Evolution

[zimmah]

It is truly pathetic that so many are so selfish that they are prepared to impede scientific progress in the name of a several thousand year old creation myth

actually, this is one of many myths that are so persistent with evolutionists. ye, the catholic church prevented a whole lot of development, but they do not equal Christianity or the bible.



i guess creating misleading 'evidence' and never apologizing in public when it turns out to be false is way better, right?

[zimmah]

what are the odds for life to be on a planet?? then lets say what are the odds of a life form spawning?? then lets say what are the odds of that life form transforming into a highly complex animal? then lets say what are the odds of multiple if not millions of completely different animals and insects coming to be?? seems to be too many odds for all this to just happen by chance. only a God could make such a complex system of animals with the power to think in somewhat of a logical manner. chew on that for a while..

Firstly, the odds of a life form spawning are 0. As are the odds of a life form transforming into a highly complex animal. Neither of those has ever been claimed by evolutionary theories.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, lets imagine we can transport ourselves back in time to when the very first life forms, no more than complex protein chains themselves, started to form. We're standing in front of a pool of primordial soup matter, complex organic molecules all mixed up in some water just doing chemistry, no biology exists. Also we have a scanner that lets us see exactly what is happening in there on a molecular level.

We might see just the right complex hydrocarbons reacting with just the right other hydrocarbons in just the right way to form that first protein, and we might say "wow that's amazing and so hugely unlikely, it must be part of some sort of design or purpose to create life." At this point I would tell you to raise your head, and look beyond the boundaries of this pool. To see the thousands or millions of other pools, lakes and oceans full of primordial matter. The billions upon billions upon trillions of different hydrocarbon molecules all bashing into each other, all reacting. And the vast majority of those reactions would form proteins that just don't work, they don't do the right things to form life forms out of them. But if you're looking at trillions of reactions, then the universe, totally randomly, can get 99.9999999% of those reactions "wrong", because the tiny fraction it gets "right" is enough to form life.

And beyond that lets get a telescope out and look at the billions of other planets in the universe, and see that of them a certain small percentage also have the right conditions and make-up for these pools to form, and on each of them trillions of reactions happen. So now we're not just looking at trillions, we're looking at trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of chances.

What's the chance of viable life that can lead to intelligent life forming somewhere in the universe? Pretty much 1. And it doesn't have to be by some grand design, it just has to be because the universe can get it wrong trillions upon trillions of times, but it only has to randomly get it right once and we end up here.

except for you're extremely simplifying the process (life is not just the result of 1 reaction, it's the process of multiple complex reactions, some of which have to occur simultaneously or in very short time periods after each other, while the circumstances needed for them may vary wildly. I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible. we're still not even able to reproduce even simple lifeforms from dead material, let alone complex ones (and than i'm not even speaking about creating the material from thin air)) and besides, the universe is not random, but organised, more precise than a Swiss watch.

Most stars aren't stable and safe enough to to live near, a lot of stars don't even have planets, and those that do have planets, may not always have the right distance, and remember, the orbit has to be somewhat circular. Next to that, the rotation speed and axis need to be right to sustain a nice global climate. There needs to be an atmosphere and a magnetic field, and there need to be the right amount of materials present. Also, it should not be too close to dangerous objects, and it should also not be too far out of the galaxy, and even more dangerous, is being too close to the center of the galaxy. These requirements alone (and i'm sure forgot a ton more) cancel out a very large percentage (probably over 99%) of the planets and stars that could theoretically sustain life. And even than, the things needed to form life, even the most simple bacteria for example would be ridiculously small. And besides, not only is it unlikely, but also, the laws of the universe (physics etc.) are so complex yet so precise and ordered, that someone needed to have designed it. I mean, the universal laws are like a program language that allowed god to create all the cool stuff.

[warmonger1981]

Glad to start a new conversation.

[crispybits]

How do you know the chances of life being made?

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life. Further to that the calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. You then get to the trillion trillion trials that can be taking place on any one of millions of planets....

There's around one hundred thousand million million stars in the universe at current best guess. Even if we say planets with life-allowing conditions can only exist in one solar system in a million, that's still one hundred thousand million possible stars that might have such a planet orbiting. Then say that only one in a million of those planets have the right kinds of conditions and chemistry present to make life, and you've still got one hundred thousand planets. Then we look at the fact that on all of these planets would be trillions upon trillions of molecules (the pacific ocean alone contains around 130 trillion trillion water molecules for an idea of the scales of numbers we're talking here). Life doesn't have to be likely to happen, it damn near has to be impossible for it NOT to happen. The most simple bacteria would be orders of magnitude more complicated than the first kinds of life created, we're not talking about a fully formed cat jumping up out of one of those pools, we're looking at maybe 5 or 10 protein molecules binding together to form something ridiculously simple, but that has the qualities of a living organism (reproduction, etc). And there is a 100% chance that we're sitting on one of those planets, because, well, we're sitting here, alive.

As for the "it's so organised, something must have designed it". I don't buy that. What you're actually saying is "I find it highly likely that there was a designer" (as there can be no proof standards applied to the claim, so you're not professing knowledge but rather belief). And that in itself is absurd when we have a sample size of 1 universe. What other universes have you studied to lead you to have the belief that anything is more or less likely than anything else? If you didn't know anything about dice or the kind of physics and maths you'd need to even attempt to predict the next roll of them, and I brought two along and rolled a double 1, you might say that on that basis, from that sample size, it's very likely that dice always end up on double 1. You're doing the same with that statement, you're assuming you know what the chances of a universe forming like this actually are, despite having no reference points with other universes that may or may not exist beyond ours or the "rules" of universe creation. It's ridiculous (and that's not meant as a personal insult of you, merely a description of the process)

[BigBallinStalin]

Glad to start a new conversation.

WM: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175962&view=unread#p3861806

BBS: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175962&view=unread#p3861820


Got any feedback?

[warmonger1981]

No insult taken crispybits. I am a man of faith by the way and thats all I have. Not saying I'm right but wanted to thrown the ideas out there . What I am thinking is out of all the galaxy and stars that may have life I have a hard time believing this is by chance. The odds are to rediculous to think that maybe one complex life form may form let alone millions upon millions of highly different creatures formed. Remember all of these creatures have odds of forming complex biology systems. Organs must form and know by chance where in the body it will be and what function it ail do bu chance?

[crispybits]

So your argument is not necessarily against life forming in the first place. About chemistry happening to make protein molecules that then interact in highly complex ways with each other (and we can show these kinds of complex interactions under lab conditions). And at that level it's not biology still, no life has been formed, just proteins. And chemistry has a inevitability about it, if you drop a piece of iron into a pool of pure sulphuric acid (hydrogen sulphide), there's not a chance of a reaction happeing to form hydrogn and iron sulphide, it's inevitable.

Your argument (at least the one you express there) is that complex life has a zero chance of forming from this process. But you fail to take into account that there is a competition for resources. In chemical terms, without any need for life, we can still show this. Ships are coated in zinc in a process called galvanisation, and that is done because the zinc is more reactive than the steel it is coating, and even if that zinc gets scratched so that the steel is exposed, the zinc, being more reactive, in effect sacrifices itself to prevent the corrosion of the steel. It is easier for the seawater to react with the zinc, so it goes for that reaction and it leaves the steel alone (I'm slightly anthropomorphisising the process there but it's the easiest way to describe it)

So imagine we have a load of different proteins, all reacting and forming different, very very simple, life forms. We might have A, B, C, D, E etc etc.

D is found to be more successful at drawing the resources in, much like zinc on a boat. Therefore D survives better than all the others (some of the others still survive, there's just varying different lesser amounts of them). But the D molecules are also competing with each other, and being life they are reproducing with slight variations, so we have D1 and D2 and D3 starting to appear. And there will be a most effective one of them, so that slowly say, D7 becomes the most common because it is the best at getting the resources out of the environment to reproduce itself. And then we get D7A and D7B and D7C, etc etc. More and more complex life starts to form.

The complexity doesn't just pop out of nowhere or by chance, it develops very very slowly and with purpose. Organs don't just pop up out of nowhere fully formed and complicated. Our eyes, for example, might have started off as a very tiny patch of photosensitive skin, it doesn't need to give a huge advantage all at once to become a dominant mutation, it just has to give a very tiny one and let the fact it can live slightly longer and slightly better than competitiors without the advantage, plus the passage of several hundred generations, weed out the less successful ones. There is no chance or luck involved in the organisms that developed these very primitive eyes becoming more successful then their competitiors, and so organisms with eyes eventually become the only viable ones, just like a gazelle with no legs wouldn't be able to out-run a lion and would get eaten before it got any chance to reproduce, so a no-legged gazelle is not viable and we don't see them.

And all this doesn't have to be any sort of an attack on faith. You can still believe in God and in a very old Earth and in evolution and not be inconsistent in those beliefs. What science is doing is not trying to bring religion crashing down, it's just explaining the natural processes and rules of the natural world we observe around us in a logical and consistent way so that we can be more successful as organisms (in effect, it is in part through science that man continues to evolve). Science makes no claims about God at all, and it admits that there is an awful lot it doesn't know, and in all likelihood an awul lot that we just cannot know. And the faith based attacks on it don't weaken it either, they strengthen it, because they force more research and more thinking and more debate. So in effect faith is itself an evolutionary process too (and is subject to social evolution, as the religions that don't work "die" and are replaced with more complex religious structures that work better - look at the lists of "dead gods" that nobody believes in any more for evidence of that)

[natty dread]

I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible.

That's a really stupid thing to say.

If chance > 0 then chance = not impossible

Is it so hard to understand?

[PLAYER57832]

what are the odds for life to be on a planet?? then lets say what are the odds of a life form spawning?? then lets say what are the odds of that life form transforming into a highly complex animal? then lets say what are the odds of multiple if not millions of completely different animals and insects coming to be?? seems to be too many odds for all this to just happen by chance. only a God could make such a complex system of animals with the power to think in somewhat of a logical manner. chew on that for a while..

YOu make a classic logical and scientific error in the above.
Let's put it in a ready to understand context.

We tend to say things like "one in a million" to mean something very improbable. But, if you peruse the CC dice threads (in general forum, some in suggestions, some in cheating and abuse forum), you realize that quite a few people want to claim "so and so got a very unusual roll... the dice are therefore "fixed".

They are not, not in the sense people imply. Similarly, the fact that life originating on any planet is an extremely rare event does not automatically mean that God did it. IN fact, as Carl Sagan famously explained, given trillions and trillions of stars, billions and billions of planets around some of those stars and unlimited time, it is actually quite probably that life originates on more than one planet. It is even likely that some of that life would evolve to something we think of as intelligent, with civilizations

BUT... often times when people talk about this, they bring in some extra complications. Saying that life might exist somewhere, some time is very different from saying that 2 forms of intelligent life evolved at the same time and in close enough proximity to meet. To take us as an example, there could possibly be intelligent life on, say Alpah Centuri (I do NOT actually think there is, I am just saying its remotely possible given the above alone), BUT can we get there? Even if they are at a similar level of intelligence, what are the odds that they would have the ability and desire to travel this far or we to them any time soon? Even "Star Trek" puts it off for a few more centuries.

The other problem is that we really and truly don't know the "odds" of life forming. We have theories and ideas, but we really don't even know how life originally began on this planet, never mind all the potential ways life could possible emerge. So even talking about odds in that respect is wrong. ONe thing we DO know, very little of the process is truly "random" in the mathematical sense. IN fact, even dice rolls are not purely random in the mathematical sense. They are far more random than any human can predict, and algorithms are even more random than dice, but not truly random.

[PLAYER57832]

No insult taken crispybits. I am a man of faith by the way and thats all I have. Not saying I'm right but wanted to thrown the ideas out there . What I am thinking is out of all the galaxy and stars that may have life I have a hard time believing this is by chance. The odds are to rediculous to think that maybe one complex life form may form let alone millions upon millions of highly different creatures formed. Remember all of these creatures have odds of forming complex biology systems. Organs must form and know by chance where in the body it will be and what function it ail do bu chance?

Actually, once you have life, that it would develop into many different types IS very believable.. in fact, proven. Its show in our fossil record. What is not proven is exactly how all the transitions happened (some are proven, but not all) or the very origins.

The problem is not that God could have created and designed life. Its possible, but that your argument is just not valid. Its OK to say "I believe xyz is true", but not say "wpr" is impossible becuase this other just seems far more likely.

I can easily turn this probability argument around...what sensible being would, for example design the eating and breating mechanisms so close together, as we find in our throats. Its a recipe for choking! But, we know we did evolve that way because we are here. Other species have the 2 passages seperated, we do not.

I have yet to see ANY.. and I exaggerate not, ANY real young earth argument that doesn't require utterly ignoring whole areas of evidence. Almost all rely on perpetuating false information about evolution.

And please note.. this is NOT an attack on Christianity. I am very much a believing Christian. I am also a scientist.

[PLAYER57832]

ps.. Seems that the issue is back AGAIN in Kentucky

KENTUCKY LEGISLATORS ASSAILING EVOLUTION

Legislators in the Kentucky state senate are concerned about the presence of evolution in the state science standards and associated end-of-course testing. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader (August 14, 2012), "Several GOP lawmakers questioned new proposed student standards and tests that delve deeply into biological evolution during a Monday meeting of the Interim Joint Committee on Education. In an exchange with officials from ACT, the company that prepares Kentucky's new state testing program, those lawmakers discussed whether evolution was a fact and whether the biblical account of creationism also should be taught in Kentucky classrooms."

State senator David Givens (R-District 9) told the Herald-Leader, "I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," while state representative Ben Waite (R-District 10) went so far as to dispute the inclusion of evolution. "The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," Waide was quoted as saying. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

But Vincent Cassone, chair of the University of Kentucky's biology department, told the Herald-Leader, "The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research. ... There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised." David Helm, president of the Kentucky Science Teachers Association, declined to comment, but referred the newspaper to the National Science Teachers Association's statement on evolution, which "strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula."

In a subsequent editorial headlined "Keep religious beliefs out of science class if we want Ky. kids to compete," the Herald-Leader (August 16, 2012) observed, "It is unlikely that the pleas by Sen.
David Givens, R-Greensburg, and others that creationism or other unscientific, faith-based beliefs about the origins of the universe and its species should be taught along with evolution will gain enough traction to change Kentucky's standards," adding, "Parents will always be free to teach their children as they see fit in their homes. But religious beliefs cannot be substituted for, or equated with, scientific understanding in public schools. At least, not if we want our children to compete on a national level."

Previous legislative activity aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution in Kentucky's public schools includes House Bill 169 in 2011 and House Bill 397 in 2010, both based on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; both bills died in committee. Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (Kentucky Revised Statutes
158.177) on the books that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." Yet the Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."

For the Lexington Herald-Leader's article, visit:
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/14/2298 ... dards.html

For the NSTA's statement on evolution, visit:
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx

For the Lexington Herald-Leader's editorial, visit:
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/16/2300 ... ut-of.html

For the Biblical creation statute (PDF), visit:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/158-00/177.PDF

[zimmah]

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless.

correct, it's creation. glad you agree.

[zimmah]

And that in itself is absurd when we have a sample size of 1 universe. What other universes have you studied to lead you to have the belief that anything is more or less likely than anything else? If you didn't know anything about dice or the kind of physics and maths you'd need to even attempt to predict the next roll of them, and I brought two along and rolled a double 1, you might say that on that basis, from that sample size, it's very likely that dice always end up on double 1. You're doing the same with that statement, you're assuming you know what the chances of a universe forming like this actually are, despite having no reference points with other universes that may or may not exist beyond ours or the "rules" of universe creation. It's ridiculous (and that's not meant as a personal insult of you, merely a description of the process)

one universe, probably (there's no proof that there aren't others, but let's just assume there's one).

but that universe is big and has many stars and planets, and the very fact that it's so organised means some intelligent design happened.

as for dice, no matter how many dice you have, you can always throw them multiple times. so your argument is invalid. No-one would draw conclusions based on a single dice throw.

[zimmah]

I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible.

That's a really stupid thing to say.

If chance > 0 then chance = not impossible

Is it so hard to understand?

mathematically improbable.

[zimmah]

Evolution or Degeneration?
a summary of the degeneration-theory

Charles Darwin hardly knew anything about genetics. It was quite easy for him to set up a theory in which he didn't have to think of the complex reality of DNA, genes and proteïns. However, he did discover that there's 'biological change' and something like 'natural selection'. The mistake Darwin made is that he interpreted this into a certain direction, assuming all 'higher' animals evolved from 'lower' animals. If biological change should be given a direction, it would be downhill: Degeneration instead of evolution.

Evolution is controversial, not universally accepted.

Contrary to what many people think, the idea of the development of one-celled organisms toward the stage of mammals and man is not a solved issue. Since the publication of Darwin's book The Origin of Species there have been serious protests against it. The genetic laws of Mendel were considered contradictory to an evolution-theory, because of the fixed genetic laws. The so-called 'Neo-Darwinian' synthesis provided an answer: evolution takes place by means of random mutations (changes in DNA-structure) in combination with nonrandom selection.

The main spokesman of this theory is Richard Dawkins with books like The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. In the seventies Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould started an opposition by claiming that the fossil-record did not provide all the links that Darwinism hoped to encounter. In their alternative, and now widely accepted, model of 'punctuated equilibrium' (interrupted balance) they try to solve the issue. Biochemist Michael Denton, however, completely rejects the evolutionistic vision in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. And more recently biochemist Michael Behe published his book Darwin's Black Box, that caused a lot of commotion, especially within the scientific community. With strong arguments about 'Irreducible Complexity' he clearly shows the duo 'mutation + selection' is falling short.

Besides these things, creationism provides an everlasting stream of publications. The Dutch writer Maarten 't Hart described the book Darwin on Trial (by Philip Johnson) "the clearest formulated, sharpest attack on the weak spots of the evolution-theory". So clearly, there is a lot to say against the thought of universal evolution, even though it is often taught as a fact.

What changes have we seen since Darwin?

Darwin's ingeniousity is clearly seen from the fact that he found out species change and that he was able to identify the mechanism: natural selection. Natural selection is the opposite of human selection with breeding. Darwin hardly knew anything about heredity - he wrote a book about 'blending inheritence' which was found to be completely beside the truth - and he also did not have the knowledge of genetics.

Biochemical and genetic research today revealed a miniature-world with an amazing degree of complexity that goes beyond our imagination. As many biochemical secrets have been revealed now, for example the eye-functions, evolution has to be explained on thát lowest level, not longer on the general, broad level; the level that already troubled Darwin in his time and that sometimes 'made him quiver' when thinking of it.

Macro-evolution is genetically impossible

In biology there is a difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. When a child inherits certain qualities from both father and mother, we call that micro-evolution. That's because the child inherits a random half of qualities from both parents. On DNA-level this is caused by 'recombination' : exchanging parts of chromosomes (=DNA) between equal chromosomes. That's why there can be a lot of variety among offspring. The genetic material itself, however, does not change; new combinations of genes are created.

However, by means of mutations (copy-errors in the process of DNA-splitting) changes are inevitable. The mutation-theory tries to prove that all genetic information came into existence by means of such copy-errors, because the most favorable are selected (natural selection).

There are some serious objections that can be brought in against this theory:

1 - Just as a computer-program is not created through a combination of copy-errors and selection, also the complex information inside DNA did not spring forth from copy-errors and selection. In the same sense it would also be nonsense to say that the typewriter came into existence through small copy-errors, made when retyping the manual of the typewriter.

2 - Michael Behe talks about 'Irreducible Complexity'. A mousetrap is irreducible complex. If one part is missing, the mousetrap doesn't function. Many biochemical systems, such as blood clotting, 'light-sensitivity' of the eyes, and the 'engine' (flagellum) of a bacteria, are completely useless if only one part (gene) is missing.

Only if all the parts function at the place they are needed, success is guaranteed. It's impossible for mutations to develop such complete systems step by step (the system doesn't work unless it's complete), or at once (too great a step for mutations.)
3 - Many genes are so essentially important to bring forth living offspring, that their function could never change. If such genes would start to function otherwise, life would be impossible, because the original, essential function is lost. One example is hemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood. Not a single individual can miss it. So basically, there is no significant evolution in those kind of genes.

4 - The fact that the information inside DNA is degenerating is a very much neglected aspect of life around us. This degeneration causes species, and also mankind, to degenerate and genes disappear instead of new ones with formerly unknown functions appearing.

LOSS OF GENES leads to new variation and new species

That the loss of a functional gene can lead to new variation is one aspect of biological change that is hardly realized. One single mutation can completely disable the a gene. With that the gene loses its function and causes a certain effect on the appearance of the individual carrying the gene. One clear example is albinism. The gene that produces the pigment has become dysfunctional. But it can also be more subtle: With many animals in the polar-regions, the gene that produces pigment in the skin has become dysfunctional. That's not the same as albinism, because albinism causes eyes to be red.



This photo of penguins shows how such a mutation can easily pop up in a certain population.

In the same way white lions (with black eyes) have been discovered in Africa. They will most likely quickly disappear in nature, because such a loss doesn't lead to good survival-prospects for lions.



White Lions: radical changes in appearance spontaneously originate in
populations when a mutation disables a functional gene.

However, if such an elimination of a pigment gene takes place in an area with lots of snow, it can be an advantage, because the species is less visible and thus has a better chance to survive. The polar-bear, the dall-sheep and the snow-owl are good examples.

Besides the gene that is responsible for coat-coloring, the polar-bear also lost the genes that produce the core of the hairs. Therefor they are hollow and that is an advantage for them, because they isolate the bear very well against the cold. But it is a loss of functional genes that causes this advantage.

The process of domestication leads to new variations much more often, because these variations are wanted and therefore preserved. That's why our dogs, cats and rabbits are available in many different varieties. Those varieties are usually the result of genes that were eliminated completely or that sometimes still perform a minor part of their original function.

In that sense , the result of the loss of A, B, C, D and S-genes leads to respectively black, cinnamon-coloured, albino, blue-greyish and spotted mice. Loss of certain combinations of these genes eventually leads to mice that are chocolad-brownish, blue, silver-cinnamon-coloured, silver-roe-coloured, black spotted, cinnamon spotted and so on.

Breeding and selection can lead to a lot of new varieties (a lot of genes will be permanently eliminated or damaged and new combinations of active genes arise). But the possibility to breed continuously is limited, because eventually too many active genes will have been lost. So 'fresh blood' has to be brought in; original, functional genes have to be added. Species around the world become 'genetically poorer' as time goes by, no matter what kind of selection is used: natural or human.

Genetic Loss

In biology two interesting phenomenon's are wellknown: the 'bottleneck' and the 'founder-effect', that show us how genetic loss occurs. The bottleneck is an event where the genetic diversity of a certain population reduces significantly while being brought back to just a small number of individuals (later to return to its original size maybe). Many genes can be lost in the process, because these few individuals could never carry the genetic variety of the whole population.



The founder-effect is something similar and starts working when a certain number of individuals split from a mother-population, and establish their own population separately from this mother-population. When one male and one female arrive on a remote island for instance, they can create a new population. This population will only have the limited genetic variation that was already present within the original founders of this population.

On top of that there will be a certain amount of inbreeding. The advantage of inbreeding is that hidden (recessive) qualities can be made manifest, that leads to quick new variation which makes possible selection and adaptation.

On the other hand, inbreeding could lead to an increased chance of hereditary defects, thus to degeneration. In the founder-effect - which is the most common mechanism for species-formation (when individuals split from the main population and get reproductively isolated) - the appearance of new variation, gene-loss and degeneration are closely related.

Degeneration exists

Many examples of biological change in living nature, which are often used to prove evolution, are in fact examples of degeneration:

1 - Rudimentary (reduced) organs are still considered as strong proof in favor of evolution. But the reality shows us it is a loss, losing something, not the development of something that originally wasn't there. It's a form of degeneration.

2 - Human hereditary illnesses are often caused by a mutation of a gene that was originally good. From that moment on the flaw is passed on to other members of a family according to heriditary laws. In first instance, however, the gene was good. And most other people outside this family have the good gene. All kinds of isolated groups of people show to have their own specific hereditary illnesses. But we have to keep in mind it's a malfunction of something that originally functioned perfectly. It's not just another step on the evolutionary diary. So if we go back in time far enough (thousands of years), until we reach the time of our ancestors, we would find that they possess all the intact genetic information. It is not possible for them to have carried all our billions of genetic defects within their limited genepool.

3 - In isolated caves we can find various animal species that lost sight, like the blind water-scorpion in the caves of Moville, Romania, or the blind fish and lobsters in the longest cave-system on earth; Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, USA. These fishes, for example, have also lost the pigment in their bodies. They are completely pale. This cán be interpreted as 'an adaptation to the conditions', but nevertheless it is based on a loss of genetic information (for pigment and eyes).



A fish from the dark(!) Mammoth Caves with no eyes and no pigment.
Usually individuals with such mutations will not survive. But in dark caves it's no longer a disadvantage and they're still able to reproduce. Because of this reproduction, damaged genes spread and once a whole population lost the original genes, they will never return, because the information inside genes is too complex to originate from dysfunctional genes. It's like a genetic subroutine has gone lost.

4 - The non-flying cormorant lost the ability to fly. This species lives on an isolated island, with plenty of fish around, so diving from rocks is enough for this cormorant to stay alive.



The non-flying cormorant lost the ability to fly...
5 - Parthenogen lizards lost the ability to reproduce on a natural way, because the female-eggs have a double pair of chromosomes instead of a single pair. The lizards are exact copies of one another (clones) and they stimulate ovulation by simulating mating-behaviour among eachother. The masculine genetic information has gone lost through mutations, because this was no longer needed.

6 - One of the reasons the cheetah disappears is because of genetic loss and degeneration, like various researches have proven. By means of a 'bottleneck' all genetic information has gone lost and all cheetah's are lookalikes, like twins. In the supposedly 10.000 years this process has been going on, mutations did not lead to the needed variations; once something is lost, it will never return.

These examples and many more concerning this 'degeneration-law' leads us to this conclusion:

On the long run a species or population tends to lose genes and qualities which it doesn't necessarily need to survive.



Did the koala lose the genes that once helped him to have a more balanced diët?
Mutations occur randomly and one single mutation can be enough to disable a gene completely (just like a typing-mismatch will block computer-instructions). Therefor all the genes of a species have the risk to be eliminated sooner or later. Only if it strictly should not happen, because it decreases the chance of survival, the non-funtional gene will disappear.

In the long run it shows us that only the genes which are needed for survival in a specific environment, will last. Because of this a species might become completely dependent upon its environment, like, for example, the Koala, that only consumes very special eucalyptus-leaves. Eventually the genetic 'stretch' will have vanished, and if the environment changes again, a species could easily become extinct. It no longer has the genetic diversity to adapt to such changing circumstances.

The natural bottomline of degeneration

One question might arise: where does it end? Will life eventually become extinct?

There is a natural limit to degeneration that is preserved through natural selection: the reproductive age, the age on which a species might have offspring. If degeneration goes so far as to eliminate reproduction, that form of degeneration will not be spread anymore. In that sense, natural selection serves as a 'protector' against damaging degeneration, like weaker individuals die quicker than strong ones.

When a species balances on the edge of death, and is still able to reproduce, it can be called the worst form of degeneration. A good example is the one-day-fly. This fly spends most of its life under the surface of the water as a larvae. On a certain moment the larvae climbs out of the water onto a stalk and peels off its skin. It spends a little time flying, climbs onto a stalk again and peels off its skin for a second time. Then it starts looking for a partner. When the female is fertilized and the day has passed, she falls into the water out of exhaustion. While she drowns, she releases her eggs into the water for the next generation. A remarkable characteristic of the one-day-fly is that it has no mouth! This is where we can see the degeneration-law in action: a mouth wasn't necessarily needed for survival, and thus the species lost it eventually.


The one-day-fly does not have a mouth. The femal releases her eggs into the water whilst drowning...

What does this all lead to?

When biological change that happens today and can be observed, shows us that species go genetically downhill, it will be very hard to hold on to the idea of an increase, or generation, of new genes. Micro-evolution seems to be 'down-hill'-evolution. That makes macro-evolution a fairy-tale.

The most logical explanation for the generation of life, and for the information inside DNA, is that an Intelligent Creator preprogrammed the DNA. Life must have sprung forth from several original types, like an original wolf, an original cat, an original bovine animal, and an original human. From these original species that had a great genetic richness in first instance, all the millions of subspecies and varieties started developing, each one searching its own way downward in its own environment.

And what about Darwin? He was a great man that made the most important discovery in biology, that is that species change throughout time. The only thing is that the direction he gave to biological change was completely opposite to what he assumed:

Not EVOLUTION, but DEVOLUTION.

First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.

Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.

Wings on birds that do not fly?
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:

a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.

b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?

c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.

Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?
Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.

Why do male humans have nipples?
See also Male Nipples Prove Evolution?

This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female — again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.

What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation.

Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?
This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.

Legless lizards
It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ‘amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ 26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.

Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.

The Appendix
See also Your Appendix—It’s There for a Reason!

It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.

Hip bones in whales
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.

Teeth in embryonic baleen whales
Evolutionists claim that they show that baleen whales evolved from toothed whales. However they have not provided an adequate mechanism for scrapping one perfectly good system (teeth) and replacing it with a very different system (baleen or whalebone). Also, the teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.

[natty dread]

I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible.

That's a really stupid thing to say.

If chance > 0 then chance = not impossible

Is it so hard to understand?

mathematically improbable.

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it. Then draw the first 10 cards from it. The chances of getting those particular cards in that particular order are 1 in 5.740770389×10^16. Is it impossible that you got those cards because the chances are so low? Do you then say it had to be god who made those particular cards be drawn?

[zimmah]

I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible.

That's a really stupid thing to say.

If chance > 0 then chance = not impossible

Is it so hard to understand?

mathematically improbable.

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it. Then draw the first 10 cards from it. The chances of getting those particular cards in that particular order are 1 in 5.740770389×10^16. Is it impossible that you got those cards because the chances are so low? Do you then say it had to be god who made those particular cards be drawn?

how about you take a bunch of molecules, than wait a few years, and find a stack of cards on the spot where the bunch of molecules were, and than the cards are perfectly ordered? that's more like your story of sudden evolution.

[zimmah]

If you could create a deaf utopia, what would it be like?

Everyone would communicate in sign language, both deaf and hearing. Many, if not most, children would be born deaf.

Deaf Utopia Did Exist

There actually was such a place once. It was an isolated island off the Massachusetts coast - Martha's Vineyard. Some early Vineyard settlers carried a gene for deafness (the first known deaf one was Jonathan Lambert, 1694), and over years of marriage, generation after generation was born with hearing loss. At one point, one in four children was born deaf! There were so many deaf people on the Vineyard (most deaf lived in Chilmark) that residents developed a sign language, Martha's Vineyard Sign Language (MVSL). MVSL later merged with mainland signs to form American Sign Language.

High Deaf Population

Some censuses taken of 19th century Vineyard population reveal the extent of deafness. In 1817, two families had deaf members, with a total of 7 deaf. Just a few years later, by 1827 there were 11 deaf. The 1850 Chilmark census identified 17 deaf out of 141 households, in the Hammett, Lambert, Luce, Mayhew, Tilton, and West families. In 1855, it was 17 plus 4 in nearby Tisbury. The 1880 Chilmark census had 19 deaf in 159 households. New deaf families in the 1880 census included the Nobles and the Smiths. To put this into perspective, compared to the mainland U.S. where the frequency of deafness was 1 in almost 6000, on the Vineyard it was as high as 1 in 155 (1 in 25 in Chilmark, and 1 in 4 in the Chilmark town of Squibnocket).

High Acceptance of Sign Language

Sign language was so accepted on the Vineyard that a newspaper marveled in 1895 at the way the spoken and signed languages were used so freely and easily by both deaf and hearing residents. People moving to Chilmark had to learn sign language in order to live in the community. Deafness was so common that some hearing residents actually thought it was a contagious disease. Deafness was never considered to be a handicap.

Gradual Decline in Deaf Population

These intermarriages persisted and the deaf population of Chilmark and the rest of the Vineyard continued to propagate. It would have kept growing if not for the growth of deaf education on the mainland. As deaf Vineyard children attended schools off-island, they tended to settle off-island, married mainland mates, and gradually the deaf Vineyard population died out. The last deaf Vineyard native passed away in the 1950s.

clearly, the process of devolution caused them to lose hearing (inbreeding) and only when genes from different populations (who had the proper gene to replace the broken one) the problem of much deaf people was solved.

[natty dread]

I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible.

That's a really stupid thing to say.

If chance > 0 then chance = not impossible

Is it so hard to understand?

mathematically improbable.

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it. Then draw the first 10 cards from it. The chances of getting those particular cards in that particular order are 1 in 5.740770389×10^16. Is it impossible that you got those cards because the chances are so low? Do you then say it had to be god who made those particular cards be drawn?

how about you take a bunch of molecules, than wait a few years, and find a stack of cards on the spot where the bunch of molecules were, and than the cards are perfectly ordered? that's more like your story of sudden evolution.

What's my "story of sudden evolution"? I'd like to hear it.

4 billion years is "sudden"?

[zimmah]

I don't care how many stars and planets are out there, the chances of life just forming aren't just small, they are way beyond impossible.

That's a really stupid thing to say.

If chance > 0 then chance = not impossible

Is it so hard to understand?

mathematically improbable.

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it. Then draw the first 10 cards from it. The chances of getting those particular cards in that particular order are 1 in 5.740770389×10^16. Is it impossible that you got those cards because the chances are so low? Do you then say it had to be god who made those particular cards be drawn?

how about you take a bunch of molecules, than wait a few years, and find a stack of cards on the spot where the bunch of molecules were, and than the cards are perfectly ordered? that's more like your story of sudden evolution.

What's my "story of sudden evolution"? I'd like to hear it.

4 billion years is "sudden"?

it had to start from somewhere, even if just 1 atom randomly formed, it would be sudden, as you can't have a half atom.

also, read the multiple articles on degeneration. you probably skipped them because you have nothing witty to say about them, now do you?

[crispybits]

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless.

correct, it's creation. glad you agree.

No, it's chemistry, just the same as blocks of iron dropped into pure sulphuric acid will produce hydrogen and iron sulphide. No chance involved, it just will happen because that's what has to happen, with or without a creator. For someone who got so snarky when I made a valid link between "humans are not so important" and "humans are not important" when replying to one of your previous posts on another thread, you're certainly very quick to make HUGE leaps of logic and claim I said something I clearly didn't aren't you? Maybe if I just gave you a snarky reply and then claimed the moral high ground we'd get somewhere... oh no wait, we wouldn't....

And that in itself is absurd when we have a sample size of 1 universe. What other universes have you studied to lead you to have the belief that anything is more or less likely than anything else? If you didn't know anything about dice or the kind of physics and maths you'd need to even attempt to predict the next roll of them, and I brought two along and rolled a double 1, you might say that on that basis, from that sample size, it's very likely that dice always end up on double 1. You're doing the same with that statement, you're assuming you know what the chances of a universe forming like this actually are, despite having no reference points with other universes that may or may not exist beyond ours or the "rules" of universe creation. It's ridiculous (and that's not meant as a personal insult of you, merely a description of the process)

one universe, probably (there's no proof that there aren't others, but let's just assume there's one).

but that universe is big and has many stars and planets, and the very fact that it's so organised means some intelligent design happened.

as for dice, no matter how many dice you have, you can always throw them multiple times. so your argument is invalid. No-one would draw conclusions based on a single dice throw.

No, again, you cannot make a knowledge claim that the fact it is so big and organised means it's designed. You can only make a claim that you find it very likely that it was designed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because you think something is highly unlikely that it must be impossible? Do you possess enough knowledge of how universes come into existence, how they form and how they work in order to say, with 100% certainty, that this one must have been designed? Because you can't imagine an alternative to your viewpoint that your viewpoint must be the truth?

As you say, nobody can make conclusions based on a single dice throw, yet you're drawing conclusions based on a single universe. If you were making claims about planets or stars then yes you'd have a sample size of millions or billions, but you're making claims about the nature of the universe, and for that you have a sample size of 1. By your own admission you can make no knowledge claims based on that.

[zimmah]

The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless.

correct, it's creation. glad you agree.

No, it's chemistry, just the same as blocks of iron dropped into pure sulphuric acid will produce hydrogen and iron sulphide. No chance involved, it just will happen because that's what has to happen, with or without a creator. For someone who got so snarky when I made a valid link between "humans are not so important" and "humans are not important" when replying to one of your previous posts on another thread, you're certainly very quick to make HUGE leaps of logic and claim I said something I clearly didn't aren't you? Maybe if I just gave you a snarky reply and then claimed the moral high ground we'd get somewhere... oh no wait, we wouldn't....

And that in itself is absurd when we have a sample size of 1 universe. What other universes have you studied to lead you to have the belief that anything is more or less likely than anything else? If you didn't know anything about dice or the kind of physics and maths you'd need to even attempt to predict the next roll of them, and I brought two along and rolled a double 1, you might say that on that basis, from that sample size, it's very likely that dice always end up on double 1. You're doing the same with that statement, you're assuming you know what the chances of a universe forming like this actually are, despite having no reference points with other universes that may or may not exist beyond ours or the "rules" of universe creation. It's ridiculous (and that's not meant as a personal insult of you, merely a description of the process)

one universe, probably (there's no proof that there aren't others, but let's just assume there's one).

but that universe is big and has many stars and planets, and the very fact that it's so organised means some intelligent design happened.

as for dice, no matter how many dice you have, you can always throw them multiple times. so your argument is invalid. No-one would draw conclusions based on a single dice throw.

No, again, you cannot make a knowledge claim that the fact it is so big and organised means it's designed. You can only make a claim that you find it very likely that it was designed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because you think something is highly unlikely that it must be impossible? Do you possess enough knowledge of how universes come into existence, how they form and how they work in order to say, with 100% certainty, that this one must have been designed? Because you can't imagine an alternative to your viewpoint that your viewpoint must be the truth?

As you say, nobody can make conclusions based on a single dice throw, yet you're drawing conclusions based on a single universe. If you were making claims about planets or stars then yes you'd have a sample size of millions or billions, but you're making claims about the nature of the universe, and for that you have a sample size of 1. By your own admission you can make no knowledge claims based on that.

by your logic, if i were to put you in a room with a lamp and a on-off switch, and i'd flip the switch and the light turns on, and than i tell you the light was designed by Edison and i installed the light and the switch, you'd answer, nope, it's electricity. makes sense dude, makes sense.

also, there's a huge flaw in your reasoning, because chemistry always produces the exact same results, yet you claim it's a process of RANDOM events. RANDOM does NOT produce the same results every time. in fact, the scientific method is BASED on the fact that if you do something once, it should ALWAYS happen in the same way. (given the circumstances are identical). And if you chance one thing (like only temperature) the outcome may vary to support the chance n environment, but just by a given amount, which can be predicted based on results from earlier study.

with our without a creator, but who defined the rules in the first place? If i were to make a computer, but put no operating system on it, not even any BIOS or any software at all, just the hardware. and then put power on it and let the power on it forever, will at some point in time the computer suddenly evolve it's own operating system? NO! then why do you pretend this (and even more, because in your case not only did not even the computer exists, the parts didn't even exist, heck, not even the atomic parts to MAKE the parts existed, get the picture?). there was nothing, nothing at all. and you say this whole complex universe, complex beyond our imagination just randomly evolved into existence, and yet everything is so stable that there is no chance involved. can't you even see that you are contradicting yourself here?

and how in the world can you compare the universe with a single dicethrow? we haven't even seen the whole universe yet, and the small piece we do see is already so complex we understand very little of it. what more evidence do you need? also, there is no evolution, but only devolution. how do you explain that, if not for intelligent design? (in other words: the devolution is a proof that the bible is correct and it's a result of the original sin). With all the evidence it's much more plausible that creation is true, and evolution is not. yet you seem to say it's the other way around.

and besides, you speak of one universe to relate to my answer, but in the same post, you speak of millions upon millions of planets. make up your mind.

[natty dread]

it had to start from somewhere, even if just 1 atom randomly formed, it would be sudden, as you can't have a half atom.

Yes you can. Atoms are split in half all the time, that's how nuclear power works. Anyway I don't know what "atoms forming randomly" has to do with evolution, perhaps you'd like to explain that.

also, read the multiple articles on degeneration. you probably skipped them because you have nothing witty to say about them, now do you?

I don't know what you're talking about. What is "degeneration" and what does it have to do with evolution?

[natty dread]

If i were to make a computer, but put no operating system on it, not even any BIOS or any software at all, just the hardware. and then put power on it and let the power on it forever, will at some point in time the computer suddenly evolve it's own operating system? NO! then why do you pretend this (and even more, because in your case not only did not even the computer exists, the parts didn't even exist, heck, not even the atomic parts to MAKE the parts existed, get the picture?). there was nothing, nothing at all. and you say this whole complex universe, complex beyond our imagination just randomly evolved into existence, and yet everything is so stable that there is no chance involved.

and how in the world can you compare the universe with a single dicethrow?

How in the world can you compare the universe to a computer?

[Army of GOD]

It astounds me how creationists so vehemently attack the theory of evolution yet, when questioned about what they believe, they just respond "god".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps