ClumsyMonkey.net

not at all all it takes is 1 gene at a time at a rate of over billions of years

No that doesnt work. A cell is a very complex machine. It needs to have certain devices within it in order for the entire thing to work. A more famous example of this is the mousetrap. Take one piece away and it simply will not work. The same goes for a cell. Evolution requires a fully functioning organism with the ability to replicate in order for evolution to occur. A complex structure like a cell simply could not be built piece by piece through evolutionary procceses because in order for a cell to replicate it has to have ALL the components of a complex cell. So the theory runs itself in circles.

second of all
if a bacteria can evolve over a time frame of less than a 100 years how is it not feasable for so called "macro evolution" evolution to occur?

Because that's not what we are seeing through the fossil record. What we see is a top-down pattern of appearance. We see major differences in body plans appear first with no similar transitions before them. Later we see minor variations appear within the same framework as the originals. Evolutionists believe the opposite. They believe a bottom-up pattern should be occuring. They state that we should be seeing similar organisms that then devolop variation and then eventually branch out into a completely different beings with different frameworks. That is not what we are seeing so far however. You can say that the answers are out there somewhere if you want but I like to look at what has been discovered and found rather then hoping a future fossil find will put the pieces together. That's what Darwin hoped and so far it's been the opposite.

secondly the likelihood of finding a complete fossil record after the amount of time and with all that goes on to the planet physically is, for obvious, reasons, nearly impossible and to use that as such as a reason to solely disprove a theory is a reach at best.

We are not even talking about a complete fossil record though. We are talking about any sort of evidence that shows the evolution from one species to another. The links simply are not there. I'm sorry but that is far more than a reach. Tack that on to a growing number of scientific discoveries and you'll find that evolution is a theory in crisis.

And one last thought in regards to something you mentioned earlier taylor.. if someone reads/learns about the theory of evolution and suddenly decides they dont believe in the religious doctrines they were brought up on whatever "faith" they had to begin with wasnt that strong.

Perhaps but not everyone has a really strong faith Sand.

Joe Cooler wrote:

not at all all it takes is 1 gene at a time at a rate of over billions of years

No that doesnt work. A cell is a very complex machine. It needs to have certain devices within it in order for the entire thing to work. A more famous example of this is the mousetrap. Take one piece away and it simply will not work. The same goes for a cell. Evolution requires a fully functioning organism with the ability to replicate in order for evolution to occur. A complex structure like a cell simply could not be built piece by piece through evolutionary procceses because in order for a cell to replicate it has to have ALL the components of a complex cell. So the theory runs itself in circles.

That is true, and I agree with you. But Sand said one gene, not one cell. The difference is that the mutation of DNA can either help or kill and organism. But that has nothing to do with their cells. DNA is the blueprint for the greation of proteins in the body. If a point mutation occurs and part of the DNA strand in an organism changes, than the proteins that the organism was going to produce will be different. While this mainly leads to death, occasionally either the organism is unaffected or benefited. In that case they have an advantage that other organisms of the same species don't have. If this advantage is good then they are more likely to mate over other organisms, and that gene mutation is more likely to be passed on to future generations. The other method of evolution is when certain characteristic is favored over others and they grow to be more popular. But that also has nothing to do with cells. Or genes. So one good gene mutation in billion years could become an evolutionary trend in a species.

Because that's not what we are seeing through the fossil record. What we see is a top-down pattern of appearance. We see major differences in body plans appear first with no similar transitions before them

This I also sort of agree with. But it’s illogical. What you are saying is that we are finding the end result of these evolved creatures but not their previous states. But wouldn't the end result be easier to find? And many transaction fossils have indeed been recovered. In fact, I know that here in Newfoundland fossils have been found of ancient marine organisms that just began to ascend onto land. If that isn't a transaction period I don't know what is.

Random Name wrote:
That is true, and I agree with you. But Sand said one gene, not one cell. The difference is that the mutation of DNA can either help or kill and organism. But that has nothing to do with their cells. DNA is the blueprint for the greation of proteins in the body. If a point mutation occurs and part of the DNA strand in an organism changes, than the proteins that the organism was going to produce will be different. While this mainly leads to death, occasionally either the organism is unaffected or benefited. In that case they have an advantage that other organisms of the same species don't have. If this advantage is good then they are more likely to mate over other organisms, and that gene mutation is more likely to be passed on to future generations. The other method of evolution is when certain characteristic is favored over others and they grow to be more popular. But that also has nothing to do with cells. Or genes. So one good gene mutation in billion years could become an evolutionary trend in a species.

Right a cell needs DNA to evolve. The DNA gives the cell the directions and the cell produces protiens. Sand said that complex cells could be created through gene mutation over time. What i'm saying though, is that according to evolution, a cell would have to be really simple at one point. Merely a building block like an amino acid. A cell with all it's components can't simply just appear according to evolution. It has to evolve to become that complex. But how can it evolve if all the components needed for replication are not there yet? Secondly evolution cannot yet account for DNA itself. There is simply no reasonable explanation found in evolution that can explain how a device that contains as much information as DNA, could have been built through evolution. The most popular theory is that the function of DNA was once handled by RNA. For RNA to replicate it needs to find an exact RNA match and as one Origin Of Life Scientist put it

"To have a reasonable chance of finding two ndentical RNA molecules of the right lenth would require a library of ten billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion RNA molecules - which rules out the chances of a primitive replicating system."

This I also sort of agree with. But it’s illogical. What you are saying is that we are finding the end result of these evolved creatures but not their previous states. But wouldn't the end result be easier to find? And many transaction fossils have indeed been recovered. In fact, I know that here in Newfoundland fossils have been found of ancient marine organisms that just began to ascend onto land. If that isn't a transaction period I don't know what is.

Right there are instances where unknown creatures are found that are thought to be examples of transitional periods. The problem however, is that these are very isolated incidents. We see no transition into the ancient sea creature, and no transition out. We just see an "ancient sea creature that looks like it had the means to walk on land." Imagine the sea tortoise was extinct and we suddenly stumbled upon a it's skeleton. It would be quite easy to point at it and say "This marks a period in time when a sea creature began devoloping the means to walk on land." We really have no record of one animal transitioning into another. It is yet to be found.



My goodness I hope i'm making sense.

So one good gene mutation in billion years could become an evolutionary trend in a species.

Yeah, a trend. Not the generation of a cell into a human being!

Cass wrote:

So one good gene mutation in billion years could become an evolutionary trend in a species.

Yeah, a trend. Not the generation of a cell into a human being!

3.5 billion years worth genetic evolution one or two genes could do it

I thought people who believed in evolution only thought humans have been around for a few thousand years. Judging on how long it took apes to becomes humans, wouldn't it have taken way more than a few thousand years to come from one gene or cell? And it would take more than just one gene change to make a fish be a human...or an ape. Or am I mixed up on who believes what?

Well scientificially the world is over a billion years old. So that makes evolution feasible.

Not if life was only on it for part of that time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html <-- a timeline of evolution, according to one source.

i dont know how credible this group is, but i wanted a quick reference, since cass made me curious, and this was the first one i clicked.

Cass wrote:I thought people who believed in evolution only thought humans have been around for a few thousand years. Judging on how long it took apes to becomes humans, wouldn't it have taken way more than a few thousand years to come from one gene or cell? And it would take more than just one gene change to make a fish be a human...or an ape. Or am I mixed up on who believes what?

Evolutionists believe that every species on earth evolved from one common ancestor. Hence Darwins "tree of evolution" You start with one species (the trunk) and that trunk splits into two large limps, and from there those limbs devolope branches and so on.

.........wow, i expected the pot thread to keep going....but this one?

hi people i'm back

hello mr. ruelas.

um.... ......ma'am