|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Such small changes are not evolution. The bacterial change involves a single mutation, that's not evolution. The ToE assumes the capacity for changes in the basic structure of the creature, which has never been shown, and as I've argued umpteen times here really can't happen because of the loss of information change requires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: That obviously is evolution - even if you rule out a single mutation slime the fact that it is beneficial and spread by natural selection is absolutely enough to make it evolution.
quote: Arguments that don't even make sense can't overcome evidence. Your faith in your "fallen human mind" is amazing - remember when you decided that your interpretation of a map you couldn't even read properly was infallibly right ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Definitional word games are a favorite here I know, but macroevolution doesn't exist and all the evidence is nothing but microevolution. One mutation in bacteria is not evolution as the ToE leads us to expect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: You seem to like them. But pointing out obvious facts is hardly a game.
quote: According to your personal opinions. Me, I'm sticking with science.
quote: Really ? Aren't the occurrence of beneficial mutations and the power of natural selection to spread them the core of evolutionary theory ? Antibiotic resistance is a clear example of evolution. The fact that it is only a small-scale example hardly changes that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I said is simply a fact: The only evidence is microevolution. According to science. There is no evidence of any change except within a Species.
One mutation is not evidence of the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9517 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Such small changes are not evolution. The bacterial change involves a single mutation, that's not evolution. The ToE assumes the capacity for changes in the basic structure of the creature, which has never been shown, and as I've argued umpteen times here really can't happen because of the loss of information change requires. Gene mutation that causes phenotype change followed by selection which changes the population has been shown. That's the basic model for all evolutionary change demonstrated in real life today.
quote: So we all the fossil evidence and now we have the mechanism that creates change in species observed. It's all there Faith, you can complain and twist and turn all you like, but it's all there.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: A "fact" that has been known to be false since Darwin.
quote: No, science fully accepts common ancestry of all life, with maybe some complications around the very earliest life. Because of the evidence. Check any recent biology textbook that covers the subject if you don't believe me.
quote: Antibiotic resistance is not "one mutation". Usually one mutation is enough to confer some resistance but even in a single example other mutations can expect to be added. But antibiotic resistance is something that frequently occurs and often with different mutations - even if the antibiotic is the same the mutations that give resistance need not be. So, antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution occurring and that in itself makes it evidence for the theory. (If you only mean that it isn't direct evidence of common ancestry you should say that. Not that it matters because nobody claims that it is.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I'm not planning to step in as moderator at this point, but I would like to remind folks that the topic is the evidence for whale evolution.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Gene mutation that causes phenotype change followed by selection which changes the population has been shown. That's the basic model for all evolutionary change demonstrated in real life today. That's not exactly how it works but I don't want to get into a big flap about mutation at this point so for the sake of argument I accept it, but that describes only microevolution which is not in dispute. Only macroevolution is in dispute. So no, change that fits the ToE as usual has not been demonstrated and never will be. The peppered moths and the pocket mice also show that small-scale changes occur in a single gene that controls color. Not evidence for the ToE. Fossil evidence is really a joke since you'd have to show that it's genetically possible to get from the complex reptile ear to the complex mammal ear, but all you have is the bones and the assumption that it happened. That's not science, and the bones alone cannot demonstrate the ToE. ABE: This bickering could go on indefinitely but since Percy gave the reminder that this thread is about whale evolution this will be my last post here. I don't want to get into the whale discussion but I thought it had been shown that the bones so wishfully called leg bones are actually stabliizers for the genital region. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: On the contrary fossil evidence is very important. The fact that we have intermediate forms is very good evidence that the mammal ear evolved. A successful prediction of evolutionary theory. That IS science, and it is strong evidence for the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Fossil evidence is really a joke since you'd have to show that it's genetically possible to get from the complex reptile ear to the complex mammal ear, but all you have is the bones and the assumption that it happened. Obviously it's genetically possible: a sufficient number of mutations can turn any genome into any other genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9517 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The problem we have Faith, is that if we could sit you down in front of an experiment that showed a population of primeval cows slowly turn into a population of whales and you still wouldn't believe it.
There is no amount of evidence that could shift your position. I wonder why we persist?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for this information. It was brought to my attention by a couple of other posters that my understanding of the definition of "speciation" was wrong, so some of my previous posts may have come across as a tad nonsensical. I was aware that a species can split into groups that end up not being able to interbreed, but I didn't realise that this phenomenon is called"speciation".
"Speciation" strikes me as rather misleading term, which is hardly surprising, knowing that the only purpose of ToE is to mislead (it's purpose is obviously not to serve science, since ToE is useless to science). One reason I indulge in forums like this is that my mistakes and misconceptions are exposed by other posters, which I can take on board and then make the necessary corrections. However, I am not at all convinced that speciation means macroevolution is possible, as claimed by Darwinists. Greenish Warblers undergo speciation, but they are still Greenish Warblers; fruit flies undergo speciation, but they are still fruit flies. Evolutionists love to take certain facts and apply wild extrapolation to them until the desired effect is achieved (apparently this is what passes for sound scientific procedure in Darwin World). Some creation scientists have suggested that genetics, as you allude to, will eventually prove that macroevolution is impossible. Fascinating!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Actually, "speciation" is the wrong word to use here. Turns out it's not what I meant to say. I need to change my demand to:
"Please provide an example of how the removal of the belief that all life on earth evolved from a single-cell organism will change something useful in the real world." -----------------------------In answer to your question, religion is not science. My religion relies on faith and reason; science relies on just reason - unless it's Origins science, which required faith as well, which means it's not science, but pseudo-science or pseudo-religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: Some creation scientists have suggested that genetics, as you allude to, will eventually prove that macroevolution is impossible. there are no Creation Scientists and cannot be Creation Scientists. Anyone claiming to be a Creation Scientists is by definition a liar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024