Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution Takes Millions Of Years - BUT WHY?

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 7:58:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

If you do not know why evolution is a slow process then you do not know much about evolution or science in general, so if I do try to explain it to you will you be able to understand?
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 8:18:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

Environmental pressure - sure, but I think speciation also requires the separation of a breeding group - into two groups. This could be geographic, and/or due to sexual selection, particularly where the dominant male breeds far more than lesser males.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation, and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population. We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:42:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 8:18:20 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

Environmental pressure - sure, but I think speciation also requires the separation of a breeding group - into two groups.

Not necessarily, although that is often the case (allopatric speciation). Environmental change can affect the entire population of a particular species if it applies to the entire habitat (sympatric speciation):

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This could be geographic, and/or due to sexual selection, particularly where the dominant male breeds far more than lesser males.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 4:47:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation,

Why so?

and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population.

Are only positive mutations inherited in the population?

We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 7:14:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:42:40 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:18:20 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

Environmental pressure - sure, but I think speciation also requires the separation of a breeding group - into two groups.

Not necessarily, although that is often the case (allopatric speciation). Environmental change can affect the entire population of a particular species if it applies to the entire habitat (sympatric speciation):

https://en.wikipedia.org...

That's interesting. Thanks for the link. It's all about gene flow. Allopatric - no gene flow due to geographic isolation. Parapatric speciation - adjacent populations with limited gene flow between adjacent populations. But the last one, sympatric speciation must be based solely upon the advantage a mutation provides an individual within the breeding group.
All sorts of question follow - not least how the various strategies of sexual selection play into this. I wonder if particular kinds of mutation are more likely to take hold under the circumstances of the three different kinds of speciation - and what circumstances led to human intellectual advance: the so-called creative explosion.

I'm not asking you to answer these questions - they are just thoughts inspired by learning something. Again, thanks for the link.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 11:52:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:47:15 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation,

Why so?

The best way to build something without design is to make little tweaks and then test it out, and repeat. This is the same as a few mutations and natural selection every generation. Software developers use the little tweak strategy for developing software.

and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population.

Are only positive mutations inherited in the population?

No, but negative mutations will reduce survivability and will not be spread through the entire population.
JSK
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:32:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM, JSK wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

Your argument from ignorance is of no interest to me.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:39:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM, JSK wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

I suggest you do a Google search for "is evolution random".
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:11:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM, JSK wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

Just a quick note:

You do your argument no good by citing a bunch of notorious liars as authorities.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 12:42:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM, JSK wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

We have plenty of examples of mutations creating new abilities. For example we have bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon. Bacteria evolve the ability to be resistant the anti-bacterial drugs. Most mutations are neutral and do not have any proven impact. The negative ones get removed by natural selection.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:04:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:47:15 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation,

Why so?

and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population.

Are only positive mutations inherited in the population?

We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.

ME: I am confounded by the story that a change, that takes millions of years to arrive at a useful point is often found useless in its final recipient. Evolutionists say that some of the organs in the human body have no use, or have never had any use. tonsils, appendix and gall bladder are mentioned as being of no use.

It appears that evolution has no intelligence and that everything it produces is by mere chance with no direction intended not any improvement or failure intended. If this is true, how does evolutionists claim to be the professors of the origin of life if all life is just a mistakes that works or not?
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 2:00:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Often times Evolution relies on beneficial mutations, which already don't happen very frequently. If something mutates, more often than not its harmful to the organism, and they die. The gene pool does not change.

It also sometimes relies on a change in the environment, whether that has to do with climate cycles or catastrophic events. Earth's climate changes at a VERY slow rate, and doesn't make change necessary for hundreds if not thousands of years. Catastrophic events, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, tend to be responsible for much larger and more drastic changes to the gene pool. However things on that scale happen very rarely.

Think of it this way as well. If it takes 100,000 genetic mutations to distinguish a new species, and a truly beneficial mutation only happens every 10 years, then you won't have a new species for 1,000,000 years. These are gross estimates however, and the time may be longer or shorter, but not by much.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:46:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

ME: What about your mutation theory? It seems, in the telling, to crop up in anything wants to.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

ME: Why? It is only speciating with other species of the same size, one would presume. I mean, a mammoth and a flea would find it hard, though not hard enough. So the elephant is relevant to the element and the flea is but a pea, so the two could not meet for a moment of lust, and the flea would end up trodden in the dust.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:50:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation, and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population. We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.

ME: That is a fallacy, and you should know it to be so. Evolutionists are very disappointed in the fossil records as there is no transitional records that stand up to a proper scrutiny. They have tried to convince the masses that a fossil part of a fish found near a fossil part of a lizard shows the transition from fish to reptile, and then, to convince of some other theory the evolutionist will say that the fish and the lizard are billions of years apart.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:59:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 11:52:10 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:47:15 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation,

Why so?

The best way to build something without design is to make little tweaks and then test it out, and repeat. This is the same as a few mutations and natural selection every generation. Software developers use the little tweak strategy for developing software.

ME: what a wonderful fairy tale,m but also what a wonderfully ridiculous suggestion. Are you suggesting that a little tweak, on say a mole species is a pair of totally working eyes, the mole decides that it is doing well enough below ground and does not need the eyes, and this only takes a few million years for the mole to decide.

One would hope the software developers would only use little tweaks that they have the knowledge may suit the innovation they are seeking, and not just throw bits and pieces of unknown material at the end result. Evolution does not have any intelligence, it seems. By the theories put about, evolution relies on pure guess work and luck.

and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population.

ME: How can a positive be positive if it i s only the very beginning of the mutation? The beginning of a useless limb would be rejected under your theory.

Are only positive mutations inherited in the population?

No, but negative mutations will reduce survivability and will not be spread through the entire population.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:03:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 12:42:02 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM, JSK wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

We have plenty of examples of mutations creating new abilities. For example we have bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon. Bacteria evolve the ability to be resistant the anti-bacterial drugs. Most mutations are neutral and do not have any proven impact. The negative ones get removed by natural selection.

ME: You have plenty of examples and can only come up with one. You tried this on me once and I checked it out to find that your concept is not according to the other less supportive concepts of you claim.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:10:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 12:50:51 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation, and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population. We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.

ME: That is a fallacy, and you should know it to be so. Evolutionists are very disappointed in the fossil records as there is no transitional records that stand up to a proper scrutiny.

There is an abundance of transitional fossils which have stood up to scrutiny.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.transitionalfossils.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

They have tried to convince the masses that a fossil part of a fish found near a fossil part of a lizard shows the transition from fish to reptile, and then, to convince of some other theory the evolutionist will say that the fish and the lizard are billions of years apart.

Source, please.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:47:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 1:10:41 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/28/2016 12:50:51 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation, and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population. We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.

ME: That is a fallacy, and you should know it to be so. Evolutionists are very disappointed in the fossil records as there is no transitional records that stand up to a proper scrutiny.

There is an abundance of transitional fossils which have stood up to scrutiny.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.transitionalfossils.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

ME: I particularly like this contradiction of terms in your supplied information web site.

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."

" Rusty Cashman / Wikipedia

ME: If man comes from chimps, and the evolution of this took billions of years wouldn't the chimps of those long ago years, when the so called evolution process began, be quite different from the one evolutionists use to compare with humans today?

This would mean that any comparison between chimps and man of today would be useless, which it is in fact.

They have tried to convince the masses that a fossil part of a fish found near a fossil part of a lizard shows the transition from fish to reptile, and then, to convince of some other theory the evolutionist will say that the fish and the lizard are billions of years apart.

Source, please.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com...

In its November 1999 edition, National Geographic magazine announced the discovery of Archaeoraptor, a link between dinosaurs and birds, from a 125 million year-old fossil that had come from the Liaoning Province of China. Chinese palaeontologist Xu Xing came into possession of the counter slab through a fossil hunter. On comparing his fossil with images of Archaeoraptor it became evident that it was a composite fake

There are a few more on this site.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 5:17:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 2:00:53 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Often times Evolution relies on beneficial mutations, which already don't happen very frequently. If something mutates, more often than not its harmful to the organism, and they die. The gene pool does not change.

It also sometimes relies on a change in the environment, whether that has to do with climate cycles or catastrophic events. Earth's climate changes at a VERY slow rate, and doesn't make change necessary for hundreds if not thousands of years. Catastrophic events, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, tend to be responsible for much larger and more drastic changes to the gene pool. However things on that scale happen very rarely.

Think of it this way as well. If it takes 100,000 genetic mutations to distinguish a new species, and a truly beneficial mutation only happens every 10 years, then you won't have a new species for 1,000,000 years.

Congrats, you've refuted evolution !
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 6:39:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 5:17:06 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:00:53 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Often times Evolution relies on beneficial mutations, which already don't happen very frequently. If something mutates, more often than not its harmful to the organism, and they die. The gene pool does not change.

It also sometimes relies on a change in the environment, whether that has to do with climate cycles or catastrophic events. Earth's climate changes at a VERY slow rate, and doesn't make change necessary for hundreds if not thousands of years. Catastrophic events, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, tend to be responsible for much larger and more drastic changes to the gene pool. However things on that scale happen very rarely.

Think of it this way as well. If it takes 100,000 genetic mutations to distinguish a new species, and a truly beneficial mutation only happens every 10 years, then you won't have a new species for 1,000,000 years.

Congrats, you've refuted evolution !

Not particularly. Those numbers were estimated, and probably not very well at that. Even still, if the evolution or a change in kind occurs every million years, then we'd see tons of special (spee-cee-ul) changes over earths four and a half billion years, which we have. and for many species, evolution happens even faster due to shorter generational cycles. Thus we see even more changes in them.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 11:15:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 6:39:41 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:17:06 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:00:53 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Often times Evolution relies on beneficial mutations, which already don't happen very frequently. If something mutates, more often than not its harmful to the organism, and they die. The gene pool does not change.

It also sometimes relies on a change in the environment, whether that has to do with climate cycles or catastrophic events. Earth's climate changes at a VERY slow rate, and doesn't make change necessary for hundreds if not thousands of years. Catastrophic events, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, tend to be responsible for much larger and more drastic changes to the gene pool. However things on that scale happen very rarely.

Think of it this way as well. If it takes 100,000 genetic mutations to distinguish a new species, and a truly beneficial mutation only happens every 10 years, then you won't have a new species for 1,000,000 years.

Congrats, you've refuted evolution !

Not particularly. Those numbers were estimated, and probably not very well at that. Even still, if the evolution or a change in kind occurs every million years, then we'd see tons of special (spee-cee-ul) changes over earths four and a half billion years, which we have. and for many species, evolution happens even faster due to shorter generational cycles. Thus we see even more changes in them.

ME: You talk of species as though they are different families. There is the defining difference that Species of families will cross breed, not always successfully, but there are examples. This is usually forced breeding by man, and an family group will remain the same family group as it started out to be...Species do change in appearance but no in family.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 11:22:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 1:10:41 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/28/2016 12:50:51 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation, and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population. We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.

ME: That is a fallacy, and you should know it to be so. Evolutionists are very disappointed in the fossil records as there is no transitional records that stand up to a proper scrutiny.

There is an abundance of transitional fossils which have stood up to scrutiny.

ME: reading through the bits on fossils on the net, I see examples of genuine mistakes, or is it a lack of coordination between the scientists? One particular example is the fossils found in slab form slate. The finders sell both halves of the fossil imprint separately, this has resulted in two scientific camps giving their half a different classification to the other half, and suggesting that what they have is a transitional fossil. I wonder how many of these are out there and not yet revealed?

I would suggest that owing to the 'thrill of discovery' and scientist being the humans they are, would not be too keen to admit that they are wrong, and who would admit first, slab one or slab two examiners?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.transitionalfossils.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

They have tried to convince the masses that a fossil part of a fish found near a fossil part of a lizard shows the transition from fish to reptile, and then, to convince of some other theory the evolutionist will say that the fish and the lizard are billions of years apart.

Source, please.
bamiller43
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 4:10:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 11:15:50 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/28/2016 6:39:41 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 4/28/2016 5:17:06 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/27/2016 2:00:53 PM, bamiller43 wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Often times Evolution relies on beneficial mutations, which already don't happen very frequently. If something mutates, more often than not its harmful to the organism, and they die. The gene pool does not change.

It also sometimes relies on a change in the environment, whether that has to do with climate cycles or catastrophic events. Earth's climate changes at a VERY slow rate, and doesn't make change necessary for hundreds if not thousands of years. Catastrophic events, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, tend to be responsible for much larger and more drastic changes to the gene pool. However things on that scale happen very rarely.

Think of it this way as well. If it takes 100,000 genetic mutations to distinguish a new species, and a truly beneficial mutation only happens every 10 years, then you won't have a new species for 1,000,000 years.

Congrats, you've refuted evolution !

Not particularly. Those numbers were estimated, and probably not very well at that. Even still, if the evolution or a change in kind occurs every million years, then we'd see tons of special (spee-cee-ul) changes over earths four and a half billion years, which we have. and for many species, evolution happens even faster due to shorter generational cycles. Thus we see even more changes in them.

ME: You talk of species as though they are different families. There is the defining difference that Species of families will cross breed, not always successfully, but there are examples. This is usually forced breeding by man, and an family group will remain the same family group as it started out to be...Species do change in appearance but no in family.

Although that is what we have observed so far in humanity's existence, that's not what has be proven by science. Through the fossil records, we have made links to many familial and higher level changes through the evolutionary process. If the species are going to change naturally, then why would evolution stop with a special change? Evolution doesn't have a driving force telling it when enough change is enough. It's inanimate. If enough adaptations occur to a species to diversify it into a different species, then there is no reason to stop those changes from producing different genera, families, etc. Evolution doesn't have a cap.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 7:21:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 1:03:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/17/2016 12:42:02 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:21:12 AM, JSK wrote:
At 4/13/2016 8:06:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Evolution is a continuous process except for those species which are in equilibrium with their environment. Your question makes no sense.

Did you mean to ask if speciation takes millions of years? If so, the answer is: It depends. Under extreme environmental pressure it can be faster. It also depends on the organism involved. The smaller the organism, the faster its metabolism and the more generations it can go through in the same period of time. Therefore smaller organisms (such as bacteria) can speciate much faster than very big organisms (such as elephants).

You are talking about macroevolution, which doesn't exist. Macroevolution is a pseudoscience because random evolution cannot make new information, only degrade existing information. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

We have plenty of examples of mutations creating new abilities. For example we have bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon. Bacteria evolve the ability to be resistant the anti-bacterial drugs. Most mutations are neutral and do not have any proven impact. The negative ones get removed by natural selection.

ME: You have plenty of examples and can only come up with one. You tried this on me once and I checked it out to find that your concept is not according to the other less supportive concepts of you claim.

No, you claimed that it would be easy for normal bacteria to digest nylon but I pointed to a paper showing that the genes for proteins that digest similar products in normal bacteria do not digest nylon. When you try to get normal versions of these bacteria to digest nylon they fail. Scientists have identified the mutation that made the gene made the mutated protein that digest nylon. We have seen this evolve in the lab with bacteria that previously could not digest nylon evolve the ability to do so with the mutation.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 7:29:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 12:59:50 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/13/2016 11:52:10 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:47:15 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation,

Why so?

The best way to build something without design is to make little tweaks and then test it out, and repeat. This is the same as a few mutations and natural selection every generation. Software developers use the little tweak strategy for developing software.

ME: what a wonderful fairy tale,m but also what a wonderfully ridiculous suggestion. Are you suggesting that a little tweak, on say a mole species is a pair of totally working eyes, the mole decides that it is doing well enough below ground and does not need the eyes, and this only takes a few million years for the mole to decide.

One would hope the software developers would only use little tweaks that they have the knowledge may suit the innovation they are seeking, and not just throw bits and pieces of unknown material at the end result.

Evolution makes small tweaks and then retains the versions with the best tweaks. In fact its method is used in computer genetic algorithms that tweak formulas and retain the versions that are the most successful.

Evolution does not have any intelligence, it seems. By the theories put about, evolution relies on pure guess work and luck.

Structures that a more functional are more useful than those that are less functional and animals with more useful structures are more likely to survive. So natural selection will select for tweaks to a structure that improve its operation. It is not luck-based at all.

and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population.

That is right, and the negative ones are removed from the population and this increases functionality over generations.

ME: How can a positive be positive if it i s only the very beginning of the mutation? The beginning of a useless limb would be rejected under your theory.

The intermediate stages of evolution are not useless. They have partial functionality or a different functionality.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 7:33:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 12:50:51 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:05:04 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Tell me the reason. Only then I may reveal what I intended to ask.

Because only a few mutations to coding DNA happen every generation, and only some of those are positive and get inherited in the population. We also have seen evolution in the fossil record and see millions of years between the layers.

ME: That is a fallacy, and you should know it to be so. Evolutionists are very disappointed in the fossil records as there is no transitional records that stand up to a proper scrutiny. They have tried to convince the masses that a fossil part of a fish found near a fossil part of a lizard shows the transition from fish to reptile, and then, to convince of some other theory the evolutionist will say that the fish and the lizard are billions of years apart.

Actually they have found that the fossils or fish start at very low levels. Then higher up we find fish with mammalian traits like lungs, bony fins and a strong spine. Then a little higher up we find transitional fossils that have more hand-like fins. We find that the higher above we go we find the transitional fossils are more and more amphibian-like. Right above the transitional fossil we see the first full amphibians. So this is much more than a "fossil part of a fish found near a fossil part of a lizard."