Evolution in pieces.

DNA similarities is also evidence for a Common Creator or common designer. The single common ancestor has been refuted- see Woese's work. Even Darwin wrote of a few common ancestors.The fossil record supports stasis followed by the sudden appearance of new forms- see punctuated equilibrium. Descent by mod. is not what is found in the fossil record- unless you are talking about snails evolving into snails and not the range of change required by the theory of evolution.Natural selection- an idea proposed by a creationist (Ed Blyth) before Darwin plagarized it. Who are the fittest? Those who survive to reproduce- it has nothing to do with actual health or any other benifits that may exist. Natural selction cannot create anything from scratch. It only modifies an already existing design. The moths are a perfect example. Both types existed. Then one type became more predominant because the environment changed. As with the beak of the finch it has nothing to do with the grand sweep of the theory of evolution but has everything to do with the deception of evolutionists.

That's a nice story Rei- you must be a fan of K. Miller. He spins the same type of story. What we would like is some evidence.

Any time that you can show that random mutations culled by natural selection can do anything it would be fine by me. Without that evidence all you have is a belief. Beliefs are not science.It is not my fault that the theory of evolution is based upon beliefs and not evidence. That is why the ToE is a useless theory and no scientific advancement has come about because of it."No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul GrasseAny evidence to support your assertion that both kinds of moths existed because of random mutations?[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003][This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003]

crashfrog:
Ah, but engineering is science, right? So you'd accept the fact that engineers use natural selection + random mutation to design circuits and jet-planes far superior than anything humans could develop unaided as evidence of the creative power of RM + NS? I mean, you wouldn't want to be inconsistent, right? Or accused of ignoring evidence contrary to your position?Right?John Paul:
Really? What is the evidence to support your assertion? What circuits were designed that were far superior to anything humans could? I have seen one alleged circuit however it was never shown that humans couldn't have done the same. As for jets, they did start with a jet and a jet was the result, so what's your point?What advancements required the belief that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to reproduce?Random m utations culled by natural selection have never been observed to anything that the ToE requires. It can't be tested objectively. It is only a belief.Simplest natural explanation? What is the evidence that random mutations can give any organism any benefit? How do you know they are random? Something besides ignorance will do.

Hi crashfrog. I read the SA article. Nowhere does it say that humans couldn't do a better job. However humans did design the components used, the program that was run and the super-computers that ran it.By what mechanism would a mutaion be directed? Design.Ever notice that as with all mutations a bacteria is still a bacteria, a virus is still a virus, yeast is still yeast, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly etc., etc., etc.Knowing that change occurs may be beneficial to science. My point is that it is not necessary to believe that all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms is not beneficial at all. But I will look for this thread and join in.

Not theistic evolution- Design. Theistic evolution is in contrast with the current theory. If you would allow theistic evolution into the classroom you are half-way there.Any evidence that those colonies became such via random mutations culled by NS? But anyway even those colonies still reproduce single-celled organisms. Most, if not all, colonies become so as a defensive/ survival mechanism.HOX genes? I wonder if evolutionists will ever tell us how those evolved. Pidgeons are still pidgeons....

Design IS the mechanism. IOW the bacteria were designed to respond to external pressures. In this case nylon. Do you have any evidence that the change that allowed the digestion, was random?

Ooook! You have managed to do nothing but add the typical evolutionary spin on things. The more we look the more dis-similar we are from chimps, at the DNA level. However I could type out two sentences that are 98% similar yet totally opposite in meaning.Descent by modification is only that when looked at through evolutionary glasses. When you can show us that mutations/ NS can lead to upright walking please let us know.

Theistic evolution is not allowed in the classroom. Naturalistic evo is all that is being taught. Maybe these colonies are the same as you but they are vastly different from me. Colonies don't help your case. I have read about the volvox, slime molds and colonies. I understand the hypothesis. Cellular differentiation is still a mystery.Life overcomes boundaries? Is that why there is a tree-line on mountatins?

No one said the results of the design had to be good.

I thought we were allegedly closer related to chimps than monkeys? This doesn't help your case.It is not up to me to provide a barrier. It is up to you to provide POSITIVE evidence to support your case.Provide the intermediates...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOX genes? I wonder if evolutionists will ever tell us how those evolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rei:
They already have. It's a receptor protein feedback loop with mitosis. Chemically altering when mitosis is stimuated is no challenge at all, and something that can easily occur naturally. Receptor proteins mutate readily as well. Transcriptases can be enabled and disabled easily, and can mutate, as can what activates them. What more do you need?John Paul:
That doesn't tell me how HOX genes originated.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most, if not all, colonies become so as a defensive/ survival mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rei:
Yep! Welcome to the wonderful world of evolution, John!John Paul:
Well if that was all the theory was about we wouldn't be having this chat. I can easily use the above as evidence for design.When I start alternating between single and multi-cellular I will believe your assertion.

I read the article very closely. It only mentions ONE circuit designed by a human. They nor we haven't the foggiest if a human could design a circuit just as or more efficient than the computer generated circuit. That the humans that studied the circuit and couldn't figure it out just tells me how sad they are at electronics. There was no mentioning of the circuit shouldn't work but does. They just said they didn't understand it.One more time- organisms were designed with the ability to adapt to their environment."There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." D. Dennett author of "Darwin's Great Idea"So what about those predictions again? Predicting change is about as useful as predicting rain in India during the monsoon season.n=1 has been refuted. Carl Woese- try reading his peer-reviewed articles. LUCA is a myth. (Last Universal Common Ancestor)How do you tell what animals are from the same kind? How many times do I have to state this- Science can help us determine that. AiG, ICR and at least one book which I linked to have a good starting point on doing just that.

Cellular differentiation is still a mystery.crashfrog:
Why would it be? I was just taking a crap when it occured to me that cellular differentiation is explainable by kin selection. I can't believe that I'm so much smarter than you that you couldn't figure that out.John Paul:
Than why do biological authorties disagree with you and say it is a mystery? Maybe you should get your ideas to a peer-reviewed journal and have them published.crashfrog:
It's no mystery, unless you're committed to a worldview where selection doesn't actually select and mutation doesn't actually change anything.John Paul:
I am not committed to that view. A Creationist came up with NS before Darwin and change isn't even being debated.Care to back up your assertion about cellular differentiation with a citation?

When I start alternating between single and multi-cellular I will believe your assertion.Loudmouth:
You already did, you started as a single diploid cell. It is very simple embryology.John Paul:
I am NOT alternating between single & multi-cellular. Nice misrepresentation. BTW sexual reproduction is still unexplained by evolutionists ("just-so" stories devoid of evidence don't count).