SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[Kevinb]

1. 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. 
    
2. 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).
3. 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). 
    
4. 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). 
    
5. 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.html
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans.http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

References:

1. 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
2. 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.
3. Elena, S. F., V. S. Cooper and R. E. Lenski. 1996. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 272: 1802-1804.
4. FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
5. Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene.Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66.
6. Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
7. Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
8. Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics156(1): 297-304.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.
16. 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.

[Kevinb]

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.

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

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.

1. 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. 
    
2. 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. 
    
3. 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). 
    
4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

My assertion is that unique genes do not add to fitness.  Sure we have increased genetic variety, when confronted with changing environments new allele combinations arise. These are not unique genes, but unique combinations of existing genes. Sure we have increased genetic material, sometimes the additional proteins from a duplication event assist the organism as in the case with the langur monkey. Sure two copies of the RNASE1 gene assist the monkey in a leaf eating environment, but it has not been proven that one RNASE1A plus one RNASE1B is any better than 2 x RNASE1A. ie what did the mutation actually add?  The Prijambada/nylon argument is really a bad one, some bacteria exist today that can decompose the nylon without the need for mutation, the fact that nearly identical bacteria seemed to develop that ability just shows that the ability was already latent from older populations. As for Adami, that was based on mathematical probabilities in an assumed environment, not on actual observation. 

 Where are the additional unique genes that improve fitness? 

And which part of your "debunk" of the Cambrian explosion do you feel is worthy of discussing?  

 

[ARGOSY]

On 7/14/2017 at 5:34 PM, Kevinb said:

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004). 
 

There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998). 
 

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999). 

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. 

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today. 
 

The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden. 
 

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden: 
 

The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals. 
 

Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see. 
 

The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into. 
 

Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997). 
 

Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997). 
 

Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995). 
 

Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).

 

Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994). 
 

Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

I don't buy the evolutionary timeframes ,  and so of course bacteria and other organisms would be found in the lower layers below the Cambrian Explosion, their lifespans are of minutes, not years, and so the first fossilised organisms would have been tiny short-lived ones. 

As your quote states, oxygen levels were high, therefore we would not find any Cambrian fossils of organisms like today, they would be confined to Siberian highlands, the only vast highland of the Cambrian. The terrestrial portions of Siberian highlands have not been examined, due to remoteness and depth of fossils.

Regarding the Ordovician radiation, it makes sense that this was actually a radiation event and not an evolutionary event. Organisms radiate out from niche environments as the predominant environment changes. This is more observable even today than the evolving of genetic complexity. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by ARGOSY

[Kevinb]

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

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Kevinb

[ARGOSY]

12 hours ago, Kevinb said:

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

 

Regarding my acceptance of micro evolution, if a population already has a wide range of gene-varieties in each gene position, its only natural that these will combine through breeding and natural selection  over time into the best-fit for each environment. This process does not increase complexity or change the genotype, even though it can have a dramatic effect on the phenotype, ie small changes in phenotype will never add up to the increased complexity requirements of the genotype required by the theory of evolution. And if an organism is short of proteins in a certain function when exposed to a new environment, yes it's feasible that a duplication event will assist due to doubling up the proteins produced. Normally this double-up causes harm (Down's Syndrome) but not always.

I suggest the main reason for vestigial traits is that the planet has undergone massive changes in a short time-frame rendering some functions obsolete  ie not enough time to breed out the vestigial trait, therefore it still exists. In the long run, the vestigial trait would be selected out because it's a waste of processes to keep producing the proteins when they are no longer required. 

Neanderthals are humans, I don't see the obsession with them as if they are our ancestors. Just another race-group that disappeared but left a genetic trail. They were based mainly in Europe, and so early Europeans that entered the area of the Neanderthals would have occasionally interbred with that tribe. For example African pygmies may disappear in future as their jungle habitat reduces and they integrate into a modern economy. This will reduce the value of their short stature. With mild interbreeding they will leave a slight genetic trace in the local tribes. 

All the latent traits that exist in animals (dolphin's hindlegs) point also to creationism. The latent ability that exists within the genome. Although rapid phenotype evolution does exist and so I remain open to the concept that under environmental pressure (easy marine eating) some mammals can readily adapt to a marine environment (dolphins/ungulates)

Regarding Adam and Eve , it wasn't an innate immoral thing to breed with siblings early on. This only became a problem and a moral issue when inbreeding became an issue. Often the biblical law is written for our benefit, what was at first practical advice (don't inbreed in case of disability) became burnt into our consciences over time, and is now a moral/conscience issue deeply embedded in society and religion, especially as Moses was inspired to record it in the Law.

I really am not concerned how accepted evolution is, every one will stand before God one day and know the truth. Maybe something I say inspires someone, that is why I say it. If God wanted to be proven he will appear, but this is a deliberate age of faith where one has insufficient evidence and so can easily choose to deny God if not awake to spiritual truth. But on an empirical level evolution lacks an evolutionary fossil trail for EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM that exists today. There is only evidence for small clades, that is it, no long term pathway from LUCA.  

Mammals for some reason show an early concentration in Turkey of early phenotypes, and also appear suddenly with no precursor, just like the Cambrian Explosion. Yes clades exist since then, but why the sudden appearance of early mammal phenotypes in Turkey, just as the bible predicts after the flood?

https://news.ku.edu/2015/08/10/research-mammal-evolution-focuses-pivotal-eocene-interval-turkey "LAWRENCE — Supported with a five-year, $580,000 award from the National Science Foundation, scientists from the University of Kansas are departing this month to investigate how climate, plate tectonics and other factors influenced evolution by bringing species together in modern-day Turkey 42 million years ago during the Eocene epoch."

 

Duh.  Why do the earliest mammal species suddenly all congregate in Turkey?  Have they ever heard of the ark on the hills of Ararat (Ururat).  Very confusing to scientists. hehe   

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by ARGOSY

[Bonky]

21 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I see you mention the courts and the science classes. Normally I find people start to appeal to other's knowledge when their own starts to run out. Why defend evolution if you fail to have the know-how to do so and therefore refer to the current education system or the courts. Honestly I was open minded whether the creation story is symbolic but as I looked into it I see a lack of actual evidence for evolution. EVERY organism should have a fossil trail leading back to the last universal common ancestor of all life. Every organism fails to show this, yet evolutionists feel they have the intellectual high ground.  It appears more like the sheep embraced Darwinism too early.  Yet the sheep remain sheep, it takes guts to admit the evidence is failing evolution and move against the crowd.

What exactly do you feel is missing from the "fossil trail"?  You make it sound like there is nothing but a complete void in the fossil record and we're left with nothing.  Not sure that's really accurate or fair to be honest.

I actually agree with your advice early on in your statements above, but I feel the inverse is needed as well.  Criticizing biological evolution with disproportionate levels of criticism and education.  I doubt you're a biologist that studies evolution.  

 

[Kevinb]

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 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Kevinb

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

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 

 

For two mammals to breed, requires a very close match DNA for the nuclei to fuse.  For that hybrid to continue to breed requires an even closer match. The fact that Neanderthals and other humans did successfully breed indicates that in fact Neanderthals are just another race of humans, no matter what the historians say. 

 

What fields corroborate evolution? To see a difference between a Ford and a BMW and then project how long back they had a common ancestor in the family tree based on the current observed differences is nonsensical. But evolutionists have entire fields devoted towards this type of "Research" and develop a tree based on observing DNA similarities.  In the meantime we see that even a sea urchin can have a near identical design sequence just like a toaster and a car cigarette lighter can have similarities even though a car is entirely different to a toaster. Here's the link:

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061109-sea-urchins.html

Then its amusing to see the justifications for this. "humans and sea urchins have a common ancestor".  So he is surmising that our breakaway with our common ancestor with the sea urchin occurred far more recently than other creatures. It's all guesswork in the face of apparent design similarities. Not that this will convince an evolutionist but it's all pretty amusing to one who can see design everywhere.

Regarding dolphins, sure mammals all have similar design features. I see no reason to sway from the core design features of mammals just because they are marine. The adaptability is already in the DNA, whether evolutionist or creationist both sides have to admit it because the evidence is there in the vestigial features. No sudden mutation brings out the vestigial features so this point does not add to evolution but can point to short term adaptability.

Edited July 18, 2017 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

3 hours ago, Bonky said:

What exactly do you feel is missing from the "fossil trail"?  You make it sound like there is nothing but a complete void in the fossil record and we're left with nothing.  Not sure that's really accurate or fair to be honest.

I actually agree with your advice early on in your statements above, but I feel the inverse is needed as well.  Criticizing biological evolution with disproportionate levels of criticism and education.  I doubt you're a biologist that studies evolution.  

 

Everything is missing in the fossil record. Where did mammals come from? Many of them suddenly appeared fully formed in Turkey, Ethiopia and Egypt. Supposedly some early mole had ears similar to reptiles because it lives close to the ground and relies on vibration frequencies like a reptile. Does that prove evolution, that some mole has ears similar to reptiles?  But where are the transitions from that early mole to cats and horses and elephants and giraffes and kangaroos? We should have some sequence. Oh but organisms don't fossilize easily and so evolution must just be accepted without the evidence. What if small mammals radiated out from the ark into a world of previously amphibuous reptiles, and the bigger mammals stayed in Middle East. Until a sudden ice age wiped out the dinosaurs and made the world more suitable to larger warm-blooded mammals. This would explain the sequence better and explain the congregation of early mammals in Turkey, something that science will amusingly attempt to explain

https://news.ku.edu/2015/08/10/research-mammal-evolution-focuses-pivotal-eocene-interval-turkey

What is observed in nature is that already existing rare organisms radiate out from niche environments when conditions change and adapt rapidly  into clades, what is not observed is genetic evolution of complexity from 1000 unique genes to 22000 unique genes.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by ARGOSY