evidence of evolution in present day
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2013, 10:17 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(16-12-2013 04:59 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As I was embroiled in yet another evolution debate with a couple of science friendly creationists, I stumbled across some examples of evolution that are happening in the here and now. You have probably seen these before, but I thought I would share anyway.

You should have titled this thread "Evidence of natural selection in the present day". Natural selection is something that we see happening all of the time but it isn't the same as evolution. It merely selects from genetic information a species already possesses to enables some members of the species to survive. There is a more detailed explanation of the process here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...-evolution

Quote:The supposed vehicles of evolution are mutations, natural selection, and other mechanisms that—when combined with that pixie dust of time—allegedly led to the development of all life forms present today. However, natural selection merely redistributes or reduces preexisting genetic information, and mutations often corrupt the information.

Animals such as the poodle confirm that genetic mechanisms such as mutations are often downward processes. Like other domestic dog breeds, poodles were bred by humans—a process called artificial selection—causing a loss of genetic variety and the proliferation of mutations (such as a mutation affecting the size of small dog breeds as described in a USA Today article). No wonder poodles, like other pure breeds, are susceptible to a host of problems, including cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, hip dysplasia, and hypothyroidism. The poodle population doesn’t have the variety of information needed to become a wolf.

Natural selection is similar to the process by which a sculptor makes a statue out of a block of marble; he chips away part of the marble to produce a form that didn't exist before but the amount of marble in the statue is less that that of the original block.

In choosing a name for this thread you committed a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Quote:Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.

I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...uivocation

Quote:Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

There is another explanation of the fossil record. It is the result of a flood that covered the entire world. One evidence that this is the correct explanation is the discovery that dinosaur bones still contain soft tissue, which wouldn't be the case if they were millions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...aur-tissue

Quote:The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. it is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, acquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses....which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?

Perhaps this is the answer to your question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles.../n1/retina

These statements appear on the home page of this site: Assume Nothing. Question Everything. And Start Thinking. This is good advice. You should not assume that evolution is true. You should question the evidence that is used to prove it. And you should start thinking about the possibility that there is a God who created life. This would be a good place to start:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-evidences

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  You should have titled this thread "Evidence of natural selection in the present day". Natural selection is something that we see happening all of the time but it isn't the same as evolution.

BZZT Wrong.

A change in allele frequency over time in a population is evolution. Deal with it.

(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  It merely selects from genetic information a species already possesses to enables some members of the species to survive. There is a more detailed explanation of the process here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...-evolution

BZZT Wrong. Your definition (AIG's definition Rolleyes ) of 'information' is tragically lacking.

(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
Quote:Trolltacular copypasta

Natural selection is similar to the process by which a sculptor makes a statue out of a block of marble; he chips away part of the marble to produce a form that didn't exist before but the amount of marble in the statue is less that that of the original block.

BZZT Wrong.

(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
Quote:Trolltacular copypaste

BZZT Wrong.

The only people qualified to define 'evolution' in a scientific context are the people who study evolution in a scientific context.

(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
Quote:Trolltacular copypasta

If AIG is all you got, son, you got triple-decker cowshit sandwich.

I'm incorrigibly lazy, so I proceed to quote myself:
(21-10-2013 12:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define information, David111 theophilus. Consider how it is biologically encoded. Then explain how it cannot be 'created' or how it is 'already present'. Your understanding of evolution is woefully inadequate. But ignorance is curable - if the will is there!

Let us consider evolution as a process. Note - evolution was theorized a century before DNA was discovered. Heredity was an obvious phenomenon (you may recognize its having been used for millenia in a process we call farming), but the mechanism was unknown.

There are three observations which lead to the inevitable evolutionary conclusion.
A) there is variation among individuals in a population
B) said variation affects an individual's likelihood of reproducing
C) said variations are hereditary (and influenced by both parents where reproduction is sexual)

The combination of A, B, and C leads to the conclusion: the makeup of a population changes over time. If selection pressure is convergent the population is stable. If selection pressure is uniform then the population shifts as a whole. If selection pressures are divergent then speciation results.

Which of these fundamental observations do you disagree with?

But let us also consider change at a genetic level. A strand of DNA is composed of sequences of four bases - A, C, T, and G. An organism's DNA is billions of pairs long, but let us consider a short starting sequence - GATTACA - as an example.

Whatever 'information' the sequence contains is just it, itself - GATTACA. That is a series of values in a specific order. Let us call it a 'gene'.

There are several types of mutation which may occur. Local mutations can be either substitutions, insertions, or deletions.

Substitution is a change from GATTACA to GATTACG (where an 'A' is replaced by 'G'). This produces a new sequence. This constitutes 'new' information, in that the genome now contains a sequence it did not previously contain.

Insertion is the addition of more base pairs (usually, but not necessarily, through duplication). Consider GATTACA to GATTACACA (where an extra 'AC' has been inserted). This produces a new sequence. This constitutes 'new' information, in that the genome now contains a sequence it did not previously contain.

Deletion is the removal of base pairs. Consider GATTACA to GATTA (where the original 'CA' has been lost). This produces a new sequence. This constitutes 'new' information, in that the genome now contains a sequence it did not previously contain.

Many mutations are harmful. Many more do nothing (many amino acids are represented by more than one codon; many sequences of DNA have no clear purpose). Some are beneficial. This accounts for the aforementioned variation, and its source and scope. Its consequences (which is to say evolution) are already enumerated.

Oh, and also:
(16-08-2013 09:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2013 09:37 PM)theword Wrote:  There is no first hand evidence of evolution.

Actually, there's plenty, but what you don't know could fill libraries (and does!).

Variation, selection, and heredity. All are necessarily properties of life. To deny any one of them would be to show intellectual acumen on par with a small shrub. To deny all three makes rocks start to look competitive.

Here, I'll do your work for you.
(12-06-2013 09:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Speciation: evidence for, speculation on, and discussion of.
Some
examples
from
the
past
year.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
19-12-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
Evidence of (human) evolution today?

Simple, go to the zoo and check out the primates there (not the ones with cameras).

Evolution will stare you in the face, maybe smiling if you give them a banana. And if you are religious, and do not accept that, then at least you saw some creatures in the image of God, or close, eating bananas.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2013 11:47 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Natural selection is something that we see happening all of the time but it isn't the same as evolution.
Are you dense ? natural selection is one of the many ways how evolution works.
Quote:It merely selects from genetic information a species already possesses to enables some members of the species to survive.
EXACTLY THAT IS EVOLUTION! ugh.. what else do you think evolution is ? genetic mutations !
Quote:In choosing a name for this thread you committed a logical fallacy called equivocation.
Uh.. no you're the only one who's committing that fallacy here.. natural selection IS evolution.
Quote:It is the result of a flood that covered the entire world. One .
Wait.. WHAT ??? WHAT ? do you realize that a global flood would CAPSIZE THE FUCKING PLANET ? geez DragonballZ is more logical than your bible !
Quote:The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design.
hmm.. that's impossible you have no intelligence.
Besides dawkins already debunked the "eye could not evolve" myth


Quote:And you should start thinking about the possibility that there is a God who created life. This would be a good place to start:
Which God ? I'm telling you i'm not siding with the christian God cus's Christians are like minorities in my country i don't like siding with the minority Big Grin

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(19-12-2013 11:14 AM)viole Wrote:  Evidence of (human) evolution today?

Simple, go to the zoo and check out the primates there (not the ones with cameras).

Evolution will stare you in the face, maybe smiling if you give them a banana. And if you are religious, and do not accept that, then at least you saw some creatures in the image of God, or close, eating bananas.

Ciao

- viole

[Image: CCznK4k.jpg]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
19-12-2013, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2013 04:08 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 04:59 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As I was embroiled in yet another evolution debate with a couple of science friendly creationists, I stumbled across some examples of evolution that are happening in the here and now. You have probably seen these before, but I thought I would share anyway.

You should have titled this thread "Evidence of natural selection in the present day". Natural selection is something that we see happening all of the time but it isn't the same as evolution. It merely selects from genetic information a species already possesses to enables some members of the species to survive. There is a more detailed explanation of the process here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...-evolution

Quote:The supposed vehicles of evolution are mutations, natural selection, and other mechanisms that—when combined with that pixie dust of time—allegedly led to the development of all life forms present today. However, natural selection merely redistributes or reduces preexisting genetic information, and mutations often corrupt the information.

Animals such as the poodle confirm that genetic mechanisms such as mutations are often downward processes. Like other domestic dog breeds, poodles were bred by humans—a process called artificial selection—causing a loss of genetic variety and the proliferation of mutations (such as a mutation affecting the size of small dog breeds as described in a USA Today article). No wonder poodles, like other pure breeds, are susceptible to a host of problems, including cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, hip dysplasia, and hypothyroidism. The poodle population doesn’t have the variety of information needed to become a wolf.

Natural selection is similar to the process by which a sculptor makes a statue out of a block of marble; he chips away part of the marble to produce a form that didn't exist before but the amount of marble in the statue is less that that of the original block.

In choosing a name for this thread you committed a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Quote:Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.

I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...uivocation

Quote:Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

There is another explanation of the fossil record. It is the result of a flood that covered the entire world. One evidence that this is the correct explanation is the discovery that dinosaur bones still contain soft tissue, which wouldn't be the case if they were millions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...aur-tissue

Quote:The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. it is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, acquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses....which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?

Perhaps this is the answer to your question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles.../n1/retina

These statements appear on the home page of this site: Assume Nothing. Question Everything. And Start Thinking. This is good advice. You should not assume that evolution is true. You should question the evidence that is used to prove it. And you should start thinking about the possibility that there is a God who created life. This would be a good place to start:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-evidences

"In choosing a name for this thread you committed a logical fallacy called equivocation."

- in choosing to reference a hack site like answersingenesis devoids you of any credibility. You committed a logical fallacy called argument from authority.

I started reading your reply then noticed you referenced answersingensis, which is an off the reservation pro young earth delusional site, any reference from there is invalid. They also posit dinosaurs died out 5,000 years ago....enough said there
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2013 09:49 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(19-12-2013 04:03 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  You should have titled this thread "Evidence of natural selection in the present day". Natural selection is something that we see happening all of the time but it isn't the same as evolution. It merely selects from genetic information a species already possesses to enables some members of the species to survive. There is a more detailed explanation of the process here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...-evolution


Natural selection is similar to the process by which a sculptor makes a statue out of a block of marble; he chips away part of the marble to produce a form that didn't exist before but the amount of marble in the statue is less that that of the original block.

In choosing a name for this thread you committed a logical fallacy called equivocation.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...uivocation


There is another explanation of the fossil record. It is the result of a flood that covered the entire world. One evidence that this is the correct explanation is the discovery that dinosaur bones still contain soft tissue, which wouldn't be the case if they were millions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...aur-tissue


Perhaps this is the answer to your question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles.../n1/retina

These statements appear on the home page of this site: Assume Nothing. Question Everything. And Start Thinking. This is good advice. You should not assume that evolution is true. You should question the evidence that is used to prove it. And you should start thinking about the possibility that there is a God who created life. This would be a good place to start:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-evidences

I started reading your reply then noticed you referenced answersingensis, which is an off the reservation pro young earth delusional site, any reference from there is invalid. They also posit dinosaurs died out 5,000 years ago....enough said there

If they think Dinosaurs went out only 5,000 years ago, I wonder what the think of Coelacanths.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 08:36 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(19-12-2013 10:17 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 04:59 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As I was embroiled in yet another evolution debate with a couple of science friendly creationists, I stumbled across some examples of evolution that are happening in the here and now. You have probably seen these before, but I thought I would share anyway.

You should have titled this thread "Evidence of natural selection in the present day". Natural selection is something that we see happening all of the time but it isn't the same as evolution. It merely selects from genetic information a species already possesses to enables some members of the species to survive. There is a more detailed explanation of the process here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...-evolution

Quote:The supposed vehicles of evolution are mutations, natural selection, and other mechanisms that—when combined with that pixie dust of time—allegedly led to the development of all life forms present today. However, natural selection merely redistributes or reduces preexisting genetic information, and mutations often corrupt the information.

Animals such as the poodle confirm that genetic mechanisms such as mutations are often downward processes. Like other domestic dog breeds, poodles were bred by humans—a process called artificial selection—causing a loss of genetic variety and the proliferation of mutations (such as a mutation affecting the size of small dog breeds as described in a USA Today article). No wonder poodles, like other pure breeds, are susceptible to a host of problems, including cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, hip dysplasia, and hypothyroidism. The poodle population doesn’t have the variety of information needed to become a wolf.

Natural selection is similar to the process by which a sculptor makes a statue out of a block of marble; he chips away part of the marble to produce a form that didn't exist before but the amount of marble in the statue is less that that of the original block.

In choosing a name for this thread you committed a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Quote:Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.

I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...uivocation

Quote:Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

There is another explanation of the fossil record. It is the result of a flood that covered the entire world. One evidence that this is the correct explanation is the discovery that dinosaur bones still contain soft tissue, which wouldn't be the case if they were millions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...aur-tissue

Quote:The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. it is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, acquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses....which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?

Perhaps this is the answer to your question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles.../n1/retina

These statements appear on the home page of this site: Assume Nothing. Question Everything. And Start Thinking. This is good advice. You should not assume that evolution is true. You should question the evidence that is used to prove it. And you should start thinking about the possibility that there is a God who created life. This would be a good place to start:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-evidences

[Image: 1528742_737034816324003_711877100_n.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: