What the Hell is going on here? How did this topic turn into an Evolution vs. Creationism debate?
Firstly, Evolution requires the natural selection of beneficial mutations. Mutations can also mean loss of information. Granted, quite a lot of mutations that gave rise to higher species required a gain of information, but oh... what's this?
- Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
- Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
- # Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
- Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
- Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments.
Is that gain of information, I see?
Both of which involve natural selection, not punctuated equilibrium or mutations. This is what occasionally ticks me off about evolutionists. The examples you try to give of mutations are never mutations at all, but a result of natural selection or human selection. There is a big difference. While natural selection simply selects traits from those already present in the creature, and amplifies those traits, Mutation creates entirely new traits in the creature.
Except for evolution to occur you need natural selection of mutations. By definition of natural selection, these new "mutations" are already present in the creature when they attempt to reproduce.
For example, lets use the insects/insecticide. Originally, all of the insects of this given type were more or less equal. Then, man invented insecticides so he could kill the insects which had been raiding his crops. Most of the insects died off. However, perhaps some of them had a slight resistance to the insecticide, and were able to breed before they died. The next generation of insects would all have some of the genes of the originals. The ones which had the anti-pesticide gene would survive and breed, while those which did not receive it would die and not be able to breed. This process was repeated over successive generations until the anti-insecticide gene was the only gene in the insect's DNA. In order to understand that, you need to have a basic knowledge of genetics, but I'll try to explain that if anyone has any questions.
Yeah, but why do you think some of them have genes that are resistant to insecticide whilst others didn't? It's called mutation.
The question which Scientists seek to answer, is where did the information come from in the first place? NeoDarwinists believe it came from random beneficial mutations (again, something which has never been observed)
You mean like the mutation that confers resistance against AIDS (Dean, M. et al. 1996. Science 273: 1856-1862) or ones that make bones stronger (Boyden et al. 2002. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521)?
occuring over a short period of time, say four or 5 generations.
Way to create a strawman. What part of evolution is a slow process that takes a long time, don't you understand?
Creationists believe God put the information in the creatures when he created them. Neither can be scientifically proven, as neither have been observed. Therefore, it's up to the individual who wishes to make his own deecision, based upon which seems most reasonable.
No, it has to be upon what evidence suggests.
What is reasonable does not apply. Example? Quantum Physics. A single electron can go through two slits at the same time. Reason and logic suggests that's impossible, whereas experiments and therefore reality consistently proves otherwise.
Just as a side not to that, however, consider this. DNA is made of protein. Protein is made of small, fairly complex compounds known as amino acids. The simplest protein has well over 100 amino acids linked together in a chain. More complex proteins can have, if I remember correctly, thousands. The amino acids must be in the right order, or otherwise the protein becomes useless. Now, let's assume that we have a primeval soup on earth a few billion years ago, and we're trying to observe the creation of the simplest protein. Let's say that the only amino acids in the soup are those necessary for the creation of this protein (in reality there are dozens more) Now, a strike of lightning hits the soup. The odds of the simplest protein known to science forming from the amino acids in the soup randomly in the perfect order it needs to be are around the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row. And that is just for the simplest protein, with a lot of variables removed.
Odds don't factor into it.
Here's a little tidbit for you. Protein formation favours an increase in entropy. Individual amino acids decrease the entropy of the environment. A single chain of amino acids, increases the entropy. A 3D protein globule, increases the entropy further. How? Reducing surface area to which the water molecules bind, which allows for water molecules to move about more chaotically.
May I also point out to you that DNA is not made out of protein. DNA is made from DNA. DNA also doesn't code for protein. RNA codes for protein.
And we see organisms such as HIV, which have RNA as their genetic material. Oh and we see things called ribozymes, which are basically enzymes made out of RNA instead of protein. The odds of protein forming are greatly increased with the help of a catalyst, possibly in the form of ribozymes.
What do Gregor Mendel, Father of genetics, Isaac Newton, Father of
Physics, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, and dozens others I could name have in common? Oh wait, they were all christians, or professed to be so.
Darwin was Christian too. He only renounced his faith when his daughter died. What, anyway, is your point? They're Christian. So what? Many of the people I know who believe in evolution are also Christian, yet they hold theistic evolution ideologies and all regard Creationism and ID as nonscientific nonsense.
Oh and AvengerButton?
Hitler was not a fascist, nor was his government. It was anything but fascist, because it was so chaotic. There were many different departments, with vague names, all of which vyed over the same projects. In-fighting was common amongst the various departments and all worked not for the state, but for Hitler.
Fascism emphasises the state as important.
National Socialism emphasised the Volk (the people).
Fascists pledge their loyalty to the state. Nazis to Hitler.
True, there are similarities, but you cannot state that Nazism and Fascism are the same because of them.
Oh, and to finish, let me emphasise something that was already made clear before.
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. Hypotheses are explanatory.
A Theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It is explanatory. It requires evidence.
A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. It is descriptive, not explanatory. (The Law of Gravity explains how gravity acts, but now how it works. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution works).
Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 26 September 2006 - 08:14 AM.
