Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific Evolution

Siladheil
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!
"Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire,
and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ~ Anonymous
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.
Siladheil
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution without having sources to back up my claim. I'm trying to stay away from Wikipedia as much as possible (although I consider Wikipedia a valuable source for research purposes) because he doesn't trust what is written on Wikipedia. I'm looking for books, essays, and journals that have been reviewed by the scientific community and have quantifiable evidence that can be reproduced.

Do you have anything regarding the formation of social norms and how ethics and morals came into existence. I have my own theory on it without doing research, but I'm sure the theory actually has been thought up before.

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.
"Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire,
and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ~ Anonymous
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:59:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution without having sources to back up my claim. I'm trying to stay away from Wikipedia as much as possible (although I consider Wikipedia a valuable source for research purposes) because he doesn't trust what is written on Wikipedia. I'm looking for books, essays, and journals that have been reviewed by the scientific community and have quantifiable evidence that can be reproduced.

Do you have anything regarding the formation of social norms and how ethics and morals came into existence. I have my own theory on it without doing research, but I'm sure the theory actually has been thought up before.

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

I'm currently on my phone now so it's a bit tricky, if you can wait a few hours I can point some things out.

The nested heirarchy is the best thing to research, and I think AronRa gives the best explanation in a YouTube video on the foundational falsehoods of creationism (it's #7 or #8) that wouldn't be for his benefit, but for yours in terms of understanding what the evidence means.

In the mean time a good question to ask, whether he thinks a chuiauhua and a Great Dane are related via "adaptations". If they are, then ask if jackals and wolves are too. Then about the most jackal like fox and the most fox like jackal. If those can be related to Great Danes via adaptation, then what about foxes and Great Danes, what about wolverines and dogs? Bears and dogs? Then cats and dogs?

When the answer stops being yes, and starts being no; the simple question to ask is this: what is the difference between them that is too big to just be adaptation? in all likelihood the differences between those species he claims cannot have "evolved" through adaptation are the same in nature, and probably smaller differences than the biggest differences between two species he has conceded can be related through adaptation.

Many people focus on the large differences between disparate species, but at some level they believe very similar creatures are different too. Focus on those and the job is easier to show what they are not prepared to conceded is related through adaptation can be shown to be.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution ...

Evolutionists frame this as a quantitative issue - evolution is just large scale adaptation. We ID'ers see a qualitative distinction, of genetics vs Darwinian evolution. The best insight is probably that of "information" - there is a great deal of variety latent in the genes. Obviously, an adaptive selection of options already in the genetic code is very different from the creation and addition of new information to the DNA.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:46:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:15:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution ...

Evolutionists frame this as a quantitative issue - evolution is just large scale adaptation. We ID'ers see a qualitative distinction, of genetics vs Darwinian evolution. The best insight is probably that of "information" - there is a great deal of variety latent in the genes. Obviously, an adaptive selection of options already in the genetic code is very different from the creation and addition of new information to the DNA.

This makes perfect sense until you realize it a flagrant lie. Evolution works on what is already there, in that respect there is no new "information", however we know evolution can change what genes do, and can do it a way that adds features and makes an organism do something that wasn't there before and its possible to do so without significantly affecting the creatures existing traits. In that way evolution doesn't need what you define as new information. The rest, that all this stuff is already in the genome is, quite honestly directly refuted by pretty much any analysis of genomes and understanding how DNA changes between generations; and in many cases is simple groundless speculation that youre forced to invent in order to try and explain why we can measure significant evolution occur today.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 1:49:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

This statement makes it obvious that you do not understand natural selection. The molecules themselves don't care. But if you have one set of behaviors that for some reason makes the molecules better at reproducing themselves, then the population of them will grow faster than the others, so eventually it will dominate the area. This superior group will continue to reproduce and will do so imperfectly, with changes occasionally happening to the molecules due to imperfect replications. If the changes help them reproduce better then they will be preserved because that group will start to out-reproduce the others. If the change is negative then that new group of molecules might just die out or stop reproducing essentially rendering itself extinct.

There is no thought or intent to this process. Its just a necessary progression resulting from the laws of physics and the conditions in which the molecules exist. If conditions favor complexity (and not all conditions do), then complexity could be expected to arise eventually. Not because the molecules can see that there is an opportunity and decide to take it, but because eventually mutations to the molecules will result in a tiny modification that makes them a bit more complex and a bit better at reproducing. Once it happens natural selection ensures it's survival and propagation. Repeat this millions and billions of times and you end up with life like us.

There is no "why" because there is no intent. There are no "good traits", just traits that happen to increase the ability of the organism or molecule to survive and reproduce. Stop trying to personify evolution. It has no foresight, there is no planning or intentions. Just mutation followed by selection and reproduction.
Siladheil
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:26:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

What I'm trying to get at is that way before Homo Sapiens, the ancestors of our species developed a pack hunter/gatherer mentality and the "lone wolf" mentality. Since our ancestors started hunting in packs, it is my theory that each member that was important to the survival of the group and if someone were to kill a vital member of the "pack." Thus it became encoded into our DNA that killing another of our kind was considered bad.
"Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire,
and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ~ Anonymous
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 7:39:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!
Define adaptation: a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.
https://www.google.com...
Adaptation is evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:46:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:15:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution ...

Evolutionists frame this as a quantitative issue - evolution is just large scale adaptation. We ID'ers see a qualitative distinction, of genetics vs Darwinian evolution. The best insight is probably that of "information" - there is a great deal of variety latent in the genes. Obviously, an adaptive selection of options already in the genetic code is very different from the creation and addition of new information to the DNA.

This makes perfect sense until you realize it a flagrant lie.

lol. FLAGRANT LIE! You need a chill pill, dude, or else stay away from a subject you can't think objectively about.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:03:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 1:49:24 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

This statement makes it obvious that you do not understand natural selection. The molecules themselves don't care. But if you have one set of behaviors that for some reason makes the molecules better at reproducing themselves,

Nope, sorry, molecules don't reproduce themselves. They absorb quanta of energy and release quanta, share electrons, stuff like that.

Don't be so quick to be an evangelist. Do yourself the favor of thinking about it first.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:07:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 7:26:55 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

What I'm trying to get at is that way before Homo Sapiens, the ancestors of our species developed a pack hunter/gatherer mentality and the "lone wolf" mentality. Since our ancestors started hunting in packs, it is my theory that each member that was important to the survival of the group and if someone were to kill a vital member of the "pack." Thus it became encoded into our DNA that killing another of our kind was considered bad.

Or maybe that's just the 21st century origins myth, our modern version of zeus and dionysus and all that. One should be able to see a clear distinction between this kind of storytelling and the hard sciences like physics.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:10:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 8:00:31 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:46:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:15:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution ...

Evolutionists frame this as a quantitative issue - evolution is just large scale adaptation. We ID'ers see a qualitative distinction, of genetics vs Darwinian evolution. The best insight is probably that of "information" - there is a great deal of variety latent in the genes. Obviously, an adaptive selection of options already in the genetic code is very different from the creation and addition of new information to the DNA.

This makes perfect sense until you realize it a flagrant lie.

lol. FLAGRANT LIE! You need a chill pill, dude, or else stay away from a subject you can't think objectively about.

I then went on to explain why. None of it is new to you, and any time it's pointed out you so what you do here: ignore it.

It is a lie; you are making a statement you know is untrue, and it has been pointed out many times, making it flagrant. I can't really be more objective than that!

It's not like I'm ignoring the details of anything you said and concentrating on a rant, or other ridiculous emotional rejection bass on incredulity or some other logical fallacy.

You know, like you do :)
slo1
Posts: 4,332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 8:20:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Your chaplain is not against evolution, he is making the distinction that organisms can change to adapt, but they can't change far enough to be classified as a new species or different "type".

Just ask him what scientific genetic evidence he has that could cause a bird beak to change shape and the color of its feathers, but disallow it to lose it's feathers and beak and grow fur and a third leg.

Obviously watching nature for evolution does not quite work because the life span of a human or a number of generations of humans is not long enough to observe the small changes we can observe to see how far those changes can go.

The Galapagos island remains a location of special interest because of its isolation yet it is experiencing much change as tourists have brought many invasive plants unintentionally.

The finches there have gone through some remarkable changes in the last 100 years, all though they are what would be consider adaptations, but we even see how two types of finches that have not bred with each other for thousands of years began to breed due to various pressures. It is hard to find many of these studies in google because you find many articles on the historic importance of finches to Darwins theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Other items to look up are how genetics are finding pathways that relate to major changes. For example

How a fish evolved muscle into an electric organ that can discharge an electric shock.
http://www.news.wisc.edu...
This level of genetic forensics is very much the bullet that indicates it is possible for generations of an organism to end up with something extremely different that what the original ansecestors said. It gives a valid pathway on how genes could change (not just one change, but many genetic changes) and evolve pretty incredible features.
It can be possible to say such changes can't happen naturally and it needs to be directed by a higher being, but what it does start to disprove is that there is some type of wall that disallows an number of genetic changes in many generations of an organism so it can't change type. There is nothing that would disallow many adaptations over time changing an organism to the point we would classify it as something else.

There are many examples of these types of discoveries. How egg shells got hard rather than soft and leathery. Genetically how Tibetans got an advantage and can process oxygen much more efficient at high elevations, etc.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:20:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 8:20:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Your chaplain is not against evolution, he is making the distinction that organisms can change to adapt, but they can't change far enough to be classified as a new species or different "type".

Just ask him what scientific genetic evidence he has that could cause a bird beak to change shape and the color of its feathers, but disallow it to lose it's feathers and beak and grow fur and a third leg.


DNA. Yes, the answer is as simple as that.

Obviously watching nature for evolution does not quite work because the life span of a human or a number of generations of humans is not long enough to observe the small changes we can observe to see how far those changes can go.


Eh, you can watch a lot of generations of simple bacteria, as Lenski did. And there has been no Darwinian evolution, not in 10s of thousands of generations.

Again: Genetics, no argument. Species can vary within some parameters, but obviously the DNA codes for a bounded range of variation.

And just in general, the idea that some observed phenomenon can be extrapolated ad infinitum would be considered ridiculous in ANY other field of science. No, there are no perpetual motion machines, and systems generally decay pretty quickly. Dynamic equilibrium is not an easy thing to sustain.
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 9:46:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 12:20:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:20:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Your chaplain is not against evolution, he is making the distinction that organisms can change to adapt, but they can't change far enough to be classified as a new species or different "type".

Just ask him what scientific genetic evidence he has that could cause a bird beak to change shape and the color of its feathers, but disallow it to lose it's feathers and beak and grow fur and a third leg.


DNA. Yes, the answer is as simple as that.

And what aspect of DNA allows birds to change their beak shapes, but disallow their feathers to be lost and grow a third leg? Are you saying that the DNA of someone who, for example, suffers from polydactyl has such vastly different and incompatible DNA to regular humans? Or perhaps their DNA is not made up of the 4 standard base pairs?

Obviously watching nature for evolution does not quite work because the life span of a human or a number of generations of humans is not long enough to observe the small changes we can observe to see how far those changes can go.


Eh, you can watch a lot of generations of simple bacteria, as Lenski did. And there has been no Darwinian evolution, not in 10s of thousands of generations.

Again: Genetics, no argument. Species can vary within some parameters, but obviously the DNA codes for a bounded range of variation.

And just in general, the idea that some observed phenomenon can be extrapolated ad infinitum would be considered ridiculous in ANY other field of science. No, there are no perpetual motion machines, and systems generally decay pretty quickly. Dynamic equilibrium is not an easy thing to sustain.

If it were simply adaption and not evolution, then it would've been easy for the bacteria to, for example in lenskis experiment, adapt and change. And yet, it took, what, 30,000 generations? 10 years? for the bacteria to "adapt". That is a very long time, even for bacteria. Especially for bacteria. Of course, the answer as to why it took a long time, was because the ability to utilize the citrate required multiple different mutations, one atop another, in a specific order. They were capable of dividing the cutlures into 3 distinct groups, one of which died off.

And of course, there is the fact that only one of the ten cultures had "adapted" the ability to utilize the small amount of citrate. If this were adaption, why not all 10? Why just one?

Everything about this, is completely contrary to how adaption should work.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:24:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 8:03:59 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:49:24 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

This statement makes it obvious that you do not understand natural selection. The molecules themselves don't care. But if you have one set of behaviors that for some reason makes the molecules better at reproducing themselves,

Nope, sorry, molecules don't reproduce themselves. They absorb quanta of energy and release quanta, share electrons, stuff like that.

Don't be so quick to be an evangelist. Do yourself the favor of thinking about it first.

Molecules can and do replicate and accumulate. Crystal structures are an example of this. They don't replicate themselves in the same way cells do, but are replicated by their environment. Cells have just taken the next step to create their own internal replication environment and then split when they have replicated all the necessary molecules.

The cell now controls the process that would have initially taken place outside of a membrane and would have been more subject to its external environment. That is the whole point of the cell in the first place, to maintain the ideal environment of for molecule replication.

As for your evangelist comment. I would advise you to do the same.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:32:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 9:46:52 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/26/2015 12:20:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:20:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Your chaplain is not against evolution, he is making the distinction that organisms can change to adapt, but they can't change far enough to be classified as a new species or different "type".

Just ask him what scientific genetic evidence he has that could cause a bird beak to change shape and the color of its feathers, but disallow it to lose it's feathers and beak and grow fur and a third leg.


DNA. Yes, the answer is as simple as that.

And what aspect of DNA allows birds to change their beak shapes, but disallow their feathers to be lost and grow a third leg? Are you saying that the DNA of someone who, for example, suffers from polydactyl has such vastly different and incompatible DNA to regular humans? Or perhaps their DNA is not made up of the 4 standard base pairs?

Obviously watching nature for evolution does not quite work because the life span of a human or a number of generations of humans is not long enough to observe the small changes we can observe to see how far those changes can go.


Eh, you can watch a lot of generations of simple bacteria, as Lenski did. And there has been no Darwinian evolution, not in 10s of thousands of generations.

Again: Genetics, no argument. Species can vary within some parameters, but obviously the DNA codes for a bounded range of variation.

And just in general, the idea that some observed phenomenon can be extrapolated ad infinitum would be considered ridiculous in ANY other field of science. No, there are no perpetual motion machines, and systems generally decay pretty quickly. Dynamic equilibrium is not an easy thing to sustain.

If it were simply adaption and not evolution, then it would've been easy for the bacteria to, for example in lenskis experiment, adapt and change. And yet, it took, what, 30,000 generations? 10 years? for the bacteria to "adapt". That is a very long time, even for bacteria. Especially for bacteria. Of course, the answer as to why it took a long time, was because the ability to utilize the citrate required multiple different mutations, one atop another, in a specific order. They were capable of dividing the cutlures into 3 distinct groups, one of which died off.

And of course, there is the fact that only one of the ten cultures had "adapted" the ability to utilize the small amount of citrate. If this were adaption, why not all 10? Why just one?

Everything about this, is completely contrary to how adaption should work.

No. That is actually exactly how adaptation works. Genetic trial and error with multiple dead ends. This is exactly the kind of thing that evolution theory predicts. You really really need to educate yourself on evolution. You really don't even understand what it is that you are trying to debunk.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:36:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:32:13 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:46:52 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/26/2015 12:20:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:20:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Your chaplain is not against evolution, he is making the distinction that organisms can change to adapt, but they can't change far enough to be classified as a new species or different "type".

Just ask him what scientific genetic evidence he has that could cause a bird beak to change shape and the color of its feathers, but disallow it to lose it's feathers and beak and grow fur and a third leg.


DNA. Yes, the answer is as simple as that.

And what aspect of DNA allows birds to change their beak shapes, but disallow their feathers to be lost and grow a third leg? Are you saying that the DNA of someone who, for example, suffers from polydactyl has such vastly different and incompatible DNA to regular humans? Or perhaps their DNA is not made up of the 4 standard base pairs?

Obviously watching nature for evolution does not quite work because the life span of a human or a number of generations of humans is not long enough to observe the small changes we can observe to see how far those changes can go.


Eh, you can watch a lot of generations of simple bacteria, as Lenski did. And there has been no Darwinian evolution, not in 10s of thousands of generations.

Again: Genetics, no argument. Species can vary within some parameters, but obviously the DNA codes for a bounded range of variation.

And just in general, the idea that some observed phenomenon can be extrapolated ad infinitum would be considered ridiculous in ANY other field of science. No, there are no perpetual motion machines, and systems generally decay pretty quickly. Dynamic equilibrium is not an easy thing to sustain.

If it were simply adaption and not evolution, then it would've been easy for the bacteria to, for example in lenskis experiment, adapt and change. And yet, it took, what, 30,000 generations? 10 years? for the bacteria to "adapt". That is a very long time, even for bacteria. Especially for bacteria. Of course, the answer as to why it took a long time, was because the ability to utilize the citrate required multiple different mutations, one atop another, in a specific order. They were capable of dividing the cutlures into 3 distinct groups, one of which died off.

And of course, there is the fact that only one of the ten cultures had "adapted" the ability to utilize the small amount of citrate. If this were adaption, why not all 10? Why just one?

Everything about this, is completely contrary to how adaption should work.

No. That is actually exactly how adaptation works. Genetic trial and error with multiple dead ends. This is exactly the kind of thing that evolution theory predicts. You really really need to educate yourself on evolution. You really don't even understand what it is that you are trying to debunk.

I'm not sure if I read you right now that I reread what you said. If I did, disregard that.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:07:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:24:34 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:03:59 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:49:24 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

This statement makes it obvious that you do not understand natural selection. The molecules themselves don't care. But if you have one set of behaviors that for some reason makes the molecules better at reproducing themselves,

Nope, sorry, molecules don't reproduce themselves. They absorb quanta of energy and release quanta, share electrons, stuff like that.

Don't be so quick to be an evangelist. Do yourself the favor of thinking about it first.

Molecules can and do replicate and accumulate. Crystal structures are an example of this. They don't replicate themselves in the same way cells do, but are replicated by their environment. Cells have just taken the next step

Interesting. I see it more and more often now, maybe just because I've noticed it: Evolutionists are indeed the new pantheists. There is this belief that the laws of nature have some inherent bias that tends towards life.


The cell now controls the process that would have initially taken place outside of a membrane and would have been more subject to its external environment. That is the whole point of the cell in the first place, to maintain the ideal environment of for molecule replication.


Yeah, cells have no designer, but they have a point? "That is the whole point of the cell in the first place"? Sounds a little like "in the beginning", doesn't it.

As for your evangelist comment.

As for that, you've underscored it.
This space for rent.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:46:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:07:06 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:24:34 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/26/2015 8:03:59 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:49:24 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:22:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
...

My theory about the formation of society started around the campfire and a mutual need to survive. It was considered "bad" to kill another hunter, because that lessened the chances for the group to survive without that hunter there.

And so group survival was considered "good"? Why?

This assumption of some natural bias towards life is one of the fundamental logical flaws of evolutionary theory. I don't see anywhere in f=ma where the molecules should care whether they are in a pattern called life or some other pattern.

This statement makes it obvious that you do not understand natural selection. The molecules themselves don't care. But if you have one set of behaviors that for some reason makes the molecules better at reproducing themselves,

Nope, sorry, molecules don't reproduce themselves. They absorb quanta of energy and release quanta, share electrons, stuff like that.

Don't be so quick to be an evangelist. Do yourself the favor of thinking about it first.

Molecules can and do replicate and accumulate. Crystal structures are an example of this. They don't replicate themselves in the same way cells do, but are replicated by their environment. Cells have just taken the next step

Interesting. I see it more and more often now, maybe just because I've noticed it: Evolutionists are indeed the new pantheists. There is this belief that the laws of nature have some inherent bias that tends towards life.


The cell now controls the process that would have initially taken place outside of a membrane and would have been more subject to its external environment. That is the whole point of the cell in the first place, to maintain the ideal environment of for molecule replication.


Yeah, cells have no designer, but they have a point? "That is the whole point of the cell in the first place"? Sounds a little like "in the beginning", doesn't it.

As for your evangelist comment.

As for that, you've underscored it.

No. Nature has no inherent bias towards life. That is likely why it is proving difficult to find it on other planets in our solar system. If nature had a bias towards life then we would likely be seeing it everywhere. But we aren't.

But when the conditions for life exist, as they do on Earth, then life will likely take hold and follow the laws of natural selection and evolution. Just as when the conditions to form stars exist, stars will form according to the laws of physics. But conditions need to be just so.

You are right. "Point of the cell" is bad phrasing. "Function of the cell" or "advantage of the cell" would have been more appropriate. But the reason the cell was so successful in becoming the building block of complex life is because it managed to create a microcosm for the molecules to replicate efficiently while limiting external influence. Without this protection from the elements there would be no way to maintain the right conditions for molecule replication once those conditions vanished from the surroundings. This is likely why we don't see much non-cellular life out there.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 10:29:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:32:13 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
...
Everything about this, is completely contrary to how adaption should work.

No. That is actually exactly how adaptation works. Genetic trial and error with multiple dead ends.

And just to point out yet another example: "trial and error". This is the language of intelligent design.

I know this is not your personal language, but the language of evolution. And you will further argue that it's just analogy. And I agree, but analogy of what? To describe the alleged evolution you must describe it as intelligent design. Why is that? I'd suggest that it's because life is in fact intelligent design. The language of intelligent design is what works when describing life, so stop fighting the obvious.

You really really need to educate yourself on evolution. You really don't even understand what it is that you are trying to debunk.

And to re-repeat myself from elsewhere: One cannot actually understand evolution because it doesn't happen. One can understand the current state of peer reviewed paper writing, but cannot understand what does not happen. You can tell me how many angels the monks say dance on the head of a pin, but cannot show me the dancing angels. And yeah, it is very much the same sort of cloistered ivory tower mentality.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 10:44:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:29:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:

And to re-repeat myself from elsewhere: One cannot actually understand evolution because it doesn't happen.

And yet, you make it sparkling, crystal clear that you don't understand evolution. Period. The reason is because you never took the time to do so, this being entirely besides the fact of whether evolution happens or not.

Please do continue to repeat that mantra, as it is quite similar to a parrot squawking, while being quite annoying, is somewhat entertaining.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 10:54:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:46:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:15:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution ...

Evolutionists frame this as a quantitative issue - evolution is just large scale adaptation. We ID'ers see a qualitative distinction, of genetics vs Darwinian evolution. The best insight is probably that of "information" - there is a great deal of variety latent in the genes. Obviously, an adaptive selection of options already in the genetic code is very different from the creation and addition of new information to the DNA.

This makes perfect sense until you realize it a flagrant lie. Evolution works on what is already there, in that respect there is no new "information", however we know evolution can change what genes do, and can do it a way that adds features and makes an organism do something that wasn't there before and its possible to do so without significantly affecting the creatures existing traits. In that way evolution doesn't need what you define as new information. The rest, that all this stuff is already in the genome is, quite honestly directly refuted by pretty much any analysis of genomes and understanding how DNA changes between generations; and in many cases is simple groundless speculation that youre forced to invent in order to try and explain why we can measure significant evolution occur today.

Sure evolution is a flagrant lie, but let's not pop that balloon full of hot hopes and dreams that may very well one day morph into a kite that will inevitably get stuck with enough lightning to supercharge their ignorant monkey minds into astronauts, who will obviously fly into orbit while landing on Mars to cultivate bacteria into intelligent critters who'll
"initially worship their creators until their gods leave and become through the years these critters too egotistical to think their crowning achievements were unassisted.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:08:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:29:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:32:13 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
...
Everything about this, is completely contrary to how adaption should work.

No. That is actually exactly how adaptation works. Genetic trial and error with multiple dead ends.

And just to point out yet another example: "trial and error". This is the language of intelligent design.

I know this is not your personal language, but the language of evolution. And you will further argue that it's just analogy. And I agree, but analogy of what? To describe the alleged evolution you must describe it as intelligent design. Why is that? I'd suggest that it's because life is in fact intelligent design. The language of intelligent design is what works when describing life, so stop fighting the obvious.

You really really need to educate yourself on evolution. You really don't even understand what it is that you are trying to debunk.

And to re-repeat myself from elsewhere: One cannot actually understand evolution because it doesn't happen. One can understand the current state of peer reviewed paper writing, but cannot understand what does not happen. You can tell me how many angels the monks say dance on the head of a pin, but cannot show me the dancing angels. And yeah, it is very much the same sort of cloistered ivory tower mentality.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:30:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:29:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:32:13 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
...
Everything about this, is completely contrary to how adaption should work.

No. That is actually exactly how adaptation works. Genetic trial and error with multiple dead ends.

And just to point out yet another example: "trial and error". This is the language of intelligent design.

I know this is not your personal language, but the language of evolution. And you will further argue that it's just analogy. And I agree, but analogy of what? To describe the alleged evolution you must describe it as intelligent design. Why is that? I'd suggest that it's because life is in fact intelligent design. The language of intelligent design is what works when describing life, so stop fighting the obvious.

You really really need to educate yourself on evolution. You really don't even understand what it is that you are trying to debunk.

And to re-repeat myself from elsewhere: One cannot actually understand evolution because it doesn't happen. One can understand the current state of peer reviewed paper writing, but cannot understand what does not happen. You can tell me how many angels the monks say dance on the head of a pin, but cannot show me the dancing angels. And yeah, it is very much the same sort of cloistered ivory tower mentality.

Trial and error is not the language of intelligent design. Trial and error is exactly the opposite of intelligent design. Its the kind of design you do when there are a lot of things you don't know or when you don't really understand what you're trying to do. Given that an omnipotent God knows everything, trial and error would not be the way a god like that would go about designing anything. However, it is the only way that an unthinking process based on mutation and natural selection could ever produce anything.

Intelligent design involves foresight of potential problems and mitigating them before they are even issues. Intelligent design produces a few excellent designs whereas trial and error produces a multitude of terrible, marginal, decent, competent, and potentially excellent designs given enough time and some luck.

Intelligent design often involves total redesigns and dramatic differences between one design iteration and the next. When new innovation happens it is implemented immediately across the board. We don't see this in nature. We see incremental changes that are only building off what already exists.

Intelligent design removes old sub-designs that no longer function or are no longer necessary. It trims the fat so to speak. But again we don't see that in nature. The animal kingdom is rife with vestigial structures that are remnants of past forms. You would not expect to find these an a thing that was intelligently designed.

I know good design. Its what I do for a living. And evolution is a terribly inefficient and reactionary form of unintelligent, unguided, blind design. Certainly not what you would expect from an omnipotent god. However, this kind of design is just what you would expect from a system utilizing mutation and natural selection to drive incremental change of time.

Apologies for the double post. I mis-clicked before I even started writing. I'm not used to this forum yet.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:34:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:54:54 AM, Serato wrote:

Sure evolution is a flagrant lie, but let's not pop that balloon full of hot hopes and dreams that may very well one day morph into a kite that will inevitably get stuck with enough lightning to supercharge their ignorant monkey minds into astronauts, who will obviously fly into orbit while landing on Mars to cultivate bacteria into intelligent critters who'll
"initially worship their creators until their gods leave and become through the years these critters too egotistical to think their crowning achievements were unassisted.

It is totally hilarious to observe you believers start off with your denials and then proceed to rant about something not even remotely related to the subject matter you deny.

It's like denying a plane can fly because you don't understand lift, drag, thrust and weight, but will rant about man not having wings. Friggin hilarious.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 11:36:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:54:54 AM, Serato wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:46:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:15:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:35:04 AM, Siladheil wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:21:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:57:57 AM, Siladheil wrote:
I'm having a debate with my Chaplain at work about religion vs atheism. He presented me with "adaptation is not evolution" and I was looking for some good sites and sources other than the diversity of dogs that show how scientists have been experimenting with evolution on a higher scale than bacteria.

Also if you have sites that have information as to how societies formed and how morals and ethics formed, I would greatly appreciate it.

I don't know if this is the proper forum to ask for information, but the Google machine is being rather difficult. Thank you to everyone who has information that can help me!

Were you wanting this so you could show more than just adaptation? If so, then I think the problem is that adaptation IS evolution. I think there are many examples I can dig out but most are examples of adaptation because that is what evolution is.

I concur, it's just difficult to explain to him that adaption IS evolution ...

Evolutionists frame this as a quantitative issue - evolution is just large scale adaptation. We ID'ers see a qualitative distinction, of genetics vs Darwinian evolution. The best insight is probably that of "information" - there is a great deal of variety latent in the genes. Obviously, an adaptive selection of options already in the genetic code is very different from the creation and addition of new information to the DNA.

This makes perfect sense until you realize it a flagrant lie. Evolution works on what is already there, in that respect there is no new "information", however we know evolution can change what genes do, and can do it a way that adds features and makes an organism do something that wasn't there before and its possible to do so without significantly affecting the creatures existing traits. In that way evolution doesn't need what you define as new information. The rest, that all this stuff is already in the genome is, quite honestly directly refuted by pretty much any analysis of genomes and understanding how DNA changes between generations; and in many cases is simple groundless speculation that youre forced to invent in order to try and explain why we can measure significant evolution occur today.

Sure evolution is a flagrant lie, but let's not pop that balloon full of hot hopes and dreams that may very well one day morph into a kite that will inevitably get stuck with enough lightning to supercharge their ignorant monkey minds into astronauts, who will obviously fly into orbit while landing on Mars to cultivate bacteria into intelligent critters who'll
"initially worship their creators until their gods leave and become through the years these critters too egotistical to think their crowning achievements were unassisted.

Here, I pointed out that the argument that new "information" that is pre-existing is demonstrable, is a flagrant lie based on our knowledge.

I pointed out that we know enough about how the genetics of biological systems work to know either a) new information is generated, or b) new information is not needed to explain life; and explained why this is. In this way, "information" is only used as a method of equivocation.

I'm assuming that as you have made no attempt to actually argue against this with logic, reason or evidence; and yet replied anyway, you have conceeded that my point is accurate.