[Discussion] Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Bored38]

How do those research results disprove that evolution happened? In the first case, there was no major 'sweep' as you say, for about 250 thousand years. You do realize that time frame is insignificant on a geological time scale?
And the second experiment basically demonstrated variation(not catching on, being advantageous is irrelevant anyway) , what more evidence do you want? And I already explained that its always a trade off, not absolute improvement but a cost/benefit bargain. What's wrong with you lol.

Whats wrong with me is that I don't except "may haves" as fact but i'll happily sit here in my wrongness til the facts are in.

 

[Bored38]

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

 

[Multiply]

I said many. Not all. And you never actually bothered sparking debate on the topic of freemasonry. You simply ridiculed the idea so how am I supposed to take you seriously. And you've failed miserably calling out irony when the irony was on your part. How cringe worthy. Anywho, here is a list of a few of the American Presidents that were freemasons.

George Washington
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
James Polk
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
James Garfield
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
Howard Taft
Warren Harding
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Gerald Ford

So what is the importance of them being Freemasons? What does this mean to you?

You saying I need to stop talking about things I don't understand is ironic. On the topic of Freemasonry of course.

 

[NarutoKage2]

@bored 38 don't know where you c/p ed that from(probably some creationist website) but I don't really have time to respond at the moment in detail. But just a cursory analysis:
1st line 2nd paragraph: absolute rubbish and hogwash. Natural selection is NEVER random, just the mutations before it, but the selections themselves are non random. So thank you(or whoever wrote that) for demonstrating that they clearly don't understand what theyre trying to disprove.
Will get back to this later

 

[Bored38]

@bored 38 don't know where you c/p ed that from(probably some creationist website) but I don't really have time to respond at the moment in detail. But just a cursory analysis:
1st line 2nd paragraph: absolute rubbish and hogwash. Natural selection is NEVER random, just the mutations before it, but the selections themselves are non random. So thank you(or whoever wrote that) for demonstrating that they clearly don't understand what theyre trying to disprove.
Will get back to this later

Icr.org is where I c/p it from. As far as the part you quoted, you need to read it again. It wasn't saying Natural selection was random, just that the mutation was random and that positive mutations were picked by Natural selection. So you misread that.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Spoiler

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[NarutoKage2]

Icr.org is where I c/p it from. As far as the part you quoted, you need to read it again. It wasn't saying Natural selection was random, just that the mutation was random and that positive mutations were picked by Natural selection. So you misread that.

No, i read that, but the sequence and probability calculations he used assumed the selection is random.

Anyways, the 3 links i gave answer it all in fair detail.

Oh btw you do know icr means institute of creation? Biased much?

Anyways im done here. Its clear as day theres no scientific/logical/rational disagreement with evolution, only creationists(religious people.)

 

[Narushima]

@bored 38 don't know where you c/p ed that from(probably some creationist website) but I don't really have time to respond at the moment in detail. But just a cursory analysis:
1st line 2nd paragraph: absolute rubbish and hogwash. Natural selection is NEVER random, just the mutations before it, but the selections themselves are non random. So thank you(or whoever wrote that) for demonstrating that they clearly don't understand what theyre trying to disprove.
Will get back to this later

The relationship between probability and scientific models is actually a very well known issue in the philosophy of science literature, in general. Physics is replete with probability-based paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon, the recurrence paradox, the reversal paradox and virtually anything involving probability in quantum mechanics, to name a few examples I am familiar with).

Bored38 has copied and pasted that particular creationist sophistry from the article "The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution." Yo Bored38, let me teach you one of the basic things about scientific culture, something called referencing. See I am going to cite an article discussing that problem - except my reference is by a real mathematician, Dr David H. Bailey (who, by the way, is a Christian).

You must be registered for see links

I know you won't read or care for it given that your reason is the of slave of your religious emotions (why I don't really bother engaging in these sort of debates with your types anymore) but I'll paraphrase (to demonstrate that I actually read and understand what I paste) my favorite part for the benefit of readers here: Dr Bailey sets out calculating the chances that one of those beautifully complex patterned snowflakes can form "at random." His crude estimation gives that probability as 10^(-2500) - by comparison, the estimated number of protons in the universe is around 10^(80) so if you could place all the protons (and by some magic label that one special proton) in the universe inside my hat, you have an infinitely better chance of drawing the special proton than the complex pattern in a snowflake forming on its own. Therefore no doubt God is constantly applying his magic to snowflake formation, presumably to give you creationists fodder for debate with us heathen.

 

[Narushima]

@bored 38 don't know where you c/p ed that from(probably some creationist website) but I don't really have time to respond at the moment in detail. But just a cursory analysis:
1st line 2nd paragraph: absolute rubbish and hogwash. Natural selection is NEVER random, just the mutations before it, but the selections themselves are non random. So thank you(or whoever wrote that) for demonstrating that they clearly don't understand what theyre trying to disprove.
Will get back to this later

@bored 38 don't know where you c/p ed that from(probably some creationist website) but I don't really have time to respond at the moment in detail. But just a cursory analysis:
1st line 2nd paragraph: absolute rubbish and hogwash. Natural selection is NEVER random, just the mutations before it, but the selections themselves are non random. So thank you(or whoever wrote that) for demonstrating that they clearly don't understand what theyre trying to disprove.
Will get back to this later

The relationship between probability and scientific models is actually a very well known issue in the philosophy of science literature, in general. Physics is replete with probability-based paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon, the recurrence paradox, the reversal paradox and virtually anything involving probability in quantum mechanics, to name a few examples I am familiar with).

Bored38 has copied and pasted that particular creationist sophistry from the article "The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution." Yo Bored38, let me teach you one of the basic things about scientific culture, something called referencing. See I am going to cite an article discussing that problem - except my reference is by a real mathematician, Dr David H. Bailey (who, by the way, is a Christian).

dhbailey.
[note: can't seem to paste links without mod approval, combine the sequence below with the above for the link.]
com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf

I know you won't read or care for it given that your reason is the of slave of your religious emotions (why I don't really bother engaging in these sort of debates with your types anymore) but I'll paraphrase (to demonstrate that I actually read and understand what I paste) my favorite part for the benefit of readers here: Dr Bailey sets out calculating the chances that one of those beautifully complex patterned snowflakes can form "at random." His crude estimation gives that probability as 10^(-2500) - by comparison, the estimated number of protons in the universe is around 10^(80) so if you could place all the protons (and by some magic label that one special proton) in the universe inside my hat, you have an infinitely better chance of drawing the special proton than the complex pattern in a snowflake forming on its own. Therefore no doubt God is constantly applying his magic to snowflake formation, presumably to give you creationists fodder for debate with us heathen.

 

[Narushima]

@bored 38 don't know where you c/p ed that from(probably some creationist website) but I don't really have time to respond at the moment in detail. But just a cursory analysis:
1st line 2nd paragraph: absolute rubbish and hogwash. Natural selection is NEVER random, just the mutations before it, but the selections themselves are non random. So thank you(or whoever wrote that) for demonstrating that they clearly don't understand what theyre trying to disprove.
Will get back to this later

The relationship between probability and scientific models is actually a very well known issue in the philosophy of science literature, in general. Physics is replete with probability-based paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon, the recurrence paradox, the reversal paradox and virtually anything involving probability in quantum mechanics, to name a few examples I am familiar with).

Bored38 has copied and pasted that particular creationist sophistry from the article "The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution." Yo Bored38, let me teach you one of the basic things about scientific culture, something called referencing. See I am going to cite an article discussing that problem - except my reference is by a real mathematician, Dr David H. Bailey (who, by the way, is a Christian).

Note: I can't seem to be able to post links without mod approval, so google "Evolution and Probability Bailey" for the link.

I know you won't read or care for it given that your reason is the of slave of your religious emotions (why I don't really bother engaging in these sort of debates with your types anymore) but I'll paraphrase (to demonstrate that I actually read and understand what I paste) my favorite part for the benefit of readers here: Dr Bailey sets out calculating the chances that one of those beautifully complex patterned snowflakes can form "at random." His crude estimation gives that probability as 10^(-2500) - by comparison, the estimated number of protons in the universe is around 10^(80) so if you could place all the protons (and by some magic label that one special proton) in the universe inside my hat, you have an infinitely better chance of drawing the special proton than the complex pattern in a snowflake forming on its own. Therefore no doubt God is constantly applying his magic to snowflake formation, presumably to give you creationists fodder for debate with us heathen.

 

[Bored38]

No, i read that, but the sequence and probability calculations he used assumed the selection is random.

Anyways, the 3 links i gave answer it all in fair detail.

Oh btw you do know icr means institute of creation? Biased much?

Anyways im done here. Its clear as day theres no scientific/logical/rational disagreement with evolution, only creationists(religious people.)

Yes I do know the reputation of icr, their no more biased than Dawkins or many of the scientific links I see here. Whether you accept it or not, this is science vs science not science vs religion. As soon as any scientific study oposing evolution is published ppl like yourself want to play the religious biased card. Thats a cop out.
Ive already shown studies conducted over decades that fail to confirm your argument. Actually the study of plants,bacteria,fruit flies and others suggest it can't happen in the manner you've sited. The mathematical odds of the multitude of positive mutations are stacked heavily if not impossibly against it as well.

 

[Narushima]

No, i read that, but the sequence and probability calculations he used assumed the selection is random.

Anyways, the 3 links i gave answer it all in fair detail.

Oh btw you do know icr means institute of creation? Biased much?

Anyways im done here. Its clear as day theres no scientific/logical/rational disagreement with evolution, only creationists(religious people.)

Note I have been trying to post this reply for some time now but have been having problems with posting without mod approval (presumably because of my low post count). I didn't edit anything so will just post the original reply:

The relationship between probability and scientific models is actually a very well known issue in the philosophy of science literature, in general. Physics is replete with probability-based paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon, the recurrence paradox, the reversal paradox and virtually anything involving probability in quantum mechanics, to name a few examples I am familiar with).

Bored38 has copied and pasted that particular creationist sophistry from the article "The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution." Yo Bored38, let me teach you one of the basic things about scientific culture, something called referencing. I am going to cite an article discussing that problem - except my reference is by a real mathematician, Dr David H. Bailey (who, by the way, is a Christian, so there is your "bias").

Note I can't post links without mod approval so google "Evolution and Probability Bailey" for the reference.

I know you won't read or care for it given that your reason is the of slave of your religious emotions but I'll describe/paraphrase (to demonstrate that I actually read and understand what I paste) my favourite part: Dr Bailey sets out calculating the chances that one of those beautifully complex patterned snowflakes can form "at random."

His crude estimation gives that probability as 10^(-2500) - by comparison, the estimated number of protons in the universe is around 10^(80) so if you could place all the protons (and by some magic, label that one special proton) in the universe inside my hat, you have an infinitely better chance of drawing the special proton than the complex pattern in a snowflake forming "by chance." Therefore no doubt God is constantly applying his magic to snowflake formation, presumably to give you creationists fodder for debate with us non-creationists.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Note I have been trying to post this reply for some time now but have been having problems with posting without mod approval (presumably because of my low post count). I didn't edit anything so will just post the original reply:

The relationship between probability and scientific models is actually a very well known issue in the philosophy of science literature, in general. Physics is replete with probability-based paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon, the recurrence paradox, the reversal paradox and virtually anything involving probability in quantum mechanics, to name a few examples I am familiar with).

Bored38 has copied and pasted that particular creationist sophistry from the article "The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution." Yo Bored38, let me teach you one of the basic things about scientific culture, something called referencing. I am going to cite an article discussing that problem - except my reference is by a real mathematician, Dr David H. Bailey (who, by the way, is a Christian, so there is your "bias").

Note I can't post links without mod approval so google "Evolution and Probability Bailey" for the reference.

I know you won't read or care for it given that your reason is the of slave of your religious emotions but I'll describe/paraphrase (to demonstrate that I actually read and understand what I paste) my favourite part: Dr Bailey sets out calculating the chances that one of those beautifully complex patterned snowflakes can form "at random."

His crude estimation gives that probability as 10^(-2500) - by comparison, the estimated number of protons in the universe is around 10^(80) so if you could place all the protons (and by some magic, label that one special proton) in the universe inside my hat, you have an infinitely better chance of drawing the special proton than the complex pattern in a snowflake forming "by chance." Therefore no doubt God is constantly applying his magic to snowflake formation, presumably to give you creationists fodder for debate with us non-creationists.

Is this the link:?

You must be registered for see links

And props, by their logic, snowflakes are as improbable as evolution, in fact many orders of magnitude more improbable. So i'll just copy/paste bailey here if you don't object(and i'll actually say that i'm doing it lol):

Some of the difficulties with creationist probability arguments can be illustrated by considering snowflakes. Bentley and Humphrey's book Snow Crystals includes over 2000 high-resolution black-and-white photos of real snowflakes, each with intricate yet highly regular patterns that are almost perfectly six-way symmetric [Bentley1962]. A good online source with numerous high-resolution photographs has been compiled by Kenneth Libbrecht [Libbrecht2012]. Four of Bentley's photos are shown below. By employing a reckoning based on six-way symmetry, one can calculate the chances that one of these structures can form "at random" as roughly one part in 102500. This probability figure is even more extreme (far more extreme, in fact) than those that have appeared in the creationist-intelligent design literature. So is this proof that each individual snowflake has been designed by a supernatural intelligent entity? Obviously not.
The fallacy here, once again, is presuming an all-at-once random assembly of molecules. Instead, snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a long series of steps acting under well-known physical laws, and the outcomes of such processes very sensitively depend on the starting conditions and numerous environmental parameters. It is thus folly to presume that one can correctly reckon the chances of a given outcome by means of superficial probability calculations that ignore the processes by which they formed

 

[Bored38]

Note I have been trying to post this reply for some time now but have been having problems with posting without mod approval (presumably because of my low post count). I didn't edit anything so will just post the original reply:

The relationship between probability and scientific models is actually a very well known issue in the philosophy of science literature, in general. Physics is replete with probability-based paradoxes (e.g. Maxwell's demon, the recurrence paradox, the reversal paradox and virtually anything involving probability in quantum mechanics, to name a few examples I am familiar with).

Bored38 has copied and pasted that particular creationist sophistry from the article "The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution." Yo Bored38, let me teach you one of the basic things about scientific culture, something called referencing. I am going to cite an article discussing that problem - except my reference is by a real mathematician, Dr David H. Bailey (who, by the way, is a Christian, so there is your "bias").

Note I can't post links without mod approval so google "Evolution and Probability Bailey" for the reference.

I know you won't read or care for it given that your reason is the of slave of your religious emotions but I'll describe/paraphrase (to demonstrate that I actually read and understand what I paste) my favourite part: Dr Bailey sets out calculating the chances that one of those beautifully complex patterned snowflakes can form "at random."

His crude estimation gives that probability as 10^(-2500) - by comparison, the estimated number of protons in the universe is around 10^(80) so if you could place all the protons (and by some magic, label that one special proton) in the universe inside my hat, you have an infinitely better chance of drawing the special proton than the complex pattern in a snowflake forming "by chance." Therefore no doubt God is constantly applying his magic to snowflake formation, presumably to give you creationists fodder for debate with us non-creationists.

Lol, you evo zealots are no diff than the religious zealots. You revert to name calling when ppl refuse to take the leap of faith you have taken.
Its laughable that you bring up snowflakes. A simple at home experiment can show how frequencies can create complex patterns in water. We have vibrational frequencies in our atmosphere that have the ability to create the beautiful patterns we find in a snow flake.
As for knowing a "real" mathemitician, there are plenty of well qualified mathematicians,astronomers and biologist that disagree with you.
Science like Religion will always have differences in opinion as long as you are discussing something that is unproven. That is a positive thing if your actually in search of the truth. Multiple angles of approach = greater understanding. No reason to get so uptight about it.

 

[Multiply]

Is this the link:?

You must be registered for see links

And props, by their logic, snowflakes are as improbable as evolution, in fact many orders of magnitude more improbable. So i'll just copy/paste bailey here if you don't object(and i'll actually say that i'm doing it lol):

Brilliant rebuttal my friend.

 

[Sonic The Hedgehog]

I believe Pokemon evolution is the most accurate.

 

[Howard]

I'll reiterate, small changes "adaptation", I accept, but only to a point. Look at it this way. In micro evolution if the code you have for an arm could slighty be rewritten over time to become a wing, than for many generations until the change became complete, you would be at a disadvantage. As uniquely designed species have many different body mechanics that would have to also evolve simultaneously and perfectly for the evolution to be successful. The time it would take if it were even possible like I said, would put a species at a disadvantage and it would go extinct.
The link below is just one of many that showcases decades of scientific research that has failed to prove anything beyond adaptation.

My views don't come from a religous prospective either. Science has just been unable to prove to me that evolution is fact.
The fact is, that science has just as big a hard on for evolution as any religion has for its version of God.

You must be registered for see links

I'll point out I wasn't replying to your later posts and honestly I didn't even read them. Instead I replied to the single post I quoted the one where you said and I quote "until someone can show me a species today that has genetic information that could one day evolve it into something new." I showed you just that an example of micro-evolution something that can easily be documented. You didn't ask for examples of macroevolution you asked for examples of something changing from what it was into something different due to information it has. The video showed just that a Stickleback losing or gaining it's spine/midsecion simply by deleting a portion of a gene changing to better accommodate it's environment.

I can give several examples of possible macroevolution, but here's the thing and you point this out so well several different ways. Examples of macroevolution take several thousand if not millions of years to completely go through. So even examples such as the Apple Maggot, which is beginning the process of specialization from it's kin the Hawthorn Fly no longer breeding with it, nor feeding on the same food source or the Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish going through a similar process these won't complete the process for thousands if not millions of years. Now if you'd like my great great great grandchild to tell your great great great grandchild about these examples later on once they've been fully documented-... well we'll see if we can set that up doubt it though.

As I've said before believe exactly what you want. Also I never said it was a fact, I said again "these are just answers to your questions believe whatever the **** you want to believe"

I already know no matter what examples I pull out you're going to disagree simply because you can. I would literally need to pull out a time lapse video of a school of fish or insects eventually macroevolving into another species and we both know that isn't possible due to time constraints.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You say "decades of research", but don't get that the process takes a lot longer than that and no one person can document it to completion and for you nothing less than that is valid enough for you which is again why I said "believe whatever the *************! you wanna believe."

The researchers conclude that the presence of the full three-component signaling system may have played a role in the development of metazoan organisms whose cells could communicate with each other in complex ways.

The key word ^^ here is "may have".
Look I could really care less if we evolved or not. I hold no beliefs that would cause me any issue with how we came to be what we are. Theories are great and necessary to gain further understanding but leave it at that and quit tryin to pass evolution off as anything more because its not.

Yes "may have" but that has nothing to do with the answer to your question ^^ that's an irrelevant part you pulled out to deflect away from the actual answer. The fact that they have the information to (the molecules to) communicate between cells is information that every multicellular organism uses. Meaning that single cell organism has the same information a multicellular organism has meaning it could become more complex through the same process because it has the same molecules. What did you ask for? Let me quote you again.

No, unless someone can prove to me that simple organisms had the information to become more complex to point we are at today

Now as I pointed out Choanoflagellate have that sort of information, now you can point out how the article said "may have" but that doesn't stop it from being an example of a single cell organism having the information you asked for. You didn't ask for someone to prove that they use that information to do that simply that they have it-... they do and the key words "may have" don't change that ^^. Anyway keep in mind I'm not reading through your posts to everyone else so citing things you've said to others such as "I'll reiterate" won't make any difference when talking to me. I never read it tbh I only ever read the post from before. .-. Short attention span.

 

[Son of God]

Lol, you evo zealots are no diff than the religious zealots. You revert to name calling when ppl refuse to take the leap of faith you have taken.
Its laughable that you bring up snowflakes. A simple at home experiment can show how frequencies can create complex patterns in water. We have vibrational frequencies in our atmosphere that have the ability to create the beautiful patterns we find in a snow flake.
As for knowing a "real" mathemitician, there are plenty of well qualified mathematicians,astronomers and biologist that disagree with you.
Science like Religion will always have differences in opinion as long as you are discussing something that is unproven. That is a positive thing if your actually in search of the truth. Multiple angles of approach = greater understanding. No reason to get so uptight about it.

I seriously almost threw up

 

[Son of God]

Evolution is the basis of your immune system. It's why vaccines work. The reason Europeans were immune to, or able to stronger withstand, the diseases they brought that killed the Natives were because their immune systems had been exposed to them for generations and generations, giving the systems the advantage of adapting to them to withstand them. That's evolution.

Can you explain to me how evolution is why vaccines work? I agree with some other stuff, but this has me stumped.

 

[Bored38]

I'll point out I wasn't replying to your later posts and honestly I didn't even read them. Instead I replied to the single post I quoted the one where you said and I quote "until someone can show me a species today that has genetic information that could one day evolve it into something new." I showed you just that an example of micro-evolution something that can easily be documented. You didn't ask for examples of macroevolution you asked for examples of something changing from what it was into something different due to information it has. The video showed just that a Stickleback losing or gaining it's spine/midsecion simply by deleting a portion of a gene changing to better accommodate it's environment.

^^^You didn't answer my original question because you can't. All you can do is speculate. Your Stickleback example is simply the Hox gene just turning on or turning off genes. That has nothing to do with new As I've said before believe exactly what you want. Also I never said it was a fact, I said again "these are just answers to your questions believe whatever the **** you want to believe"
.…......................................................................................................................................

I already know no matter what examples I pull out you're going to disagree simply because you can. I would literally need to pull out a time lapse video of a school of fish or insects eventually macroevolving into another species and we both know that isn't possible due to time constraints.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You say "decades of research", but don't get that the process takes a lot longer than that and no one person can document it to completion and for you nothing less than that is valid enough for you which is again why I said "believe whatever the *************! you wanna believe."

^^^In an controlled environment we don't have to wait as long as the natural environment does to see results. We all know that mutations are rare in nature but in the fruit fly experiment for example, creating mutations wasn't a problem. The problem was that none became fixed and that variences of change within the fruit fly had limits. In other words the DNA of the fruit fly would only allow so much.

I won't bother replying to your little smart *** remarks. Fact is you can't offer any observed evidence showing that a living ever had dna information it needed to become a different living thing. < Thats clarification of the very simple question I originally asked and you mistakingly thought you answered.
Anyway, enjoy your theoretical belief system.