15 Questions for Evolutionists

[g_bambino]

Well....for all the MILLIONS of fossils they've been unearthing for several centuries to the present, how come not a single transitional fossil is found?

And yet, NOT A SINGLE ONE?

Transitional fossil.

[The_Squid]

Transitional fossil.

Thanks Bambino for the defining what a transitional fossil is. They do indeed exist. Your cite has several prominent examples with sources in case someone (Betsy?) would like to learn more about it!

[betsy]

At least you have finally come clean with why you would deny scientific facts...

The bible is not very old. Why did humans cooperate with each other, be friends, form groups, raise their children and love each other for so many thousands of years before the bible was ever even thought of?

Why, you think everything started with the verbal tradition and printing of the Bible? That there could've been no God prior to that?

Call this an analogy or what, but I'm just trying to help you: why do men write and publish their memoirs, or autobiograpy? Surely you'll agree with me that these men exists prior to the conception of the idea of writing a book about themselves.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[g_bambino]

Thanks Bambino for the defining what a transitional fossil is. They do indeed exist. Your cite has several prominent examples with sources in case someone (Betsy?) would like to learn more about it!

It's rated as a 'good article' on Wikipedia (green cross mark in the upper right corner), so, yes, it's well sourced (as also evidenced by all the cites at the bottom of the page).

There's also a whole series of fossils of different age demonstrating the evolution of us humans.

[Mighty AC]

Actually, there is not one undisputed example of one structure arising gradually through natural selection.

Evolution and natural selection are not the same thing. Evolution is the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Natural selection is one of several forces or pressures that can lead to the evolution of a population.

Natural selection does not give rise to new structures. It simply picks winners. You have probably heard the real world example of Peppered Moth evolution in England. White moths were dominant, then the industrial revolution lead to smoke and soot production. This change in environment gave darker moths a camouflage advantage and over time they became the dominant form as they tended to live longer and spread their genetic material. As new laws and energy forms lead to cleaner air, the white moth numbers surged and dark moth numbers declined.

Natural selection can also pick winners when mutations introduce new features. Mutations in animals appear fairly regularly, though they rarely lead to an advantage. However, a mutation leading to slightly larger tail fin, a change in colour, an additional eye, stiffer fins that can drag a fish over small dry patches in streams, etc. may end up being an advantage. Natural selection then works the same way. Those animals will tend to compete better and spread their genetic material more frequently.

The first case compared two existing populations of an organism, the second compared existing animals to one with a newly introduced trait through mutation. In both cases natural selection is just the description for why the better adapted animal tends to flourish over time.

[betsy]

No you don't know. Strong belief does not equate to knowledge.

But mine isn't just fueled by strong belief. Science is showing support for ID. Yours is definitely being fueled by strong belief - since science refutes every claims of proof hypothesized to support evolution. Science is working against evolution!

Are you familiar with fossilization? Even a very large organism like yourself would be unlikely to leave a fossil record. Microbes are far less likely to become fossilized.

In other words....there's no evidence! How convenient.

Millions of fossils having been discovered, and still not a single one have been found that proves the theory.

<shaking head>

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Science is working against evolution!

Are you still unwilling to explain how superbugs have grown resilient to antibiotics?

My God wrote a commandment against bearing false witness. He does not look kindly on those who spread lies in His name.

[Canuckistani]

If new species don't evolve, how do they get to be? Betsy admits the earth is what she called "older". Presumably that means she agrees that there were species living on the earth that aren't now, and there are species now living on the earth that didn't when the earth was "younger." So how do these new species come about? Does a big hand come down from the sky and drop them off? Why has nobody seen this? How does creationism without evolution work? I can see believing in creationism starting off the formatin of life, There's certainly no way to disprove that. But after that, it seems to me, evolution would have to run its course.

The eye is held up by anti-evolutionists as a structure too complex to have evolved. So again, does one day God just drop off organisms with eyes all over the world. Also, Betsy says we are evidence of a designer. The eye is evidence of a very poor designer. Having the optic nerve run thru the center of the retina, so we have a blind spot - not a good design. Designing the eye so that it sees the world out of clear focus, and having our brains compensate by making us think we're seeing a clear image - not a good design. Same with the brain - it's a Rube Goldberg assembly of structures. This is actually evidence of evolution, since evolution can't work backwards to clean up mistakes, but can only build on what's already there. Gaaaaaaaaa, all of life is like Windows, Bill Gates is God. The horror.

[DogOnPorch]

I doubt she thinks Adam and Eve...ribs n' all...were from 4.5 billion years ago. As Carl relates...if you add up all the begets n' begats...you get about 6000 years give or take a few points.

[g_bambino]

But mine isn't just fueled by strong belief. Science is showing support for ID.

Has science concluded Intelligent Design is the origin of everything? No? Well, then, you don't know it is, despite how strongly you believe.

And we're all still waiting for you to acknowledge this:

Transitional fossil.

[Mighty AC]

Mighty AC

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Like life itself. Simple organisms didn't simply spring into complex plants and animals; there are an infinite string of steps. Some biochemical pathways have become more complex over time as well. As new variables including proteins and enzymes are introduced existing enzymes aren't rendered null and void. They may be able to work in concert with the new variable. Hence, like symbiotic relationships a chain is built one at a time with one enzymatic process uses the results of another.

Documentation? Evidence?

The point to remember is complex biochemical pathways don't start out complicated. Like life itself they become more complicated over long periods of time. The creationist writers you keep referring to would like you to believe that cells, pathways, life systems, etc. are irreducibly complex. This is of course not the case, but their audience falls for it for two reasons. They have very little knowledge of genetics and biology in general, and they already subscribe to the conclusion that a god is the creator and designer.

Anyway, here is some info. Many enzymes have the ability to bind to multiple substrates or create multiple products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_kinetics The added flexibility of these enzymes make them more likely to participate in multiple processes or join new processes as new substrates are introduced. Additionally, some enzymes are just repurposed, like digestive chemical producing enzymes eventually producing venom. http://www.wildmammal.com/index_files/shrew_venom.html

Additionally, here is the abstract and article going into depth on methods of probing into the evolution of biochemical pathways.

[Mighty AC]

Mighty AC

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

First of all under close inspection most life does not look designed. Organisms are littered with inefficient processes and vestigial elements that no competent designer would include. Second, there is absolutely no evidence for a designer so it is better to look for real natural answers. At one time God was responsible for lighting, fortunately, we didn't accept that answer and continued to investigate.

It is said that gremlins break machinery. When machines break should be shrug our shoulders and say a gremlin did it or should we look at ways to improve the design?

Well we can't really consider this a serious response. It's just a simple statement of denial.

Keep in mind the question is pretty silly in the first place. You are saying some things look designed so how do you know they are not. My response boils down to two points. One, the fact that there is no evidence of a designer. Two, there are countless serious design flaws.

If you believe that complexity somehow suggests a designer then what do serious flaws and vestigial elements suggest? A poor designer? A drunk designer? A lazy designer?

I'm scratching my head to your last statement though. I don't know where gremlins fit into these.....but, if a machine breaks down, isn't asking questions the most important step in improving the DESIGN?

Yes. That is exactly what science is doing. Almost everything humans did not understand was once attributed to the gods. Thankfully, we asked questions and developed a method called science to investigate. Stating that a god is responsible for anything, is the opposite of asking questions. It is simply asserting an answer.

If evidence turns up for a designer then the ID hypothesis can become a theory. However, gaps in accumulated evidence and strong belief in a designer does not equate to evidence for said designer.

What if I asserted that the universe has the power to make life spontaneously appear? I assume you would want evidence. Would you be satisfied with "life looks like it spontaneously appeared and I know that life spontaneously appeared, so prove that it didn't"?

[Mighty AC]

There is a huge difference between a colony of single-celled organisms and a true multi-celled organism, and no known mechanism would enable an organism to make that leap. For example, there is a big jump between selection for single cell reproductive success and that for integrity of a multicellular organism.

In complex creatures, great reproductive success of a single cell type is usually called cancer.

Cancer is just uncontrolled reproduction of a cell. It is a bad thing for humans, but not for other organisms that rely on perpetual reproduction, like bacteria.

Here is a paper that suggests "that the emergence of multicellular organisms is not a 'difficult problem' in evolution, but rather is a natural consequence of a cell colony that can grow continuously." Check it out: http://chaos.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/papers/bio1/astro.pdf

The origin of multicellular organisms is studied by considering a cell system that satisfies minimal conditions, that is, a system of interacting cells with intracellular biochemical dynamics, and potentiality in reproduction. Three basic features in multicellular organisms-cellular diversification, robust developmental process, and emergence of germ-line cells-are found to be general properties of such a system. Irrespective of the details of the model, such features appear when there are complex oscillatory dynamics of intracellular chemical concentrations. Cells differentiate from totipotent stem cells into other cell types due to instability in the intracellular dynamics with cell-cell interactions, as explained by our isologous diversification theory (Furusawa and Kaneko, 1998a; Kaneko and Yomo, 1997). This developmental process is shown to be stable with respect to perturbations, such as molecular fluctuations and removal of some cells. By further imposing an adequate cell-type-dependent adhesion force, some cells are released, from which the next generation cell colony is formed, and a multicellular organism life-cycle emerges without any finely tuned mechanisms. This recursive production of multicellular units is stabilized if released cells are few in number, implying the separation of germ cell lines. Furthermore, such an organism with a variety of cellular states and robust development is found to maintain a larger growth speed as an ensemble by achieving a cooperative use of resources, compared to simple cells without differentiation. Our results suggest that the emergence of multicellular organisms is not a "difficult problem" in evolution, but rather is a natural consequence of a cell colony that can grow continuously.

[Mighty AC]

If evolution were true, then there is no basis for right and wrong.

Why do you believe this?

[Mighty AC]

You stated: The theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the creation of matter and the germ theory doesn't have to explain the creation of microbes. Other theories do that.

Thus I replied to you in that context. Matter and microbes are both proven.

How are matter and microbes proven? Please expand.

[eyeball]

If evolution were true, then there is no basis for right and wrong.

What a bleak view of reality.

My heart goes out to your poor lamenting soul.

[betsy]

The point to remember is complex biochemical pathways don't start out complicated. Like life itself they become more complicated over long periods of time. The creationist writers you keep referring to would like you to believe that cells, pathways, life systems, etc. are irreducibly complex. This is of course not the case, but their audience falls for it for two reasons. They have very little knowledge of genetics and biology in general, and they already subscribe to the conclusion that a god is the creator and designer.

Anyway, here is some info. Many enzymes have the ability to bind to multiple substrates or create multiple products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_kinetics The added flexibility of these enzymes make them more likely to participate in multiple processes or join new processes as new substrates are introduced. Additionally, some enzymes are just repurposed, like digestive chemical producing enzymes eventually producing venom. http://www.wildmammal.com/index_files/shrew_venom.html

Additionally, here is the abstract and article going into depth on methods of probing into the evolution of biochemical pathways.

And your atheist-evolutionist scientists would like you to believe that evolution is a done deal - a fact - because their audience falls for it for two reasons: They actually have very little understanding of the science behind it, and they already subscribed to the conclusion that there is no God, no Creator, and no Designer (that they say, is another name for God). And being atheists, of course there is the zealotry to the defense of evolution - as any Christians or religious person would in defense of his faith.

If that's the kind of stance we're going to have - what's the point of the discussion?

Well, like Lewontin had explained (in his rebuke of Dawkins for peddling pseudo-science), scientists would hardly understand other areas of science outside their own field - therefore, why should we even assume that we on this board fully understand the whole science behind the questions?

The 15 Questions were boldly thrown as a challenge to evolutionists. I was hoping that after we discussed a question, that you would at least watch the video segment for that question. The video rebutts the responses of those who rose to the challenge. Several responses were given, and every each one was rebutted.

Edited March 20, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

How are matter and microbes proven? Please expand.

I understand you asking the question about matter.....but you ask how microbes are proven?

How do you understand about DNA, RNA, etc...yet you don't know what a microbe is?

Your response above proves my point! Like I've stated in my previous post.....most if not all posters on this board don't fully understand the science(s) behind the questions. Myself included since I am not a scientist involved in any area at all!

Mighty AC, you don't know how microbes are proven? Do you know what microbes are?

You tell me what you understand about microbes. Your question - how it's proven - clearly indicate you don't know what it is.

Edited March 20, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

The 15 Questions were boldly thrown as a challenge to evolutionists. I was hoping that after we discussed a question, that you would at least watch the video segment for that question. The video rebutts the responses of those who rose to the challenge. Several responses were given, and every each one was rebutted.

You asked for evidence. I provided you with evidence and information on how biologists are tracing the evolution of biochemical pathways and how they know that they start out simple and gain complexity. Counter it if you like.

Nobody has yet to demonstrate an irreducibly complex biological pathway, trait, adaptation, etc.

[Mighty AC]

I understand you asking the question about matter.....but you ask how microbes are proven?

How do you understand about DNA, RNA, etc...yet you don't know what a microbe is?

Your response above proves my point! Like I've stated in my previous post.....most if not all posters on this board don't fully understand the science(s) behind the questions. Myself included since I am not a scientist involved in any area at all!

Mighty AC, you don't know how microbes are proven? Do you know what microbes are?

You tell me what you understand about microbes. Your question - how it's proven - clearly indicate you don't know what it is.

Your response demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. I'll explain.

Microbes are microorganisms. Microorganisms are living. You are claiming life is proven so the germ theory doesn't have to prove the origins of life....yet you also claim that we don't know the origins of life so the theory of evolution must explain it before it explains diversification. You are on both sides of your own argument

[scouterjim]

So, if God created everything, where did God come from? Do NOT give me taht tired old answer, "He always was." That is just a cop out for someoned who cannot aqnswer the question.

[Mighty AC]

It is a very necessary cop out to avoid the infinite regress. You just have to believe a little harder and then you just stop worrying about the details, inconsistencies and immorality of it all.

[betsy]

Your response demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. I'll explain.

Microbes are microorganisms. Microorganisms are living. You are claiming life is proven so the germ theory doesn't have to prove the origins of life....yet you also claim that we don't know the origins of life so the theory of evolution must explain it before it explains diversification. You are on both sides of your own argument

What do you mean my ignorance? You're the one who's been asking how microbes are proven!

I'm asking you, why are you asking how microbes are proven?

We deal with microbes everyday. In fact, we're anxious about microbes! You ask how they're proven???

Grade 1 students will know.

And yes, you asked about matter too! How it's proven!

[betsy]

Mighty AC, still on the microbes and matter.

You are forgetting one important thing, why you cannot make the comparison between matter/microbes and origin of life/evolution.

Answer this questions:

Are matter and microbes not concluded as fact?

Is anyone refuting their existence?

Edited March 20, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

OH I got this one guys ...

God did it .. end of thread.