Evolution in action

[questor]

if speciation means the change of one species into another, would someone please supply a link to some research that shows this phenomenon?

[ughaibu]

Questor: On at least two occasions when you've been asked to provide evidence for your assertions, you have refused, instead suggesting that those asking for evidence avail themselves of Google. In the present case I think it would be suitable for you to apply the same consideration.

[questor]

Ugh, if you're saying there are no links, i can live with that. by the way, did you look up some of those educational statistics? there have also been some TV shows lately concerning the same subject.

[ughaibu]

I said what I meant, a habit of mine.

The subject matter of the education thread didn't interest me, so I didn't investigate further.

[jetzeppelin]

Evolution requires an increase in genetic information, not a change (which is adaptation). The increase in genetic information is how the Australopithecus (supposedly)

eventually became a new species and finally resulting in humans as we know them today.

 

This example is not evolutionary in any form. No new species has been produced, no information has increased, only the information that already existed has been changed.

[jetzeppelin]

I posted this on another thread too, but I think it belongs here. I highly recommend Dr. David Hawkins books. He deals with a lot of related issues too. One of his comments:

 

"This hoopla over creationism vs evolution is so stupid, evolution IS creationism unfolding."

 

I think a lot of religious people think evolution means no god... in fact, evolution seems to be pointing the other way with the strange jumps and quick evolutionary moves that seem to be being uncovered.

 

DAK

 

You are correct, someone can believe in creationism and evolution. They are called progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists.

 

What the matter boils down to is Genesis chapter 1 and 2nd Timoth 3:16.

 

2nd Tim 3:16 asserts that all scripture is inspired by God, which would include Genesis. In Genesis chapter one the creation is described as occurring in six days, not thousands of years, for the usage of the Hebrew word for day (yom) precluded by a numerical adjective (IE the second day, the third day) points to an implication of six literal days.

 

If the Bible truly asserts millions (or thousands) of years during the creation period why didn't it state it just as it was later in Genesis (Genesis 13:16

I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.). Instead of saying Six Days, why didn't it say, as many stars are in the sky, that's how many years it took for God to create the world.

 

The Bible clearly says SIX DAYS. So either you have to hobble around on one foot trying to make 6 days into millions of years (which is much more implausible than evolution or six day creation), take 6 days as truth, or reject the idea of God altogether. That is where the hooplah comes in.

[Tormod]

Evolution requires an increase in genetic information, not a change (which is adaptation).

 

It seems to me you lack a fundamental insight into what evolution is. Maybe you should try to read some books by evolutionists and not only creationists.

[jetzeppelin]

It seems to me you lack a fundamental insight into what evolution is. Maybe you should try to read some books by evolutionists and not only creationists.

 

Books or no books. It is plain to discern that Darwinian evolution requires an increase in information. Empirical evidence in the present (the ratio of cytochrome-c in chimps vs humans) shows that for one lesser species to "evolve" into another absolutely requires an increase in information, more complex DNA.

 

And I have read some evolutionists books, especially Dawkins. I had heard much praise of him, but I was sorely disappointed when I read some of his works (IE the monkey with the typewriter) lacked true logic and reasoning.

[Tormod]

Books or no books. It is plain to discern that Darwinian evolution requires an increase in information. Empirical evidence in the present (the ratio of cytochrome-c in chimps vs humans) shows that for one lesser species to "evolve" into another absolutely requires an increase in information, more complex DNA.

 

You can't disprove the evolutionary process by showing that chimps and humans are different. Humans did not evolve from chimps, nor vice versa (I assume you know this).

 

And I'd like to hear from you how it is plain that evolution requires an increase in information.

[questor]

maybe this question got lost in the intense debate:

 

Re: Evolution in action - Today, 12:02 PM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

if speciation means the change of one species into another, would someone please supply a link to some research that shows this phenomenon?

 

does someone have information on this?

[Tormod]

Wikipedia is your friend:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

[jetzeppelin]

You can't disprove the evolutionary process by showing that chimps and humans are different. Humans did not evolve from chimps, nor vice versa (I assume you know this).

 

And I'd like to hear from you how it is plain that evolution requires an increase in information.

 

spe·ci·a·tion

n.

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

 

ev·o·lu·tion

n.

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

 

 

I am no one to disprove evolution, hah. I'd have to either be God, or have a time machine to do that, and I can also say the same about Creation. Neither Creation nor Darwinian evolution are scientifically observable.

 

 

 

I am not an expert on the theory. And I know that humans did not evolve directly from chimps, but the fact that humans and chimps are homologous in many aspects raises the matter that we diverged from their evolutionary line some time ago, so in essence, we are related to chimps in some way (if you believe that), ergo we supposedly share the same gene structure.

 

 

 

I know that evolution (hypothetically) is the product of unguided advantageous mutations in the genetic line of a species, allowing the "survival of the fittest", which supposedly generates the species we have today.

 

 

 

I also know this, that the human genome is unarguably the most complex of living organisms. Logically, if we came about by natural processes, those forms of life in which we stemmed from (ie Chimps, single celled organisms, shrews etc etc) had to have had an increase in genetic information.

 

The definitions of evolution and speciation are intertwined. Speciation is a side effect (so to say) of evolution. Without an increase in genetic information more complex species cannot happen. If genetic information did not increase, how so do you account for the rise of new better species, via speciation? How did the lesser species of earth during prehistoric times (which undoubtedly had a less complex genome structure) become the more complex creatures we have today, (which undoubtedly have a more complex genome structure) without an increase of genetic information?

[pgrmdave]

I also know this, that the human genome is unarguably the most complex of living organisms.

 

This is interesting; I've never heard anything along these lines. Where could I find information on this, studies into the complexity of different living organisms?

[InfiniteNow]

ev·o·lu·tion

n.

A gradual process in which something changes into a

different and usually more complex or better form.

How do you make the leap from "different and usually more complex or better form," to the statement you are attempting to support, "It is plain to discern that Darwinian evolution requires an increase in information?"

 

Complex or better form not necessarily equal and equivalent to increase in information. I'm starting to think that you believe none of this and you're just pulling our legs... :hihi: :beer:

 

 

I am no one to disprove evolution, hah. I'd have to either be God, or have a time machine to do that, and I can also say the same about Creation. Neither Creation nor Darwinian evolution are scientifically observable.

 

I just tilted my head like a confused dog and made a sound like, "Hhuuwwaahht?" :hihi:

 

 

Darwinian evolution (i.e. Natural Selection) is not scientificially observable? :cocktail: Are you kidding?

 

Hmmm... how about this? Two spiders are in my bathroom. One falls into the toilet and dies, the other crawls away and lays eggs. Boom... there ya go. I just observed it. Spiders who fall into toilets don't reproduce. Those that avoid the hazard do.

 

 

I know that evolution (hypothetically) is the product of unguided advantageous mutations in the genetic line of a species, allowing the "survival of the fittest", which supposedly generates the species we have today.

Don't forget artificial selection... that's not so unguided.

 

 

 

Okay... I'll just stop now. I'm feeling spiteful and there's no need for hostility.

 

 

 

Cheers. :beer:

[jetzeppelin]

This is interesting; I've never heard anything along these lines. Where could I find information on this, studies into the complexity of different living organisms?

 

Take bacteria for example. The number of base pairs in the DNA of a bacteria cell are on average 4,000,000. Compare that to the number of base pairs in the DNA of human cells: 2,300,000,000. But numbers aren't always linked to complexity (the organization and processes of the DNA are what iterates its complexity):

 

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html

 

Human DNA vs Bacterial DNA

 

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgenetics%2Fans_027.html

[Tormod]

Neither Creation nor Darwinian evolution are scientifically observable

 

I wonder how many times this has been posted at Hypography now. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.

[TheBigDog]

I think I have observed natural evolution in my own lifetime. We have all heard the expression "frozen like a deer in headlights". As a kid I remember seeing deer frozen on the road in the headlights of my dad's car. But in my adult life I have never witnessed this. I have seen whole herds of deer run across the road right through the headlights, but none of them stop. My conclusion is that those deer with the tendency to stare into the lights diminished in numbers over the years as they got smacked by traffic. Those with the tendency to keep on running prospered, and passed that trait on to their offspring. My conclusion is that I have witnessed first hand the evolution of deer to the introduced risk of night time traffic.

 

Bill