Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Lars-E]

Re: Where do we find these guys? Ramo, Texas (teeny-town)

Originally posted by Ramo



This has got to be one of the most hilarious things I've read on the board!

I wonder how this'll go over with my Physics prof: "the Schrodinger Wave Equation is obviously bullocks 'cuz it's theoretical."

What nonsense.

I was talking about ranskaldans argumentation as 'theory'. It was a discussion on the use of the word "most" . But to you this is obviously on par with Newton's Mechanics. Go figure.

Newton's mechanics have been proven right. And your points Joe seems to be on natural selection. I have never heard leading evolutionists say that evolution has been proven. Quite contrary. Yet many ppl tend to think so.

[Ramo]

I was talking about ranskaldans argumentation as 'theory'.

It also has been experimentally validated.

It was a discussion on the use of the word "most"

Your point would be...?

But to you this is obviously on par with Newton's Mechanics. Go figure.

Newton came up with Schrodinger's Wave Equation? Learn something new everyday!

Newton's mechanics have been proven right.

Einstein would probably disagree.

Regardless, "proven" is a loaded word, particularly in science. Ignoring the logical problems in absolute proofs for the moment, science is a work in progress.

I have never heard leading evolutionists say that evolution has been proven.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You want evidence for evolution?

Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

Just helping a fellow traveller improve his arguements but you won't find a creationist that doubts that microevolution exists. You need to tell tham about evidence for macroevolution.

[Dauphin]

It has been observed to occur many times. For example, Biston betularia, an English moth, has two different races. One is dark colored and the other is light. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that prior to 1848 fewer then 2% of its population were dark colored moths. In 1898 95% of the moths in Manchester and other industrial areas were dark colored. During this time England was going through the industrial revolution, and the amount of black soot being sent into the air was increasing. The light colored moths stood out against the black soot and were caught more often by predators. This is proof of evolution.

Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

That would not proove evolution - It would provide evidence for natural selection however. In case one, no mutations are required for the described process. Ditto for case two.

There is a BIG and IMPORTANT difference that many fail to realise.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That would not proove evolution - It would provide evidence for natural selection however. In case one, no mutations are required for the described process. Ditto for case two.

Actually, that does.

Since evolution is scientifically defined as "changes in frequency of alleles."

[Dauphin]

It does not prove evolution. It gives evdience for a single facet.

If I "proved" the GUT it does not prove the TOE.

[ranskaldan]

well, the only argument that Lars-E came up with against my explanation is that it's theoretical.

(Ok, and he also doubted the possibility of beneficial mutations. I mean.... it's like a lottery. Are you saying there can never be million-dollar winners??)

Mmmm, so what if it's theoretical? If I let go of a ball it will bounce onto the floor. That sounds theoretical to me. But it works.

The reason why some theoretical explanations don't work is because other outside factors cancel them out. Unfortunately, no one has given me any outside factors that could cancel out the effects of what I outlined.

Thus evolution is the more reasonable theory.

Edit:
oh yes, Sagadacious. That is not one facet of evolution. That's basically what evolution is.
(Well, unless you are denying the existence of mutations whatsoever.)

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Edit:
oh yes, Sagadacious. That is not one facet of evolution. That's basically what evolution is.
(Well, unless you are denying the existence of mutations whatsoever.)

I believe mutations occur and that they are a part of the evolutionary process, but the experiments outlined have no need for any kind of mutations.

[Dauphin]

Let me clarrify why I make this point -

Without mutations there is a limit on the forms of life that can evolve. That is they are restricted tp what is already in the gene pool. It would place a limiting factor on evolution.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Ramo
Newton came up with Schrodinger's Wave Equation? Learn something new everyday!

I'm sure you do cos this is news to me.

Einstein would probably disagree.

Maybe I should have put a ? after 'right'.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You want evidence for evolution?

Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

Evolution is not only about selection.

Mmmm, so what if it's theoretical? If I let go of a ball it will bounce onto the floor. That sounds theoretical to me. But it works

My point was that theory is nice and good as long as it works. At least you got that part right, Ramo didnt.

Anyways 'theory' aside. An amoeba evolved to a cat, a person, and a tree. I'm sure you had statistics and probabilities at the uni, ranskaldan. Would you please give me the probabilities for this to happen?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Lars-E

Anyways 'theory' aside. An amoeba evolved to a cat, a person, and a tree. I'm sure you had statistics and probabilities at the uni, ranskaldan. Would you please give me the probabilities for this to happen?

Over a couple billion years? Oh, I'd ballpark it around 100%.

As for the above examples of natural selection (antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the moths in London)--of course they required a mutation! They may not have required a brand-new mutation, but without an "untested" mutation in previous generations (antibiotic resistance, or a darker color), those populations would have died. Mutations were required for those processes, SD.

We need not limit ourselves to lower lifeforms, either. Plenty of examples in humans as well. Various mutations involving blood (including sickle cell) are common in the malaria belt (Mediterranean, Middle East, Northern Africa, Indian Subcontinent, etc.), as they provide a measure of protection against malaria.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Guynemer

As for the above examples of natural selection (antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the moths in London)--of course they required a mutation! They may not have required a brand-new mutation, but without an "untested" mutation in previous generations (antibiotic resistance, or a darker color), those populations would have died. Mutations were required for those processes, SD.

I agree that mutations occur and are part of the process BUT the data from the suggested experiments show no evidence of a mutation!

Case 1. The moths. "Kettlewell found that prior to 1848 fewer then 2% of its population were dark colored moths. In 1898 95% of the moths in Manchester and other industrial areas were dark colored".

The condition that was selected for already existed at the beginning of the "test".

Case 2: The bacteria. If the condition selected for was not present at the beginning of the test, there would have been complete sterilisation. As there was not, the ability to withstand pennicillin must have already existed.


I am asking for people to provide scientifically accepted evidence of beneficial mutations actually occuring. There has to be some evidence for it somewhere. Else people are believing a theory without tangible evidence for it!

[Guynemer]

Maybe you misread my post... I stated quite clearly that "untested" mutations in PREVIOUS GENERATIONS were absolutely REQUIRED for the phenomena described. Without a previous mutation granting antibiotic resistance, the bacteria would have died. Clear?

Moreover, if you want proof of mutations actually occuring, become a geneticist, or a physician. People are born with de novo mutations all the time, mutations that are not found in their parents, mutations that will be passed down to future generations.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I agree that mutations occur and are part of the process BUT the data from the suggested experiments show no evidence of a mutation!

Case 1. The moths. "Kettlewell found that prior to 1848 fewer then 2% of its population were dark colored moths. In 1898 95% of the moths in Manchester and other industrial areas were dark colored".

The condition that was selected for already existed at the beginning of the "test".

Case 2: The bacteria. If the condition selected for was not present at the beginning of the test, there would have been complete sterilisation. As there was not, the ability to withstand pennicillin must have already existed.


I am asking for people to provide scientifically accepted evidence of beneficial mutations actually occuring. There has to be some evidence for it somewhere. Else people are believing a theory without tangible evidence for it!

[ranskaldan]

mmm......
i think it's possible for a dark-colored moth to undergo a mutation so that it gives birth to light-colored moth.......

anyone has evidence on this??

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
mmm......
i think it's possible for a dark-colored moth to undergo a mutation so that it gives birth to light-colored moth.......

anyone has evidence on this??

I think its possible for two people with brown hair to have blonde haired off-spring. That doesn't make it a mutation.