Kevinb

Yep i was trying to get to stars in these regions are essentially formed by gravity. Planets even in our solar system the same way. It's still going on of course...shumaker Levi 9 in the 1990s hitting Jupiter. If anything like that hits us we're toast but the planet marches on and doesn't care either way. Interesting.. I don't worship anything. It's not like I go to a laboratory and pray☺. I have confidence in theory proportional to evidence...As validated by others even in other countries and of other faiths or none. Theories need to be based on evidence too right? If we need to alter our view based on new evidence so be it...evolution..germ theory of disease or any other theory. Until then it's our best model of the natural world surely? This is how science has progressed our understanding for centuries.. has faith progressed this understanding more successfully? It may not be perfect but it's the best we have and how we learn.

noted on the pod lizards... they'll buy evolution...micro to a point right up until it goes against their understanding of doctrine. Let's look at evolution in another way... can someone give a better explanation for quote above. Any advances on his pleasure?

We see regions of gaseous nebula right...stellar nurseries? Did God put them there? What does the 2nd law say about gravity? In terms of the 1st day light the 4th the sun. So how can we prove this view? Okay let's say you might be right...how do we prove this or where God is? I understand you have faith. I have zero..one could believe anything on faith.. black people are smarter than white...mohammed is a prophet of God....The hindu religion is right... Posideon is God of the sea... my lucky rabbits foot is why I won the lottery. To me faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. Faith is what people refer to in the absence of evidence. Ie 1st demonstrate God and where he is then I'll be swayed.

Usually yes but it depends too on any natural selection pressures. There are hundreds of examples that have happened over decades. Google the lizards on the pod islands off Croatia

Okay the earth and life thereon isn't an isolated system..energy in the form of light and heat are provided by the sun... this fuels life right? As you say energy to use this law cannot enter the system ..it does.. this is how creationists misunderstand the 2nd law.

From a purely scientific standpoint the 2 are at odds. A virgin birth is a claim against biology. You'd need to demonstrate this miracle. Incidentally aren't miracles in this way by definition going against the understanding of science else it wouldn't be a miracle. I need to suspend the laws of nature and physics to believe the order of genesis. This is why it's not scientically supported. Day and night 4 days before the sun etc.

I've heard and seen these creationist debunks... been around years. The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't proof either..a common creationist misconception. Done this many times but please explain how the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves God did it. Philosophical arguments are proof and evidence now? Seriously?

Okay I understand why people think this but how do you demonstrate God did it? Best we've got is an argument from analogy? It may help if you don't call it a programming language. Computers can be demonstrated to be designed...built in factories etc and they don't occur in nature and breed. It's a false analogy I'm afraid let alone an argument from analogy is a weak position

God created with age hypothesis... those who think this still need to demonstrate this not just state right? Magnificent claims require magnificent evidence. It's difficult reconciling genesis accounts with science. what we have here are just unsubstantiated assertions. How do we prove that's true? If we use faith...is there any position one couldn't hold on faith? How do we have day and night on the 1st day and the sun on the 4th as per genesis?

Okay.. I'll try again. The scientific view doesn't work on assertion....we need evidence. You could accuse me of appealing to populism fallacy or authority if I support the germ theory of disease right? Again this theory and stance isn't assertion...or because one person said..its based on evidence...via other scientists and other labs. If it wasn't I'd have little or no trust in it. Biblical texts are assertions/statements. You must believe on faith or provide evidence to substantiate. Evidence for Genesis or Adam and eve? Not sure how serious you really are here...surely you see the dinstinction. You accuse me of bias..Absolutely I've considered the biblical interpretation and i came to this site having faith in fact... not devote but I was expecting to strengthen after joining however I realised I had to no good reason or evidence. Other than it was how and where I was brought up and when in human history. That's of no relevance to what's true of course. If the scientific community swayed or tweaked the theory of gravity...germ theory of disease..evolution or anything else based upon new evidence that was scrutinised by the scientific community and upheld I'd have to change my world view. This is how progress is made..this is our best model for progress. Has faith or the bible given a better process for progress and understanding of the natural world? I see you admit bias. My bias is to evidence. Please demonstrate evidence for Genesis and Adam and eve. We've day and night appearing on day 1 before the sun on day 4 if memory serves? Evidence? Evidence for any of it even..intelligent design..is it falsifiable? Pick something? This being flat earth and associated. Absolutely wrong... there are those here who believe in a flat earth as per the bible..columns..firmanent the works. Even quoting passages. See other threads in science folder. Not all do. This is all part of why there are so many denominations of Christianity.. can't even agree on 1 book. Correct born and funded initially but totally irrelevant to content and scientific progress. Let's not forget how religion then persecuted those scientists who proposed views against doctrine in the early days. Make the argument. Convince me on creationism and genesis. I'm always interested in any new ideas if based on evidence. However there is another thread for this. There are masses of problems with a global thread. One I cited was why did the Egyptians and other civilisations exist before and after without reference and they didn't even seem to notice in fact. Then you've problems of how the animals got to the ark. Some needing precise conditions and diets. Animals travelling huge distance that can't swim or fly. So much more besides. Maybe read the flood thread. It's still bizarre to me you accept micro evolution but not smaller changes can't add up to bigger ones..i guess that's the bias you mentioned as it will be problematic for biblical beliefs. In terms of vestigial... I'll pick one.. why do whales and dolphins have vestigial pelvis and hind leg remnants buried in their bodies? An easy one to both agree on is there..we've all seen pics and gone to museums right. So in this instance there's nothing showing externally. Evolution will point to common ancestry with animals breathing air... running on land in a spinal up and down motion as spines of dolphins still move in water. We've a fossil record. Dna evidence points to hippos being a close relation etc etc. Anyways why would God create dolphins with hind leg remnants buried in their bodies? Then how do you demonstrate he did? Best I've got so far as the evolution alternate is "his pleasure ". Mmm kinda not enough for me. If you don't like the peer review process. Essentially someone publishes their data/theory then other experts in the relevant field try to repeat their experiments to corroberative or falsify. What's the better alternative?

I'm not appealing to majority opinion... you're missing the point. I'm not demonstrating logical fallacy here via authority either. As a now none believer I see religions appealing to authority in fact..ie a particular religious book says x therefore x is true. Science or one person ..isnt authority in the same way ie dawkins says x therefore x is true..he would b need to demonstrate it and others review and repeat any experiments etc. There are scientific experts...but it needs to be demonstrably demonstrated and subject to peer review for scrutiny. Does a religion do this? I suggest no. Interesting that you think demonstrable evidence can be interpreted as various truths based on faith bias. That may be the case if you are religious and in fact is. That's not how my world view works. I'll have confidence in theory based upon evidence and scrutiny again. Theory could be changed or modified in light of new evidence. There is no faith here in the same way as you refer to as as theist. Bias no also as I said how I'll change my view and this is how scientific understanding works. If you are religious you'll have faith of course...is there anything someone couldn't believe on faith? In terms of religion look how many faith views there are and have been. Faith isn't a reliable pathway to truth. Faith and religion to me therefore is totally irrelevant and of no use in discovering the truth of the natural world. I've published here somewhere before how the genome is changed and added to and how that's been demonstrated. We've also code to make egg yolks for example which is a "broken" link from our reptilian heritage... just an example.. Francis Collins head of the genome project and others in the field have shown that genome alone proves common ancestry.. we've neandathol Dna in our genome..please read the studies...please falisfy and publish for review. This is a fraction of it of course..This is on top of evidence in embryology..speciation.. fossil record...vestigial dna and traits. Apparently to be loyal to the bible you should believe we live on a flat surface under a dome that's all standing on columns too. Ergo the sun must also be a flat disk.. you'll need to throw out it being a burning ball of hydrogen and Einsteinian gravity too. Or you're happy to not do this. The bible also says stars are angels... do you think that if so please demonstrate? Anyway I believe I've highlighted the difference... I've no faith bias and will change my mind upon new peer reviewed corroberative evidence to support a different theory. Can you say the same. I'd say not as faith views can't change as the bible authority is set. Incidently if you believe in some micro evolution notion but stop when it conflicts your particular religious view.. you still need to demonstrate demonstrably biblical stuff...floods ...6 000 year old earth etc etc. We can't just x is the case because the bible says x. That's a circular reasoning fallacy. Else we may as well accept any faith view any humans have ever had. In terms of an alternate the best creationism stuff I've heard is just assertion... arguement from ignorance fallacy...or an argument from analogy...ie we were intelligently created as it can't come about by accident ..my car is designed and so we look to be. Obviously there's no comparable demonstration here...i can drive to a factory and see my car being made.. Mr Ford designed the car..here are the designs..heres how we make alloys.. etc etc. Cars don't occur naturally in the wild and breed... this kinda analogy is a nonsense and not analogous of course. Still gotta demonstrate. Else we're back to one could believe anything on faith and faith has been irrelevant to 400 ish years of scientific understanding

There is every scientific reason to reject genesis. Objective and overwhelming scientific opinion is for an old...4.5 billion year old earth and evolution by natural selection to name but two. Only those who've decided the biblical faith version is correct then have looked for "evidence " think otherwise. A case of belief forming evidence rather than evidence forming beliefs.

Zoltan...scientific evidence says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old...homosapiens ie humans have been around a few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs ruled for many millions of years but were essentially wiped out via a mass extinction event 65 million years ago. The biblical account of earth and subsequent species in no way is supported by scientific evidence. So believe in genesis accounts on faith in the absence of supporting evidence or believe in the scientific understanding formed by evidence.

Who are you referring to teditis? If you mean me...i appeal to evidence and theory that is checked by other scientists of other faiths or no faiths and from other countries. This isn't a one view authority..its checked by others and if it's substantiated becomes our best current model/theory. Alternatively the one bible view not being an authority? Missler the electrical engineers evangelical bias assertions on biological and planetary evolution aren't taken seriously... maybe there is no good reason or evidence? Anyone can just say i think x and its true right? I'll side with what's more likely...if you had to bet your house where would you sit here?

Dr Chuck missler the electrical engineer and evangelical Christian...commenting on evolutionary biology? Unqualified with huge bias I suggest... he's already decided the bible says young earth and now goes looking? Evidence forms beliefs or beliefs forming evidence? Peer reviewed? Also if you don't know for certain you then assert young earth? Position should be don't know so can't form a conclusion. Evidence the globe is expanding? What evidence... what's the mechanism? Please post peer reviewed corroberative. Also many stages of eye development have been documented.. and cave dwelling organisms that are "losing" eyes. The eye is intelligently designed? We've an optic nerve smack in the middle of the retina giving us a blind spot...nerve behind retina taking info to the brain would be better right and no blind spot? See octopus eyes. If you mean evolution requires fully functioning prototypes ... that's not understanding how evolution works I'm afraid.

Humanity is demonically influenced Johnd.. well that's a worry... what corroberative evidence is there for that?

Indeed if we want to look we could attribute 666 as the devil to mean a bunch of things...a quick search I did said it can be translated to www also the Hebrew 666 has be aligned with: Also "Nero Caesar" in the Hebrewalphabet is נרון קסר NRON QSR, which when used as numbers represent 50 200 6 50 100 60 200, which add to666. The Greek term χάραγμα (charagma, "mark" in Revelation 13:16) . Interesting though. As a now non believer I'll have issue with science proves the bible... clearly there are massive contradictions been the two. Stellar formation and evolution being a couple of biggies vs God created and Adam and eve.

Interesting how people can just accept the above without any investigation but we're fine with leaps of faith i understand that. Quickly... the human race or homosapiens haven't been around for a million years..earliest fossils post pre human hominids found so far are a couple of thousand years. Like everything else language and writings have evolved from b simple beginnings. To say we have no records of eclipse prior in writings might be true but that doesn't demonstrate young earth....still need to prove 6000 years beyond just asserting it..it demonstrates we weren't writing or didn't care too or we have found nothing so far surviving to show. Thats a huge leap to assert young earth from this. Indications are that writing took off when we had more estsblished settlements and trade. On the pot. Really that proves young earth and that proves 6000k? Let's keep in mind a hundred odd years ago when this was found we had no scientific rigor to validate. A witness statement or 2 is enough to test ? There are witness statements for alien abduction..i don't buy that either without scientific rigor and there is none. The evidence in support of the claim is so weak as to be scientifically useless. The only evidence is a letter from 1948, thirty-six years after the artifact was discovered. The letter says that the coal was not found in situbut went through an unknown amount of processing between the mine and the discovery of the iron cup after the coal was delivered. The cup appears to be cast iron, and cast iron technology began in the eighteenth century. Its design is much like pots used to hold molten metals and may have been used by a tinsmith, tinker, or person casting bullets. Without the original pot to analyze, we cannot say exactly how it was used. The cup was likely dropped by a worker either inside a coal mine or in a mine's surface workings. Mineralization is common in the coal and surrounding debris of coal mines because rainwater reacts with the newly exposed minerals and produces highly mineralized solutions. Coal, sediments, and rocks are commonly cemented together in just a few years. It could easily appear that a pot cemented in such a concretion could appear superficially as if it were encased in the original coal. Or small pieces of coal, including powder, could have been recompressed around the cup by weight. Dinosaur prints.. the established view is of course these are not human prints alongside...we aren't seeing human toes or shoes here. The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena. Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks-- made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987). Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole et al, 1985). A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989). Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subseqwuently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and alalyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989). Links: Kuban, Glen J. 1996. References: Cole, John R. and Laurie R. Godfrey (eds.). 1985. The Paluxy River footprint mystery -- solved.Creation/Evolution 5(1). (special issue devoted to the topic)http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3868_issue_15_volume_5_number_1__4_23_2003.asp Godfrey, L. R., 1985. Foot notes of an anatomist.Creation/Evolution 5(1): 16-36. Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987. New observations on Paluxy Tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education 35(1): 4-15. Kuban, Glen, 1986a. Elongate Dinosaur Tracks, In: Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley, eds., Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-72. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm Kuban, Glen, 1986b. Color distinctions and other curious features of dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In: Gillette and Lockley, 1989, pp. 427-440.http://paleo.cc/paluxy/color.htm Kuban, Glen. 1986c. Review of ICR Impact Article 151. Origins Research. Spring Summer 1986, 9:1. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/sor-ipub.htm Kuban, Glen J., 1989, Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks, NCSE Reports, Vol. 9, No. 4, Special Section. Kuban, Glen J. and Gregg Wilkerson, 1989. The Burdick Print, Web article athttp://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker5.htm. Schadewald, Robert J. 1986. Scientific creationism and error. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 1-9,http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html Further Reading: Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley (eds.). 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (technical) Hastings, Ronnie J. 1986. Tracking those incredible creationists -- the trail continues.Creation/Evolution 6(1): 20-28.http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5063_issue_17_volume_6_number_1__4_23_2003.asp Hastings, Ronnie J. 1988. Rise and fall of the Paluxy mantracks. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40(3): 144-155. Kuban, Glen J. 1986. A summary of the Taylor site evidence. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 11-19.http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5063_issue_17_volume_6_number_1__4_23_2003. The rest is debunked also but I'll stop there for now. Let's not forget our pastor friend had already decided young earth maybe ? As many do from the bible and then to go looking for corroberative "Evidence" is this objective? Beliefs forming evidence or evidence forming beliefs.... what's the best way to truth? I suggest all interested think critically about claims...research for yourselves.

Neanderthals are humans? Wow...Evidence for this? Another assertion? They are not our ancestors... they are our cousins. This is the problem...genomic evidence or any other? Genome mapping for one cites this...where is your peer reviewed counter? Also... you're not concerned about the field's that corroborates evolution? The multi peer reviewed fields? Where is your scientific pubished counter? Again.. are you certain you didn't look for evidence after accepting biblical faith assertions? Dolphins having vestigial hind legs and pelvis points to creationism? Are you sure hind legs of no use in the oceans but corroberate 4 legged land walking ancestry? That the fossil record confirms in date order too? Also ever noticed how the dolphin and like mammalian spine moves up and down like the land running ancestors... not like the evolved side to side fish?? also substantiated by the fossil record. Counter evidence of his pleasure or short time assertion without backup? I envy the leaps you make but despite what I want i can't leap there

Thankfully people in the UK aren't armed. What should be happening is more regulation of dangerous chemicals. Per head attacks including fatal are less in uk than usa. E.g. the correlation between having guns and using them vs not having guns and not using them.

Noted that you accept you're asserting. I still feel you're reading from a bias... you weren't religious before you looked into evolution? As said before you seem to accept some micro evolution it seems bizarre that you won't accept lots of small changes won't add to bigger ones over time. Maybe you're looking at things in a smaller timescale too. What were the time frames? The so called Cambrian explosion was over 20 million years. How do you explain vestigial traits ? Dna and what you can observe physically? That's been mentioned..evidence in embryology? humans have the genes to make egg yolk in development..whales growing teeth then loosing them..dolphins growing hind legs and losing them but still keep a buried pelvis and hind legs. Why do humans contain 2% Neanderthal dna? Why does a young human foetus grow hair then lose it in the womb and a mass of other things but not had this answered yet. Why do those mapping the genome say that alone proves evolution? You work in dna mapping? How do we know the species of ungulate that led to hippos through dna mapping. Evolution can answer.. the counter I'm still looking for better than lords pleasure. What evidence for Adam and eve? Descendants didn't interbreed? Also why hasn't evolution been falsified by actual scientists...peer reviewed and published.. no better way to fame than change the world and maybe win a Nobel prize ... this is how progress has been made in science for 400 years... and cannot be denied in the face of actual evidence? Yes I mentioned the dover trial but even the judge laughed at the opposing evolution stance. The main defending witness for evolution being religious too. Assertion vs evidence.... that's why evolution theory wins

Else again...please give the scientifically validated peer reviewed to disprove evolution evidence for remnant dna...vestigal organs and traits... evidence in embryology ..speciation etc. Also the reviewed for things pop into existence etc? I only see and there is only bible assertions or those that have decided origins then tried to validate ie answers in creation stuff? Scientically.. and this method is the best way to truth is why this isn't taught in school as science..ie no evidence beyond faith. I'd say to deny this is perverse and I'd love to have faith again but there is no evidence and faith is what I'd need in the absence of evidence let alone to deny the contrary exists.

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merelyselection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following: Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995). Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977). Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983). A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002). Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000). In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997). Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996). High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000). Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13). Links: Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection.http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlWilliams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans.http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html References: Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002.http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513 Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862. Elena, S. F., V. S. Cooper and R. E. Lenski. 1996. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 272: 1802-1804. FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene.Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66. Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457. Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics156(1): 297-304. Newcomb, R. D. et al. 1997. A single amino acid substitution converts a carboxylesterase to an organophosporus hydrolase and confers insecticide resistance on a blowfly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7464-7468. Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253. See also: Rainey, P. B. and R. Moxon, 2000. When being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-1187. See also: LeClerc, J. E. and T. A. Cebula, 2000. Pseudomonassurvival strategies in cystic fibrosis (letter), 2000.Science 289: 391-392. Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022. Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219. Weisgraber K. H., S. C. Rall Jr., T. P. Bersot, R. W. Mahley, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513. Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424. Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.

The phlya all appearing at once is an old standing debunk... which has been addressed here. You think there's no credible evidence for evolution? You've been reading in the wrong places argosy. What time period do you precisely mean re Cambrian..ie how long? What you assert just isn't the case...evolution gives rise to new genes and breaks links to old ones. Which still remain.. its been likened to deleted files on a hard drive.. info has been found but the link cut...humans still have the genes for yokes.. still have genes for making vit c..its just overwhelming. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000). RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (athttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000). The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000). Links: Max, Edward E., 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness Musgrave, Ian, 2001. The Period gene of Drosophila.http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr01.html References: Adami et al., 2000. (see below) 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. Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799. 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., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215. 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. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066. Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins.Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216. Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of theEscherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B.Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022. Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ 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.http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html Further Reading: Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463(technical) Hillis, D. M., J. J. Bull, M. E. White, M. R. Badgett, and I. J. Molineux. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589-92. (technical) Honestly you may as well go after discrediting the germ theory of disease as well. The question is did a God guide evolution or not. Since there is no evidence of guiding I must remain.... not. Else the alternative really is just faith assertion ignoring overwhelming evidence.

Let us not forget johnd..Einstein's equations where 1st proven correct for the missing arc predictions of where mercury would be where Newtonian failed. Easily Googled if interested. What a brilliant intellect... despite 100 years on still can't be falsified. I'd love to see the flat earth equations that surpass this?.