What is Evolution? (Darwin, creation, bible, Adam)

[rodz275]

Evolution, a subject or word that is irrelevant to the truth, You seek to understand evolution but end with vanity, truly those who are seeking, seek the creator God. you cannot understand or fathom the truth unless you believe that GOd is real and his vessel Jesus.simple as that, all evolution and atheism etc. etc. is, is a internal affair with the complexion of a humans makeup trying to justify many things yet unanswered. as strange as it may come to you. you view things and perspectives with carnal minds,which is a dead brain.

[kadzbiz]

Originally Posted by rodz275

.....you view things and perspectives with carnal minds, which is a dead brain.

Way to hold back on your opinions there newbie.

[deviant1]

Hello and new here.

Evolution proper is biological evolution. Under biological is micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Darwin witnessed micro-evolution (genetic adaptation or generational predisposition) and theorized that species may have crossed the traditional speciation boundaries espoused up until that time. Since genetic science has progressed, we see no new genetic information being added to a given species which challenges the theory of macro-evolution in a way it has yet to overcome. Add to this the mitochondria that points to a single woman (Mitochondria Eve) and the Y-Chromosome, genetic research also pointing to a single father and bio evolution is even further challenged.

Big-bang has also been given the slang cosmic evolution although in my experience, these scientists generally abhor being lumped with the bio field and called evolutionists. Even those in the bio field prefer being called naturalists.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by deviant1

Since genetic science has progressed, we see no new genetic information being added to a given species which challenges the theory of macro-evolution in a way it has yet to overcome.

Welcome to the forums, deviant1.

I'm confused, though: is that not exactly waht "mutation" is in biological evolution, new genetic information? When a butterfly emerges with a new spot on its wings, that is new genetic information.

[deviant1]

I believe we call the butterfly's transformation its "life-cycle." The genetic code that produces the wings is already present in the pre-cocooned, non-winged form. A mutation is when a healthy/normal genetic code is missing information or is mixed abnormally. This usually results in a deformity/disease and becomes less likely to be passed on with a demanding environment.

Micro-evolution occurs when environmental conditions require pre-existing, available genetic codes to go from near-equal or recessive, to dominate in a limited breeding pool. For instance, a certain mammal is preyed upon so longer legs might give it the speed it needs to survive/thrive. Those with smaller legs might be pushed out from the main breeding pool and migrate to safer ground. Those that stay would develop even longer legs due to generationally progressive, genetic dominance of that available code (leg length). However, the available genetic information is only reorganized, never added to. This makes the chances of a leg evolving into a fin (different/new code) an impossibility.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by deviant1

I believe we call the butterfly's transformation its "life-cycle." A mutation is when a healthy/normal genetic code is missing information or is mixed abnormally. This usually results in a deformity and becomes less likely to be passed on with a demanding environment.

Yeah; I was referring to the "spot."

[deviant1]

April 25, 2002 Nature and the Oct. 29, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

These papers dashed the notion that butterfly-spot size represents an example of a trait that's evolved under such a strong constraint that some forms, such as one big spot and one little spot, never develop, according to Beldade. Other proposed examples of traits that can't evolve certain forms include the number of neck vertebrae in mammals--seemingly always seven--and the number of leg-bearing segments of centipedes--seemingly always odd. These examples have all been controversial.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by deviant1

This makes the chances of a leg evolving into a fin (different/new code) an impossibility.

Then too bad it's happened, eh?

[deviant1]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Then too bad it's happened, eh?

Well, I can tell you that it has never occurred in the history of naturalism nor is it likely based on genetic science. Can you show me where it has (or is currently) happening and how it *is* likely in light of genetic science?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by deviant1

Well, I can tell you that it has never occurred in the history of naturalism nor is it likely based on genetic science. Can you show me where it has (or is currently) happening and how it *is* likely in light of genetic science?

Simply get yourself a good college level biology textbook. That would be the easiest way for you to disabuse yourself of the silly notion evolution has not occurred and the even sillier speculation that it cannot occur.

By the way, welcome to the Forum!