Could this be Evidence of Evolution in Action?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Here we have a small change that was random but because the benefit was significant it was strongly selected for and it rapidly swept through a population. That is just what evolution and the theory of natural selection predicts.

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution. Natural selection and mutation occurs. However, that doesn't help the cause of New Darwinian Evolution. The theory is flawed at at its onset. The capacity for much variation is built into the gene. The capacity to "evolve" into something else altogether is not. It is also not what we see in "observed" science. It exists only in the pictures of your textbook.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Well if the mountains of fossil evidence does not persuade you and you lack the imagination to extrapolate or understand this event then wait a million years or so and get back to us.

Micro & macro meh, what tosh.

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

[Low-Mao 0]

It's no suprise that life forms adapt to their environment....but proof of evolution would be a buterfly turning into a hippopotamus.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

It's no suprise that life forms adapt to their environment....but proof of evolution would be a buterfly turning into a hippopotamus.

Not really. Not quite that radical of change. The kind of change they are referring to is like a scale being able to gradually turning into a feather over long periods of time. Dr David Menton: Feathers and Fur

[Zenister 0]

Quote

it exists only in the pictures of your textbook.

something you as a christian should be rather famliar with....

Except for the fact that "Science Texts" have far more actual evidence to back them than yours does....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution.

This is your pathetic "natural selection removes variation" argument (and I use the term argument very loosely) again isn't it? Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

My jaw has officially dropped.

Try reading an actual biology book. Any biology book.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution.

This is your pathetic "natural selection removes variation" argument (and I use the term argument very loosely) again isn't it? Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution.

I never said Natural selection removes variation. What are you talking about? Neither natural selection or mutation can account for what you're referring to.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

My jaw has officially dropped.

Try reading an actual biology book. Any biology book.

Try reading the "backtracking" revisions of some (e.g. Piltdown Man). You probably believe the representation of apes slowly progressing to a standing position and eventually to man in your textbook. That exists nowhere but in that artists imagination.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I never said Natural selection removes variation. What are you talking about? Neither natural selection or mutation can account for what you're referring to.

Ok, so what did you mean when you said natural selection is working in the wrong direction?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Try reading the "backtracking" revisions of some (e.g. Piltdown Man).

Piltdown man was a fraud that was discovered and exposed by the scientific community.

Again, try actually learning something about the state of evolutionary biology (hint, you will never learn anything but strawman distortions by reading your creo sources) before you attempt to discredit it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Here we have a small change that was random but because the benefit was significant it was strongly selected for and it rapidly swept through a population. That is just what evolution and the theory of natural selection predicts.

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution. Natural selection and mutation occurs. However, that doesn't help the cause of New Darwinian Evolution. The theory is flawed at at its onset. The capacity for much variation is built into the gene. The capacity to "evolve" into something else altogether is not. It is also not what we see in "observed" science. It exists only in the pictures of your textbook.

Wrong.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Well if the mountains of fossil evidence does not persuade you and you lack the imagination to extrapolate or understand this event then wait a million years or so and get back to us.

Micro & macro meh, what tosh.

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

There are literally mountains of evidence and if you dig into them they yield fosils. There are tens of thousands of fossils catalogued in the record. It beggars belief that you'd call this a handful. There's an entire chronology of very consistent fossil evidence using multiple dating methods (that all agree) that correlates perfectly with evolution and major finds all the time that fit with the theory. You have to be completely ignorant of what's actually going on in science to assert that there's a handful of questionable findings. Perhaps you get your science news based on whatever the 700 club highlights for the purposes of objection, but there are better sources.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

My jaw has officially dropped.

Try reading an actual biology book. Any biology book.

Try reading the "backtracking" revisions of some (e.g. Piltdown Man). You probably believe the representation of apes slowly progressing to a standing position and eventually to man in your textbook. That exists nowhere but in that artists imagination.

Piltdown man was an isolated incident of fraud. Do you know how it was uncovered? The REST of the fossil record was so consistent in showing a different evolutionary path that the invention stood out like a sore thumb.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here we have a small change that was random but because the benefit was significant it was strongly selected for and it rapidly swept through a population. That is just what evolution and the theory of natural selection predicts.

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution. Natural selection and mutation occurs. However, that doesn't help the cause of New Darwinian Evolution. The theory is flawed at at its onset. The capacity for much variation is built into the gene. The capacity to "evolve" into something else altogether is not. It is also not what we see in "observed" science. It exists only in the pictures of your textbook.

Wrong.

Natural selection (by itself) only selects against characteristics not suitable for a particular environment. As time goes on, diversification occurs and there is less information in the gene pool for natural selection to select against. It doesn’t add anything new to the equation. It only takes away from it. It actually makes that organism less capable of future adaptation to differing environments. It is working in the direction of extinction rather than in the direction of progression to a higher life form.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Natural selection (by itself) only selects against characteristics not suitable for a particular environment. As time goes on, diversification occurs and there is less information in the gene pool for natural selection to select against. It doesn't add anything new to the equation. It only takes away from it. It actually makes that organism less capable of future adaptation to differing environments. It is working in the direction of extinction rather than in the direction of progression to a higher life form.

Paj, you're just plain wrong.

Natural selection is just a mechanism whereby favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. After a given mutation in the DNA sequence, the information contained in the sequence is different but there isn't any more or less information there. The overall amount of information doesn't change as a result of natural selection.

If you got your science from science sources instead of creationist propaganda sites, you'd know this. Why oh why is it not possible for you to criticize science for what it actually is for once? It's not like you haven't been pulled up on this before.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Natural selection (by itself) only selects against characteristics not suitable for a particular environment. As time goes on, diversification occurs and there is less information in the gene pool for natural selection to select against. It doesn’t add anything new to the equation. It only takes away from it. It actually makes that organism less capable of future adaptation to differing environments. It is working in the direction of extinction rather than in the direction of progression to a higher life form.

Wrong. You have a deeply flawed understanding of information theory.

I suggest you listen to the podcast "Evolution 101" and in particular podcast number 128 (started at 101) an episode titled "What is Information Theory" the pertinent section starts at about 12 minutes into the podcast, it will explain in great detail why creationist information theory arguments are nonsense, but even a simple intuitive understanding of evolution can tell you this.

Have fun listening....

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Natural selection (by itself) only selects against characteristics not suitable for a particular environment. As time goes on, diversification occurs and there is less information in the gene pool for natural selection to select against. It doesn’t add anything new to the equation. It only takes away from it. It actually makes that organism less capable of future adaptation to differing environments. It is working in the direction of extinction rather than in the direction of progression to a higher life form.

This is your pathetic "natural selection removes variation" argument (and I use the term argument very loosely) again isn't it? Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution.

As Pajarito seems rather hard of hearing when it suits him I'll repeat myself - Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. No one in the entire history of biology has ever said that natural selection adds anything new to the gene.

To use the fact that natural selection does not add variations to the gene pool as an argument against evolution is sheer lunacy that speaks to a complete and utter lack of understanding of even the most basic elements of the subject.

Natural selection works in concert with (drumroll please) random mutation. The one hand giveth many variations, and the other taketh away the crap ones.

As I said before, by getting all of your knowledge of evolutionary theory from the freaks at WOTM and AiG you will only ever see a distorted strawman version of evolution that bears absolutely no resemblance to the vast body of work that makes up the modern theory.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 284]

Stop introducing logic and science to the argument. You will only confuse people.

I have had a look at some of the links Paj posts - the funniest is the way of the master radio that thinks it can discredit evolution in three minutes. the first few seconds smacks of such a gross (possibly intentional) misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution it would be funny if it wasn't quite so tragically dumb.
Its almost as funny as the peanut butter and banana arguments.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I have had a look at some of the links Paj posts - the funniest is the way of the master radio that thinks it can discredit evolution in three minutes. the first few seconds smacks of such a gross (possibly intentional) misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution it would be funny if it wasn't quite so tragically dumb.

The WOTM videos are tragic, yet in their own way clever. They are transparently aimed at only the most ill informed elements of society and seek to entertain with showmanship rather than convince with information.

Lets face it, who but a doublewide dwelling couch potato high school dropout could possibly take seriously an piece which does not tackle any scientific ideas or challenge any experts, but instead interviews the layman off the street and shows a man gurning with a chimpansee before trying to take it on board a commercial flight?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DSE 5]

Quote

Lets face it, who but a doublewide dwelling couch potato high school dropout could possibly take seriously an piece which does not tackle any scientific ideas or challenge any experts, but instead interviews the layman off the street and shows a man gurning with a chimpansee before trying to take it on board a commercial flight?

Jakee, that last line is so tragically truthful, I'd like to borrow it (OK, I'll steal it).
I played the WOTM radio stuff at the DZ about 3 weeks ago, and even before greenlight, people were rolling on the floor. And we have a fairly religious crowd at our DZ, no kidding.
To topic, is this evidence of evolution? Of course it is. Physical adaptation to environment is an evolution regardless of what label, platitude, or scripture you place upon it, isn't it?

[dorbie 0]

To have non-scientists debate science with scientists is a joke. I don't know what's funnier, that they disavow evolution with the most simplistic rubbish as if each point is a real zinger or that they actually think there's a role for them in a genuine scientific debate.

"Evolution is just a theory."

The peanut butter video is classic, as is the banana. You watch those and it's pure entertainment.

Irreducible complexity of the eye devastated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4

Lots of good stuff like that on youtube.

But Ali-G gave this debate the respect it truly deserves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Lets face it, who but a doublewide dwelling couch potato high school dropout could possibly take seriously an piece which does not tackle any scientific ideas or challenge any experts, but instead interviews the layman off the street and shows a man gurning with a chimpansee before trying to take it on board a commercial flight?

There's the Jakee I know.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

To have non-scientists debate science with scientists is a joke. I don't know what's funnier, that they disavow evolution with the most simplistic rubbish as if each point is a real zinger or that they actually think there's a role for them in a genuine scientific debate.

"Evolution is just a theory."

The peanut butter video is classic, as is the banana. You watch those and it's pure entertainment.

Irreducible complexity of the eye devastated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4

Lots of good stuff like that on youtube.

But Ali-G gave this debate the respect it truly deserves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

Has anyone brought up any of this nonsense in this thread? Or is this just a cheap stunt to pretend you have the high ground?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Lets face it, who but a doublewide dwelling couch potato high school dropout could possibly take seriously an piece which does not tackle any scientific ideas or challenge any experts, but instead interviews the layman off the street and shows a man gurning with a chimpansee before trying to take it on board a commercial flight?

There's the Jakee I know.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?