Steve's thoughts on evolution (Creator, Earth, Abiogenesis, beliefs, creation)

[Ceridwen018]

1. Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA. From what i gather from much of the stuff ive read on this issue including much from Answer in Genesis is that while there is mutations in genes, they only result in the loss or damage of the information present and never results in "added" information.
Alot of information is going to be needed to be added to the DNA if bacteria is to become a human.

First of all, you display the pre-packaged creationist view of evolution by tossing around the flippant idea that humans evolved from bacteria.

Second of all, a scientific finding that would satisfy this question of yours would be polyploidy. This is a mutation which causes an organism to posess more chromosomes than the normal number for its given species. The individual with such mutations is often unable to reproduce with "normal" organisms, and therefore speciation occurs.

2. how birds became able to fly (hollow bones, different lung set up etc)
If you have a reptile(or whatever birds evolved from) with half wings half legs wouldnt natural selection rule them unfit? would a reptile with full legs have better chance of survival then one that has half legs half wings? why did natural selection favor a reptile with useless half wings/legs long enough for these random mutations to finish "creating" the wing?

It's like this, Steve. There is a small little animal, perhaps a reptile, which is preyed upon by other larger animals in it's environment. In order to get away from these predators, they take to the trees, and natural selection favors the best climbers. Soon however, in order to stay alive, the predator begins to evole to follow it's prey. Now, being able to climb is no longer enough. At this point, natural selction can go many ways. The reptiles who's color best enables them to blend in with their surroundings are favored, those reptiles who posess some sort of acidic (poisonous) quality to their scales are favored, and finally, those reptiles which are able to jump from tree to tree are favored. Much as the flying squirrel evoled "wings", so do these reptiles eventually obtain such structures, allowing them to jump better and farther.

The bodies of reptiles are naturally lighter than those of mammals, (perhaps that is why the flying squirrel has not evolved proper wings as of yet.), That, plus the fact that the 'gliding' action of the squirrel is quite similar to an actual hang glider, leads one to understand how wings were able to develop. This is all theoretical, of course.

3.bats sonar capabilities. How did a bat survive befor it was able to find its food? and if it didnt use to need sonar id like to know why natural selection decided at some point it would be favorable. Afterall they would be pretty helpless without it.

Bats did not develop sonar because they were blind. They became blind because they had sonar, do you understand that? Because the sonar capabilities of the bat evolved to be so efficient, they really didn't need their eyes anymore. That means that the bats with the "defect" of blindness were able to survive just as well as the bats who could see, if not better. After all, sonar does provide bats with superior senses to seeing animals. It is quite easy to understand how the seeing bats with mediocre sonar would be easy prey compared to the sonar-alific blind bats.

4.A butterfles ability to go into a cacoon as a catipilar and come out as a buterfly, Id like to know how the butterfly survived past the point of being able to develop the cacoon around itself and then what? After who knows how long it "evolved" the ability to change into a butterfly while in the cacoon. (still at this point its been x amount of generations that has died in there cacoons because they still havnt got the information in there DNA to complete the whole metamorphosis). Then eventually thanks to good old "random mutation" the butterfly gains the information it needs to complete its metamorphosis and come out of its cacoon. How did the buterfly survive all the generations when it hadnt "evolved" the ability to come out of its cacoon?

Who ever said that the butterfly ever had problems surviving with the cocoon? The cocoon is much like an egg. I really don't see where any abnormal problems would come in...I mean, the pupa has nutrients, protection....what more could it want?

5.Termites for example cant digest cellulose they have microorganisms inside there intestines that does that for them, one cant survive without the other and id like to know which evolved first?

The termite's intestines is not the only place where the protozoan flagellates, which digest certain enzymes for them, can live. The microorganisms obviously came first.

[Seyorni]

Steve -- These are good questions. May I suggest some reading that addresses your points exactly?

Steven Jay Gould was a Harvard Paleontologist who wrote a series of books -- compilations of essays, actually -- about biology, evolution, probability, Hershey bars, and all sorts of Natural Hx related subjects. The essays are clear, funny and informative; and, being essays, can be broused in any order and read in just a few minutes. Any library would have his books: The Panda's Thumb, Ever Since Darwin, Hen's Teeth and Horse's toes, &al.

Check 'em out -- there are essays exploring exactly your above questions.

[painted wolf]

ok..first off we have transitional fossils for whales, birds, and so on and so forth.

whales: http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
Birds check out 'birds from reptiles' (especally post 7) here on RF: Birds from Reptiles?

ps. BATS are NOT blind!!! Yes they have poor eyesight but no bat is truely blind. Infact most see quite well... flying foxes for instance have very good (better than human) eyesight. Some bats use sonar to spot obsticles and prey in the dark, it is more efficant than just eyesight alone especally at high speed. Not all bats have such highly developed sonar abilities. :

wa:do

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I've argued this point before, and its really a very minor one, so i'm just going to state this once. Evolution is not fact, there is a reason it is called the Theory of Evolution and that is because it is a theory! Evolution is defined as "any change in gene frequency over time" however we cannot go back in time and watch those frequencies changing, just because it happens now doesn't mean it has always happened.

Evolution is a very VERY good theory, and it fits well with all the evidence. It is not fact, its as close to fact as its possible to get without actually being fact, BUT it will be a theory until the invention of the time machine. It is as much theory as gravity and relativity. That is a fact.

I have news for you - a theory accounts for all observable facts and it is akin to scientific law until some abnormality occurs - then the theory is revised. This continues until it has reached a stability and a theory is declared law.

We can "go back" in time when observing species that rapidly proliferate. Some fish and insects satisfy the requirement.

You will find that science does consider that what is proven now occurrs forever. Otherwise science has no way to predict and confirm the past theory. It is illogical to think that what is proven today somehow started just yesterday and not a year ago.

[Steve]

So in answer to my first point...
Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA. From what i gather from much of the stuff ive read on this issue including much from Answer in Genesis is that while there is mutations in genes, they only result in the loss or damage of the information present and never results in "added" information.
Alot of information is going to be needed to be added to the DNA if bacteria is to become a human.

You said.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

First of all, you display the pre-packaged creationist view of evolution by tossing around the flippant idea that humans evolved from bacteria.
Second of all, a scientific finding that would satisfy this question of yours would be polyploidy. This is a mutation which causes an organism to posess more chromosomes than the normal number for its given species. The individual with such mutations is often unable to reproduce with "normal" organisms, and therefore speciation occurs.

You provide absolutely no “scientific” evidence to show that information in DNA can be increased via random mutations. The fact remains that there is a lot more information in a Humans DNA then there would be in what ever the first living organisms where.

For my second point..
2. how birds became able to fly (hollow bones, different lung set up etc)
If you have a reptile(or whatever birds evolved from) with half wings half legs wouldnt natural selection rule them unfit? would a reptile with full legs have better chance of survival then one that has half legs half wings? why did natural selection favor a reptile with useless half wings/legs long enough for these random mutations to finish "creating" the wing?

You said

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

It's like this, Steve. There is a small little animal, perhaps a reptile, which is preyed upon by other larger animals in it's environment. In order to get away from these predators, they take to the trees, and natural selection favors the best climbers. Soon however, in order to stay alive, the predator begins to evole to follow it's prey. Now, being able to climb is no longer enough. At this point, natural selction can go many ways. The reptiles who's color best enables them to blend in with their surroundings are favored, those reptiles who posess some sort of acidic (poisonous) quality to their scales are favored, and finally, those reptiles which are able to jump from tree to tree are favored. Much as the flying squirrel evoled "wings", so do these reptiles eventually obtain such structures, allowing them to jump better and farther.

The bodies of reptiles are naturally lighter than those of mammals, (perhaps that is why the flying squirrel has not evolved proper wings as of yet.), That, plus the fact that the 'gliding' action of the squirrel is quite similar to an actual hang glider, leads one to understand how wings were able to develop. This is all theoretical, of course.

You tell me “Its like this” and then give me something that could just as easily be read as if it were a fairy tale. You provide no real science (something that is observable and testable). And to back up the theory that you put forward you bring in a flying squirrel! And this is why i should believe that birds “evolved” from land animals, and give random mutation the credit for giving birds the ability to grow feathers, wings, lung setup for flying, hollow bones etc. Im sure you would also insist that believing all of this happened by chance has nothing to do with faith. Although i am pleased you at least admitted that at the end of your statement. “This is all theoretical, of course.”

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Bats did not develop sonar because they were blind. They became blind because they had sonar, do you understand that? Because the sonar capabilities of the bat evolved to be so efficient, they really didn't need their eyes anymore. That means that the bats with the "defect" of blindness were able to survive just as well as the bats who could see, if not better. After all, sonar does provide bats with superior senses to seeing animals. It is quite easy to understand how the seeing bats with mediocre sonar would be easy prey compared to the sonar-alific blind bats.

Oh i see, now while bats could see well enough to survive and didn't need sonar random mutations started to give them sonar anyway and then they became blind or there sight diminished after the sonar was developed? To even suppose that random mutations could produce sonar capabilities is such a stretch of the imagination, or is my problem that i don't have enough “faith” in random mutations? Oh i forgot you don't need faith.

This is why i want my first point addressed.
Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Who ever said that the butterfly ever had problems surviving with the cocoon? The cocoon is much like an egg. I really don't see where any abnormal problems would come in...I mean, the pupa has nutrients, protection....what more could it want?

“what more could it want?” how about Offspring!

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

The termite's intestines is not the only place where the protozoan flagellates, which digest certain enzymes for them, can live. The microorganisms obviously came first.

Fair enough

Still - Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA.

Because this and the rest of evolutions account of how we got here requires that it happens.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Steve

Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA.

A "net increase" is not a requirement for evolution. A "net increase" is not defined - I don't know what you mean by "net increase". In fact, there is speciation occurring when the number of chromosones decrease if chromosonal change is what you are addressing.

So, what do you mean by "net increase"?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by pah

A "net increase" is not a requirement for evolution. A "net increase" is not defined - I don't know what you mean by "net increase". In fact, there is speciation occurring when the number of chromosones decrease if chromosonal change is what you are addressing.

So, what do you mean by "net increase"?

Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA. From what i gather from much of the stuff ive read on this issue including much from Answer in Genesis is that while there is mutations in genes, they only result in the loss or damage of the information present and never results in "added" information.
Alot of information is going to be needed to be added to the DNA if bacteria is to become a human.

I would have thought what i was asking was quite simple to understand. I want to see sceintific proof that a mutation can add new information to the already existing information in the DNA.

The fact remains that there is a lot more information in a Humans DNA then there would be in what ever the first living organisms where. Show me scientific proof that we have mutations to thank for this increase in information.

I dont think i can make what im asking much clearer than that

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

I would have thought what i was asking was quite simple to understand. I want to see sceintific proof that a mutation can add new information to the already existing information in the DNA.

The fact remains that there is a lot more information in a Humans DNA then there would be in what ever the first living organisms where. Show me scientific proof that we have mutations to thank for this increase in information.

What new information? Where is it added? What is the process of adding? If you defined "net increase" I might be able to answer!

I don't know what "information" you refer to in order to assess your assumtion that the first had less than humans. Apes certainly have more chromosones.

So, until you provide the definition, the discussion is dead.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Evolution is not fact, there is a reason it is called the Theory of Evolution and that is because it is a theory! Evolution is defined as "any change in gene frequency over time" however we cannot go back in time and watch those frequencies changing, just because it happens now doesn't mean it has always happened.

It is not possible to observe "any change in gene frequency over time"? Why not?

Originally Posted by Halcyon

It is not fact, its as close to fact as its possible to get without actually being fact, BUT it will be a theory until the invention of the time machine. It is as much theory as gravity and relativity. That is a fact.

I may have missed something, why do we have to travel back in time to show "any change in gene frequency over time"?