Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[FurthurBB]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.
The Flagellum organism has a perfect motor and prop that can start and stop in an instant. This could not have been created by chance, that would be like throwing all the parts that goes to a motor inside of a cement truck and turning it for 2 billion years and expecting it to be assembled and working at some point.
Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

This argument fell extremely short over 10 years ago.

 

[FurthurBB]

This isn't accurate. Mutations do not only result in a loss of genetic data. Every human born, for example, has about 30 mutations on their own DNA on average.



Macro-evolution is the added difference of all of those tiny changes in those short periods of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're point here is.



I've posted about this before. Bacteria (like E. coli) go through multiple generations within a single day. In a period of say, twenty years, they go through approximately 50,000 generations. In fact, I've often referred to the experiments of Richard Lenski on E. coli, which has shown definite macro-evolution change within 30,000 generations or so.

Your second question is quite puzzling. Why for all the variations do they remain bacteria? Evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, there is no 'optimized' or 'ideal' or what have you stage or goal. It's not a natural progression from simplicity single-celled organisms to more complex ones. There is no universal path of evolution. It falls in with how speciation occurs via two diverging lines.



They are evolving, however. Due to their quick reproduction rates, fruit flies introduced to the Americas adapted quite quickly. It takes many, many generations however, to produce enough micro-evolution to form macro-evolutionary change. Two species of fruit flies for instance diverged 2.5 million years ago. 8 million years ago some fruit flies made it to Hawaii. Now there are 500 species there.

I don't really know enough about insect evolution to provide a specific example, but evolution does happen in fruit flies. There's no indication it's just stopped for them all of a sudden. Also keep in mind what I said above, there is not one direct progression of evolution. Looking for why flies haven't evolved from flies recently isn't actually going to prove anything.

Why do you think humans age and die,it is because the loss of information.Humans run a lifes cycle just like any other organism and we age and die. Because the origional information is lost,it's a copying error. And every gene performs a function. A mutation is a copying error that results from a loss of information or rearranged information either way the origional information is lost.

The engine of macro-evolution is according to evolutionist mutations + natural selection+ large spans of time. I forgot my line of thought maybe it will come back to me at a later time.

Yes,and that is why i asked you how come bacteria have never evolved in to anything new they're still bacteria ? you're not understanding whatever variations that are seen in bacteria are the result of adaptations and they remain bacteria. There are more bacteria then grains of sand on this planet and they have been here for a very long time but yet they're still bacteria nothing new.

In your attempt to explain you just showed the difference between macro and micro evolution one has been documented and the other has not. There is zero evidence proving macro evolution ever happened.

No , in fruit flies we have only seen variations never has a fruit fly became anything new, a fruit flie remains a fruit fly. This is the case with every family or group of organisms we see variations in all groups but we don't see new groups coming from the family. We see new breeds but not new families.

Sorry, macroevolution has been observed and documented. You can say this 1000 times all it makes you is dishonest with either us or yourself.

 

[FurthurBB]

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.

How?



Except evolution doesn't work via random chance. Mutations are random, and they are then filtered by nonrandom natural selection.

Also, the so-called irreducible complexity of flagellum was proven wrong back in the '90s almost as soon as it was said. You can in fact reduce flagellum. Pathogenic bacteria inject 'toxins' into cells via 'syringes' so to speak. One of these is called type III secretory system, and the proteins that make it up are directly homologous to the proteins in the base of the flagellum. This gives us some insight on what good only the base portions of the flagellum is useful for, and entirely eliminates the argument of 'irreducible complexity' for it.



Richard "The God Delusion" Dawkins attributes the creation of humans to a higher form of life? I find that extremely hard to believe, given we know much of our evolutionary history, and just how much Dawkins advocates evolution and a universe without a creator.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

And the point of this is...?

I have explained before how evolutionists have failed to explain explain the lack of beneficial mutations. If you watched the video i posted you would see they also have not been able to explain Chirality. Chirality is a problem for your theory. Those are just a few things evolutionist have failed at.

I have explained this to you. Also, there is no problem with chirality at all.

 

[FurthurBB]

How?



Except evolution doesn't work via random chance. Mutations are random, and they are then filtered by nonrandom natural selection.

Also, the so-called irreducible complexity of flagellum was proven wrong back in the '90s almost as soon as it was said. You can in fact reduce flagellum. Pathogenic bacteria inject 'toxins' into cells via 'syringes' so to speak. One of these is called type III secretory system, and the proteins that make it up are directly homologous to the proteins in the base of the flagellum. This gives us some insight on what good only the base portions of the flagellum is useful for, and entirely eliminates the argument of 'irreducible complexity' for it.



Richard "The God Delusion" Dawkins attributes the creation of humans to a higher form of life? I find that extremely hard to believe, given we know much of our evolutionary history, and just how much Dawkins advocates evolution and a universe without a creator.



And the point of this is...?

I have explained before how evolutionists have failed to explain explain the lack of beneficial mutations. If you watched the video i posted you would see they also have not been able to explain Chirality. Chirality is a problem for your theory. Those are just a few things evolutionist have failed at.

There isn't a "lack." If chirality is such a blow to evolution as you claim, perhaps you could indulge me and say why it is.

Well, I looked up the creationist chirality argument and it is one of the silliest I have read. The way they are trying to make chirality look like a problem for evolution, pretty much looks like more evidence for evolution. They are saying that since most living things have the same chirality and in aqueous solutions you get a 50/50 racemic mixture that there must be some designer making it so. Instead of their intended goal they pretty much put me to mind that when there were self-replicating molecules, the ones with proteins of a certain chirality were more successful and hence the ancestors of life.

 

[freedombecki]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.
The Flagellum organism has a perfect motor and prop that can start and stop in an instant. This could not have been created by chance, that would be like throwing all the parts that goes to a motor inside of a cement truck and turning it for 2 billion years and expecting it to be assembled and working at some point.
Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

The reason "scientific evidence" falls on its face so much may have something to do with the fact that fully half the stuff I learned in school about science, today is considered a myth based on human error of scientists who thought so. Science declares entire schools of thought that enjoyed prominence for a hundred or more years, felled by just one thought of a bright new scientist's more appealing theory, then less than 20 years later, someone else has a "yes, but...(fill in the blank)" moment, and all that hoo-rah-rah goes out the window, replaced by the "latest, greatest, and most certainly well-proved truth," which is often met with two or three theories that outsmart that. Science always changes as the latest school of thought gives everything the "last word" in truth. feh!

God made it all. That never changes, and I believe it is true. I remember very clearly when I was young, we'd moved to West Texas, where my father was hired as principal and also taught math and science, since the school district was small, and needed him to do all three. As a consequence, he was my science teacher one semester, and I remember his first opening speech to the class: "Science is the study of God's wonderful universe." He then opened the door to the mysteries of science, and it was a wonderful, way too short semester that I thoroughly loved.

We studied all kinds of science, but carbon-dating hadn't been introduced as a field of study yet, so I don't recollect much about how old stuff was, and Dad didn't use his classroom at school to promote religion. He thought that's what people's churches were for. I studied my butt off and got an A. Nobody thought that was unusual, because I made an A in everything else, too. I had no idea what would be on any of the tests in any class I took. My parents gave only 2 warnings: (1) Do all your homework and (2) If you get in trouble at school, you get the paddle when you get home. That's all it took. I didn't care for paddling on a daily basis. My older brother, OTOH, never figured that out and hated me because I never got paddled, and he did. I know he was smarter than me, because he figured out precisely how little work he'd have to do to pull a full C- Report Card. But not to worry, he hated me more on Report Card Day than usual. He got even with me, though. He made a "boys only" clubhouse and made sure I never got to see the inside of it. How could I? I had too much homework to do! hehehe!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, we're really not sure why we age.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at in the rest of the quote.



That's how you differ from micro-evolution. If you wanted to describe micro-evolution, replace large spans of time with small ones. That's just a simplified version of it though, there are other factors in speciation.



And I have explained to you, evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, or goal. Being single-celled is not necessarily disadvantageous to an organism. Many seem to live and thrive quite fine and in some cases they can ever overpower us. I don't see why you expect bacteria to evolve into something else. Is there any reason for current bacteria to evolve into something not-bacteria that I'm not aware of?

They are evolving though, just not to the extent you seem to expect. You see this in the 'superbugs' that strong enough not to be killed by current medicine. There's also nylon-eating bacteria, bacteria which have evolved to eat nylon. Before it, they couldn't process it.



So all those fossils of previous species, that experiment of Lenski's that showed a new species in E. coli, all that's just for fun, not meant to be taken seriously at all?

I do wish you'd stop making blanket statements like "there is no proof at all for x, y, and z" because it says just how abysmally uneducated you are. It just looks bad on you too, when I've actually posted evidence to the contrary.



Do I have to repeat what I said about bacteria again? Because you don't seem to understand it. What on earth do you expect fruit flies to evolve into? Is there a certain reason we should expect them to evolve beyond fruit flies? Are there some environmental factors and so on which they are somehow ignoring so they don't have to evolve?

That is kinda funny,it's your theory and you say we are constanly evolving so why are they not becoming something new ? Fruit flies and bacteria should be showing macroevolution but they're not,why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

He answered it out of ignorance, you didn't understand nobody knows ?but he did admit intelligence was possible just not God now that is a tool representing evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.
Your take of the flagellum is unconvincing....sorry, you haven't even changed my mind about a 1 cell organism and it's mechanics.
The building blocks of life with evolution just doesn't pass the litmus test with me. Your not going to be able to convince on the subject.....just as dawkins failed. There are a lot of flaws in Darwin's "theories", enough so that his studies are being questioned.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

You can't change anyones mind that don't want it changed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I believe I already told you that macroevolution is also small scale changes that build up over time. Ring species on islands that get geographically so far from their original breeding population and have a different evolutionary path that become so genetically diverse that they cannot successfully breed with their original breeding population is an example of macroevolution. There was no big change that caused this, just microevolution. Since there is no difference between the two there is no need to come up with a different mechanism.

Debunking evolution part 1 and 2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak]Debunking Evolution Part # 1 Variations in species - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21xxCkWELqc&feature=related]Debunking Evolution Part #2 Mutations Reproduction - YouTube[/ame]

I do not watch youtube videos for evidence. Thank you anyway.

So what do you read from and do you watch videos in your class rooms ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This isn't accurate. Mutations do not only result in a loss of genetic data. Every human born, for example, has about 30 mutations on their own DNA on average.



Macro-evolution is the added difference of all of those tiny changes in those short periods of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're point here is.



I've posted about this before. Bacteria (like E. coli) go through multiple generations within a single day. In a period of say, twenty years, they go through approximately 50,000 generations. In fact, I've often referred to the experiments of Richard Lenski on E. coli, which has shown definite macro-evolution change within 30,000 generations or so.

Your second question is quite puzzling. Why for all the variations do they remain bacteria? Evolution is not a race. It has no finish line, there is no 'optimized' or 'ideal' or what have you stage or goal. It's not a natural progression from simplicity single-celled organisms to more complex ones. There is no universal path of evolution. It falls in with how speciation occurs via two diverging lines.



They are evolving, however. Due to their quick reproduction rates, fruit flies introduced to the Americas adapted quite quickly. It takes many, many generations however, to produce enough micro-evolution to form macro-evolutionary change. Two species of fruit flies for instance diverged 2.5 million years ago. 8 million years ago some fruit flies made it to Hawaii. Now there are 500 species there.

I don't really know enough about insect evolution to provide a specific example, but evolution does happen in fruit flies. There's no indication it's just stopped for them all of a sudden. Also keep in mind what I said above, there is not one direct progression of evolution. Looking for why flies haven't evolved from flies recently isn't actually going to prove anything.

Not to mention there would be no benefit for bacteria to evolve to something else in the environment we live in today. Bacteria are among the most successful of all lifeforms on earth. There are very few open niches in the world today. A species would not survive long if it evolved to fill a niche that is already successfully filled.

Whoa wait a minute,you decide what should and shouldn't evolve ? you don't believe all things are evolving ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

He probably doesn't agree with gravity either. It's fun to watch you people walk a fence on the subject of evolution in the face of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.
The Flagellum organism has a perfect motor and prop that can start and stop in an instant. This could not have been created by chance, that would be like throwing all the parts that goes to a motor inside of a cement truck and turning it for 2 billion years and expecting it to be assembled and working at some point.
Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

This argument fell extremely short over 10 years ago.

Many scientists would disagree with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do you think humans age and die,it is because the loss of information.Humans run a lifes cycle just like any other organism and we age and die. Because the origional information is lost,it's a copying error. And every gene performs a function. A mutation is a copying error that results from a loss of information or rearranged information either way the origional information is lost.

The engine of macro-evolution is according to evolutionist mutations + natural selection+ large spans of time. I forgot my line of thought maybe it will come back to me at a later time.

Yes,and that is why i asked you how come bacteria have never evolved in to anything new they're still bacteria ? you're not understanding whatever variations that are seen in bacteria are the result of adaptations and they remain bacteria. There are more bacteria then grains of sand on this planet and they have been here for a very long time but yet they're still bacteria nothing new.

In your attempt to explain you just showed the difference between macro and micro evolution one has been documented and the other has not. There is zero evidence proving macro evolution ever happened.

No , in fruit flies we have only seen variations never has a fruit fly became anything new, a fruit flie remains a fruit fly. This is the case with every family or group of organisms we see variations in all groups but we don't see new groups coming from the family. We see new breeds but not new families.

Sorry, macroevolution has been observed and documented. You can say this 1000 times all it makes you is dishonest with either us or yourself.

Talk origins admits it, They're on your side of the argument.

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution_has_never_been_observed_(Talk.Origins)

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have explained before how evolutionists have failed to explain explain the lack of beneficial mutations. If you watched the video i posted you would see they also have not been able to explain Chirality. Chirality is a problem for your theory. Those are just a few things evolutionist have failed at.

There isn't a "lack." If chirality is such a blow to evolution as you claim, perhaps you could indulge me and say why it is.

Well, I looked up the creationist chirality argument and it is one of the silliest I have read. The way they are trying to make chirality look like a problem for evolution, pretty much looks like more evidence for evolution. They are saying that since most living things have the same chirality and in aqueous solutions you get a 50/50 racemic mixture that there must be some designer making it so. Instead of their intended goal they pretty much put me to mind that when there were self-replicating molecules, the ones with proteins of a certain chirality were more successful and hence the ancestors of life.

Here is a video that does a good job exposing the problem for evolutionists dealing with Chirality.


Evolution Debunked - YouTube!

After watching it please respond with a rebuttal.

 

[FurthurBB]

Debunking evolution part 1 and 2

Debunking Evolution Part # 1 Variations in species - YouTube

Debunking Evolution Part #2 Mutations Reproduction - YouTube

I do not watch youtube videos for evidence. Thank you anyway.

So what do you read from and do you watch videos in your class rooms ?

Sometimes I show videos in my class rooms, it depends. Well, for scientific evidence I read scientific journals. Really though the best way to go about discovering evidence is experimentation.

 

[FurthurBB]

Not to mention there would be no benefit for bacteria to evolve to something else in the environment we live in today. Bacteria are among the most successful of all lifeforms on earth. There are very few open niches in the world today. A species would not survive long if it evolved to fill a niche that is already successfully filled.

Whoa wait a minute,you decide what should and shouldn't evolve ? you don't believe all things are evolving ?

Even though you are just being silly now, why would bacteria at this point evolve into an already filled niche when they have very successful niches of their own?

 

[FurthurBB]

Scientific evidence falls flat on its face...make no mistake about that.
The Flagellum organism has a perfect motor and prop that can start and stop in an instant. This could not have been created by chance, that would be like throwing all the parts that goes to a motor inside of a cement truck and turning it for 2 billion years and expecting it to be assembled and working at some point.
Even Dawkins can't explain away the creation of Man....he throws it to a higher form of life creating us, but can't explain how that "higher for of life" was ever created.
Yes....make no mistake about it.

There are something like 45 "laws of the universe" that have to be constant to make it work. Take any one away or even shut it down temporarily and the rest will fall to pieces.

This argument fell extremely short over 10 years ago.

Many scientists would disagree with you.

Well then they would be dishonest or often they are social scientist or economists whose opinions on evolution are no more informed than grocers or construction workers. There is nothing about the flagella that we have not seen used separately. If the parts evolved separately then there is obviously no irreducible complexity.

 

[FurthurBB]

Sorry, macroevolution has been observed and documented. You can say this 1000 times all it makes you is dishonest with either us or yourself.

Talk origins admits it, They're on your side of the argument.

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution_has_never_been_observed_(Talk.Origins)

That site is ridiculous. Who can be swayed with semantics and out of context comments? Do they think god wants them to lie for him?

 

[FurthurBB]

There isn't a "lack." If chirality is such a blow to evolution as you claim, perhaps you could indulge me and say why it is.

Well, I looked up the creationist chirality argument and it is one of the silliest I have read. The way they are trying to make chirality look like a problem for evolution, pretty much looks like more evidence for evolution. They are saying that since most living things have the same chirality and in aqueous solutions you get a 50/50 racemic mixture that there must be some designer making it so. Instead of their intended goal they pretty much put me to mind that when there were self-replicating molecules, the ones with proteins of a certain chirality were more successful and hence the ancestors of life.

Here is a video that does a good job exposing the problem for evolutionists dealing with Chirality.


Evolution Debunked - YouTube!

After watching it please respond with a rebuttal.

I already told you I am not watching it. I read the argument written by the creator and explained what I thought about it. Oh and not to mention chirality isn't even a problem in chemistry anymore since William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless' nobel prize winning work that discovered homochirality catalysts. Recently it has also been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts on proteins that are created in the wrong chirality in animals. That completely debunks this notion although reading the poorly thought out argument already debunked it for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoa wait a minute,you decide what should and shouldn't evolve ? you don't believe all things are evolving ?

Even though you are just being silly now, why would bacteria at this point evolve into an already filled niche when they have very successful niches of their own?

I wasn't aware they - or anything else - had a choice about it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Whoa wait a minute,you decide what should and shouldn't evolve ? you don't believe all things are evolving ?

Even though you are just being silly now, why would bacteria at this point evolve into an already filled niche when they have very successful niches of their own?

All things are supposedly evolving right and mutations cause change according to your theory,why do
not single celled organism and bacteria not change in to anything new ? I'm being silly,you are avoiding a legitimate question,why ?


Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought.

Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought

So again why do they not ebolve ?