Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[bu villain]

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.

Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/sc...l?pagewanted=1

So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.

[David88vert]

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/sc...l?pagewanted=1

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.
Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense.


BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

[bu villain]

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence..

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants..

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense..

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!

[David88vert]

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

As stated before, this is not probable in reality. Especially the vast number of changes needed. What we currently know about DNA does not support it.
But there is no reason why they should not keep researching theory - they just shouldn't push it as proven fact.

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

As stated previously, even evolutionary biologists don't consider it the same. We haven't been able to successfully breed animals into a new species that can continue to reproduce in nature. That is not saying that we never could, of course, but if it is so hard to do when we are trying on purpose, with a plan, how did it happen at random so many times?

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

That was my misperception. I apologize for my assumption.

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

We can agree to disagree. The vast majority of the ones that I have met or studied have carried their agenda first. I'm sure there are some good ones out there also though.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!

Thanks. I do feel that I owe a response within a reasonable amount of time when someone takes the time to produce the effort to type out what they feel addressed to me.

[bu villain]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

[David88vert]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils. To many factors come into play, and too many assumptions are made. Current methods of dating based upon sedimentation layers are flawed by the assumption that sedimentation layers are not upheaved and changed in position. Radiocarbon dating of known items has produced incorrect results many times, and is based on too many assumptions. Currently, they try to place fossils into the model that they have already determined that they support, rather than seek the truth.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

[bu villain]

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils.

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.