No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(28-08-2015 01:01 PM)highlyclassified Wrote:  Don't they discuss on the atheist experience show that even without fossil records the DNA alone is enough evidence to prove evolution? I wish I could remember who they said this statement was from. [/u]

Every evolutionary biologist in the last 30 years? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
28-08-2015, 07:52 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
For those who don't know to what Chas is referring, in 1985 the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR in even our shorthand) method was discovered, in which DNA could be induced to copy itself into a huge amount of identical DNA "in a test tube". This allowed them to make as much as they needed for it to be effectively scanned. Even though the scanning process was slow, it immediately allowed them to make several confirmations of previous models by identifying loci on the genome that allowed us to confirm common descent.

Soon after, the "shotgun method", by which computers looked at several fragments simultaneously and then mathematically matched up the edges like an inline jigsaw puzzle, allowed us to sequence the genome just as fast as the computers could work. This allowed them to start on the Human Genome Project (and others like it). As computers have gotten faster, our ability to sequence has gotten faster, helped by large-volume databases of genomes discovered by other researchers, which the computers can compare the new finds to in building phylogenetic trees/comparisons.

Not only has every biologist for the last 30 years known (and said) that DNA confirms evolution, the amount that we know has grown exponentially. You have to be out of your mind not to grasp what we know about DNA, nowdays. It's why we get so frustrated with the ID/IC crowd who point to the areas where computers aren't yet fast enough to model (not the DNA sequence but the protein-folding processes as various DNA are switched on and off within cells to build and activate the many proteins that go into any given process) and say "so none of it happened, therefore God!" Rolleyes

If the ideas of evolution that we had discovered prior to 1985 had been wrong, the DNA evidence alone would have shattered it completely. Instead, the DNA evidence proved several ways (for example, endogenous retroviruses and transpositional elements) to demonstrate phylogeny that are independent of the DNA that actually codes for the appearance of the creatures we see in the world and in the fossil record. It alone is proof, and it is also confirmation to a degree not previously thought possible in science.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-08-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(28-08-2015 07:52 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  For those who don't know to what Chas is referring, in 1985 the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR in even our shorthand) method was discovered, in which DNA could be induced to copy itself into a huge amount of identical DNA "in a test tube". This allowed them to make as much as they needed for it to be effectively scanned. Even though the scanning process was slow, it immediately allowed them to make several confirmations of previous models by identifying loci on the genome that allowed us to confirm common descent.

Soon after, the "shotgun method", by which computers looked at several fragments simultaneously and then mathematically matched up the edges like an inline jigsaw puzzle, allowed us to sequence the genome just as fast as the computers could work. This allowed them to start on the Human Genome Project (and others like it). As computers have gotten faster, our ability to sequence has gotten faster, helped by large-volume databases of genomes discovered by other researchers, which the computers can compare the new finds to in building phylogenetic trees/comparisons.

Not only has every biologist for the last 30 years known (and said) that DNA confirms evolution, the amount that we know has grown exponentially. You have to be out of your mind not to grasp what we know about DNA, nowdays. It's why we get so frustrated with the ID/IC crowd who point to the areas where computers aren't yet fast enough to model (not the DNA sequence but the protein-folding processes as various DNA are switched on and off within cells to build and activate the many proteins that go into any given process) and say "so none of it happened, therefore God!" Rolleyes

If the ideas of evolution that we had discovered prior to 1985 had been wrong, the DNA evidence alone would have shattered it completely. Instead, the DNA evidence proved several ways (for example, endogenous retroviruses and transpositional elements) to demonstrate phylogeny that are independent of the DNA that actually codes for the appearance of the creatures we see in the world and in the fossil record. It alone is proof, and it is also confirmation to a degree not previously thought possible in science.

That was about as compact as a clear explanation could possibly be. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-08-2015, 03:46 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(28-08-2015 04:43 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 03:30 PM)stevec Wrote:  But the sky is lime green, pink and does have polka dots. Have you not been looking upwards?

The trick is to not look directly at the really bright bit of it.

Ah, that's what I'm doing wrong. It's now a boring blue with white bits floating in it.

What do you mean Life is short. It's the longest thing you're going to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like stevec's post
03-09-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 08:57 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-09-2015 08:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.

That isn't really the range of the topic but so?

There is a reason some fields resist making in field proclamations in their case when they still have limited information gathered. Others seem to be fine making leaps of speculation and some people want to think that is more settling.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 09:09 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-09-2015 08:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.

Appeal to authority that uses an argument from ignorance. Brilliant!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Iñigo's post
03-09-2015, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015 09:19 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-09-2015 08:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

Oh look! referring to the mathematician who's commenting about a field in which they have little expertise... making statements that I've seen rebutted/replied to and links offered as to why the comment is wrong.....

I'm sure GwG, Dark Phoenix etc will be along to put their links through to where they've rebutted said old, out of date information.

(03-09-2015 08:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations......

Assuming I've got the right James Shapiro with a Google search... what do we find?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-sh...=Australia

Quote:Here is the statement that so outraged Shapiro:

THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE IS THAT NATURAL SELECTION ONLY PURIFIES BUT SOMETHING ELSE IS REQUIRED TO CREATE SIGNIFICANT VARIANTS TO BE SELECTED. The critical aspect is introduction of novelty. It is gradually being recognized that no mechanism for this has been firmly established. See "Evolution: A view from the 21st century," James A. Shapiro, Prof of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Univ. of Chicago, (2011), page 144, "Selection operates as a selective but not a creative force."


As you can see, Shapiro is cited to support the claim that natural selection appears to be inadequate to explain the evolution of novelty and that science is beginning to recognize that no mechanism for the introduction of novelty has been firmly established.

Shapiro cries foul because, as he explains, he has been studying and publishing the details precisely of mechanisms that create novelty:

I stated on the very first page of the Introduction [of his book]: "Uncovering the molecular mechanisms by which living organisms modify their genomes is a major accomplishment of late 20th Century molecular biology."

So... again, it would seem that people are willfully being misrepresented/quote mined etc.

*Yawn*

The more you post lies and disinformation Godexists, the worse it actually makes you look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Peebothuhul's post
03-09-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Godexists, get the fuck back into your creationism section before we call your parents.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Lying for Jesus is still lying, GE.

You should stop.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: