organism now has a new easy food source.

Also, evolution isnt a latter. If all mutations were 100% beneficial in every way, we would have evolved into Gods a long time ago. Thankfully we recognize that this isnt the case and that all mutations arent perfect. Hence another reason they are considered to be random.

Aside from that, the mutation is on a plasmid. Its not even within the organisms actual genome. Its just a spare section of DNA in the membrane. And on top of that further, the mutation occurred on a duplicated gene. So the original DNA of the original enzyme before it mutated, still exists.

So, its like if I were to buy a second car. It doesn't matter if my second car isn't the perfect car, because ultimately two cars are still better than one.

So where is your argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

EII' is the precursor to EII,EII is the nylon eating enzyme.

You said clearly that there is no existing precursor to the nylon eating enzyme did you not?

Regarding the above post,it is a simple repeating of what has been already answered.

Loss of specification cannot lead to new systems,

when I see a new/original argument I will respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EII' is the precursor to EII,EII is the nylon eating enzyme.

You said clearly that there is no existing precursor to the nylon eating enzyme did you not?

Regarding the above post,it is a simple repeating of what has been already answered.

Loss of specification cannot lead to new systems,

when I see a new/original argument I will respond.

Im looking through our discussion, and those are your points. And those are my responses. What are your responses to my responses? At least point me in a direction. And I said there is no known enzyme that pre existed EII'.

You never really gave a response to those statements above. Im going to read through post by post...again, and If I dont find your responses, you should point them out as I am.

The consistent response you have given is that the mutation has degraded the enzymes specificity. And Ive responded with...well I just typed it in my 2nd to last post.

The organisms enzymes have an enhanced ability to cleave nylon by products, which benefits them. Their population is prospering with that mutation, so we see its not harmful. The mutation occurred on a duplicated gene. Evolution isnt 100% beneficial all the time, to begin with. And this whole situation by definition is evolution. You are probably the only person I've ever known to not call it such. And you still haven't justified why.

The same goes for the whole sickle cell discussion. Having sickle cell, gives resistance to malaria. It holds a beneficial trait, t spread throughout a population in Africa. Its still evolution, its still beneficial, even though its a disease. And anyone and everyone will tell you that. The same goes for the mutation of CCR5 and the LDL receptor...enhanced bone density, resistance to HIV. etc.

Me: Well, lets see. Does the organism thrive with the new benefit of being able to digest nylon?

you: hmm Idk,what do you think? The organism is still rare,the organism is now less effective than other bacteria of its class. 50-98 percent less efficient.

Me: But its a thousand times more efficient at digesting nylon, and thats what matters in its environment at this time

you: drifts on to other topics*

You: This is why it having a new function is irrelevant,because this new function has arisen from a loss of function,I think I made this quite clear.

And my response again...Me losing the function of having thick wrist bones may sound like a bad thing when they break so easily every time I fall on them. however, having thin wrist bones means I can twist my wrists.

So, losing one function for the sake of another, isn't necessarily a bad thing. And when the organism prospers with the alteration, its arguably better than it was from before the mutation.

How does something becoming less specific lead to the life we see today?

The same way wrists becoming less thick, leads to the life we see today. And yes wrists do become thicker too, but often what appears to be a loss, in reality is a benefit, and its carried on through the population for thousands of generations due to its benefit. Just as it is for nylonase, just as it is for sickle cell, just as it is for the swedish people with the enhanced bone density and the people with HIV immunity. Just as sharks may lose their ability to eat whales because they are smaller than whales now, sharks still gained speed and agility to eat smaller fish etc.

They may appear to be losses, but in reality, they are helping the organism. Organisms must constantly change, something must always be sacrificed, just as the old environment is sacrificed as the world changes. When the world sacrifices an ocean full of life for a desert, the animals must sacrifice fins for feet. When the land becomes an ocean, animals must sacrifice legs for fins.

But its not really a sacrifice. Its not really a detriment to lose feet for fins, nor fins for feet. Its just change and adaptation. For an environment at a given time. Which is exactly...I mean exactly what we see with the flavobacteria. Nylon is introduced to the environment by mankind. Life adapts and sacrifices one thing for another...then continues to prosper. And you have recognized that this is exactly what has happened. And you know just as well as I, this is evolution.

What you seem to be looking for, is development of early lifes proto proteins. Evolution, presumably on a intermolecular level. And that is a topic thats disassociated from the discussion on nylonase, and realistically, even this topic itself.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

"1 of my problems with Darwin's theory is that why there is no species with 3 eyes or 3 noses or 2 heads (I dont mean exceptions: I am talking about species). Well, I think it is as possible as species having 2 eyes, 1 nose and 1 head. Moreover, having 3 eyes or 2 heads cant be obstacles to continuing life. Therefore, one can not argue that, for example, a tiger with 3 eyes can not survive.

Another problem:

Why dint this theory lead to creation of any thing like chairs, tables, etc? Their existence, according to this theory, must be possible. Atoms and molcules can merge together and finally form such things.

And why dont we have blue carrots, pink leaves and black apples? In a world which dont have any ruler making decisions, such things can be possible. Am I right?

~shadow_of_light,

Having an extra eye, or leg or ear or head etc...consume extra energy. Mankind, if we had two brains for example, we would be exausted in a matter of hours and would die rather quickly. It takes a great deal of energy for use of such things. Not to mention all the various parts that come attached with it.

Occasionallly people are born with two heads. Conjoined twins...and we see how long they survive...not long at all.

Early animals did indeed have these structures though. Well, some of them. If you look at the earliest animals to have existed, their body types were almost like...defective toys. Extra appendages n such. They proved to be less efficient than the system we have today.

Also, in todays time, we cant just simply...grow another eyeball. These changes take...hundreds of millions of generations. So if there aren't particular environmental stresses, organisms will not necessarily capitalize on certain opportunities.

And, the difference between a chair and...lets say human beings is. People are DNA based organisms. DNA is what allows us to evolve, and RNA. The elements that make our DNA, the carbon based compounds, allow us to evolve.

This is why trees evolve too, they have DNA like us. But a Wooden chair will not evolve because it is a piece of a tree that we have cut out of it. A chair is no longer alive because we have disconnected and killed the cells, while separating it from its host tree. Its like, if I cut off my arm, my arm will die and it will stop evolving. A chair is the same way.

A stone chair wouldnt evolve either. Rocks are non DNA based structures that do not evolve because....the molecules do not...ya know. They dont do the whole transcription and translation thing. Their properties, electromagnetism, weight, size, their energy...just dont do it. Life evolves with organic compounds, non life does not evolve with inorganic compounds.

And I believe that anything is possible, with or without a "ruler". You being a religious person, shouldnt be the one saying that miracles could occur without God. That is my job.

edit edit

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow of light, King Pomba is the bio guy, I deal with rocks more than lifeforms (well, actually thats not true, lately ive been working with lifeforms more than rocks, but anyway...). So, i would recommend messaging him with questions as well. He gives nice diagrams n such. He does a decent job at presenting ideas.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillahi ar rahman ar raheem.

Idev says:

Im looking through our discussion, and those are your points. And those are my responses. What are your responses to my responses? At least point me in a direction. And I said there is no known enzyme that pre existed EII'.

You never really gave a response to those statements above. Im going to read through post by post...again, and If I dont find your responses, you should point them out as I am.

The consistent response you have given is that the mutation has degraded the enzymes specificity. And Ive responded with...well I just typed it in my 2nd to last post.

The organisms enzymes have an enhanced ability to cleave nylon by products, which benefits them. Their population is prospering with that mutation, so we see its not harmful. The mutation occurred on a duplicated gene. Evolution isnt 100% beneficial all the time, to begin with. And this whole situation by definition is evolution. You are probably the only person I've ever known to not call it such. And you still haven't justified why.

You keep saying that it has an enhanced ability to cleave nylon products.

My response to you is that this is irrelevant,why?

Same reason that if I break someone's legs and now say that they have an enhanced ability from being hit by a car because they won't be walking outside.

An enzyme losing specificity allowing molecules to come through its filter doesn't lead to complex protein systems,simple as that.

The same goes for the whole sickle cell discussion. Having sickle cell, gives resistance to malaria. It holds a beneficial trait, t spread throughout a population in Africa. Its still evolution, its still beneficial, even though its a disease. And anyone and everyone will tell you that. The same goes for the mutation of CCR5 and the LDL receptor...enhanced bone density, resistance to HIV. etc.

Claiming that a disease is good is simple word play,its a disease/corruption,how can it lead to life we see today?

I have a mutation which gives me symptoms of a common cold,this common cold heats up my body allowing me to defeat another disease via my body heat,would anyone say this disease will lead to complex systems?

Same thing here,what you are telling me is that our blood cells have become deformed so we are protected more against malaria,but you're missing the point,how does deformed blood cells lead to complex life?

Me: Well, lets see. Does the organism thrive with the new benefit of being able to digest nylon?

The cons outweigh the pros,and is irrelevant.

you: hmm Idk,what do you think? The organism is still rare,the organism is now less effective than other bacteria of its class. 50-98 percent less efficient.

Me: But its a thousand times more efficient at digesting nylon, and thats what matters in its environment at this time

The cons outweigh the pros,so it ended up being bad for it.

You: This is why it having a new function is irrelevant,because this new function has arisen from a loss of function,I think I made this quite clear.

And my response again...Me losing the function of having thick wrist bones may sound like a bad thing when they break so easily every time I fall on them. however, having thin wrist bones means I can twist my wrists.

Ok? How does having decreased bone density lead to the complexity of life we see today?

If you said it was a stepping stone I would tell you very well,but it isn't even a stepping stone.

I would rather strong bones than being able to do magic tricks with my wrists.

So, losing one function for the sake of another, isn't necessarily a bad thing. And when the organism prospers with the alteration, its arguably better than it was from before the mutation.

If you were to show me a beneificla mutation where there wasn't corruption,that tradeded on function for another I'd agree with you.

But you're showing me a gain of function via loss of one."My bike is broken now I can use it as s[Edited Out] metal",this doesn't lead to anything.

How does something becoming less specific lead to the life we see today?

The same way wrists becoming less thick, leads to the life we see today. And yes wrists do become thicker too, but often what appears to be a loss, in reality is a benefit, and its carried on through the population for thousands of generations due to its benefit. Just as it is for nylonase, just as it is for sickle cell, just as it is for the swedish people with the enhanced bone density and the people with HIV immunity. Just as sharks may lose their ability to eat whales because they are smaller than whales now, sharks still gained speed and agility to eat smaller fish etc.

Even if having thicker bones was 10000000000% better for the organism,if it doesn't lead to new complex systems,then it can't explain the complex system of life we see today.

In order for biological life to be accounted for naturally,stepping stones have to be reached and preserved via natural selection.

The question for all of you is this.

How big is this stepping stone?

If the stepping stone is 50 AA protein,with only working in a specific spot in the genome,do you really expect a random mutation to randomly fall upon the right area of the genome and then work out a sequence like this via frame shift?

The odds are impossible.

This is why many protein scientists have called Darwinist mathematically implausible.

Not to mention that natural selection doesn't work when dealing with extremely small changes,which what will be needed for darwinsim to hold.

If the change is too small (which what will be required),then natural selection will barely select it giving it only a marginal probability increase.

How do you also explain this common problem that no one among the scientific community has addressed yet?

You're 2 engines which run evolution do not seem to work to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"1 of my problems with Darwin's theory is that why there is no species with 3 eyes or 3 noses or 2 heads (I dont mean exceptions: I am talking about species). Well, I think it is as possible as species having 2 eyes, 1 nose and 1 head. Moreover, having 3 eyes or 2 heads cant be obstacles to continuing life. Therefore, one can not argue that, for example, a tiger with 3 eyes can not survive.

Another problem:

Why dint this theory lead to creation of any thing like chairs, tables, etc? Their existence, according to this theory, must be possible. Atoms and molcules can merge together and finally form such things.

And why dont we have blue carrots, pink leaves and black apples? In a world which dont have any ruler making decisions, such things can be possible. Am I right?

~shadow_of_light,

Couldn't find his actual post but i only had a quick look.

I don't think you really fully grasp evolution at this point. Selective pressure is the name of the game. It's not about just evolving random traits, its about evolving useful traits in response to selective pressure.

An example -> Here, we have a big rabbit problem. They poisoned the rabbits with a particular poison which was sprayed on carrots. It worked for a few seasons. However, it killed off all the rabbits that were weak to the poison or susceptible to eating the carrots. It left behind the ones that weren't. They reproduced and passed this trait onto their children. So, afterawhile, the poison reduced in effectiveness. It's the same with antibiotic resistance (simplistically). You kill off the bacteria weak to the antibiotic and only leave behind the ones that do.

Another example of pressure. Zebra's. They have to run fast from predators. The slowest got eaten and couldn't pass this on. Only the fastest survived. They could pass this onto their children, it was a useful trait.

For it to evolve and persist, it has to be a useful trait. I can't see the use in 3 eyes. We actually have 2 eyes for a very good reason, binocular vision. Two eyes can also cover a wide part of your visual field. Interestingly, predators eyes are usually located towards the front of their head, so, they can acurrately see their prey infront of them. On the other hand, with prey, their eyes are generally located to the side of their head, so, they can keep their eyes peeled for predators (you can have a look next time you're at the zoo or even on something like a cow for example).

There is a particular lizard that does have somewhat of a 3rd eye though - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara

Leaves are largely green because of their properties. Leaves are the site of photosynthesis, they produce glucose for the plant. Chlorophyll is a critical chemical for the plant and it actually results in the green colour (largely) in the leaves. With no chlorophyll, they'd find it hard to carry out photosynthesis. The colour also relates to what wavelengths of light they absorb & reflect and the optimal wavelengths for photosynthesis, so, they look like they do for a reason. Even the shape of leaves of plants from different enviroments are like that for a reason comparing say ferns and trees from the desert.

We can actually breed carrots that colour. We can actually force the hand of evolution as humans. It's called selective breeding, farmers have been doing it for centuries. You have an orchid of apples. You notice some trees have jucier apples than others. You get the seeds from these trees and replant only these ones. The next generation will be full of juicy apples, so, you do it again, you find only the juicest ones and replant their seeds. Eventually, you end up with really juicy apples. You can do the same with things like dog breeds for example, select the smallest, cutest ones to breed and you wind up with a poodle or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillahi ar rahman ar raheem.

Idev says:

You keep saying that it has an enhanced ability to cleave nylon products.

My response to you is that this is irrelevant,why?

Same reason that if I break someone's legs and now say that they have an enhanced ability from being hit by a car because they won't be walking outside.

An enzyme losing specificity allowing molecules to come through its filter doesn't lead to complex protein systems,simple as that.

Claiming that a disease is good is simple word play,its a disease/corruption,how can it lead to life we see today?

I have a mutation which gives me symptoms of a common cold,this common cold heats up my body allowing me to defeat another disease via my body heat,would anyone say this disease will lead to complex systems?

Same thing here,what you are telling me is that our blood cells have become deformed so we are protected more against malaria,but you're missing the point,how does deformed blood cells lead to complex life?

The cons outweigh the pros,and is irrelevant.

you: hmm Idk,what do you think? The organism is still rare,the organism is now less effective than other bacteria of its class. 50-98 percent less efficient.

The cons outweigh the pros,so it ended up being bad for it.

You: This is why it having a new function is irrelevant,because this new function has arisen from a loss of function,I think I made this quite clear.

Ok? How does having decreased bone density lead to the complexity of life we see today?

If you said it was a stepping stone I would tell you very well,but it isn't even a stepping stone.

I would rather strong bones than being able to do magic tricks with my wrists.

If you were to show me a beneificla mutation where there wasn't corruption,that tradeded on function for another I'd agree with you.

But you're showing me a gain of function via loss of one."My bike is broken now I can use it as s[Edited Out] metal",this doesn't lead to anything.

Even if having thicker bones was 10000000000% better for the organism,if it doesn't lead to new complex systems,then it can't explain the complex system of life we see today.

In order for biological life to be accounted for naturally,stepping stones have to be reached and preserved via natural selection.

The question for all of you is this.

How big is this stepping stone?

If the stepping stone is 50 AA protein,with only working in a specific spot in the genome,do you really expect a random mutation to randomly fall upon the right area of the genome and then work out a sequence like this via frame shift?

The odds are impossible.

This is why many protein scientists have called Darwinist mathematically implausible.

Not to mention that natural selection doesn't work when dealing with extremely small changes,which what will be needed for darwinsim to hold.

If the change is too small (which what will be required),then natural selection will barely select it giving it only a marginal probability increase.

How do you also explain this common problem that no one among the scientific community has addressed yet?

You're 2 engines which run evolution do not seem to work to me.

People do not thrive with broken legs, however this mutation clearly is not analogous to a humans broken leg in the fact that the bacteria are thriving with the mutation.

You insist on this mutation being a detrimental deformation of a previous protein, though it is also a development of new proteins that have a highly valued trait to the organism. The organism still holds its original Dna, and now simply holds the additional series of proteins that allow it to prosper and thrive with new food sources.

Also mutations are not purely random. So i would say no, I don't expect these kinds of mutations to hit very specific areas in the genome at random to produce highly advanced organisms.

You mentioned that if a mutation is too small then how could it be selected for. The same way nylonase has been selected for.

And you said, the cons outweighs the pros. Which clearly isn't true as per the prosperity of the organism.

If the organisms went extinct from having X population, and you said "see, the mutation was detrimental", then it would be ok. But to say the mutation has cons that outweigh pros, and to compare it with a human broken leg, is clearly flawed, and this is demonstrated by the opposite of extinction that has occurred. The mutation has come to dominate a better suited, even more well adapted and prosperous organism.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

People do not thrive with broken legs, however this mutation clearly is not analogous to a humans broken leg in the fact that the bacteria are thriving with the mutation.

People will thrive with broken legs in an environment that causes people with healthy legs to die from walking outside.

You are taking the analogy literally and missing the concept.

No gain of complexity has taken place.

You insist on this mutation being a detrimental deformation of a previous protein, though it is also a development of new proteins that have a highly valued trait to the organism. The organism still holds its original Dna, and now simply holds the additional series of proteins that allow it to prosper and thrive with new food sources.

It doesn't hold the same DNA,the enzyme is mutated and changed.

When you speak,please provide a source for your information. This is for your benefit so you can actually see what the biologists say regarding protein science/DNA/DNA transcription.

Anyways.

The organism lost specificity and ended up breaking down foreign elements detrimental to its metabolism.

It lives yes,but its life compared to a regular functioning bacteria is not comparable.

The bacteria didn't have to break down nylon,it could of spread to another source and if there isn't another source of nutrition for the bacteria then a loss of specificity will cause it to eat detrimental molecules. This is like a human having a breakdown in its central nervous system due to hunger causing him an a food less environment to chow down on detrimental elements.

Except in the case of the enzyme this break down was a permanent mutation and not a minor alteration of the nervous system.

Also mutations are not purely random. So i would say no, I don't expect these kinds of mutations to hit very specific areas in the genome at random to produce highly advanced organisms.

What are you talking about?

What causes cause the mutation to be specific to a certain area of the genome? Whatever this cause of specificity is itself random.

Are you trying to say that the environment causes certain areas of the genome to mutate?

This is physically impossible. This was disproved scientifically as well already decades ago,this is why mutations are called random.

You mentioned that if a mutation is too small then how could it be selected for. The same way nylonase has been selected for.

The nylonase mutation wasn't a small mutation,its entire selection of food was changed.

And you said, the cons outweighs the pros. Which clearly isn't true as per the prosperity of the organism.

The organism didn't prosper,its mutation ended up making it into a bacteria which eats things which are detrimental to its existence decreasing its life span.

Your definition of prosperous is multiplication of bacteria,this isn't the case.

But lets call this prosperous,even if this strand of bacteria made it 100000000000000000000 times more efficient,

its efficiency was still from a source of corruption.

If I break something,it will not lead to order.

Atheists have gone as far to say that sickle cell disease is a good mutation,beautiful logic.

If the organisms went extinct from having X population, and you said "see, the mutation was detrimental", then it would be ok. But to say the mutation has cons that outweigh pros, and to compare it with a human broken leg, is clearly flawed, and this is demonstrated by the opposite of extinction that has occurred.

The bacteria multiplying is irrelevant.

All that happened was a corruption of the enzyme cleft causing it to lose specificity,

this does not lead to life we see today.

If it does prove it ,show me how corruption/loss of specificity leads to life we see today.

Go on.

The mutation has come to dominate a better suited, even more well adapted and prosperous organism.

This is false please correct your source of information,the organism is now 50-88 percent less efficient.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to post
Share on other sites

People will thrive with broken legs in an environment that causes people with healthy legs to die from walking outside.

You are taking the analogy literally and missing the concept.

No gain of complexity has taken place.

There is no such world where people with healthy legs would die. You analogy still isn't adequate.

I will make a new analogy, and you are free to pick it apart. Ok, lets say, we can go back to the wrist bone example. Lets say we live in a world where everyone has dense wrist bones. I can fall on them and walk on them and puts a lot of pressure on them, and they wont break.

Now lets say I duplicated some dna and with that additional dna, mutated thin wrists. Now, I cant walk on my wrists because they will break. Which kind of stinks, I dont like that. But my wrists also allow me, now that they are thin, to twist and so I can do things like...play video games and type on my computer.

All the ladies love my bendable wrists, and even though they break easier than thick ones, I can do many things with them that the ladies love, so my thin wrist gene populates the world and comes to dominate.

Other thick wrist people, didnt simply die, they were out performed. So they disappeared.

And yes, the mutation allows the bacteria to be more efficient (as opposed to incapable) of digesting new food sources, and yes the bacteria is prosperous.

Having thin wrist bones is a corruption of having durable ones, but that really doesnt change anything about the prosperity of the organism.

Realistically, you and I both know, that this mutation led to the evolution of a number of new enzymes. We both know this. All you are really doing is saying that, when this bacteria evolved, it didnt evolve with 100% perfection and no loss of anything.

Which is fine. However, that doesnt somehow change it into something that isnt evolution.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Thank you for the explanations. Since I am not a biologist, I can not make comments any more, but the link below lists a lot of problems with Darwin's theory and it says:"Studies published over the last few years (1990-2004) have demonstrated increasing numbers of problems associated with the theory of evolution. These studies have been done by scientists that believe that the theory of evolution is true":

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

In my opinion, although I dont accept this theory, there is no inconsistency between it (the theory) and believing in God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution relies on aimless, random mutations - mistakes par-say on DNA, to allow new complicated species to come from this.

Logically, it seems in coherent to suggest simple matter can become a 'cell' (scientists are still puzzled with the 'first cell'), and then, through mistakes from their DNA and aim-less mutations, become the complicated life we see now, including conscious breathing humans.

Embroloy - how a baby evolves in the womb, truly confounds many. It is such a complicated an intricate procedure, and one of countless many in nature.

I have a lot more to say, and will do at some point. This debate requires a lot of depth, debate, and true scientific analysis.

Sadly, many schools pass natural selection off as evolution, and don't tell the students about the reality.

I firmly believe - with ongoing research- that evolution is not at all scientific, and fails on many levels.

For argument sake if it were true, it does not negate the existance of God. For one would have to explain the originator of the big bang,

However, the mechanism of evolution in a scientific light, is so improbable(i am being nice) and if one uses logic and scientific findings, they would come to a similar conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Often mutations are considered random, as people are claiming. However, there are occurrences that manipulate how they effect an organism. Aside from natural selection, there are things such as regulatory genes which allow for the alteration of multiple traits. Some genes are more prone to mutation than others. I've read, a number of research papers discussing things such as, areas of mutation being more prone to further mutation as well. These things manipulate how mutations occur, making them, not completely random.

Even though mutations aren't purely random, overall, they do not hold a particular direction of evolutionary interest. For example, an organism may evolve a trait, then evolve to later lose that trait, then evolve to regain that trait, then again evolve to lose it.

Organisms do not evolve in a set direction outside of that which is selected for. And this is more of the reason behind many scientists considering it random. At least in the geology world it is. Maybe the biologists have a different opinion.

And just my opinion, obviously I would not go around chanting this in any laboratory, but...I believe that, as time unfolds, we will come to find more patterns behind mutations, and we will come to better understand more patterns and drivers of them.

But that is just my opinion.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Often many are considered random, as people are claiming. However, there are occurrences that manipulate how they effect an organism. Aside from natural selection, there are things such as regulatory genes which allow for the alteration of multiple traits. Some genes are more prone to mutation than others. I've read, a number of research papers discussing things such as, areas of mutation being more prone to further mutation as well. These things manipulate how mutations occur, making them, not completely random.

Even though mutations aren't purely random, overall, they do not hold a particular direction of evolutionary interest. For example, an organism may evolve a trait, then evolve to later lose that trait, then evolve to regain that trait, then again evolve to lose it.

Organisms do not evolve in a set direction outside of that which is selected for. And this is more of the reason behind many scientists considering it random. At least in the geology world it is. Maybe the biologists have a different opinion.

There are three kinds of mutations: insertion, deletion, frame shift.

My Biology text-book clearly states mutations are random.

Even the best scientists admits, just because an animal 'wills' to move faster or have a longer neck to reach tree's, your DNA does not care whatsoever. DNA is not concious. Infact, mutations are very limited due to DNA trying to protect itself. When a mutation occurs, it can hit any part of the genome.

Random truly means random. Even evolutionists accept this.

Their solution to random , aimless, mistakes leading to complicated intricate DNA is : billions of years to allow the miracles we see around us to exist.

EDIT: i see what you mean regarding one mutation increasing the chance of another one. However, again, the increased chance of the other mutation is still a mutation - a random mistake in DNA. It's still a random, unintelligent disorganization of DNA code.

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three kinds of mutations: insertion, deletion, frame shift.

My Biology text-book clearly states mutations are random.

Even the best scientists admits, just because an animal 'wills' to move faster or have a longer neck to reach tree's, your DNA does not care whatsoever. DNA is not concious. Infact, mutations are very limited due to DNA trying to protect itself. When a mutation occurs, it can hit any part of the genome.

Random truly means random. Even evolutionists accept this.

Their solution to random , aimless, mistakes leading to complicated intricate DNA is : billions of years to allow the miracles we see around us to exist.

There are indeed things which manipulate mutations (aside from natural selection). They are not all purely random. Its not always like blindly throwing a dart at a dart board. Thankfully we have google. Or, if you would like, you can look into regulatory genes, or if you would like I can dig up a paper for you on gene prone mutations.

And I am a scientist, taught by a number of Phds', and I am quoting them and my own personal observation of published research.

I dont mind assisting with looking things up, if you are interested.

It would be more clear to say, they are random in direction, but not always in occurrence.

And, environmental stresses of course. T rex gets big teeth, triceratops gets big horns as a result. Which, I think pomba just described above. Leading to a further compilation of beneficial mutations in the end.

If it were purely random, organisms would mutate at random, and evolve at random. Of course that is not what we see.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your textbook must be 100 level then if you are unfamiliar with what I am saying. I apologize if that sounds offensive :P, but there are indeed things which manipulate mutations. Thankfully we have google. Or, if you would like, you can look into regulatory genes, or if you would like I can dig up a paper for you on gene prone mutations.

And I am a scientist, taught by a number of Phds', and I am quoting them and my own personal observation of published research.

i have edited my post after i re-read your previous paragraph.

Even if a mutation increases the chance of another mutation - the other mutation still is a mutation. That is in definition, a random aimless mistake in DNA.

Many of the features we see around us, come from a complex set of DNA, and not one or two lucky mutations (in a set of billions of possibilities). Each must be perfectly placed, in order to produce a structure.

A mutation allowing a girafe to have a longer neck is not one lucky A replacing a G in one position. It would come from an extremely complex set of mutations, all intricate. I.E the physics and biology of having a long neck, being able to bend it, the muscles, the bone structure, being able to still take in substances. (read on why the exact neck structure of a giraffe allows it to have such a long neck).

It is pleasing to have an academic with a phd on these forums.

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have edited my post after i re-read your previous paragraph.

Even if a mutation increases the chance of another mutation - the other mutation still is a mutation. That is in definition, a random aimless mistake in DNA.

Many of the features we see around us, come from a complex set of DNA, and not one or two lucky mutations (in a set of billions of possibilities). Each must be perfectly placed, in order to produce a structure.

A mutation allowing a girafe to have a longer neck is not one lucky A replacing a G in one position. It would come from an extremely complex set of mutations, all intricate. I.E the physics and biology of having a long neck, being able to bend it, the muscles, the bone structure, being able to still take in substances. (read on why the exact neck structure of a giraffe allows it to have such a long neck).

It is pleasing to have an academic with a phd on these forums.

Thats true, pardon my first comment there.

What it means is, one moment...I am not a Phd, I was referring to my professors.

Being able to have groupings and sets of mutations, altering together and with succession, means that you can have a mutation effect a certain area of the body, with more effectiveness than...pure random, individual alterations.

And ill just add on. If we have a population of organisms. All mutating throughout their lives and having their offspring gather mutations, over the span of millions of years. I would say, you have a high probability of having organisms altering traits over time.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true, pardon my first comment there.

What it means is, one moment...I am not a Phd, I was referring to my professors.

Being able to have groupings and sets of mutations, altering together and with succession, means that you can have a mutation effect a certain area of the body, with more effectiveness than...pure random, individual alterations.

This is interesting. Are all mutations group mutations? I will certainly look into this.

If all mutations are not like this, then it would make little difference. By this i mean that as every structure contains a set of complex DNA to code for it, however, if all structures do not contain mutations which give rise to other mutations for a different part of that structure, then it will be of little merit.

Further more, the fact that it gives a mutation in another structure of that area does not entirely solve any problems. The heart contains a complex set of DNA to precisely code it. The areas around the heart also contain a complex set of DNA to precisely accommodate the heart.

A mutation in the heart may need to be counter balanced by mutations everywhere else to accommodate the changed heart, in the rarity that the heart 'evolves'.(this isn't scientific).

Never the less, i will look into this. Is there a special name for these kinds of mutations ,that i may read more?

thank you.

There are indeed things which manipulate mutations (aside from natural selection). They are not all purely random. Its not always like blindly throwing a dart at a dart board. Thankfully we have google. Or, if you would like, you can look into regulatory genes, or if you would like I can dig up a paper for you on gene prone mutations.

And I am a scientist, taught by a number of Phds', and I am quoting them and my own personal observation of published research.

I dont mind assisting with looking things up, if you are interested.

It would be more clear to say, they are random in direction, but not always in occurrence.

And, environmental stresses of course. T rex gets big teeth, triceratops gets big horns as a result. Which, I think pomba just described above. Leading to a further compilation of beneficial mutations in the end.

If it were purely random, organisms would mutate at random, and evolve at random. Of course that is not what we see.

i am always open to reading new material, thank you for the offer.

Mutations are on whole, aimless and random. Natural selection is not , however. My argument comes before the law of natural selection, in that mutations can not be a logical and scientific mechanism itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting. Are all mutations group mutations? I will certainly look into this.

If all mutations are not like this, then it would make little difference. By this i mean that as every structure contains a set of complex DNA to code for it, however, if all structures do not contain mutations which give rise to other mutations for a different part of that structure, then it will be of little merit.

Further more, the fact that it gives a mutation in another structure of that area does not entirely solve any problems. The heart contains a complex set of DNA to precisely code it. The areas around the heart also contain a complex set of DNA to precisely accommodate the heart.

A mutation in the heart may need to be counter balanced by mutations everywhere else to accommodate the changed heart, in the rarity that the heart 'evolves'.(this isn't scientific).

Never the less, i will look into this. Is there a special name for these kinds of mutations ,that i may read more?

thank you.

I never said all mutations were grouped mutations. I dont think I did :P.

And the heart, is absolutely, very complex. However, our heart, is the product of...hundreds of millions of years worth of massive populations all mutating at once too. Primitive and ancient organisms have had less efficient organs. Presumably, if we did come from a common ancestor, for example, a common species of tetra pod. One individual tetrapod species out of...thousands and thousands of species of populations, would be the successor, and these populations collectively would amass countless mutations.

Even if mutations were purely random and individual, it could still be argued, that organisms would "drift" with time. Just because of the sheer number of total mutations amongst life as a whole.

And most scientists would agree that genetic drift occurs.

And I dont want to argue over anything, nor do I want to mislead you into thinking im an expert. But, yea, thats just the way it is.

And this is, normally what I would turn to, even if I didnt have a response for your commentary.

We know organisms evolve. We are certain. People do debate on how this occurs, there is no doubt about that. But even if scientists debate on how mammals evolved from reptiles. We still all acknowledge that it happened.

Most biologists are going to talk about random mutations, but there are people I am sure as we speak, working to disprove that, and realistically, who knows what will be found. How many years have genetic evolutionary development studies even been going on? Evolution has been around for hundreds of years in academics, but in regards to ground breaking studies in genetics, it isnt that old.

edit edit

One more thing ill add though. And this is significant. There are, series of random walks amongst fossil successions.

Organisms, and this best with invertebrates, sea brachiopods n such. You can see them, grow and shrink and grow and shrink, or proportions alter back and forth over millions of years.

This demonstrates that, as organisms evolve over time, they dont appear to be evolving in a specific direction. Like, clams wouldnt directly evolve into advanced swimmers. They alter with the environment. Alter with diet, nutrients, temperatures, oxygen supply etc.. Oxygen supply is a big one.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said all mutations were grouped mutations. I dont think I did :P.

And the heart, is absolutely, very complex. However, our heart, is the product of...hundreds of millions of years worth of massive populations all mutating at once too. Primitive and ancient organisms have had less efficient organs.

And I dont want to argue over anything, nor do I want to mislead you into thinking im an expert. But, yea, thats just the way it is.

And this is, normally what I would turn to, even if I didnt have a response for your commentary.

We know organisms evolve. We are certain. People do debate on how this occurs, there is no doubt about that. But even if scientists debate on how mammals evolved from reptiles. We still all acknowledge that it happened.

Most biologists are going to talk about random mutations, but there are people I am sure as we speak, working to disprove that, and realistically, who knows what will be found. How many years have genetic evolutionary development studies even been going on? Evolution has been around for hundreds of years in academics, but in regards to ground breaking studies in genetics, it isnt that old.

Ofcourse, this is just a healthy debate.

I did not infer you said all mutations were grouped ones, but explored the scenarios of the significance of group mutations.

I disagree with the statement in bold. MACROEVOLUTION, the one darwin proposed , is not scientific fact or close to it.There is only speculation and debate. The theory of evolution is less validated than you seem to think, with regards to what i have made in bold. Only those who believe in the theory of evolution, then try to make links between the different living organisms they see.

Missing links, on top of the challenge DNA brings to evolution, both provide arguments against it. Darwin himself says in his book ' if my theory were to be correct, innumerable missing links would need to be found in the earths crust'. There has not been any.

There are many scientists who propose proofs against this theory.

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse, this is just a healthy debate.

I did not infer you said all mutations were grouped ones, but explored the scenarios of the significance of group mutations.

I disagree with the statement in bold. MACROEVOLUTION, the one darwin proposed , is not scientific fact or close to it.There is only speculation and debate. The theory of evolution is less validated than you seem to think, with regards to what i have made in bold. Only those who believe in the theory of evolution, then try to make links between the different living organisms they see.

Missing links, on top of the challenge DNA brings to evolution, both provide arguments against it. Darwin himself says in his book ' if my theory were to be correct, innumerable missing links would need to be found in the earths crust'. There has not been any.

There are many scientists who propose proofs against this theory.

ty, I've been trying not to get irate lately :P.

the reptile to mammal transition is arguably the most well documented, and even stark creationists, at least some of them, would agree.

If you would like, I can show you some. And I am a geologist, and I have presented my own paleontological research before. I do know a bit about it.

/me needs to quit wasting time here...

Ill have to read your posts slower and alter how I respond too. I see you aren't an aggressor like some others, so I shouldn't be either.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In science, random = unpredictable. Not metaphysically random.

It's all chemical reactions, electromagnetic interactions at heart, and all this is ultimately deterministic, lawful.

If one wants to see "missing links," visit a natural science museum. They're full of "missing links." Every species represents a middle point between one species and another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such world where people with healthy legs would die. You analogy still isn't adequate.

You missed my point entirely and failed to understand the concept of the analogy.

You are taking the analogy literally and missing the point.

Breakdown of specificity does not lead to life we see today even if apparent good comes out of it.

I will make a new analogy, and you are free to pick it apart. Ok, lets say, we can go back to the wrist bone example. Lets say we live in a world where everyone has dense wrist bones. I can fall on them and walk on them and puts a lot of pressure on them, and they wont break.

Now lets say I duplicated some dna and with that additional dna, mutated thin wrists. Now, I cant walk on my wrists because they will break. Which kind of stinks, I dont like that. But my wrists also allow me, now that they are thin, to twist and so I can do things like...play video games and type on my computer.

Am I supposed to take this analogy seriously?

Are you suggesting to me that dense bones which do not break are not as good as thin bones which allow you to play video games better?

All the ladies love my bendable wrists, and even though they break easier than thick ones, I can do many things with them that the ladies love, so my thin wrist gene populates the world and comes to dominate.

Are you joking?

Other thick wrist people, didnt simply die, they were out performed. So they disappeared.

Lol.

So you're saying that a mutation occurred where ladies loved your magic tricks due to your thin wrists and thus people with thin wrists have more babies from women?

Such beautiful logic how can I defeat such syllogistic thinking.

And yes, the mutation allows the bacteria to be more efficient (as opposed to incapable) of digesting new food sources, and yes the bacteria is prosperous.

The mutation was a breakdown of the enzyme,again I challenge you with the same challenge,

show me how this leads to life we see today (complex interacting protein parts).

Having thin wrist bones is a corruption of having durable ones, but that really doesnt change anything about the prosperity of the organism.

A bone becoming thinner will never lead to anything good,your analogy is deeply flawed.

In ANY realistic environment thin bones are bad for us.

In your fairy tale pipe dream where thin bones allow you to do magic tricks to get girls and reproduce more,this analogy doesn't even have a plausible concept.

The analogy where legs are being broken is indeed not realistic,but none the less its concept proves a point.

Realistically, you and I both know, that this mutation led to the evolution of a number of new enzymes. We both know this. All you are really doing is saying that, when this bacteria evolved, it didnt evolve with 100% perfection and no loss of anything.

You are playing on words.

Again show me how complex interacting protein parts came out from this corruption.

Often mutations are considered random, as people are claiming. However, there are occurrences that manipulate how they effect an organism. Aside from natural selection, there are things such as regulatory genes which allow for the alteration of multiple traits.

Regulatory genes activate and deactivate certain genes,this has nothing to do with mutations.

If any mutations comes out via regulatory genes(I don't see how) this in itself would still be random.

To suggest that random occurrences are in reality guided by an invisible force is reality is to be walking away from logic,a concept which you claim to follow.

Some genes are more prone to mutation than others. I've read, a number of research papers discussing things such as, areas of mutation being more prone to further mutation as well. These things manipulate how mutations occur, making them, not completely random.

This is correct however the genes which are more prone to mutations are themselves randomly chosen from circumstances.

This cause is also random and has nothing to do with helping the organism towards goodness,infact increase in mutation rates is bad for the organism not good.

Because too much of a mutation rate will cause problems,too little will not help,there must be a balance.

Even though mutations aren't purely random, overall, they do not hold a particular direction of evolutionary interest. For example, an organism may evolve a trait, then evolve to later lose that trait, then evolve to regain that trait, then again evolve to lose it.

Random mutations are random,stop trying to play this card it isn't working out for you.

Organisms do not evolve in a set direction outside of that which is selected for. And this is more of the reason behind many scientists considering it random. At least in the geology world it is. Maybe the biologists have a different opinion.

And just my opinion, obviously I would not go around chanting this in any laboratory, but...I believe that, as time unfolds, we will come to find more patterns behind mutations, and we will come to better understand more patterns and drivers of them.

But that is just my opinion.

I'm sorry but I don't deal with opinions and personal subjective suspicions.

If you want to hold a belief which is contrary to logic and reason just to disbelieve in god,go ahead.

Thats true, pardon my first comment there.

What it means is, one moment...I am not a Phd, I was referring to my professors.

Being able to have groupings and sets of mutations, altering together and with succession, means that you can have a mutation effect a certain area of the body, with more effectiveness than...pure random, individual alterations.

And ill just add on. If we have a population of organisms. All mutating throughout their lives and having their offspring gather mutations, over the span of millions of years. I would say, you have a high probability of having organisms altering traits over time.

Belial you're failing to understand that there is nothing which will cause a certain gene to mutate more than other genes,if there is a cause,this cause itself is circumstantial and random.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said all mutations were grouped mutations. I dont think I did :P.

I hope you don't.

And the heart, is absolutely, very complex. However, our heart, is the product of...hundreds of millions of years worth of massive populations all mutating at once too. Primitive and ancient organisms have had less efficient organs. Presumably, if we did come from a common ancestor, for example, a common species of tetra pod. One individual tetrapod species out of...thousands and thousands of species of populations, would be the successor, and these populations collectively would amass countless mutations.

Random variation and natural selection does not lead to macro evolution,many biologists are starting to abandon this idea now which I will show in a medical journal.

Even if mutations were purely random and individual, it could still be argued, that organisms would "drift" with time. Just because of the sheer number of total mutations amongst life as a whole.

And most scientists would agree that genetic drift occurs.

And I dont want to argue over anything, nor do I want to mislead you into thinking im an expert. But, yea, thats just the way it is.

Genetic drifts of what? Genetic drifts of which genes? Where did these genes come from which are drifting?

And this is, normally what I would turn to, even if I didnt have a response for your commentary.

We know organisms evolve. We are certain. People do debate on how this occurs, there is no doubt about that. But even if scientists debate on how mammals evolved from reptiles. We still all acknowledge that it happened.

Organisms may adapt,but to say that random mutations/natural selection can turn a bacteria into a human is yet to be proven from the atheist/naturalist camp.

Most biologists are going to talk about random mutations, but there are people I am sure as we speak, working to disprove that, and realistically, who knows what will be found. How many years have genetic evolutionary development studies even been going on? Evolution has been around for hundreds of years in academics, but in regards to ground breaking studies in genetics, it isnt that old.

Common atheist tactic "we don't know maybe some day we will".

This is basically a surrender.

One more thing ill add though. And this is significant. There are, series of random walks amongst fossil successions.

Organisms, and this best with invertebrates, sea brachiopods n such. You can see them, grow and shrink and grow and shrink, or proportions alter back and forth over millions of years.

This demonstrates that, as organisms evolve over time, they dont appear to be evolving in a specific direction. Like, clams wouldnt directly evolve into advanced swimmers. They alter with the environment. Alter with diet, nutrients, temperatures, oxygen supply etc.. Oxygen supply is a big one.

The current fossil record contradicts evolution and this has been stated by many paleontologists.

Most of these records are biased constructed based upon biased chosen dates via radiometric dating.

Atheists now abandoning random mutation/natural selection theory.

Medical journal: http://jb.asm.org/co...82/11/2993.full

Journal of bacteriology.

This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating “The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by ‘chance’ and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye.”

As pointed out by Oparin (79), it is inconceivable that a self-reproducing unit as complicated as a nucleoprotein could suddenly arise by chance; a period of evolution through the natural selection of organic substances of ever-increasing degrees of complexity must intervene.

End quote.

Atheist are now trying to find mechanisms such as the environment causing bacteria to starve and causing their duplicated DNA to mutate more because they are transcribed more under energy depleted environments causing more mistakes(mutations).

I quote.

"A number of events initiated by carbon source starvation can facilitate the evolution of a new catabolic pathway. Under these circumstances, cells with gene duplication and higher enzyme levels have a selective advantage (87, 95). In some systems, duplicated segments are specifically subject to higher mutation rates (93), providing ideal and expendable material for mutations representing minor modifications of existing genes (58):

End quote.

What is not mentioned however is that these selected genes being mutated are still randomly mutated,and are still randomly existing as a duplicated gene under random circumstances.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Evolution relies on aimless, random mutations - mistakes par-say on DNA, to allow new complicated species to come from this.

It's not so much the mutations that’s the key, it’s the selection of these mutations. Why do you think you hear the phrase natural selection thrown around so much?

Random mutations do happen all the time, this is true. However, most mutations are either disadvantageous or what we could term "neutral".

From an educational perspective, i do not think it’s good to think of them as mutations. People start imagining mutant-superhero like creatures. It's much better to think of them in terms of variations. Look amongst your friends, you are clearly varied, you can tell this even on a superficial level from appearance. You do not really need to think about the molecular mechanisms or DNA much to have a grasp of evolution and seeing as you are still learning; I would just focus on thinking of it in terms of variation.

Logically, it seems in coherent to suggest simple matter can become a 'cell' (scientists are still puzzled with the 'first cell'), and then, through mistakes from their DNA and aim-less mutations, become the complicated life we see now, including conscious breathing humans.

Evolution deals with variation and progression of life once it was already here. Abiogenesis deals with the actual origin of life, evolution does not.

Just like the big bang deals with the unfolding or evolution of the early universe but doesn't necessarily have much to do with an origin.

I firmly believe - with ongoing research- that evolution is not at all scientific, and fails on many levels.

You're making this sound like a high-school debate. I will be brutally honest, mate, it doesn't matter what you believe. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own truth. This isn't how science works. It is not like the humanities were you have two opposing sides and each are supposedly valid. A lot of the issues we see here are a result of a lot of people applying their humanities based education to science. Even then, you don't get people in a history class asking for balance between the idea the holocaust did happen and the fabrication that it didn't.

I am a scientist and honestly, it has been proven beyond a shred of a doubt. We have thousands of academics working on this for many, many years now. The evidence is insurmountable. There are theories much well less proven than evolution and yet you don't go after those do you, it’s only because you have an agenda. So much for being impartial and scientific, hey?

Again, thousands of people much well versed in it than you have been working on it for decades upon decades and it is your belief that you have suddenly found the fatal flaw that all these people missed and that you know oh so much about it? Quick, someone get Stockholm on the phone, this guy deserves a Nobel prize.

For argument sake if it were true, it does not negate the existence of God. For one would have to explain the originator of the big bang,

Again, you're crossing fields. Either we discuss science or theology but don't confuse them into the same sentence. You have to make your choice before you can continue this discussion. Biologists don't meet in some castle in eastern europe and scheme up a plan to turn everyone into an atheist with evolution. Science isn't atheistic, it isn't theistic either. It's secular. Religion or lack thereof doesn't even enter the equation nor should it. Many religious people (including the many i went through university with on a personal basis) seem to have no problem with it. The catholic church actually accepts evolution as well (if you don't believe me you can check yourself). A little quote perhaps:

"In addition, while he was the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism."

Even if a mutation increases the chance of another mutation - the other mutation still is a mutation. That is in definition, a random aimless mistake in DNA.

Again, in terms of grasping evolution, you don't really need to think of the molecular mechanisms at this time. Thinking of it in terms of variation, at your stage of knowledge, it much more useful. It's also quite clear you're either in highschool or perhaps your first year of university. They tend mix all kinds of fields into a subject and call it "biology". I'd wager highschool.

A mutation allowing a girafe to have a longer neck is not one lucky A replacing a G in one position. It would come from an extremely complex set of mutations, all intricate. I.E the physics and biology of having a long neck, being able to bend it, the muscles, the bone structure, being able to still take in substances. (read on why the exact neck structure of a giraffe allows it to have such a long neck).

Again, your lack of understanding is quite clear here. It's not like a bunch of giraffes suddenly woke up one day with longer nexts. It took a long time, we're talking thousands...hundreds of thousands...millions of years here.

Think of natural variation.

I have a bunch of lemon trees in my yard. The trees all produce lemons of varying quality and juiciness. I choose the one with the juciest lemons and plant those seeds only. In the next generation i do it again, and again...and again...untill i have really juicy lemons.

Again, its quite uncontroversial those things can happen. We've bred dogs ranging from tiny poodles up to huge afghan hounds. We used a mechanism much similar to what i showed you with the lemon tree. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years with livestock and crops. That is artificial selection or us forcing the hand of nature. Natural selection is selection by naturalistic means (eg. only the fastest zebra's survive, so, the next generation is populated with slightly faster zebra's).

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE VARIATION, IT SELECTS FOR VARIATION ALREADY PRESENT.

This is key.

Those giraffes did not evolve long necks, they already had long necks to begin with. It's just that long necks were seleced for, just like my case of the zebras. Perhaps a long neck allows you to reach the leaves ontop of the tree the others cant reach. All those with tiny necks could starve or be unhealthy not producing any or many children. The ones who could get the most food would reproduce more, and pass on those genes, so, in the next generation, we see more giraffes with long necks.

Again: EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE VARIATION, IT SELECTS FOR VARIATION ALREADY PRESENT.

Those giraffes did not evolve long necks to reach the leaves, they already had long necks, it was just selected for. It seems like your version of evolution is tinged with the pre-darwinin, outdated idea of "lemarckian evolution" rather than darwinian evolution. I believe your problems with evolution stem from a lack of understanding the idea more than anything. I will supply you with some threads and material when i find the time, if i take too long perhaps remind me, however, here is a decent dialogue - http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234997020-evolution-and-islam/ which i really encourage you to read.

-------------------------

Finally, to quote George Rey:

3.5 Detail Resistance: This continual revision and adjustment of ordinary beliefs is related to the multifarious ways we noted earlier (§2.4) that they are interconnected, any one of them having logical or evidential relations to indefinite numbers of the others. For example, beliefs about whether O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole are connected to beliefs about cars, freeways, airports, police, DNA –which in turn connects them to beliefs about cities, governments, history and even cosmology. And one expects there to be in this way indefinite numbers of details that could be filled out in regard to these connections. If doubts are raised about the details, they can rebound to any one of the connected beliefs: thus, evidence against a particular theory of DNA would have given jurors less reason to believe that O.J. was at the scene of the crime. And if someone were to suggest that some third party murdered Nicole, then one would expect there to be further details –e.g., further fingerprints, DNA– that would serve as crucial evidence. If there were no such details, one would be (as many were) reasonably sceptical: again, as everyone knows, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

By contrast, literally understood, religious claims are oddly detail-resistant. Perhaps the most dramatic cases are the claims about creation. Whereas scientists regularly ask about the details of the “Big Bang” --there is an entire book, for example, about what happened in the first three minutes (see Weinberg 1977)-- it seems perfectly silly to inquire into similar details of just how God did it. Just how did his saying, “Let there be light,” actually bring about light? How did He “say” anything at all (does He have a tongue)? Or, if He merely “designed” the world or the species in it, how did He do this (are there blueprints of the individual particles/ animals)? Was it just the quarks, the DNA, or the whole body? Or just some general directives that were executed by some angelic contractors? At what specific point does He --could He possibly-- intervene in the natural course of events without causing utter havoc? Does anyone really think there is some set of truths answering these questions? Perhaps; but it is striking how there is nothing like the systematic research on them, in anything like the way that there is massive, on-going systematic research into the indefinitely subtle details of biology, physics and cosmology. As Kitcher (1982:ch 5) points out, even so-called Creation Science” is concerned only with resisting evolutionary biology, not with seriously investigating any of the massive details that would be required for the Creation story actually to be confirmed. And even for those who regard evolution as simply the manner of God’s creation, there still is (so far as I know) not the slightest interest in investigating, say, radio-isotopes, sedimentary layers and the fossil record to establish precisely how, when and where God had any role whatsoever in the creation of atoms, compounds, amino acids, DNA and so forth that are manifestly required for the development of life, consciousness and intelligent capacities. Despite what they claim, theists in fact treat Him as an idle wheel that does no serious explanatory work.

Of course, theologians do discuss details. As I confessed from the start, I’m not a scholar of theology. However, I’m willing to wager that few of the details they discuss are of the evidential sort that we ordinarily expect of ordinary claims about the world, i.e. claims that link the theological to crucial data that would be better explained by the theological than by any competing hypothesis (as I noted earlier, rendering theistic claims compatible with the rest of one’s beliefs is not the same as rendering them confirmed). Mere elaborations of the theological stories without confirmation –mere stories about “angels on the head of a pin”– don’t constitute such details. If there really are serious attempts to narrow down the etails of God’s activities by, e.g., reference to the fossil record, or systematic studies of the effects ofprayer, then I stand corrected. But I’d also wager that most “believers” would find such efforts silly, perhaps even “sacrilegious.”

Some of this resistance to detail could, of course, be attributed to intellectual sloth. But not all of it. After all, if the religious stories really were true, an incredible lot would depend upon getting the details right (for many religious people, if you believe the wrong story, you could risk winding up in hell forever!). wever, when I ask “believers” these kinds of questions of detail, I am invariably met with incredulity that I even think they’re relevant.

I find there are three standard reactions: people either insist that the claims are not to be understood literally (in which case, fine: they are not literally believed); or they appeal to “mystery” (to which I will return shortly); but more often they simply giggle or make some other indication that I can’t possibly be asking these questions seriously. The questions are regarded as somehow inappropriate. I have never encountered the kind of response that would be elicited by questions about how , e.g., O.J. got to the airport in time, or about just how big the Bang was. To these latter questions, people will, of course, usually find the question relevant, and maybe even interesting. They might not know the answer, and perhaps not particularly care to find out: but they appreciate its pertinence and assume there is some intelligible way of finding out –and that, if there’s not, or the answer came out wrong, then that would be a reason to doubt the purported event actually occurred.

--------------------------------

Common atheist tactic "we don't know maybe some day we will".

This is basically a surrender.

Hello Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz (is there a shorter version of your name that i may use?),

I was wondering if you could explain in detail how God created us then.

I've avoided entering into a dialogue with you thus far because it seems like iSilurians fight and you two have filled quite the volume of pages. I'm not even sure how you two find the time, hopefully you still all have jobs or are going to school. Sadly, i don't think i have the time to do a back and forth like you and Belial did but i would like an answer to this.

I would also very much like it if you took into consideration the passage by George Rey above.

Thank you.

Edited by kingpomba
Link to post
Share on other sites

ty, I've been trying not to get irate lately :P.

the reptile to mammal transition is arguably the most well documented, and even stark creationists, at least some of them, would agree.

If you would like, I can show you some. And I am a geologist, and I have presented my own paleontological research before. I do know a bit about it.

/me needs to quit wasting time here...

Ill have to read your posts slower and alter how I respond too. I see you aren't an aggressor like some others, so I shouldn't be either.

As a muslim i must be open minded. There is no point in being aggressive, neither of us will benefit or gain. We both want the truth, and what is logical.

I would be willing to view your research on missing links.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much the mutations that’s the key, it’s the selection of these mutations. Why do you think you hear the phrase natural selection thrown around so much?

No stepping stone,nothing to be selected.

If your stepping stone is random variation,then you will not achieve the minimum stepping stone required (a single gene,or beneficial variation of a single gene).

Natural selection was also doubted by many early evolutionists/mathematicians,including the ones that presented it to the American public after 1940. Of course this was government funded to support a new modern secular American state.

Here is one example of their doubts.

Please read carefully

According to the darwin model,slight changes(random variation) are preserved by natural selection.

The problem is these slight changes only increase the fitness of the organism marginally and thus its probability of being preserved is also increase marginally. So basically we have an anamoloy who is probably going to die before he gives off his trait or his offspring will due to the fact that he is still on par with the other organisms in his gene pool.

This can be shown mathematically too if you want.

For example our species population is 10,000.

Each has a 25% chance of living on,with 1 anomaly have 25.01 percent chance.

The difference is negligible.

Random mutations do happen all the time, this is true. However, most mutations are either disadvantageous or what we could term "neutral".

I agree.

From an educational perspective, i do not think it’s good to think of them as mutations. People start imagining mutant-superhero like creatures. It's much better to think of them in terms of variations. Look amongst your friends, you are clearly varied, you can tell this even on a superficial level from appearance. You do not really need to think about the molecular mechanisms or DNA much to have a grasp of evolution and seeing as you are still learning; I would just focus on thinking of it in terms of variation.

You sound like a christian trying to defend the terms used in his religion,why not call it what it is?

Evolution deals with variation and progression of life once it was already here. Abiogenesis deals with the actual origin of life, evolution does not.

Evolution deals with both currently,especially in the new models of abiogenesis (which all have failed to date btw).

Just like the big bang deals with the unfolding or evolution of the early universe but doesn't necessarily have much to do with an origin.

No big bang,no us. No abiogenesis,no evolution. I would think that it is important...

I am a scientist and honestly, it has been proven beyond a shred of a doubt. We have thousands of academics working on this for many, many years now. The evidence is insurmountable. There are theories much well less proven than evolution and yet you don't go after those do you, it’s only because you have an agenda. So much for being impartial and scientific, hey?

Do you know how many scientists I have debated and they admitted they can't answer my objections?

Every single one.

What makes you think that numbers proves anything?

Scientists belong to a certain school of thought and will operate under that school of thought it has nothing to do with truth.

Again, thousands of people much well versed in it than you have been working on it for decades upon decades and it is your belief that you have suddenly found the fatal flaw that all these people missed and that you know oh so much about it? Quick, someone get Stockholm on the phone, this guy deserves a Nobel prize.

Any human being can use logic,and can apply this logic upon any science if he understands the functioning and inner workings of a theory.

You do not have to be a scientist to fully understand the model and working parts of the theory,thus our logic can be applied allowing us to argue or agree.

There are many scientists who are also against the theory.

And as I said numbers in this case means nothing,as Darwinism isn't just a theory,it is a secular ideology currently supported by the government.

Again, you're crossing fields. Either we discuss science or theology but don't confuse them into the same sentence. You have to make your choice before you can continue this discussion. Biologists don't meet in some castle in eastern europe and scheme up a plan to turn everyone into an atheist with evolution. Science isn't atheistic, it isn't theistic either. It's secular. Religion or lack thereof doesn't even enter the equation nor should it. Many religious people (including the many i went through university with on a personal basis) seem to have no problem with it. The catholic church actually accepts evolution as well (if you don't believe me you can check yourself). A little quote perhaps:

"In addition, while he was the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism."

Catholics accepting evolution is irrelevant,we have been debating and calling Catholics illogical before your ideology even existed.

And please don't complain that religious people are talking about biology,don't forget who the pioneers of chemistry actually is.

It was the Muslims who pioneered most if not all your sciences.

Again, in terms of grasping evolution, you don't really need to think of the molecular mechanisms at this time. Thinking of it in terms of variation, at your stage of knowledge, it much more useful. It's also quite clear you're either in highschool or perhaps your first year of university. They tend mix all kinds of fields into a subject and call it "biology". I'd wager highschool.

You're basically telling to him accept the theory on simple presentation,you're sounding more and more like a preacher to some kind of atheistic darwin cult.

Again, your lack of understanding is quite clear here. It's not like a bunch of giraffes suddenly woke up one day with longer nexts. It took a long time, we're talking thousands...hundreds of thousands...millions of years here.

I think you are more lost than him, at least he doesn't believe in the non-sense you do with all due respect.

Think of natural variation.

Nice term.

I have a bunch of lemon trees in my yard. The trees all produce lemons of varying quality and juiciness. I choose the one with the juciest lemons and plant those seeds only. In the next generation i do it again, and again...and again...untill i have really juicy lemons.

How is a living,thinking,intelligent agent guiding this selection process and breeding them?

Again, its quite uncontroversial those things can happen. We've bred dogs ranging from tiny poodles up to huge afghan hounds. We used a mechanism much similar to what i showed you with the lemon tree. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years with livestock and crops. That is artificial selection or us forcing the hand of nature. Natural selection is selection by naturalistic means (eg. only the fastest zebra's survive, so, the next generation is populated with slightly faster zebra's).

You're confusing breeding/farming with natural selection.

Humans causing it isn't natural selection.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE VARIATION, IT SELECTS FOR VARIATION ALREADY PRESENT.

This is key.

facepalm.jpg

If Evolution does not create variation,then what/who does?

Those giraffes did not evolve long necks, they already had long necks to begin with. It's just that long necks were seleced for, just like my case of the zebras. Perhaps a long neck allows you to reach the leaves ontop of the tree the others cant reach. All those with tiny necks could starve or be unhealthy not producing any or many children. The ones who could get the most food would reproduce more, and pass on those genes, so, in the next generation, we see more giraffes with long necks.

Giraffes didn't evolve long necks? What? Are you sure you're an evolutionist?

Whats going on?

:P

Again: EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE VARIATION, IT SELECTS FOR VARIATION ALREADY PRESENT.

Those giraffes did not evolve long necks to reach the leaves, they already had long necks, it was just selected for. It seems like your version of evolution is tinged with the pre-darwinin, outdated idea of "lemarckian evolution" rather than darwinian evolution. I believe your problems with evolution stem from a lack of understanding the idea more than anything. I will supply you with some threads and material when i find the time, if i take too long perhaps remind me, however, here is a decent dialogue - http://www.shiachat....tion-and-islam/ which i really encourage you to read.

I posted why natural selection is flawed in my above post.

Hello Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz (is there a shorter version of your name that i may use?),

I was wondering if you could explain in detail how God created us then.

Sure ,first tell me what created you.

You don't even know what created you,your scientists can't even figure out a proper origination model (abiogenesis).

If you don't even know what entity/process created you,then how can you know the how?

I've avoided entering into a dialogue with you thus far because it seems like iSilurians fight and you two have filled quite the volume of pages. I'm not even sure how you two find the time, hopefully you still all have jobs or are going to school. Sadly, i don't think i have the time to do a back and forth like you and Belial did but i would like an answer to this.

ok....

I would also very much like it if you took into consideration the passage by George Rey above.

It was garbage.

Thank you

You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a muslim i must be open minded. There is no point in being aggressive, neither of us will benefit or gain. We both want the truth, and what is logical.

I would be willing to view your research on missing links.

Sure. Now, I dont consider my research to be on missing links. I dont consider missing links to exist.

I believe it was khadim who said earlier, if you would like to see missing links, just go to a museum. Because all fossils are "missing links".

If life evolves in a succession over time, then any and every fossil could be considered a "missing link".

/me tries to keep track of his kitten while typing.

Something like...an amphibian for example. Isnt commonly considered a "missing link", however, they are a bridge between reptiles and fish. And even a person who isnt familiar with any succession, could see that something like a salamander, looks like a cross between an iguana (lizard) and an eel (fish).

And obviously, an iguana and eel are just off the top of my head. A raptor, looks like a cross between a...basic theropod, and...a lightly feathered bird.

archy-bambirunFFF-resize.jpg

So, even before looking into any of this. It is, fairly easy to take notice of. And so...and, before I jump too far ahead. I was taught about the earth as a geologist, not a biologist, so I understood things about the earth, prior to seeing the fossils within them. I was never taught about evolution in my early studies, but I could see that it was true, simply because, every time I went out to go play in the dirt, the fossils were right there looking back at me.

But once i had recognized the succession, it was really only then that I bothered to see what biologists had to say about it. And, of course they were already way ahead of me and had been talking about it for the past 200 years.

But once we understand the succession, then accepting evolution is fairly easy to do.

I could talk about my own personal research, or we could talk about the generic research you hear about on tv. Let me know which you may be interested in. My research was on ancient invertebrates.

The main thing to recognize is just that...there is a succession of fossils.

Once you see the succession, then nothing else really matters. Its fairly straight forward.

As an example, if mammals supposedly evolved from reptiles, then they should reside in younger aged rocks. (And they do.)

And you can apply this to just about any animal that has existed in the past 600 million years.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is...

http://www.shiachat....e-of-the-earth/

Check that out. It gives some fundamentals, and with those, understood, I can expand if necessary.

Let me know when you are ready to move on.

i will look into this.

i am only allowed one post until 03.01 am, so will edit everything onto this post.

EDIT:(having read the whole post) i am familiar with different layers on the earths crust pertaining to different time periods, and that the age of the earth is probably billions of years, so i am ready to move on.

EDIT: even though we have phylogenetic tree's or we group things according to how they look, it still is not enough to assume one species is evolved from another.

Birds from reptiles is an example often used. Think of it this way, reptiles have no wings. Birds do. It would be illogical to assume a creature has 'half' a wing. A whole wing does not develop right away. If such a transition existed, we would have in-numeral amounts of fossils showing creatures with half-formed features.

These half formed features would be of no use and probably a liability to the animal.

Furthermore, wings are extremely complicated 'machines'. They rely on a specific skeleton system, weight, and an intricate set of dynamics. Even if an organism (for the sake of this argument) evolved to grow wings , it would not happen over night according to evolutionists. This means millions of years from a half mishapen wing leading onto an actual wing. (make that billions). Why do we not have innumerable fossils documenting this? (i am not using my argument of DNA and the improbability of such a mutation occuring).

The argument i have heard in my text-book is fossils are prone to destruction and only made under specific circumstances, as bone degrades. Think of it this way, imagine a creature with wings which can almost take flight - but it can not! This would be a clear disadvantage to its' survival because it almost adapted for flight but not fully for land. (although, in light of DNA, the complexity of wings and how they work, mutations, evidences ect, we don't need to consider it, but for the purpose of the debate, lets.

EDIT:

regarding my point on organisms that are almost adapted to flying but can not fly, it is fair that you have brought up birds that can not fly. However, penguins have bodies perfectly suited to the artic. their 'wings' are used for sliding. Ostriches have long legs and necks for running, and i am sure their wings have a use.

however, if you take an actual bird that flies. I.E an eagle, and try imagining an ancestor of the eagle, which Almost could fly like the eagle, but did not? Could an eagle survive with almost formed wings? The eagle relies on it's flight to survive, as do other birds.

penguins do not have the bone structure needed for flight, and neither do ostriches. Their bone structure is perfect for the lands they live in. But imagine a creature with the bone structure for flight, losing it's claws for wings, it's scales for feathers, but not being able to fly? That is just like a bird which can not fly. Surely an organism better adapted for flight, will be at a disadvantage when it's strengths are not on land.

Though i see your view, in that one animal which may show some similarities to two other species could be seen as a missing link, and that if all live evolved, every species is one which is part of that gradual evolution of life on earth, so serves as a missing link, this does not adress the missing links inbetween species and hence i disagree with this notion, for reasons cited above.

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites

i will look into this.

i am only allowed one post until 03.01 am, so will edit everything onto this post.

EDIT:(having read the whole post) i am familiar with different layers on the earths crust pertaining to different time periods, and that the age of the earth is probably billions of years, so i am ready to move on.

EDIT: even though we have phylogenetic tree's or we group things according to how they look, it still is not enough to assume one species is evolved from another.

Birds from reptiles is an example often used. Think of it this way, reptiles have no wings. Birds do. It would be illogical to assume a creature has 'half' a wing. A whole wing does not develop right away. If such a transition existed, we would have in-numeral amounts of fossils showing creatures with half-formed features.

These half formed features would be of no use and probably a liability to the animal.

Furthermore, wings are extremely complicated 'machines'. They rely on a specific skeleton system, weight, and an intricate set of dynamics. Even if an organism (for the sake of this argument) evolved to grow wings , it would not happen over night according to evolutionists. This means millions of years from a half mishapen wing leading onto an actual wing. (make that billions). Why do we not have innumerable fossils documenting this? (i am not using my argument of DNA and the improbability of such a mutation occuring).

The argument i have heard in my text-book is fossils are prone to destruction and only made under specific circumstances, as bone degrades. Think of it this way, imagine a creature with wings which can almost take flight - but it can not! This would be a clear disadvantage to its' survival because it almost adapted for flight but not fully for land. (although, in light of DNA, the complexity of wings and how they work, mutations, evidences ect, we don't need to consider it, but for the purpose of the debate, lets.

Though i see your view, in that one animal which may show some similarities to two other species could be seen as a missing link, and that if all live evolved, every species is one which is part of that gradual evolution of life on earth, so serves as a missing link, this does not adress the missing links inbetween species and hence i disagree with this notion, for reasons cited above.

I assume, you have already heard responses to your own commentary.

If we look at an ostrich. What we have is a bird, that cannot fly. Now, what does that mean to you? There are many birds with wings that cannot fly. But they do still use their wings. We know they do. We can see how they live in todays time. Do you think that birds in todays time, are suffering because they have wings that they cannot use for flight? If you do believe that, I would say that is not true. And we know it is not true, because we know there are many functions of wings aside from flight. And even penguins with only half wings, still make good use of them (they are just one of many examples of birds that use "half wings").

What else...kiwis, penguins have wings too and cannot fly. Emus, several species of duck, rails, etc.

And so, we can see that, it is not truly a liability to be "half formed".

And for your last comment there. I dont know what you mean. I apologize. You said, you can see how, if we were to assume evolution of all life on earth, you could see how a...for example, a raptor could be a mid form between modern bird and ancient reptilian theropod. But you do not see how that bridges species? I dont understand what you mean.

Lets take this picture for example..

Now, if evolution were true, we could see how each animal could be an intermediate between the two on the ends. But you believe that this wouldnt show the relation between two that are already next to each other or? I dont understand the comment.

archy-bambirunFFF-resize.jpg

edit edit, ok

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...