• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution has been observed... right?

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Those cells never became "something other than that they are". Everything that lives is a *variation* of what those cells were.

Do you understand the difference?*

(*to be clear, this is not a rhetorical question designed to insult your intelligence - I am genuinely asking if you would like me to explain the difference; I understand the concept is far from intuitive)

First, I am certainly not insulted. I have thought carefully and decided to let you explain something to me. Evolution is many small changes that occur over a long period of time. See, I did learn something. So I would like you to explain some of the small steps that may have occured to one cell animals that would lead to more complex animals. One cell animals reproduce by splitting in half and the two halves are copies of the original. See, I know a little more. So what are some small changes that could take place? Maybe some cells are a little different size or shape? That would have nothing to do with more complex animals. Maybe a cell started to split but got stuck and the two halves stayed together? Is that something that could be passed on to future generations? There have been cases of a dog being born with two heads. If that dog had puppies, the puppies would not have two heads. The single cell that got stuck would not make more cells that are stuck. It was a mistake. A Siamese twin does not have children who are also Siamese twins. So I would like for you to explain exactly what small changes MIGHT happen to a one cell animal that it could pass on to future generations and MIGHT lead to complex animals. I will read you answer with an open mind and will carefully consider whatever you say. And I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.












first, I am certainly not insulted.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I'm about ready to put you on ignore due to the constant insults. Another one who has nothing to say.
That's pretty rich coming from you.

You clearly do not understand evolution. Sorry, for pointing that out. The thing about it is, you could correct that, you know. ;) Ignorance can be corrected.

I guess you're not going to answer my question either, eh?
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Um, I think you need to take a course in reproduction if you're under the impression that dogs lay eggs.
I said nothing about LAYING eggs. But I hope you know enough about biology to know that dogs come from eggs. Humans come from eggs. They do not lay eggs but they come from eggs. You are so determined to prove someone wrong that you make stupid statements without even realizing it.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Thanks.
Have you noticed how the creationists don't explain their position, but defend whatever it is by criticizing the ToE, however badly?
Apparently they haven't anything supporting their position, so attempt a black-or-white dilemma, assuming that if they can discredit the ToE, creationism is proven.
That's the "contrived dualism" that doomed the creationist movement in court back in the 1980's, and was part of the reason why the judge in the Dover case found that intelligent design was a form of creationism (it also relied on the same contrived dualism).

Obviously creationists haven't learned from those defeats.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm about ready to put you on ignore due to the constant insults. Another one who has nothing to say.
What have you said that is more than nothing?

The majority of your posts have been insulting rather than bearing substance. Remember asking if I was 12 in response to one of my posts. You had no valid reason to respond like that other than being cornered with nothing of value to respond with. It seems to be your paradigm.

I find it ironic that you are whining about perceived insults.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
That's the "contrived dualism" that doomed the creationist movement in court back in the 1980's, and was part of the reason why the judge in the Dover case found that intelligent design was a form of creationism (it also relied on the same contrived dualism).

Obviously creationists haven't learned from those defeats.
Every defeat is a win in the pigeon coop.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
First, I am certainly not insulted. I have thought carefully and decided to let you explain something to me. Evolution is many small changes that occur over a long period of time. See, I did learn something. So I would like you to explain some of the small steps that may have occured to one cell animals that would lead to more complex animals. One cell animals reproduce by splitting in half and the two halves are copies of the original. See, I know a little more. So what are some small changes that could take place? Maybe some cells are a little different size or shape? That would have nothing to do with more complex animals. Maybe a cell started to split but got stuck and the two halves stayed together? Is that something that could be passed on to future generations? There have been cases of a dog being born with two heads. If that dog had puppies, the puppies would not have two heads. The single cell that got stuck would not make more cells that are stuck. It was a mistake. A Siamese twin does not have children who are also Siamese twins. So I would like for you to explain exactly what small changes MIGHT happen to a one cell animal that it could pass on to future generations and MIGHT lead to complex animals. I will read you answer with an open mind and will carefully consider whatever you say. And I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.












first, I am certainly not insulted.
Do you consider two heads or conjoined twins to be 'small' changes? Why?

Do you think that all change is protected by selection? Why?
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
I said nothing about LAYING eggs. But I hope you know enough about biology to know that dogs come from eggs. Humans come from eggs. They do not lay eggs but they come from eggs. You are so determined to prove someone wrong that you make stupid statements without even realizing it.
Based on the way that you wrote that post, it could be interpreted that you imply dogs laying eggs like chickens. It was the first thought I had and, admittedly, I laughed a little. I even thought about saying "don't put all your dog eggs in one basket", but I did get what you were trying to say.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
No it isn't. Its just rearranging what already exists.
Can you provide examples of this and the evidence you used to make this determination.

So if you have one amylase gene and your food source becomes increasingly rich in starch, adding more amylase genes to over-express amylase is not new information. Eight is not different and new compared to one?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
First, I am certainly not insulted.
Good to know. With this topic, it can difficult to see the line between a genuine inquiry and insult.

I have thought carefully and decided to let you explain something to me. Evolution is many small changes that occur over a long period of time. See, I did learn something.
Well, kind of. That's a good way of summing up HOW evolution occurs, but in a purely semantic (arguably pendantic) way, it isn't quite scientifically accurate.

Evolution is the name we give to the phenomenon of change in allele frequency in populations over time. In other words, the way in which living populations change and diversify over successive generations. To define evolution as simply "many small changes that occur over a long time" is not entirely wrong, because changes on this scale are generally slow and generally the result of minor mutations adding up. However, evolution can also be a result of sudden, explosive mutations and environmental shifts (see punctuated equilibrium) which can happen in relatively short (by comparison to slow accumulation of minor mutations) periods of time. So, evolution is not merely the result of small changes over long periods of time - it can also be the result of big changes in relatively little time. The important thing is that the change alters the allele frequency of a population (i.e, that the mutations proliferate over multiple generations until either the mutation is carried by the majority - or the entirety - of a population, or results in a seperate population branching off of the first).

So I would like you to explain some of the small steps that may have occured to one cell animals that would lead to more complex animals.
This is kind of like asking for a record of when, where and what letter Shakespeare wrote down every time he put his pen to paper when writing all of his plays. We don't have a complete enough picture in order to know exactly what mutations arose, but we know the broad picture.

One cell animals reproduce by splitting in half and the two halves are copies of the original. See, I know a little more. So what are some small changes that could take place?
The same kinda of small changes that can take place with any kind of reproduction. Nothing ever reproduces an EXACT copy of itself - everything that reproduces (asexually or sexually) does so with variation. In the case of cells, these changes can be just as numerous as with anything else. They could absorb nutrients in a very slightly different way. They could develop a tougher membrane. They could develop resistance to certain bacteria.

A famous example would be the experiments conducted on e coli bacteria over a decade ago. In around 20 years, several populations of bacteria were observed to develop greater size, higher metabolism, etc. One population, however, acquired the ability to absorb citrate - something e coli bacteria previously couldn't do.

These are just the kinds of things we can OBSERVE bacteria acquiring over a span of less than two decades.

Maybe some cells are a little different size or shape? That would have nothing to do with more complex animals. Maybe a cell started to split but got stuck and the two halves stayed together? Is that something that could be passed on to future generations?
No, probably not.

What is more likely is that certain cells evolved an improved ability to kind of "stick together", and reproduced other cells with this similar feature, but that's just one idea. However, the potetial for this kind of mutation has been observed to occur in laboratory testing.

There have been cases of a dog being born with two heads. If that dog had puppies, the puppies would not have two heads.
That depends whether the two heads were a result of a mutation in the genes or some other defect.

The single cell that got stuck would not make more cells that are stuck. It was a mistake. A Siamese twin does not have children who are also Siamese twins. So I would like for you to explain exactly what small changes MIGHT happen to a one cell animal that it could pass on to future generations and MIGHT lead to complex animals.
See above.

I will read you answer with an open mind and will carefully consider whatever you say. And I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
No worries! I hope my answer is, at the very least, interesting to you.
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
No it isn't. Its just rearranging what already exists.
No it isn't. Its just rearranging what already exists.
6-aminohexanoic acid did not exist in nature prior to 1935. So bacteria that evolve new enzymes to digest this compound have not added new information? Can you explain this to me?
 

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
Speciation is accepted by creationists. So who are you arguing with?

BTW, the Bible doesn't teach that species are fixed and unchanging.
This isn't evidence that everything descended from a single common ancestor in a process that took millions of years.
Interesting, since the smallest scale of macroevolution is speciation.

The lesson of Genesis is that living things were created as is and stayed that way.
 
Top