Pro-creation/anti-evolution essay

myst7426

Guest

It is May 31st. Looking forward to reading your essay SWC. After you post it here, you should send a copy to the Nobel Institute and win your prize, world fame, and the removal of evolution from science.

Like I said a while ago. I did not finish my essay. Let’s all see your work anyways.

lonnnnliness

Guest

post your unfinished work here, other wise its not fair, this is supposed ot be a vs match up.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

Yes, I do think it to be quite unfair that I should post and you would post later to criticize me, but, as a Christian, and for the good of the world, for everyone out there, here it goes!



Drumroll please!




*Drumroll*




Ladies and gentlemen, I, Someone who cares... presents to you, the long awaited evolution essay! Just go here, check out the Welcome! page for an introduction: http://three.fsphost.com/noevolutionguy/


(You didn’t just think I would post 25 pages here on Movie Codec off topic forums to post my essay, now did you? )

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

...Well?...

myst7426

Guest

I can’t view it. Microsoft Works Word does not open in Microsoft Word.

myst7426

Guest

Nevermind. I got it open.

Tenspace

Guest

While your effort is indeed noble, it is filled with so many mistruths and fallacies regarding evolution, that I don’t know where to begin. So, I’ll take a shot at the first few paragraphs, in the spirit of starting a reasoned discussion on the subject.

“Evolution is the popular belief that a unicellular organism or something even simpler evolved, over time, to form all that we see today; that being: animals, humans, plants, etc."

Evolution is a scientific theory (not a popular belief) that explains the variety and diversity of life on the planet. Yes, it does specify that all life arose from the same source. The RNA World theory is one of several competing theories for the origin of life. Darwinian Evolution does not deal with origins, but does deal with the current complexity of life, just as Cosmology does not pretend to know the origin of the universe, but does well at explaining its current state.

“How did it all start? The main starting point for evolution was when Darwin saw the different varieties in animals and thought that if the animals were given enough time, they could evolve and change, to the extent of being a completely different species. So the idea caught on and developed further."

First, evolution did not start with Darwin, just as gravity did not start with Newton. Darwin was one of several scientists who recognized the similarities among different living things. Darwin’s cornerstones were Natural Selection and Sexual Selection. Speciation is the technical term for the description of change that you’ve given. It is defined as, “The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones” (American Heritage Dictionary). For example, if a population of organisms (lizards, mice, cichlids, whatever) is separated by a geographical boundary, the species will diverge in similarity allowing no or minimal cross-breeding between the populations. Over short periods, such as those we witness in a human generation, there will be very little difference in higher-order animals (bacteria, flies and other “fast-living” organisms are capable of speciation within very short human-scale time periods). These changes between species accumulate over the larger geologic timescales to produce organisms that, while similar to the single ancestral species, are so different that the cannot interbreed, and may not even resemble each other in the slightest. There are hundreds of examples available for research, if anyone is interested. Look at the difference between chimps and bonobos for a start.

“There are two basic forms of evolution: microevolution, and macroevolution. Microevolution is just the variations within a kind of an organism. It is what we see and observe in animals and plants all of the time. We see different kinds of dogs, different kinds of cats, different kinds of trees, and different kinds of everything living. But macroevolution is the belief that one species of an organism evolved into another one over time. Such as, fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, and reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. This is the evolution we will be talking about and exploring. "

These terms are part of evolution’s lexicon. The define the difference between pre-speciation changes and post-speciation results. They were used very little by biologists. The anti-evolution scene breathed new life into these terms as a way to separate observed speciaton from long-term, unobservable speciation. Today, biologists and geneticists rarely use the term. It has become the canard of the creationists. There are no separate beliefs regarding macro- and micro- among scientists, which makes using this as a foundational position quite lacking in facts and honest intent.

“One of the best types of evidence we have now, of the past, is the fossil record. The fossil record is the collection of fossil finds from all over the world. Now if evolution really did occur, we would expect to find many intermediate fossils; the transitional fossils between one species of an organism to the next. But that is not the case with the finds we have now. We do not find transitional fossils between the animals. Like between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and to mammals; as would be the case if evolution really did occur. Because evolution was supposed to take millions of years to happen, we should have at least a couple thousand fossils to prove it, yet we don’t even have one, unquestionable, transitional fossil! For example, all animals and plants remain unchanged throughout the whole fossil record. We do not see animals with partially evolved brains, eyes, legs, arms, or other organs or tissues. "

This borders in being disingenuous, and is very inaccurate. Transitional, intermediate fossils are abundant; from archaeopteryx to dimetrodon to eohippus, there are many documented cases of disparate fossils sharing features of a common ancestor. Again, this information is commonly available when one researches paleontology and molecular biology (genetics). And, evolutions is not a teleological process - it is not defined by goals, there is no march to perfection, no ladder of higher animals to climb. Evolution describes the methods by which populations of organisms differ. To say that we have no transitional fossils is very misleading. To say that “partially evolved brains” dont' exist is simply a lack of understanding genetics and neurological systems. What about the ganglia clumps in lower order animals? How 'bout a correlated history of brain-size to body size? Or maybe an alignment of foetal development with genetic evolutionary theory? These are just a few of the many topics readily available to the curious mind, topics that directly refute your claim of “animals and plants remain unchanged throughout the whole fossil record." Take the eye, for example. Convergent evolutionary theory has shown the eye to have independently developed at least forty times in Animalia. Seeing that it is a soft-tissue organ, and very, very unlikely to be preserved in a fossil, we have to look two different places for information on the eye’s development. First, there are fossil records for segmented eyes based on the calcite structures that housed them (ancient trilobytes, for example). Second, the molecular record has turned out a powerhouse support basis for Darwinian Evolution. Please research the genetic history of eye development, again information which is readily available in today’s information-hungry society.

Sorry, but this is all I have time for now. I don’t want to critique the entire essay and leave everyone awash in text. I’d rather let the readers digest this one chunk at at time.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

myst7426

Guest

My unfisnished essay.


In light of the never ending misconceptions and the general ignorance of non-scientists of evolutionary theory, usually created by creationists for propaganda purposes, in an effort advocate and reaffirm religious beliefs, this essay has been commissioned for the sole purpose of explaining basic mechanisms of evolution, acknowledging common misconceptions and responding with a concise answer as to why they do not represent the evolutionary model, and should not be considered as evidence against the theory of evolution, and to give evidence for the evolutionary theory.
First I will begin by defining and explaining the primary mechanisms within the evolutionary model. The theory of evolution is a non-random process utilizing random and non-random mechanisms. A common misconception is the belief that evolution is entirely random. This is not true. Only part of evolution is random and other parts are non-random – perhaps we can call the non-random mechanisms, and its effects, designed. Certainly the appearance of the affects of natural selection seems designed. They are, but not by an agent.
Natural selection is the first mechanism to be presented. Natural selection is defined as “Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to which organisms tend to produce progeny far above the means of subsistence; in the struggle for existence that ensues, only those progeny with favorable variations survive; the favorable variations accumulate through subsequent generations, and descendants diverge from their ancestors” (“Natural Selection”). Through observing life, reproduction, and predator/prey relationship, one can easily recognize that staying alive is a constant struggle between the organism and the surrounding environment. Note this: environmental pressure is a term that will be used in reference to all things existing that threaten the existence of an organism; the pressure can be other organisms or conditions of the ecosystem. The idea Darwin is espousing is that since an organisms with a better chance of survival, said to have favorable traits, than his counterparts will survive and reproduce more often and pass his traits onto the next generation while the organism with less favorable traits is less likely to reproduce and his traits will not be passed onto the next generation. Since a population of organisms consists of many organisms of a common species in a defined geographical area, as selection pressures present themselves, the population, over time, will come make up organisms with the favorable traits while the unfavorable traits die out. The population is a reflection of all the traits present in the gene pool. Over time, the unfavorable traits tend to be withered out leaving mostly favorable and neutral traits. Natural selection is ultimately the change in allele frequency in the population in which the ratio of favorable to unfavorable is quite large. The alleles of the genome dictate the physical structure of an organism (Futumya). Since the traits that make up and organism seem to imply that the organism was tailor made to perfectly fit his environment, it is understandable why one would have the impression of design. Organisms do not conscious participate in natural selection.
The mechanism that allows for variation to exist within a species is called random mutation. Random mutations are changes in the DNA of the parent’s sex cells. Every sex cell goes through the process of random mutation during meiosis. Crossing-over is the most common form of random mutation since it occurs in every sex cell, but occasionally, other methods of mutation occur, one of which is point-mutation. Since random mutation is observable and well-documented, there is no need to give further explanation here other than to acknowledge its important role in evolution. Without genetic variability, evolution cannot work. Although there are more than the two mechanisms described above, they are not necessary to mention so long as we can see how traits can be created and lost. Random mutation and natural selection accomplishes both. New information will be discussed below.
The number of proteins, the types of proteins, and the position of proteins to construct an organism is located in the DNA of each and every cell. DNA is the instruction booklet. The language of the instruction book is the nucleotide acids or bases – adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. “The sequence of these bases encodes instructions. Some parts of your DNA are control centers for turning genes on and off, some parts have no function, and some parts have a function that we don’t understand yet. Other parts of your DNA are genes that carry the instructions for making proteins—which are long chains of amino acids. These proteins help build an organism” (“Reviewing DNA”). A condon is a group of three base pairs which code for a particular protein.
There are few common types of random genetic mutations that occur in sex cells during meiosis which changes the sequence of base pairs. The first is substitution. “A substitution is a mutation that exchanges one base for another (i.e., a change in a single “chemical letter” such as switching an A to a G)” (“Types of Mutations”). The second is insertion. Insertion is when a base pair(s) is added to a sequence. The third is deletion. Deletion is the removal of a base pair(s) from a sequence. The fourth is frameshift. If a base is inserted or deleted, the sequence could shift in either direction causing each base to shift by the number of insertions or deletions. This causes the condons (which code for a protein) to change. Consider the following example. “The fat cat sat” is a DNA sequence. If the “T” is deleted, the frame shifts all letters left by one resulting in “hef atc ats at” (“Types of Mutations”). The information contained in the DNA is no more than the sequence of nucleotide bases. When the sequence changes the result is the information becoming new (assuming the sequence does not already exist in a different organism of the gene pool). There is no such thing as a positive, neutral, or negative mutation. Mutations alone cannot be classified as just described. The effects they have on the organism classify them as positive, neutral, or negative relative to the environment. A new trait may be neutral upon inception but may become positive as the environment changes.
How do two new species form from one population? The term speciation is defined as “the process by which new species of organisms evolve from preexisting species” (Pielou). There are several processes of speciation that can occur. The following is a description of allopatric speciation. The concept of allopatric speciation is the idea that if a population of organisms were separated into at least two groups and completely isolate them from each other, the gene pools would become isolated allowing natural selection and random mutation to work independently upon the two gene pools; over time, the gene pools differentiate themselves from each other and eventually become two different species. Consider a gene pool of a population of organisms; if the population is split into two groups, then the gene pool is split into two. If the gene pools are isolated from one another – no breeding between the two groups – then random mutation will occur in each population but with different results. Over time, the gene pools differentiate themselves with regards to common genes and alleles. For every new mutation in each gene pool, the two groups become less similar in genotypical make-up. Natural selection then acts upon each gene pool by selecting favorable traits. Now, if the two populations exist is the same environment, each population will be experiencing the same selection pressures. For simplicity of this example, we will assume the two populations live in slightly different environment. Perhaps they were separated by geological changes, such as formation of a mountain range, a volcano, or the submersion of a land bridge. Another reason for the separation and isolation includes permanent migration. Whatever the reason, we want both populations to be experiencing different selection pressures in order to accelerate genetic differentiation of the gene pools in the following example.
Consider the following abstract example. Let x be a population. Let x have the following six traits: a, b, c, x, y, and z. Let x be divided and isolated into the following two groups: x1 and x2. The gene pool x1 consists of trait a, b, c, x, y, and z. The gene pool x2 contains the same traits. Suppose random mutation introduces trait d into gene pool x1. Suppose random mutation introduces trait w into gene pool x2. Gene pool x1 now consists of a, b, c, d, x, y, z. Gene pool x2 now consists of a, b, c, w, x, y, z. The genotypical make-up of x1 and x2 now differ, which will be reflected in their phenotypical make-up. They have differentiated from each other and only share 6 traits out of a possible 8 traits. Suppose natural selection is not favorable toward the trait a in the x1 gene pool. Suppose natural selection is not favorable toward the trait z in the x2 gene pool. The gene pool x1 now consists of b, c, d, x, y, and z. The gene pool x2 now consists of a, b, c, w, x, and y. After natural selection, the gene pool only shares 4 traits and each gene pool contains two traits that the other does not contain. As we can see, once gene flow is severed from the two populations, the gene pools slowly differentiate themselves incrementally for every act of random mutation and natural selection. The phenotype of each gene pool changes as well because the organism reflects the DNA. Therefore, severance of the gene flow gives rise to new species who share a common ancestor. Homo sapiens sapiens and Pan troglodytes are examples of two species that share a common ancestor. Their common ancestor’s population was spilt into multiple groups and the gene pools isolated. The gene pools were differentiated from each other by random mutation and natural selection for 20 million years. They did not just jump immediately to recognizable modern Homo sapiens sapiens and Pan troglodytes. The process is incremental as new traits are accrued.

Works Cited
Pielou, E. C. “Speciation.” McGraw-Hill Access Science. Apr. 10, 2000. Date Accessed. <http://www.accessscience.com>.
Futuyma, Douglas J. “Organic Evolution.” McGraw-Hill Access Science. Feb. 14, 2004. Date Accessed. <http://www.accessscience.com>.
“Natural Selection.” McGraw-Hill Access Science. Date Accessed. <http://www.accessscience.com>.
“Reviewing DNA.” University of California Museum of Paleontology. Date Accessed. <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC2ReviewDNA.shtml>.
“Types of Mutations.” University of California Museum of Paleontology. Date Accessed. <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC3aTypes.shtml>.

myst7426

Guest

I found this on a different forum. It is not might work but it does contain a lot of cited sources that I was planning on investigating and possibly using in my essay.

There are many transitional fossils form ancient times indicating a macroevolutionary transition from ancient to modern species/families and phyla:
1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine “transitional” as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a “Globigerinoides-like” shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one “ear” of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake’s stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk’s foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk’s mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004)

Also, since macroevolution takes an incredibly long term to occur on the more advanced biological level, it would be difficult to observe it in our current time frame.

Also, macroevolution HAS BEEN RECORDED AND OBSERVED in a skin culture during a lab test by NASA. Basically some of the human cells developed into ameboid-like organisms and began to take over the culture.

Microevolution can easily be observed on the bacterial level, all you need is a microscope and a lot of time.

Another proof we evolved is the appendix. It is a completely useless organ that is left over by some distant ancestor. Already we can see the appendix no longer being part of the gene pool, as there are now many recorded medical cases of children being born without appendices in Europe. I will post the source later if I can find it, but I personally know someone who was born without one so it is pretty much true to me.


To the person doing the intelligent design report: Disproving evolution would not prove creationism. It would just leave a vacuum. The only way intelligent design could be proven and supported by scientists is if one were to prove the existence of God by using evidence and the scientific method. Also, evolution says nothing concerning abiogenesis, so IDers are focuing on the wrong theory as well. If anything, the only theory that IDers need to disprove is spontaneous generation, which is besides the point. ID should focus on proving a creator, not disproving evolution as both theories are more unrelated that some would leave you to believe.

Another thing supporting evolution is the fact that no modern species are found in the prehistoric fossil record other than crocidiles and rodents. This suggests that MODERN humans and other modern species developed later.

Also, if anyone tries to use scripture against me, I will leave. The Bible is interpreted in many ways, and some of these verses that “disprove” evolution are entirely taken out of context. Let’s keep evidence/ rebuttals solely in the secular realm, okay?

Lastly, before someone posts concerning irreducible complexity:
1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996).

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a “part” is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
* In spite of the complexity of Behe’s protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

I would like to say one more thing, though: Is evolution as a whole undisputable? No. Is is plausible? Yes. So you are right in the technical sense, Aquinas.

With that, I leave you to interpret this evidence and rebut it however you please. I will not argue for or against evolution again on these message boards, as I am tired of repeating myself. All I ask to those who view evolution as widely disputed, is to go meet up with an evolutionary biologist or go to a science center/fossil repository with your arguments. If you think you have a disproof for evolution, posit it towards the enitre scientific community. It is very likely if you did disprove it you would recieve a Nobel Prize. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to prove evolution, trust me on thsi guys. I talk with and meet up with many such people thanks to most of my family’s job choices(Health and Biology)


1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

Beneficial mutations DO occur. They are even occuring from one generation to another this very moment amongst us humans(see what I said about appendices).

Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:10 am Post subject:



Also, here is another list(covers metabolic pathways): http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html#metabolic

You can observe beneficial mutations a laboratory on the bacterial level. This means it CAN happen to some degree and their is evidence pointing towards it also happening in humans.

What we have in the evolution debate is two competing bodies of evidence that says two completely different things. But, if you follow the evidence to it’s source, you will notice that some of this evidence has been delibrately misrepresented. Such is sometomes the case with creationist websites. One of the experiments I read on a creationist website(not answers in genesis) on carbon dating actually delibrately used the test to get a certain result rather dishonestly. Here: (wrong link, I’ll find what I was talking about later)

Macroevolution is just microevolution in a much much much larger time frame.

Transitional Fossils are a good indicator, as well as the fact that no modern species are present in the prehistoric fossil record except primitive crocidiles and rodents. We would havefound modern fossils if evolution never occured and all modern lifeforms started in their respective forms.

Mutations can not be observed in nature due to the fact that it would be hard to watch every generation waiting for a mutation. It would take years to wait for the conditions to be right for such a happenstance. But the fact that it CAN happen proves that it is possible for it to occur in nature.

myst7426

Guest

SWC, you need to master the skill of using paragraphs.

myst7426

Guest

SWC, many people want to read your essay but are having problems. May I copy and paste it onto the thread?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

"SWC, many people want to read your essay but are having problems. May I copy and paste it onto the thread?"


Who’s having problems? Let them speak to me, I’ll see how I can help them. Maybe I’ll put it on another host site, where you wouldn’t need to download the essay. Just give me some time. I’ll take care of it, ok?

myst7426

Guest

People who want to read your essay. Microsoft Word 2003 is the only version that will open a Microsoft Works Word file, except of course Works.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

Ok, here we go. I made a new site, you don’t have to download anything, and it looks better! Check it out: http://www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

"Evolution is a scientific theory (not a popular belief) that explains the variety and diversity of life on the planet. Yes, it does specify that all life arose from the same source. The RNA World theory is one of several competing theories for the origin of life. Darwinian Evolution does not deal with origins, but does deal with the current complexity of life, just as Cosmology does not pretend to know the origin of the universe, but does well at explaining its current state."



I don’t believe Evolution is true, I believe it is a lie, that’s why I call it a “popular belief." And I don’t believe Creation is a theory either. I believe it is true all the way.



“First, evolution did not start with Darwin, just as gravity did not start with Newton."


Notice the word “main” starting point. I put that key word there for a reason you know...



“These terms are part of evolution’s lexicon. The define the difference between pre-speciation changes and post-speciation results. They were used very little by biologists. The anti-evolution scene breathed new life into these terms as a way to separate observed speciaton from long-term, unobservable speciation. Today, biologists and geneticists rarely use the term. It has become the canard of the creationists. There are no separate beliefs regarding macro- and micro- among scientists, which makes using this as a foundational position quite lacking in facts and honest intent."


But evolutionists show examples of microevolution and claim this proves macroevolution. That’s not the case.


“This borders in being disingenuous, and is very inaccurate. Transitional, intermediate fossils are abundant; from archaeopteryx”


Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil, and I believe it’s a fake too. See, archaeopteryx does not show the transition from a scale to a feather, plus, there are no forms to or from archaeopteryx, so it’s not transitional.



“there are many documented cases of disparate fossils sharing features of a common ancestor”


But what about transitions? Like from a scale to a feather, from a fin to a leg, from jaws to a beak, from invertebrates to vertebrates,etc?


“SWC, you need to master the skill of using paragraphs."


Maybe I should have divided each idea into a new paragraph... But you haven’t met our deadline, the one you yourself established. We all need to work on something. I’ll respond to your essay when you’re done, ok?

The Diabolical One...
Rep: 3



Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 5,320
OFFLINE

I don’t believe Evolution is true, I believe it is a lie, that’s why I call it a “popular belief." And I don’t believe Creation is a theory either. I believe it is true all the way.

So cause of what YOU BELIEVE you are speaking for everyone... and cause YOU BELIEVE creationism is right then you aren’t calling it a theory... I guess that is the difference between actual scientists and people like you...

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

I’m not saying this for everyone, I said it for myself. Although I wish everyone could come to this realization...

And I never said I was a scientist.

Thenormalyears

Guest

We are at the realization that you are not a scientist if thats the realization you were referring to. Whenever some ignorant hick like you comes along and says “I DONT BELIEVE IN EVILUTION IM A JESUS FREAK” you are doing more than just making yourself open for a complete and totally refutation, of which you had just been handed. You lied.

Do you understand that your paper was full of lies.

You could not have looked that stuff up. You made it up, maybe you heard your pastor or your mom or somebody talking about it. The truth is, even the pope says its ok to give up your retarded attack on evolution. Its real, we’ve seen evolution in labratories, we take evolution into consideration when we are determining nutrition, survivalism, ecology, geology, sociology, pharmacy (thats right we make your medicine based on what you consider is a lie), neurology, psychology... the list goes on.

I think you are mistaken about what people have known. Before the theory of evolution we knew animals and plants were changing over time. Even the anceint Greeks knew that. What we didn’t know was how or why.

Evolution is the small changing of the gene pool over time. It can be manipulated in order to fuel greater dominance of an enviroment. This happens because if an animal gets a mutation that gives it an unfair advantage over its competitors then its going to reproduce the most and its offspring will also have this advantage and eventually they will overtake the species.

This is called natural selection.

If you wanted to really argue against evolution you have to do two things.

One is to say that natural selection doesn’t happen. Which is probably the easy part. Trying to refute what has been seen and shown all over the world is the easy part.

You also will have to argue that offspring are exact copies of their parents, 100% of the time. To do this you have to prove that every animal, germ and microbe has been in existance for all of eternity. Futhermore you have to be an exact copy of your mother and father in that you can have no new characteristics.

godspeed

Regular
Rep: 1



Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 379
OFFLINE

Burn!!

The Diabolical One...
Rep: 3



Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 5,320
OFFLINE

OwNEd...