Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

The sad thing is you simply don't get it.

It's over...the argument of whether Evolution is a fact...it has been over for quite some time.

The proof exists upon a Molecular/Atomic Level within the Genomes of all living creatures and plants on Earth.

We all evolved from an original single celled organism.

There is no question of this.

AboveAlpha

 

The posts were mixed together. Proof of one kind of animal evolving into another. Maybe a transitional fossil, or evidence that not everything in the universe degrades (devolves). Proof that the Earth is 60++ trillion years old (give or take a googol or two.) Maybe a scientific theory that explains how information is added to DNA to form new structures within a living organism. Start there.

 

There are a huge number of Transational Fossils and you can easily Google these.

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.

The age of the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years.

Chemial Reaction and Viral Encoding is how the Genomes of species change.

AboveAlpha

 

Sorry, there are zero of the billions found.

How is that measured?

Ditto?

Change into what?

 

The only way that is possible is that you did not try. Willful ignorance.

look herehttps://www.google.com/search?q=transitional+fossils&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS553US553&oq=transitional+fossils&aqs=chrome..69i57.7265j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

 

How do you know most mutations are bad?... bad is subjective as is good, whether a mutation is good or bad would depend on the circumstances in which it occurs...

a mutation good or bad when they occur in a healthy stable population normally just get re-absorbed into the the gene pool...unless there is moment of Punctuated Equilibrium(your 4th point)..

 

I think that is exactly what the thread is about....

 

I keep running in to that everytime the issue of race is brought up, the intellectual dinosaurs refuse to accept the science of genetics has completely destroyed the concept of race...its self induced ignorance/denial...

 

How did whales legs get detached?...from the seas to land and back to the seas many progressive mutations...if man disappeared from earth the process could also reverse and whales could be terrestrial once again...

 

Again with the link to lists. Are you that lazy?

 

No but aparantly you are. You said you couldn't find any so I found a bunch for you. You ever come up with any sources for all those ridiculous claims you made yesterday?

I don't know why I bothered to reply to this you have obviously decided to remain ignorant on the subject.

 

Bad if the organism is unable to reproduce, or dies.

Lets see if you and your ilk can think for yourself on this; one organism is reproduced with a certain mutation, an anomaly, maybe a third eye. For that organism to reproduce critters with three eyes it would necessarily need to find same critter with the same mutation to mate with, and even then the three eyed critter decedent is not guaranteed. What scientists and farmers know is the animal will tend to return to reproducing a two eyed critter. Genetics and animal husbandry 101.

 

There have been zero transitional fossils found within the billions unearth. There have been numerous finds later proved as hoaxes, and there are one or two that are still being disputed. Now you think for yourself for a moment, considering, as you and your ilk claim, that for one kind of animal to "evolve" into another kind of animal, it should require millions of tiny changes with succeeding generations over milllllllllions of years. Correct????

That would predict that scientists should find infinitely more transitional fossils than individual kinds of fossils, not two or even one hundred.

 

In evolutionary terms, a mutation is "bad" if it hinders reproductive success, and "good" if it increases reproductive success.

By that measure, most mutations are actually neutral. But of the ones that aren't neutral, most are harmful.

That's why evolution weeding out bad mutations is so powerful. It allows species to survive random mutations, by weeding out the bad ones and conserving the helpful ones.

 

Absolutely untrue, the mate does not need the same mutation...mrs wyly has a dental mutation inherited from her father, two of my four children also have it...if the mutation does no harm it's as benign as hair or eye colour ...

 

Thats the epitome of gross misunderstanding shared by you and your creationist ilk...that you have no absolutely no knowledge or grasp of the science involved...it's pure hubris, what you're telling us is "if I don't know it it isnt true"...you're not here to debate the science but to deny it...

 

You have a faulty understanding of genetics.

Mutations change the way genes express themselves.

Each child gets two copies (alleles) of each gene -- one from the mother and one from the father.

If a given allele is dominant, then a somatic mutation on that gene will express itself even if only one parent has that mutation.

If a given allele is recessive, then that mutation must be present in both parents for it to express itself.

But recessive genes are still passed on -- they just don't express. The child is now a carrier of that mutation. That's why things like eye color can skip a generation -- some eye-color genes are recessive.

And frankly, whether or not a given trait controlled by a given gene expresses itself is somewhat complicated.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/inheritance/patterns/

Note the example of sickle-cell anemia: The malaria-protection trait of the mutation is dominant, while the anemia trait is recessive. It's easy to see how this mutation spread through a population exposed to malaria: the recessive anemia was harmful, but the dominant malaria-protection was helpful.

To sum up, a mutation can easily be passed on to offspring from a single parent, and it is likely to express to one extent or another. And even if it's recessive, if it's a common enough mutation (or the recessive feature piggybacks on a helpful dominant feature), it will eventually express itself in the population, and become an evolutionary factor.

 

Research dominant and regressive genetic traits then research mutations.

- - - Updated - - -

Now read the part about mutations (not genetic traits).

 

You don't have to have transitional fossils to determine evolution. You can observe it in the biodiversity that exists today. For example, there are worms that later evolved snakes, now you have lizards that branched from snakes. The formation of legs and other adaptations occurred while still keeping the worms alive without any need for extinction to evolve to the next evolutionary branch.

Another example, we have flightless birds and birds that fly.Slight changes to the body plans of these two birds enabled flight. We observe the similarly characteristics throughout the biodiversity of the life that is alive today. Logical thinking allows you to visualize the adaptation changes that were done that humans use label and identify each form of life.

 

Good point, but misused. If evolution were true, we SHOULD (but don't) see millions of transitional life forms today.

When do you believe the evolutionary process stopped?

Why did the process stop?

Do your "scientists" predict it will start back up again?

Why?

BTW, what changes are needed to get an ostrich to fly?

 

Part of how a debate works is to show legitimate sources for your knowledge. I'm simply asking about the source of this: you have dodged answering it twice.

 

I would also like to add that the environment once you are born also has a big role on whether those traits in your genes are expressed. Your genes don't necessarily determine your fate or your appearance at birth.

 

I am still waiting for science to produce a single living cell, that replicates. From inorganics. When they do that, only then will I believe in what they maintain. This shouldn't be that hard, given they claim they have a handle on how life began. And they wouldn't have to rely upon great periods of time, nor randomness. They should be able to put the right ingredients together, and life should happen. Even if they had to do it in steps.

I think some of evolution is factual, but not all of it. But I am speaking of the creation of life here, and I am not asking for them to create anything complex, but a simple single cell lifeform that replicates, for this is essential. When they do that, they have proved to me that they know what they are talking about. Until then, I take some of science with a grain of salt the size of Mount Everest.

All that science can offer in this endeavor is promissory science. But its the game changer, if they ever pull it off. I doubt if its possible. For they will be lacking something, and that something is Intelligence that made life possible to arise in the first place. Something outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. But I want to be proven wrong, so get to work.

 

First of all, the only people that call it Darwinian evolution are people that haven't studied it. Pretty much Darwinian evolution was the starting point, but it has progressed beyond that.

Second, study biology for a few years, and you will learn examples of it. The problem is that without a broad basis of knowledge, the theory seems to have holes. I've been involved in internet (and before that BBS) debates on this subject for years. There is no simple one page example that I can use without spending weeks explaining.

Third, I am a devout Catholic. I believe in God, but I don't pretend that there is physical evidence for God. I believe in God on faith, pure faith. No evidence needed. I don't believe in evolution in the same way.

Fourth, I never accused you of being ignorant. I accused NaturalBorn of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple. God made it that way.

 

Allow me to explain it another way, all life basically as the same ingredients (molecules) to form multi-cellular organism such as Humans. The difference between life forms is the recipe is used differently in life forms which we define and label them based on their characteristics.