What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[one.opinion]

31 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The purpose behind the hoaxes was to support Evolution, to convince people that it is true.  If Evolution were true, such hoaxes would be unnecessary and no on would need to fool people into believing what was already proven to be true.  But Evolution isn't anywhere close to being true and hoaxes keep showing up right up until today.

So fraudulent reports in the field of genetics would mean that genetics isn't true?

32 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But Evolution is different.  Evolution is an overarching paradigm that is assumed to be true and other fields of research operate under that assumption.

It's interesting how well that assumption works for other fields, such as cancer biology that I brought up earlier in the thread.

34 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It's your job to show evidence for that to happen.  You can't.  Evolution is not proven and is not intuitively observed.

As I've mentioned about 7 times in this thread alone, the evidence you seek (completely different animal phyla or classes, or whatever you are looking for) isn't available in the time frames you want. Scientists have to use indirect evidence like the fossil record and genomic information. I tend to agree that evolution is not proven, but it fits the available evidence very well and it is a powerful predictor that is very useful to other fields - strong supporters of the validity of the theory. Microevolution is certainly intuitive since we see numerous example of it taking place. It is also intuitive to extrapolate that what we can observe in the current time frame could make much larger changes over much longer periods of time.

40 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, my story didn't change.   That's just your dishonest handling of my words

Sorry, that is YOUR dishonest handling of YOUR words, not mine.

41 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You're as dishonest with my words as you are with God's words.

You are a big champion of interpreting language literally... until your own language shows your error.

46 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Mutations don't add information; they remove information.

I showed you directly how mutations can add information, although mutations resulting in coding information loss are more common.

 

42 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You provided a lot of evidence to refute arguments I didn't raise, because you can't rally satisfy the OP.

Did I? This is what you said earlier in the thread:

Quote

No, what happened is that I began to realize that I was using the wrong terminology to express what I was asking for.  So I altered the question to clarify what I was asking for.

In a rare moment of error recognition, you acknowledge that I did answer your questions in the OP, so you formulated new ones.

You have made multiple claims that I have asked you repeatedly to support, but you simply ignore them.

You claimed that Darwin admitted he had no evidence, yet you cannot supply any evidence of this admission.

You claimed that Haeckel's drawings are still used today, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

You claimed that fraudulent reports in evolution research still occur today, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

You claimed that numerous predictions made 15 years ago about climate change have not come to pass, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

You claimed that evolution was proposed before there was any evidence supporting it. This is just plain false. I even attempted to help you back-track out of that false statement, but you just doubled-down on the falsehood.

 

At some point, most people would understand that assertions can be taken more seriously if there is evidence to back them up. And the continued presentation of unsupported assertions erodes at one's credibility. Do you think you will ever reach that point?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

At some point, most people would understand that assertions can be taken more seriously if there is evidence to back them up. And the continued presentation of unsupported assertions erodes at one's credibility. Do you think you will ever reach that point?

You know I agree with you on the age of the Earth/Universe.  But look into the fields of nanotechnology and DNA and you will see the fingerprints of God all over it.  Evolution is a theory that no longer viably fits the known facts.  It's been replaced by Intelligent Design, and the proof is there for all to see, for those that have eyes to see.  The only ones promoting ToE are professors looking for grant money.

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

It's been replaced by Intelligent Design, and the proof is there for all to see, for those that have eyes to see. 

I agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design - the complexity of life on earth (and even the presence of life on earth) strongly supports an Intelligent Designer. However, there are ID proponents of all varieties, from Michael Behe (who accepts common descent) to Paul Nelson (YEC). There really isn't anything concrete in the ID view of science that specifically precludes evolution, provided it is under the governance of the Intelligent Designer.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design - the complexity of life on earth (and even the presence of life on earth) strongly supports an Intelligent Designer. However, there are ID proponents of all varieties, from Michael Behe (who accepts common descent) to Paul Nelson (YEC). There really isn't anything concrete in the ID view of science that specifically precludes evolution, provided it is under the governance of the Intelligent Designer.

Once you get into nanotechnology and especially DNA, you see the Master's fingerprints all over His Creation.  I have a book or two by Michael Behe.  He is mentioned in the book I'm reading Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer.  Meyer writes about the science of Intelligent Design.  I've never heard of Paul Nelson.

[Guest shiloh357]

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

So fraudulent reports in the field of genetics would mean that genetics isn't true?

The difference is that genetics exist; Macro-Evolution doesn't.  So while someone could conceivably decide there was an unproven claim in the field of genetics that he wanted to be accepted as proven and created a hoax to that end, that is not the same as trying to prove the whole of Evolution to be true.  Macro-Evolution is assumed to be true and any "evidence" is filtered through that assumption.  Hoaxes were meant to prove the entire field of acro-Evolution to be true.

Quote

It's interesting how well that assumption works for other fields, such as cancer biology that I brought up earlier in the thread.

As stated earlier, that has nothing to do with macro-Evolution.  

 

Quote

As I've mentioned about 7 times in this thread alone, the evidence you seek (completely different animal phyla or classes, or whatever you are looking for) isn't available in the time frames you want.

And I said that I was not requesting that kind of evidence in terms of modern living examples of macro-Evolution.   The ONLY evidence I have been speaking of is the fossil record.  It is the only evidence that would actually prove macro-Evolution.

Quote

Scientists have to use indirect evidence like the fossil record and genomic information.

The fossil record is not "indirect" evidence;  it is THE evidence you actually need.

 

Quote

I tend to agree that evolution is not proven, but it fits the available evidence very well and it is a powerful predictor that is very useful to other fields - strong supporters of the validity of the theory. Microevolution is certainly intuitive since we see numerous example of it taking place. It is also intuitive to extrapolate that what we can observe in the current time frame could make much larger changes over much longer periods of time.

When I use the term Evolution, for the purposes of this conversation, I am referring to macroevolution, not micro-evolution.   No one disputes microevolution.   Micro-Evolution  is not what I am referring to when I say that Evolution is not intuitively observed.

Quote

 

Sorry, that is YOUR dishonest handling of YOUR words, not mine.

You are a big champion of interpreting language literally... until your own language shows your error.

 

No, I clarified what I was referring to.   The "hoax" was the Neanderthals evolved into modern humans.    No creationists denies that the Neanderthals existed; they deny that they are the product of evolution.

Quote

I showed you directly how mutations can add information, although mutations resulting in coding information loss are more common.

Not sufficient for Macro-Evolution, though.   So no you did not show any such regarding that.

Quote

 

Did I? This is what you said earlier in the thread:  "No, what happened is that I began to realize that I was using the wrong terminology to express what I was asking for.  So I altered the question to clarify what I was asking for."

In a rare moment of error recognition, you acknowledge that I did answer your questions in the OP, so you formulated new ones.

 

That was not about the question of the OP.   That was regarding my usage of the term "species."  I realized I was using the word species incorrectly, once I understood what the word meant to you.   That is why I changed question.  It was correctly my usage of the term, not because you suddenly answered my question.  You still didn't offer anything of value even after I corrected myself.
 

Quote

 

You have made multiple claims that I have asked you repeatedly to support, but you simply ignore them.

You claimed that Darwin admitted he had no evidence, yet you cannot supply any evidence of this admission.

 

"Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."^[5] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."^[6] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".^[7] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."^[1][2]  https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_and_the_fossil_record

 

 

Quote

 

You claimed that Haeckel's drawings are still used today, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

 

Gould offered a frank assessment of that vice as well: “The smallest compromise in dumbing down by inaccuracy destroys integrity and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.”
Yet, in 2000, when Gould wrote his article, Gould noted with disapproval that Haeckel’s drawings were still widely used in high school and biology textbooks. Gould provided a weak excuse for the textbook writers who were still including Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings in high school and college biology textbooks 100 years after they were known to be fraudulent. He claimed that the textbook authors were “probably quite unaware of their noted inaccuracies and outright falsifications” given Haeckel’s reputation as one of the most highly regarded scientists of his era. https://evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a/

 

Quote

You claimed that fraudulent reports in evolution research still occur today, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

I gave at least one example in the list of frauds occurring in modern times, since 2000.

Quote

You claimed that numerous predictions made 15 years ago about climate change have not come to pass, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

 

Quote

You claimed that evolution was proposed before there was any evidence supporting it. This is just plain false. I even attempted to help you back-track out of that false statement, but you just doubled-down on the falsehood.

No, it is not false.  Even Darwin admitted it.  The only evidence you EVER provide never has anything to do with macro-evolution.  

Quote

At some point, most people would understand that assertions can be taken more seriously if there is evidence to back them up. And the continued presentation of unsupported assertions erodes at one's credibility. Do you think you will ever reach that point?

The burden to provide evidence is on you, not me.   I am not the one promoting a non-scientific myth as  a "scientific theory."

[one.opinion]

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

The difference is that genetics exist; Macro-Evolution doesn't.

Of course, this is a matter of opinion and not fact.

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

The fossil record is not "indirect" evidence;  it is THE evidence you actually need.

Then it is fortunate for the theory that the needed evidence is present. I've shown examples of hominid, whale, and horse evolution. There are many other examples. Check out the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

On 8/28/2018 at 9:11 AM, one.opinion said:

You claimed that Darwin admitted he had no evidence, yet you cannot supply any evidence of this admission.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

"Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."^[5] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links?

Nowhere in this quote does Darwin say he had no evidence. While it is true that he wished for considerably more fossil evidence of transitional forms, he had a rather extensive fossil collection. He also had other forms of evidence. The biogeography of plant an animal life that he observed on his voyage and the evolution of the plants and animals he observed, particularly in the Galapagos, were very important bodies of evidence. You are taking a lack of satisfactory evidence in the fossil record and claiming that he had NO evidence. This is just plain untrue. I should also point out that the field of paleontology was rather new at Darwin's time and although he expected the fossil record to support his theory much more strongly, paleontologists now know that his expectation was unreasonable. (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm)

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

Yet, in 2000, when Gould wrote his article, Gould noted with disapproval that Haeckel’s drawings were still widely used in high school and biology textbooks. Gould provided a weak excuse for the textbook writers who were still including Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings in high school and college biology textbooks 100 years after they were known to be fraudulent. He claimed that the textbook authors were “probably quite unaware of their noted inaccuracies and outright falsifications” given Haeckel’s reputation as one of the most highly regarded scientists of his era. https://evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a/

The year 2000 might not seem that long ago to you and I, but that is the year that a lot of incoming college freshmen were born! Eighteen years also means about 5-6 textbook updates since that point. I'm not saying that there absolutely aren't any current textbooks that have these Haeckel's drawings, but I think it is rather unlikely. If you can show any in the last 10 years, I would be rather surprised.

Quote

You claimed that numerous predictions made 15 years ago about climate change have not come to pass, yet you cannot supply any evidence.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

Thanks for finally backing this up, the UNEP predictions in the article were indeed off-base. However, it is certainly possible that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, just not at the alarmist-level rate that was predicted by some.

Quote

You claimed that evolution was proposed before there was any evidence supporting it. This is just plain false. I even attempted to help you back-track out of that false statement, but you just doubled-down on the falsehood.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

No, it is not false.  Even Darwin admitted it.  The only evidence you EVER provide never has anything to do with macro-evolution.  

As explained earlier, the claim that Darwin "had no evidence" is outright false. If you wanted to say that Darwin was unhappy with the support available in the fossil record, that would be accurate. But to ignore facts and say that Darwin had no evidence just makes no sense. Why stick to an obviously false statement when a slightly modified version would make your point and have the bonus feature of being true?

On 8/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

The burden to provide evidence is on you, not me.   I am not the one promoting a non-scientific myth as  a "scientific theory."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Guest shiloh357]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Of course, this is a matter of opinion and not fact.

You have so far, been unable to provide anything to refute the obvious lack of evidence from the fossil record.

Quote

Then it is fortunate for the theory that the needed evidence is present. I've shown examples of hominid, whale, and horse evolution. There are many other examples. Check out the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

No, the direct evidence you need is not there.   There is indirect evidence of macro evolution.  There is direct evidence for the micro version, but you so far cannot produce the evidence requested.

Quote

Nowhere in this quote does Darwin say he had no evidence. While it is true that he wished for considerably more fossil evidence of transitional forms, he had a rather extensive fossil collection. He also had other forms of evidence. The biogeography of plant an animal life that he observed on his voyage and the evolution of the plants and animals he observed, particularly in the Galapagos, were very important bodies of evidence. You are taking a lack of satisfactory evidence in the fossil record and claiming that he had NO evidence. This is just plain untrue. I should also point out that the field of paleontology was rather new at Darwin's time and although he expected the fossil record to support his theory much more strongly, paleontologists now know that his expectation was unreasonable. (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm)

He had evidence on the micro-level.   Not the macro, which is what he needed to vindicate his theory.  I am saying he had NO evidence for macro-evolution.  That is what he admitted that he needed and hoped the fossil record would provide.

 

Quote

The year 2000 might not seem that long ago to you and I, but that is the year that a lot of incoming college freshmen were born! Eighteen years also means about 5-6 textbook updates since that point. I'm not saying that there absolutely aren't any current textbooks that have these Haeckel's drawings, but I think it is rather unlikely. If you can show any in the last 10 years, I would be rather surprised.

The point is that they were still being used long after they were debunked.  They should not have even been used 18 years ago.   The fact that they were being used that recently, shows the dishonesty of the evolutionary and academia and need to push evolution at any cost, even if it means printing long debunked information.

Quote

Thanks for finally backing this up, the UNEP predictions in the article were indeed off-base. However, it is certainly possible that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, just not at the alarmist-level rate that was predicted by some.

The fact is that we are not the source for global warming, which is the probably the biggest part of the hoax. It's "man-made" global  warming, and the attempt to use that to control us, control our behavior, what we purchase, how we live, to fit the globalist agenda.   

Everyone knows the earth warms and cools over time as it self-regulates. 

Quote

As explained earlier, the claim that Darwin "had no evidence" is outright false. If you wanted to say that Darwin was unhappy with the support available in the fossil record, that would be accurate. But to ignore facts and say that Darwin had no evidence just makes no sense. Why stick to an obviously false statement when a slightly modified version would make your point and have the bonus feature of being true?

He had not evidence in terms of what he needed to prove his ideas.   I don't need to modify anything.  

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Sojourner414 said:

One thing I have noticed: the lack of any "new mutations", as in a new species as proponents of evolution have postulated. Surely we would have seen something by now emerge from being forced by man's encroachment (and I don't mean simple "adaptation", but a forced change via altered environment that results in a new species)?

What may sound like a reasonable expectation for what we "should see" may actually be far removed from reality. Scientists believe that the most recent mass extinction on the planet took place about 66 million years ago when a giant meteor impact had a devastating impact on living organisms all around the entire planet. It is estimated that approximately 75% of all species on earth became extinct. Such a dramatic shift in ecosystems would leave countless available niches for organisms to hypothetically evolve into. A study in 2016 (click here) suggests that new species did evolve to fill those open niches and this took place over 30,000 years. The process of evolution doesn't typically begin with the generation of completely new species. Typically, change starts at the gene expression level, with changes to regulatory regions that alter the extent of expression of coding genes, and progresses through alteration of coding genes, and eventually (perhaps) into diverged species that continue to evolve and adapt to altered environments.

Evolution at the level of regulation of gene expression can and does occur fairly quickly. Here are a couple of examples (here and here) of rapid evolution occurring over a few decades. But what you are proposing is not consistent with what scientists say routinely takes place.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

You have so far, been unable to provide anything to refute the obvious lack of evidence from the fossil record.

 

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the direct evidence you need is not there.   There is indirect evidence of macro evolution.  There is direct evidence for the micro version, but you so far cannot produce the evidence requested.

What I have been unable to do is change your mind, which I had no expectation of doing in the first place. I did, however, provide evidence from the fossil record.

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

He had evidence on the micro-level.

Yes.

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Not the macro

Incorrect, he had fossil evidence of this, as well. Additionally, the bigger picture of the biogeography of the South American continent (beyond just the Galapagos Islands) was also evidence of macro-evolution.

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The point is that they were still being used long after they were debunked.  They should not have even been used 18 years ago.   The fact that they were being used that recently, shows the dishonesty of the evolutionary and academia and need to push evolution at any cost, even if it means printing long debunked information.

Some of Haeckel's contemporaries challenged his work, and it is certainly possible that a bias led to wide-spread acceptance of his drawings - I cannot definitively say, one way or the other. However, the largest piece of evidence contradicting Haeckel's drawings was a publication in Anatomy and Embryology magazine in 1997, by Michael Richardson. This publication contained photographs of different organisms at various stages of embryonic development. These photos clearly showed that Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate. Again, this work was done in 1997, so it is no surprise that only 3 years later, some textbooks still contained Haeckel's drawings. I don't know how quickly textbook authors responded to this new information, but I've never seen a textbook that contained Haeckel's drawings.

It sounds like you have a different perception of when the debunking took place. What work would you point to as the major debunking evidence?

33 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The fact is that we are not the source for global warming, which is the probably the biggest part of the hoax. It's "man-made" global  warming, and the attempt to use that to control us, control our behavior, what we purchase, how we live, to fit the globalist agenda.   

Everyone knows the earth warms and cools over time as it self-regulates. 

I agree, the root cause of the warming is the most open aspect to debate, although some people challenge the warming, as well. I don't know enough about climate science to argue one way or the other, but rely on the field of experts. In my opinion, disagreement with a field of experts would require some pretty solid evidence to the contrary, and I've not seen anything that fits that role.

There are certainly some over-reaching responses, but there are also some good suggestions about how mankind should fulfill the God-ordained role as caretakers of the earth. There is absolutely no harm in recycling programs, research and use of "green" energy, etc. I'm still gonna use plastic straws, though!! ?

 

 

[siegi91]

On 8/22/2018 at 2:10 AM, shiloh357 said:

If Evolution is true, and birds came from dinosaurs, then what is the evidence that mutations create brand new information in the genes of living organisms causing them to evolve into a completely different species?

If evolution is false, then why do we look so much closer to a hairless gorilla than to, say, a spider?

I don't know. If I were God, and I created the Universe for a being in my image etc., I would have taken some precautions to not make it look like any other sort of animal. Also to silence those modern evolutionary skeptics.

I mean, we are talking of the very reason the Universe has been created for. And what is the result?

A primate mammal with the same morphology of an ape. At least biologically.

Are you really sure that this is wanted and not the result of some naturalistic mechanism?

 siegi

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by siegi91