Evolution

[PLAYER57832]

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.

There are multiple chances for creation... far more chances than any human could ever throw dice, in fact more chances for creation than for every human on earth to throw dice if done so constantly every minute of their lives.

but note, I DO believe "God did it", its just not provable and certainly not as you indicate.

[PLAYER57832]

Just like the blind pale fish in the dark caves. They didn't have any disadvantage losing color or sight, because it was unnecessary there, probably even beneficial (because it conserves energy), but they'll never be able to evolve eyes from the defect genes, because the mutation to get working eyes would be too complex. .

Except, this is just wrong. What you are actually seeing, most often, is not a loss of genes themeselves, but a loss of the expression of the genes. The alleles are still there, the phenome differs.

In fact, blind fish can be "forced" to generate eyes... and various other experiments have shown similar things to happen in other species.

AND.. this gets to one thing you said earlier that is also wrong. We share a LOT of the same genetic material as all life on Earth. We don't necessarily use those genes in the same way, some of our genes are apparently unexpressed, etc. However, it is when you start delving into the genetics that the ideas of evolution become far more probable, not less. There is no "logical" reason for so many traits to be tied genetically in the way they are, but if you realize it came through (very, very, very) long lines of genetic mutation, then it does. Material there was used and reused, rather than utterly created from scratch.

There are others here that are better at the genetics (my expertise is in the macro), so I will leave it at that.

[PLAYER57832]

Yep he was a hedonist earlier in his life and only converted to christianity at the age of about 32. So he must have been something pretty special in terms of christian theology and philosophy to still get canonised and ordained as a bishop after living in sin for the first half of his life

And wikipedia said nothing about a war, he was a teacher who kinda floated around Italy for a while before "seeing the light"

Forgiveness is a rather high principle in Christianity, you know... Saul/Paul, et al.

I don't know about the war bit (not interested enough to google it), but one thing is quite clear, the worst harm to Christianity will ALWAYS come from within.

And, few represent the tendency to take scripture to criticize secular ideas without bothering to truly understand those ideas FIRST better than the young earth group. In fact, the more I have studied them, the less I feel they have anything really to do with Christianity. Rather, there are some interests that are quite happy to have masses of utterly ignorant citizens claiming religion as justification for their ignorance. Too bad Christ never supported ignorance.

[zimmah]

Off course i know that different colored plants can produce other colored plants if you crossbreed them, or even let them reproduce the natural way, but that's not mutation, that's just the result of dominant and recessive genes and basic stuff.

I wasn't saying about different plants but just different branches of the same plant. I used that example because it gives to you the idea of how evolution works in a small period of time. It's not matter of different colors, but more why they have the different colors (or shape)

But for example if a plant suddenly loses a piece of the DNA that is supposed to have the blueprints to produce the cells needed for photosynthesis, the plant would not be able to make food, so it'd die. That's a mutation that can happen when a gene is mutated and gets defective. It still has the same number of genes, but some of them have become gibberish. Also less severe mutations can happen, such as the loss of pigment, or the loss (or reduced function) of organs.

This is exactly evolution, just you picked the part of it that has as outcome a failure modification. If the mutation is a failure the specie will die (extintion), exactly what evolution theory says: Only those who are able to change and adapt themselves to the enviroment around them will survive. So it's always evolution, but there's no more step after that because the modification was a "bad decision".

For example, colorblindness in humans. It's fine to be colorblind, so the defective gene can spread. But unless you produce offspring with someone who has the un-mutated genes, the chances of returning to the original gene, are very unlikely, depending on how much of the gene was lost. (1 or 2 point mutations can be repaired by chance, but after a 3th point mutation you can forget about it, it will never work again unless the original DNA is still present in some other carrier).

Colorblind people represents just the 5% of men and 1% of women, a minority. It would be nice to find some data about the percentages of people affected in past to see if there's an increment or not. But if we think why there're colorblind people today, we will find another proof of the fact evolution is right, infact there are some studies that let us think that this defect is a defect now, in the enviroment in which we live today, but it couldn't be the same in past, when the men had to hunt animals to survive: http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... WAEw9Nss-g

Said that, we need to consider that colorblindness is a mutation of the X gene so it's hard to think it will disappear in future, but if the study is right....there's a valid reason behind it; let me say that if men wasn't a social animal (so able to share food) and a very intelligent creature (better and bigger brain to create other ways to provide food - that's exactly another evolution), probably today we would be all colorblind!

Certainly DNA can mutate in a wrong way, no one is perfect and everyone is subject to death.....but when it happens the people with the defective gene will slowly disappear (on a long period of time) in a natural enviroment.

well, in that case evolution is true, but it ONLY goes downhill, hence, degeneration.

no new functional genes are formed, just good ones are destroyed.

[zimmah]

For example, colorblindness in humans. It's fine to be colorblind, so the defective gene can spread. But unless you produce offspring with someone who has the un-mutated genes, the chances of returning to the original gene, are very unlikely, depending on how much of the gene was lost. (1 or 2 point mutations can be repaired by chance, but after a 3th point mutation you can forget about it, it will never work again unless the original DNA is still present in some other carrier).

Colorblind people represents just the 5% of men and 1% of women, a minority. It would be nice to find some data about the percentages of people affected in past to see if there's an increment or not. But if we think why there're colorblind people today, we will find another proof of the fact evolution is right, infact there are some studies that let us think that this defect is a defect now, in the enviroment in which we live today, but it couldn't be the same in past, when the men had to hunt animals to survive: http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... WAEw9Nss-g

Said that, we need to consider that colorblindness is a mutation of the X gene so it's hard to think it will disappear in future, but if the study is right....there's a valid reason behind it; let me say that if men wasn't a social animal (so able to share food) and a very intelligent creature (better and bigger brain to create other ways to provide food - that's exactly another evolution), probably today we would be all colorblind!

Certainly DNA can mutate in a wrong way, no one is perfect and everyone is subject to death.....but when it happens the people with the defective gene will slowly disappear (on a long period of time) in a natural enviroment.

do i literally have to spell out everything in detail?

there's many people alive that aren't colorblind as you say, so the chances that some new person will be born who is colorblind is rather small (only if both parents have it (or carry it, and both happen to carry on the defect gene)), the child will have it, because if the child inherits only 1 defective gene, the good one will be dominant. Lets assume there is a single gene causing colorblindness (for the sake of simplicity, there's in fact more) and let's say it's C when it's working and c when it's defective. so you could have two parents with Cc (both are not colorblind because one of the genes is working) but they both happen to pass on cc to their child, so the child becomes colorblind. (loss of functional genes) However, the child will never be able to carry on good genes to his children (unless off course the other parent will have the right genes).

with mutations it only becomes worse. Birds which have somehow lost the ability to fly over the coarse of years, because flight was no longer needed for survival, are not able to produce offspring which can fly, even while the birds already have wings! so it's a longshot to say animals who never had wings in the first place evolved into a species that has wings.

so, then you may ask, how come some mutated fruitflies may have 4 wings rather than 2? it's because during the growth of the fly some of the cells produce the wrong organs from data that is ALLREADY present in the DNA of the fruitfly. the fluitfly blueprint already has a code for functional wings, so if by accident the communication between neighboring cells is broken, it may have double the amount of wings, or legs on weird places, etc. but they will never grow an organ that is not already in the DNA. (well, not naturally at least, off course you can inject DNA, but that's more like 'hacking life' than anything else).

[natty dread]

well, in that case evolution is true, but it ONLY goes downhill, hence, degeneration.

no new functional genes are formed, just good ones are destroyed.

Nope. That's not how it works. We evolved from apes. If what you said was true we'd just be dysfunctional apes.

[zimmah]

look at it this way.

If you make a statue and put it in your garden. eventually it will erode away until it's unrecognisable.

however, if you were to put a random formless stone from the same material as the statue (however many you like). and allow it to erode, by your logic, it would have a small random chance of forming the exact same statue.

this is exactly why i don't believe in evolution.

things DEGENERATE, they do not randomly create or improve.

cars degenerate too if you don't repair them and let them stand outside for years, but no cars are formed by themselves. etc.

houses too.

[PLAYER57832]

look at it this way.

If you make a statue and put it in your garden. eventually it will erode away until it's unrecognisable.

however, if you were to put a random formless stone from the same material as the statue (however many you like). and allow it to erode, by your logic, it would have a small random chance of forming the exact same statue.

this is exactly why i don't believe in evolution.

things DEGENERATE, they do not randomly create or improve.

cars degenerate too if you don't repair them and let them stand outside for years, but no cars are formed by themselves. etc.

houses too.

Those are all INANIMATE objects. Cars and statues cannot reproduce, cannot repair themselves. It is the nature of life that it does those very things.

BUT.. when it comes to evolution, all you have to do is examine the fossil record. The evidence is there, pretty clearly.

In fact, almost none of what you say is subject to belief. Your blind fish example is very much NOT what happens. That you don't understand that shows you really need to study up on what real biologists say before you feel you can dismiss what they say. Right now, you sound like a child arguing that snow never falls because, in the tropics, he has never seen it fall.
Oh, since your reply beat my edit, I will copy and paste the addition after this.

[natty dread]

there's many people alive that aren't colorblind as you say, so the chances that some new person will be born who is colorblind is rather small (only if both parents have it (or carry it, and both happen to carry on the defect gene)), the child will have it, because if the child inherits only 1 defective gene, the good one will be dominant.

Zimmah, what is a "defective gene"? How does it differ from a "good" one?

Is the "good" gene just always by definition the one which is dominant? There are many genetic diseases which are passed on by dominant genes. Are we now "meant" to have those diseases since they're caused by so-called "good" genes?

with mutations it only becomes worse. Birds which have somehow lost the ability to fly over the coarse of years, because flight was no longer needed for survival, are not able to produce offspring which can fly, even while the birds already have wings! so it's a longshot to say animals who never had wings in the first place evolved into a species that has wings.

And yet that's what happened. A mutation can be beneficial, as was proven by the bacteria which mutated to be able to digest citrate. Which it was not able to do before the mutation.

But it's fallacious to think or require that a mutation should simply instantly give a species wings. That's not how it happens - it happens in steps. First you have a species that gains some kind of proto-wings, that maybe help it glide a bit after it jumps from trees or cliffs. Then another mutation gives slightly better wings, then better, etc. until many thousands of years later there's a species with wings that can actually fly.

But it can go to the other direction as well, ie. penguins. Penguins cannot fly because the ability to fly is less beneficial to them. If a selection pressure appears one day that makes it beneficial for penguins to fly, they could slowly begin evolving to flying creatures again.

so, then you may ask, how come some mutated fruitflies may have 4 wings rather than 2? it's because during the growth of the fly some of the cells produce the wrong organs from data that is ALLREADY present in the DNA of the fruitfly. the fluitfly blueprint already has a code for functional wings, so if by accident the communication between neighboring cells is broken, it may have double the amount of wings, or legs on weird places, etc. but they will never grow an organ that is not already in the DNA.

Sure they will. All that's needed is a mutation that modifies the function of any of their existing organs, or a mutation that introduces a new organ.


If you find a watch, do you think there has to be a watchmaker?

[PLAYER57832]

The Book...
Justification + outline

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Outline

There is biological alteration! That is clear. Dachshunds and St. Bernards are around now but were not here in the beginning: they came into being. In the fossil records, we encounter animals which no longer exist and there are animals which exist now that do not appear in the fossil records. Therefore, there apparently is biological alteration as well as new variation.

Summary -- species change over time in many ways... i.e. evolution happens!

But where is the line drawn? Darwin proposed that there should be no absolute division and that all life should be seen as having one common ancestor and therefore at the most basic level as all having been descended from unicellular organisms.

Maybe. Its possible there was more than one line of descent. Neoteny spoke on this earlier, but I think the tendency is still to look for one single line. At any rate, whether one or multiple origins, evolution concerns what happened later.

Without a doubt, this idea means that over billions of years biological alteration has resulted in an increase in the complexity of life forms, which is called macro-evolution. But this is not necessarily true! It is also possible that the biological alteration which exists is only lateral, horizontal, which is called micro-evolution or “variation on a theme”.

It is also possible that the biological alteration we perceive is a genetic impoverishment, or even a form of degeneration, which could be vertical, but never goes upwards. If this is true, Darwin’s story becomes inconsequential, at best. This would mean a revolution in our way of thinking. That is the subject of this book: macro-evolution is a genetic impossibility, and the alternative, inevitably, is the degeneration theory...

A classic young earth trick. Introduce a lot of self-defined terms and throw them out as if they actually mean something, and something opposed to what more traditional scientists think.

In fact, there is no real distinction between macro and micro evolution, except that macro evolution is a culmination of many many micro changes. the other terms -- "lateral, horizontal", etc are not "microevolution" at all! The real terms are "stasis" -- meaning periods or species with little or no change (i.e. horseshoe crabs and Nautilus are roughly the same as they were eons ago, BUT whole complexes may show very little change when the environment is static).
Coevolution, convergent evolution, etc, etc, etc. In other words, his attempt to claim specific types of changes are somehow "not evolution" is just wrong, as is his basic insinuation that evolution must mean species "improving".

In fact, even the basic idea of natural selection does not absolutely mean "improvement". It means that a specied might be given an advantage in that particular place and time. BUT, as species become more highly adapted to their environment, they become less "flexible", often LESS able to adapt to further changes (not absolutely-- there are many mitigating factors).

We see many examples today in the list of endangered species. A snail darter that is found in only one region or even one stream is very, very "at risk". All it takes is one dam or one major project to threaten that entire species. Rats and houseflies, to contrast are so highly adaptable that they are found just about everywhere. Alligators have persisted virtually unchanged for millenia, in part because they were fortunate to live in an environment that persisted, but also because they don't have a lot of complex needs.

Natural selection offers an advantage in a competetive environment, when other factors are held static. (NOTE the qualifications, they are often omitted, but are quite important!) It does NOT lead to an "improvement" overall.

This book, which thus becomes the counterpart to Darwin’s Origin of species by means of natural selection, began as a chapter in another book. For various reasons, it grew beyond its scope so quickly that it developed into an independent book. Given that the theory of evolution cannot be completely disproven in a pamphlet or even in a single chapter, and that the solution was more complex than I thought in the beginning, my own interest in the subject contributed to this process. I began studying and consulting others intensively, and there were moments when I honestly doubted my own ideas. The notes, texts, and examples grew so extensive that it became clear fairly quickly that I needed to make this into a completely separate project.

Nevertheless, I deliberately place limits on myself: I will grasp the bull by the horns. Darwin’s bull. The holy cow. The heart of the evolution theory: mutations and natural selection. This question then becomes central: could natural selection have worked beyond the borders of species or types and caused an increase in complexity? Could it then be responsible for the origin of the unrelated species from common ancestors? The evolutionary theory stands or falls with this biological aspect, and not the geological or astronomical aspects. This is the reason I have chosen not to discuss those other aspects and a great number of questions which arise from the treatment of the biological side of the matter.

The present knowledge of DNA, genes, and the proteins created by the genes casts Darwin’s idea of the single origin of life in a very different light. It no longer has to be a philosophy or a theory; the probabilities, the possibilities, and the impossibilities can literally be calculated! The mechanisms which cause variation are so familiar now, in contrast to Darwin’s time, when only speculation was possible, that the idea of evolution can definitively be either proven or disproven.

And what is the result? That no new complex, specialized genes can originate by pure chance. That Darwin’s principle of natural selection could not have been involved at all in the origin of the majority of genes! That genes do not spontaneously form new interactive groups, for instance to make a cell sensitive to light as in Darwin’s ‘most primitive eye’. And that means the end of the theory of evolution!

This is just plain false. No other way to put it, most particularly that last paragraph.

Although you find most of the same basic genetic proteins in all species on Earth (a fact that supports, rather than contrasts the idea of evolution, by-the-way), we have very much seen changes to the organization and patterns of these genes in our time. THAT is what is required for evolution to have happened. We have seen the origin, for example of triploid species, both artificially created (triploid salmon were released into the Great Lakes, for example, because they won't breed), but also naturally occuring. The Loganberry is given as an example, though some controvery exists as to whether it was truly a natural variation or not, the fact that it now reproduces on its own is important.

Similar changes were evidenced both in the emergence of wheat and corn on the various continents. (these examples are "relatively" easy to track because they have been so important to civilization).

ALSO, any biologist/evolutionary biologist/paleontologist, etc fully understands that Darwin got a LOT of stuff wrong. This idea that defeating Darwin is somehow the capstone of proving evolution wrong shows how little young earthers really understand how science works. Darwin is celebrated because he was the first to PUBLISH an organized, understood account of what came to be known as evolution. He was not the first to come up with the ideas (though a lot of people get that part wrong), and, like any beginning idea, he got many parts wrong. However, the basic idea, that species change over time and originate from other species was so phenomenal for the time, he is still celebrated and credited, even if many factors ranging from his supposed time frame to mechanisms of change were plain wrong.

1.1 Outline
This book consists of two parts. In the first part, I will ask myself briefly why Darwin’s idea caught on as it did and why the evolution theory is still so popular. After that, I will describe the evolution of the evolution theory up to the present day. In this section, I will also give a concise and step-by-step explanation of the insights which have been discovered since Darwin. Someone already familiar with this material could skip this part. In chapter 5, I will give a few proponents of the evolution theory an extensive opportunity to elaborate and the contours of a biocosmic drama begin to appear. The destructive climax takes place in chapter 6, when we address the question of whether gene growth exists and/or adoption occurs - that is, the assumption of new functions by the genes necessary for, for example, new organs. Naturally, I will consult the mechanisms suggested by the proponents of the evolution theory, but they offer no assistance.

Garbage. Pure garbage. He claims assumptions that are not at all necessary, never made by real scientists. The idea that new functions for genes are necessayr for new organism is pure garbage. All that is needed is a behavioral change... or a slight change in the way a gene is expressed. If the species no longer mate normally, then they are considered differing species.

Ever since the time of Darwin, there have been objections raised against the evolution theory. Will this suddenly change because of my writings? It is possible: one important argument supplied by evolutionists is that there is no alternative.

LOL
No viable alternative has been offered to date. Could one someday be offered? Who knows? BUT.. one thing he got correct, just to criticize pieces of evolutionary theory is not enough to claim its wrong and therefore Creationism must be a viable theory. Any competing theory MUST address all the evidence available. Claiming everything inconvenient is "false" or "made up by scientists trying to harm Christianity" (taken from some of Dr Morris' "favorites") is like a child putting his hands over his ears because he doesn't want to hear his parents say "no".

So even if there are problems, we should take the good with the bad.
The second part of my book contains that alternative in the form of the degeneration theory. The degeneration theory is meant to be tested: to be rejected, refined, or accepted, wherever it can be or is necessary, and is in that sense a true scientific model, which can also make predictions. It is not meant as dogma to be superimposed on our thinking, but as a framework for further discussion and/or development. It is a reasonable alternative, in that I have tried to base it on scientific facts and observations. All data on the living, biological nature, upon which the degeneration theory is based, are themselves based on, and almost always quoted from, books upon which the evolutionary idea depends! In principle, there is nothing wrong with the observation of facts. There could be something wrong with the way in which the facts are explained in a larger context. The degeneration theory gives a new, fresh look at that greater context.

This is nothing. Sometimes species revert to earlier expressions of genes, sometimes different lines of evolution "converge" into similar-looking and acting types and sometimes many other things happen. Its ALL evolution.
He looks at the outward expression of genes (blindness in fish, for example), leaps to the assumption that it is a modification of the genes themsleves (generally NOT true), and then goes on to create a new theory to explain his misinformation.

His basic ideas are just wrong! Any kind of change.. forward, backward or sideways, is ALL just evolution. Change happens in many ways. Sometimes there are actual changes in the gene order or gene combinations. Sometimes an extra protein is added or one taken away... etc, etc, etc BUT.. often it is a very subtle expression of a gene that is changed and we don't always even know why that change happens. (but more and more triggers are being found).

The difficulty in writing a book like this one is the possible difference in knowledge between the author and the reader.

Yeah, that's one way of describing going from reality to la-la land.

A biologist shouldn’t grit his teeth at the shortsightedness of it, a biochemist shouldn’t burst out laughing because of the simplification, and an interested layperson should still be able to understand it. This forces me to explain certain basic principles, which are common knowledge to the initiated. However, this has its advantage: this book, which began as a chapter for a public not specifically well-grounded in biology, expanded to a book which very specifically discusses biology. The interested layperson simply begins at the beginning and is gradually initiated into the material (I hope). Those who are better informed could start reading at chapter 5, which could be briefly scanned so as to dive quickly into chapter 6, the heart and essence of part 1, and continue from there.

Conclusions/summaries
A point-by-point explanation of the conclusions and/or a summary can be found at the end of almost every chapter. If a chapter seems unappealing to the reader, the conclusions or summary could be sufficient, and possibly invite the reader to return to certain sections after all.

Footnotes
The footnotes are often used to discuss specific details. Reading or understanding them is not necessary for generaly understanding the theory, and they can be skipped.

Right-aligned headings

In the more difficult chapters, I have included a heading to the right above many paragraphs, in which I try to explain in one sentence what I subsequently want to make clear.

The FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions (or FAQ's) have been addedI have attempted to discuss possible questions in this section which might not be interesting for everyone, therefore freeing the main text of them. One FAQ is placed as a chapter after part I, and subsequently after each chapter of part II. The FAQ’s are not essential to understanding the material and may be skipped.

Boxed text
Sometimes a more in-depth discussion which is not necessary for the essence of the text needs to be included at a certain point in the text, but is too extensive for a footnote. In that case, it is shown inside a box.

A tour
A summary of the most important arguments I have used is given in chapter 18, with references to the respective chapters or paragraphs in which they are discussed. This can be used as a tour guide, a manual, or a summary, and I strongly recommend it to everyone.

With these precautionary measures, this book is a child of its time: it is to some extent interactive. The reader can make his own choices and piece together the reading material according to his own knowledge, need, and interest. I hope you will find much food for thought...

Peter Scheele

I may have to read this book, but even his summary is enough to show the guy knows NOTHING of the subjects about which he claims to be an expert.

He seems to know a lot of facts, but not understand the real framework into which they fit.

AND... I lay the blame not on his feet, but on the feet of his educators and all biologists/giologists and the like who disdain taking the time to bother finding out what is really being taught in schools today around the world.

My extreme thanks goes out to the following people:

Drs. Folkert de Jong, chemist. For his intense involvement, from the very first moment, in detail, for the many corrections and consultations, and helping me to think, which almost makes this a co-authorship.

Huub Bogaers, sociologist. For pinpointing problems where there are solutions… (which forced me to think matters through), for the involvement, for the hints on a lot of current information, for helping me think along the lines of ‘the formation of science’, and for giving tips and recommendations.

ir. Cees Geerse, biologist. For wrestling through a text which was not yet finished or particularly well-structured at that point in time, for the many evenings this took and for the valuable feedback I received.

Dr. ir. Kees Bos, geneticist. For the same wrestling with a somewhat more polished text, for the extensive critical commentary, the E-mail correspondence and the consultation that without a doubt have given the book a higher quality and reliability.

For fun, I am going to google each of these. Normally, in Creationist texts, either real people are cited out of context OR claim expertise they don't really have. ( A PhD in biochemistry might suddenly be quoted as an expert in hydrology, for example)

Charles Darwin, biologist. For his love of living nature, his insight, and for turning the world upside down.

The Creator® of heaven and earth. For the incredible wonder of life, for the encouragement and inspiration.

Sjoerdje, Eline, Ian en Talitha. For the love, trust, companionship, and the loyalty to give me the opportunity and to make it possible for me to do this. And Ian, for the cozy hours we spent together watching nature documentaries, and the love we share for living nature.

All the others who provided me with comments, both before and after the forum-discussion, via the website, through E-mail, during conversations, or by reading the manuscript, like Henk and Ria Dokter, Jan Hidders, Hans Roskam (for listening to so much foolishness), my family and others.

[PLAYER57832]

Per gene expression versus changes, changes in phenomes versus allele changes --
the allele is the actual gene. Phenome is the "expression" of the gene. It may or may not be something visible, but is the change the genes makes. You have confused the 2 above, but they are very, very different.

Let's say you want to turn a white flower blue.

One way is to take and carefully select flowers that seem to have just a bare hint of blue, breed them together until you, eventually have a blue flower. This is most likely to result in a "permanent", persistant change, that is to ensure that each blue flower will, in turn produce blue flower progeny. Its not absolute. Some odd progeny may result on occasion, but this is how we wound up with many varieties of cows, dogs, and roses.

Another way is to hybridize, cross various species until you get a combination that seems to move you closer to your goal. The combination might be "intuitive" -- a red flower and blue flower might reall give you a purple flower, but not necessarily. As any gardener will tell you (or mendelle, for that matter), this result in a "one generation" change. The progeny will almost certainly NOT be like the immediate parent, but some combination of the granparents and grea-grandparents... if it breeds at all.

Another way is to put a white flower in a pot of blue dye. (This is how flourists give carnations their colors, by-the-way)


A fourth way is to somehow alter how the gene is expressed. Temperature, chemical exposure, radiation exposure, etc, etc... all can alter either how the gene is expressed (what we see). This, in turn can happen many ways. Most animals are diploid, have 2 chromosomes, 2 sets of genes (or even 3), then which gene is expressed follows some patterns. Chemicals, radiation, etc can change that. In some cases, particularly if the exposure is during specific developmental stages, the genes themselves can be altered (or again, the expression can be altered). These are JUST 2 examples out of many, many possibilities... for example (given the above blue flower example), is the change one that creates blue pigment? One that causes other pigments already there to simply not show themselves, thus leaving blue alone? Is there something that creates a physical filter of some type in the skin, so that all we see is blue?
(I realize I probably should have picked another color than blue for my example, but this is an imaginary example, so the point stands).

Today, we can do all of the above artificially, can physically cut genes and splice them, can add chemicals in a controlled fashion. This technology is very powerful and, to many biologists such as myself, not just Christian biologists, but also those who pay attention to ecological changes.. all this is very, very frightening.

YET.. exactly when we need more people with "morals" and sense (note.. I am NOT saying only Christians have morals, but many Christians do follow basic moral guides), this push has come to convince many Christians to ignore real biology and follow this garbage "it just happens" nonsense. So, for me, this is very, very personal and important.

Also, as much as I believe, understand the Bible to say that God is in control in a macro sense and has directed things on Earth to some extent, there is nothing here to say that we are allowed to just do as we wish, ignore implications and rely upon God to fix it all. It is very, very clear that humans are altering our Earth in ways that are extremely harmful. We are killing off species without much regard, species that may seem useless to us, but which God put here for some reason. We are emitting toxins without paying much attention to what they do alone, or in conjunction with others.

I have studied fish. Fish give a very clear example of how bad chemicals can be. Genes very much ARE being altered, reproduction is altered, etc, etc... and the same things ARE happening in humans, though currently not on such a severe scale.

Pretending that none of this happens is exactly what NOT studying real biology does. IF you wish to put forward a positive change on this Earth, whether within or outside of Christianity, it behooves you to understand how the world actually works. The theory of evolution, flawed though parts of it may be (note, I mean that we don't understand how each and every transition to new species happened, why each die-off happened specifically, etc... not that the basic idea that species change over time is wrong) is VERY central to understanding how the world works.

Now.. who is going to gain by having a large segment of Christianity NOT understand how the world actually works? Ask yourself that and you begin to find the real roots of why Creationism has gained so much more support than other off-the-wall, unsupported theories.

[crispybits]

Zimmah, you are saying that evolution only destroys ability and information, but consider this:

Imagine a gene sequence (in reality it would be thousands of letters long but for simplicity we'll shorten it to 5)

GATTC

Now a mutation may happen to that gene that results in, for example, the loss of a birds ability to fly:

GATGC

So we have a T->G mutation in the genetic code.

But all of the mutations are possible, and the genome is incredibly complicated. Gs and Ts and Cs and As are all interchangeable (within limits, they act in pairs but I'm trying to keep it simple for the example) A G can transfrom within a genetic code into a T ust the same as a T can change into a G.

Why is it impossible for the next genetic code mutation to be on the same point in the genome, and to be a G->T mutation. We then end up back at:

GATTC

And the birds can fly again.

(Edit - note the actual process is far, far, far more complicated than this)

For mutation to only destroy information, then the mechanism must be such that they can only destroy entire points on the genome. If mutations happen while maintaining the number of points, then reversion of those mutations can also happen. Abilities which are "lost" can also be "regained".

Mutation types

We have observed mutations that do not change the number of genome points, we have also observed mutations that add totally new genome points. We have also observed those that remove genome points. So both degeneration, mutation and (for want of a better word) neogeneration of genetic material is possible and has been shown as such.

May I suggest that you read the words of St Augustine again? Because I'm sure you wouldn't want us to think that the bible was written by uneducated, dogmatic closed minded idiots.

[PLAYER57832]

Zimmah.... think on this, as well.

Christ NEVER justified lying. Yet, when you truly delve into Creationist literature, they are literally full of outright lies, distortions and misquotes. How can they justify representing Christ and doing the exact opposite of what he teaches us?
Not everyone, no. Many, like you, are just misinformed. You only know what you know. BUT... here is the thing, You have a choice. You can continue to just listen to what you have already been told and not question it, OR you can go out and see if what I and others here are saying is true, if maybe you have been taught some misinformation.

I have found absolutely NO young earth publication that truly presents evolution or biology correctly. Folks are cited as experts for things that are far outside their expertise. In many cases, scientists are absolutely MISquoted.

I say this after reading through literally everything I could find on the subject for over a year, and bits and pieces since.

I have, quite literally found NO Young Earth publication that really puts forward true information in a valuable way. At best, they put forward truth that says nothing.

(for example, I remember a "study" of the Echida that lasted 4 years, a report to the Institute for Creation study went on about how this study "found no evidence" [of evolution, ties to other species] in the 4 years. I was flabbergasted. I have participated in baseline studies that were not complete after 50 years of study!!!

To say that 4 years of study in a limited areas is enough to conclude that there are no fossils of a particular type is just astounding! Further, lack of fossils proves nothing. (not to mention there ARE fossils, just not the ones they hoped to find!) Yet, too many people, not understanding what is required of science, would just read that and think "yep, another chink in the evolutionists argument".

I posted some of that and more in my old Young earth again thread, where I answered a good deal of Lionz posts (until I got fed up with his inability to answer or address anything I said). You can read it if you want a better example of what I mean.

[tzor]

Christ NEVER justified lying. Yet, when you truly delve into Creationist literature, they are literally full of outright lies, distortions and misquotes. How can they justify representing Christ and doing the exact opposite of what he teaches us?

It is, actually, more than that. There is an interesting line in the teachings of the Catholic Church. While it comes from an Ecumenical Council I can't really find any good source that gives a good cross reference or explanation of the statement. The statement generally goes along the lines of "God can neither deceive nor be deceived." You can work out the logical arguments yourself but the basic argument is that while people love to say that God can do "everything" He cannot go against His own nature. The whole notion that God would somehow "lie" when he created the universe in order to deceive us is nonsesne from the start. The heavens proclaim the glory of God; they do not lie about it or put men to the test.

The people who try to extropolae exceptional details into Genesis are the same ones who try to do the same to Revelation, even though, we know that Jesus himself told us that the only one who knows the hour is the Father; even he doesn't think asking the Father is important. There is an old saying that the "Devil is in the details." The fundamental truth of the Bible remains forever. But the books of the Bible were written in a specific age and in a specific time with a specific culture. They must be considered in that time and culture along with the context of that time and culture. The tribes of Israel didn't invent things from nothing; they took the science of their day and the stories of other cultures and in a unique way, aligned them to point the way to God. In that sense they are night and day from what was around them; stories of conflict and battles between gods to the story of a God who is always in charge.

We can see this in the story of the six days of creation; days that were divided into two sets of three, one for each major element of the universe. The one set does their creation and the second set assigns "rullers" to the elements, the heavens, the sea and sky and finally the land, placing man last and most importnat. Note that the placement of man last does not mean he was the last "creature" (as technically the sun and moon "rule" the heavens) but that he is heighest in terms of hierachy.

Jesus never said, "Use the Law as your Science Guide." He said, "Follow me." There is a significant difference between the two.

[PLAYER57832]

good post, tzor.

[comic boy]

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?

I didnt mention the Catholic church or Christianity or even the bible, I was refering to young earth creationists who are happy to lie , decieve , distort or do anything else to protect their ridiculous claims. Teach it in church if you wish , brain wash your own children if you must , but dont pretend its science and attempt to present it as such .

[zimmah]

Zimmah, you are saying that evolution only destroys ability and information, but consider this:

Imagine a gene sequence (in reality it would be thousands of letters long but for simplicity we'll shorten it to 5)

GATTC

Now a mutation may happen to that gene that results in, for example, the loss of a birds ability to fly:

GATGC

So we have a T->G mutation in the genetic code.

But all of the mutations are possible, and the genome is incredibly complicated. Gs and Ts and Cs and As are all interchangeable (within limits, they act in pairs but I'm trying to keep it simple for the example) A G can transfrom within a genetic code into a T ust the same as a T can change into a G.

Why is it impossible for the next genetic code mutation to be on the same point in the genome, and to be a G->T mutation. We then end up back at:

GATTC

And the birds can fly again.

(Edit - note the actual process is far, far, far more complicated than this)

For mutation to only destroy information, then the mechanism must be such that they can only destroy entire points on the genome. If mutations happen while maintaining the number of points, then reversion of those mutations can also happen. Abilities which are "lost" can also be "regained".

Mutation types

We have observed mutations that do not change the number of genome points, we have also observed mutations that add totally new genome points. We have also observed those that remove genome points. So both degeneration, mutation and (for want of a better word) neogeneration of genetic material is possible and has been shown as such.

May I suggest that you read the words of St Augustine again? Because I'm sure you wouldn't want us to think that the bible was written by uneducated, dogmatic closed minded idiots.

here's why.

Say you have a string of thousands of bits, and 1 bit changes, how big is the chance that exactly that it gets changed back to the original by mutation? And even IF that would happen, it would ONLY restore a function that has PREVIOUSLY been lost. that's no evolution!

it's very unlikely (and never proofed to have happened before that new functions are ADDED to the DNA. because a long series of 'bits' need to be added and each and every one of them needs to be exactly right. don't you see how insane the odds are for this to happen?

[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?

I didnt mention the Catholic church or Christianity or even the bible, I was refering to young earth creationists who are happy to lie , decieve , distort or do anything else to protect their ridiculous claims. Teach it in church if you wish , brain wash your own children if you must , but dont pretend its science and attempt to present it as such .

what does young earth creationism has to do with anything i ever posted. stop bringing that in all the topics...

[natty dread]

it's very unlikely (and never proofed to have happened before that new functions are ADDED to the DNA.

Why do you persist on repeating that lie when it has been shown to you multiple times that it actually is possible?

1. Bacteria cannot digest citrate
2. Bacteria mutates
3. Bacteria can digest citrate

That's a mutation which ADDS a NEW FUNCTION to the DNA.

don't you see how insane the odds are for this to happen?

The odds of you being born are "insane". Yet you're alive.

[Symmetry]

Wait, do you think that evolution says modern day humans evolved from neanderthals? That would be a pretty misleading portrayal of human evolution as argued by actual proponents of evolution. It kind of sounds like the "I just don't believe we evolved from chimps" stuff that anti-evolutionists throw out knowing that it's at best (and I'm being generous here) misleading. At worst, I'd say it's a deliberate distortion.

But I'm being generous.

[comic boy]

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?

I didnt mention the Catholic church or Christianity or even the bible, I was refering to young earth creationists who are happy to lie , decieve , distort or do anything else to protect their ridiculous claims. Teach it in church if you wish , brain wash your own children if you must , but dont pretend its science and attempt to present it as such .

what does young earth creationism has to do with anything i ever posted. stop bringing that in all the topics...

Because it is overwhelmingly Young Earth Creationists , including those who constructed the site you linked, that spread blatant untruths concerning evolution. How on earth do you not consider that to be an integral part of any debate on the subject ?

[warmonger1981]

if you have 2 .5 hours to spare watch " hovind debate " on youtube . its a debate between 1 creationist and 3 evolutionistic professors.

[PLAYER57832]

here's why.

Say you have a string of thousands of bits, and 1 bit changes, how big is the chance that exactly that it gets changed back to the original by mutation? And even IF that would happen, it would ONLY restore a function that has PREVIOUSLY been lost. that's no evolution!

In the first place, do you have any idea how much variation a "string of thousands of bits" can have?

The numbers are staggering! Furthermore, you assume something not true.. that each gene or each protein has only one function, one possible "ability" or result. That is very untrue. Some genes require hormones to turn them on and off, may alter how they act with exposure to certain chemicals -- and that is for the same gene/protein. If you simply change the location, it can mean the differences between say, death, dwarfism and a fully healthy being.

it's very unlikely (and never proofed to have happened before that new functions are ADDED to the DNA. because a long series of 'bits' need to be added and each and every one of them needs to be exactly right. don't you see how insane the odds are for this to happen?

You are just wrong there, sorry. I have no idea why you think this is even possibly true. Entire new chromosomes have been added.. turning diploid into triploid. Although a lot of species do follow the same basic models, there is a great deal of variation. Different types of species can have different numbers of genes. Even in humans, some well known problems are caused by the addition of just one protein to the chain in development.

As for the "insane odds".. you are correct. But, see, the odds don't matter, because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species, even if we don't understand each exact piece or how it all exactly happened.

[puppydog85]

because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species,

evidence please?

[natty dread]

because we have the proof of life on Earth around us, and we have the proof that species change from other species,

evidence please?

Try reading a science book