Scientists speak out about Evolution!

[camlax]

Actually I was at school. So you can stop with the constant insults.

Oh wait maybe you can't, you're not a very mature person. No worries.

I started the thread over a month ago...You were in school for a month straight? Congrats on theology for breeding this kind of heightened interest from its students!

[camlax]

So, if I'm so unqualified why does it bother you that I pointed out that the definition of "evolution" coneniently changes?

Iams,

The definition of evolution does not change anymore than the definition of gravity. Why does it bother me you are unqualified and trying to give a definition of evolution (because that is what you did, you did not point anything out, but gave your own definition)? Frankly, I could really care less that you are unqualified and uneducated on the matter, that is your own bone to pick with yourself. When I do have a problem, is when you unintentionally or intentionally create a false definition then post it in a public forum.

If you did it due to simple lack of ignorance on the subject, then you can be forgiven. This is also a fixable problem. If you did it to be dishonest and purposefully pander a point (your obvious religious/theological motives), then I have big problem with that. If it is indeed the latter, then that makes a few times now I have seen your "pseudo-Christian" morals come shining out of your personality.

I would hope, for the sake of your integrity, that it was an honest mistake that we can rectify.

[boorite]

You implied that a mutation would only occur in response to a particular environmental factor, although probability should tell us that the mutation is already present. The selective pressure only serves to increase the allele frequency of the mutation.

That's absolutely right (excluding possible neo-Lamarckian mechanisms involving reverse transcriptase?), and it's absolutely fundamental to understanding Darwinian theory, and yet I think very, very few people get it. If you're not sure you get what Raptor is saying, don't do another thing until you get it.

It's widely misunderstood, and I blame the concept of "adaptation." It is really a loose and misleading metaphor for changes in allele frequencies brought about by selective pressures. Pop sci-fi doesn't help, always showing us some creature that's "evolving" right there on the screen by "adapting" to whatever the heroes throw at it. Really, we need to stop using the word "adaptation." It's not to be taken literally, not even close.

And don't even get me started on "survival of the fittest." Or any of that rot about "perpetuating the species." If these concepts make up the popular understanding of Darwinian theory, then it's no wonder people have doubts about it.

[Nephilim_Slayer]

Very interesting stuff A-fighter. I have seen a number of those quotes before and I am currently reading a book by Francis S. Collins called "The Language of God." He is a yale graduate and head of the human genome project who became a believer in God and dropped his evolution idea. Evolution takes as much faith in believing as God does, and I knew you were definitely going to be flamed by the atheists on this site but thats okay...I have posted hundreds of threads defending creationism against the seed of lies that satan has planted into mankind. If you look at evolution, it is the EXACT opposite of the bible and creationism, I mean exact and when you think about it as a believer you know who is out there always trying to undermine the word of God. Let atheists continue to believe in nothing, when its all over with, if they are right in the end no one will know about it...... if we are right, all eye's shall see.

[KBA]

True.. evolution is, has been, and always will be subject to the exact same scientific process that produces all these modern wonders of engineering, knowledge and medicine which we have the luxury of today. That will never change. Some researchers of evolution may have an agenda, but science can NOT have an agenda, if evolution is invalid science it will fail in the scientific community just as any other invalid science would.

Evolution is currently the BEST theory for explaining the origins of man.. and in science, you develop a theory based on where the evidence is pointing.. and then you DO try to fill in the gaps to make that theory correct. In the scientific method, that would be the hypothesis stage. If you don't actively seek out the supporting evidence for your hypothetical conclusion, you can never make your case for it. If the theory is wrong, you will never find that supporting evidence, or you will find contradictory evidence. But that supporting evidence is being found and has been for a very long time in evolution. It is the theory that makes sense, and it is the theory with the evidence to back it up. If you have something better to propose, then by all means do so.. if not, then let the scientific community continue to research and progress the theory of evolution as it has been doing... and if it actually is incorrect, a better theory will arise to replace it eventually. Scientists have absolutely no reason to ignore the evidence. Evolution is not a theory created to disprove creationism, it is a theory created in pursuit of knowledge of our true origins.

[Odd Christian]

please read all of this before starting your attacks. <img>

all of the arguements for evolution use already existing(or once existing) life forms. but when you get back to the very begining, you have to have an accident of just the right chemicals, etc combining to form the first lifeform. this requires faith that such an occurance with such large odds against it could have happened.

all of the available evidence shows that creatures are related, being related is not the same thing as evolving into. lions and tigers are related, but clearly not the same animal.

in our local zoo when i was a teen, they had a lion/tiger mix. the info card said that the two species were not geneticly suited to mating, but that scientist had successfuly managed to do so. it had the body of a tiger with the mane and tuft tail of a lion, and was HUGE. I am glad i had the chance to see it.

go to the front page news as pointed out by tiggs, about the lab creation of a new lifeform.

all of these required the intervention of an outside inteligence.

not long ago on the news a new dino fossil was found. i forget the name of it, but they had an older fossil of the same type that had really long horns, and a younger one that had nubs. they one they found had horns shorter than the old one but longer than the newer one. the comment was made that it was an intermediate example of evolution. ummmm. no. it just means they found a dino with had long horns, and one that had nubs, and one that had smaller horns. there was no proof of evolution, the dinousaurs could have been of different ages, thus accounting for the difference in the size of the horns, the one with nubs, could have been a mutant, or just not as old as the other two. but in no way proves evolution.

now, in genesis it says that God spoke and commanded the waters to bring forth certain types of creatures, and then commanded the earth to bring forth certain types of creatures. thus no conflict between evolution and creation.

He was the cause, evolution the means. all living things share alot of common traits, showing that He made everything using a basic design, with slight differences resulting in different species. The DNA, etc that makes up life, are changeable, allowing for the creatures to be adaptable, again no conflict between creationism and evolution.

the only real conflict is man. evolution says man evolved from another lifeform, religion says a deity made man specificaly.

since the deity would have used the same materials in creating the man as other creatures, and man was designed to be in his current form, it is acceptable to believe that mans genetic make up would be similar to certain primates. even to the point of the possibility that man could have mated with certain of these primates or "almost men".

accepting that a deity created man specificaly, and used evolution for all other species, and there is no more conflict.

[~JuSt*A*MaN~]

OK, I have changed plans slightly. Since you guys have got nothing to debate about because I post the wrong quotes, I will let you choose which subject will be next. There are 7 different ones:

1. Complexity of the Cell.

2. Gaps in the Fossil Record.

3. The Odds against Evolution.

4. Scientists about General Evolution.

5. The Sudden appearance of Complex Lifeforms.

6. The complexity of the Brain.

7. The Fine-Tuned Universe.

All of them them are very interesting and some contain more quotes than others. Please stop discussing what you are currently doing, and also, tell me how I can 'discuss better' with you, because some say that I only quote and leave it there without saying much else. When you have chosen, I will immediately start working on that subject, and it will be posted in a few hours. I will try my best to stay on topic and still explain other things too.

If someone wants to discuss things on MSN with me personally, here is my email address: kamran_master1@hotmail.com. I can then send you all the files (+ much more) because I also have them in Microsoft Word format, which will make it easier.

Edited October 11, 2007 by A-Fighter

[AmazingAtheist]

i don't have the time to adress this right now. I'll be back in the pm, though. However, I don't think you would have these questions if you understood what you are arguing about. Overwhelmingly, I've found that evolution detractors don't really understand evolution.

Evolution, btw, is NOT a theory. Evolution is a FACT. We have observed evolution. We KNOW evolution happens. The only theory is in regard to if evolution happened to species in the past. It's only a theory because we can not observe a past occurance.

I know what you mean -- Creationists are usually un educated and say OMG IT SAYS THEORY, WE WIN LALALALALALLALA ( They say LALALALAA because we are trying to explain to them that they merely have mis-interpreted words)

Scientists use the word 'Theory' when a logically coherent model well supported by evidence is presented.

Therefore -- Evolution is not a 'Hypothesis'

[AmazingAtheist]

1. Complexity of the Cell.

2. Gaps in the Fossil Record.

3. The Odds against Evolution.

4. Scientists about General Evolution.

5. The Sudden appearance of Complex Lifeforms.

6. The complexity of the Brain.

7. The Fine-Tuned Universe.

Gaps in the fossil record .. Because we are still working on it?

The odds against evolution? What about the odds of a supreme deity?

Are you going to get skeptic scientists? Or ones just supporting you? ( I'll bet the latter )

The sudden appearance of life forms? A swift google search can answer that question ( I won't bother posting .. )

The complexity of the brain? It HAS to be complex .. Thats the way it evolved so it could store more information and therefore more intelligence and actions

I am only 14 -- And I find you're last question to difficult to take a crack at .. sorry ..

[AmazingAtheist]

please read all of this before starting your attacks. <img>

all of the arguements for evolution use already existing(or once existing) life forms. but when you get back to the very begining, you have to have an accident of just the right chemicals, etc combining to form the first lifeform. this requires faith that such an occurance with such large odds against it could have happened.

all of the available evidence shows that creatures are related, being related is not the same thing as evolving into. lions and tigers are related, but clearly not the same animal.

in our local zoo when i was a teen, they had a lion/tiger mix. the info card said that the two species were not geneticly suited to mating, but that scientist had successfuly managed to do so. it had the body of a tiger with the mane and tuft tail of a lion, and was HUGE. I am glad i had the chance to see it.

go to the front page news as pointed out by tiggs, about the lab creation of a new lifeform.

all of these required the intervention of an outside inteligence.

not long ago on the news a new dino fossil was found. i forget the name of it, but they had an older fossil of the same type that had really long horns, and a younger one that had nubs. they one they found had horns shorter than the old one but longer than the newer one. the comment was made that it was an intermediate example of evolution. ummmm. no. it just means they found a dino with had long horns, and one that had nubs, and one that had smaller horns. there was no proof of evolution, the dinousaurs could have been of different ages, thus accounting for the difference in the size of the horns, the one with nubs, could have been a mutant, or just not as old as the other two. but in no way proves evolution.

now, in genesis it says that God spoke and commanded the waters to bring forth certain types of creatures, and then commanded the earth to bring forth certain types of creatures. thus no conflict between evolution and creation.

He was the cause, evolution the means. all living things share alot of common traits, showing that He made everything using a basic design, with slight differences resulting in different species. The DNA, etc that makes up life, are changeable, allowing for the creatures to be adaptable, again no conflict between creationism and evolution.

the only real conflict is man. evolution says man evolved from another lifeform, religion says a deity made man specificaly.

since the deity would have used the same materials in creating the man as other creatures, and man was designed to be in his current form, it is acceptable to believe that mans genetic make up would be similar to certain primates. even to the point of the possibility that man could have mated with certain of these primates or "almost men".

accepting that a deity created man specificaly, and used evolution for all other species, and there is no more conflict.

Sorry -- This kind of breeding has happened in the wild.

[AmazingAtheist]

Very interesting stuff A-fighter. I have seen a number of those quotes before and I am currently reading a book by Francis S. Collins called "The Language of God." He is a yale graduate and head of the human genome project who became a believer in God and dropped his evolution idea. Evolution takes as much faith in believing as God does, and I knew you were definitely going to be flamed by the atheists on this site but thats okay...I have posted hundreds of threads defending creationism against the seed of lies that satan has planted into mankind. If you look at evolution, it is the EXACT opposite of the bible and creationism, I mean exact and when you think about it as a believer you know who is out there always trying to undermine the word of God. Let atheists continue to believe in nothing, when its all over with, if they are right in the end no one will know about it...... if we are right, all eye's shall see.

Ahh yes I also read that book ..

Interesting read

[keithisco]

Jeez, you sure dont have an axe to grind.

First, Newton came about two hundred years before Darwin, and his quote has nothing to do with evolution.

Second, "many have a feeling" isn't scientific.

Just want to add the Townes got his Nobel for Quantum Electronics in 1964. Not a field associated with Evolution

[fullywired]

Fullywired, the discussion is about evolution, NOT creationism, NOT ID, not anything else, but the theory of evolution. I DO NOT have to propose any other theory in order to investigate one, or to question it. The fact that you want to use my personal beliefs to derail this discussion is sad. If this thread had to do with Christian values and a Christian asked "Well, what about the values of your belief?" it would be OBVIOUS they were trying to redirect attention away from the topic to something else, and yuo trying to redirect the topic away from you religion is just as obvious.

Wow I didn't think I had committed all those offences in one facetious remark.I see I have been overestimating you,I thought you would see it

anyway forget it I promise to wear sackcloth and ashes for a month ,that ought to cover it ,(mea culpa)

fullywired

[~JuSt*A*MaN~]

Gaps in the fossil record .. Because we are still working on it?

I will answer this question later, because that website is still not working lol.

Are you going to get skeptic scientists? Or ones just supporting you? ( I'll bet the latter )

Latter? Please explain what that means.

The sudden appearance of life forms? A swift google search can answer that question ( I won't bother posting .. )

You should bother to post it, and I will try to answer it.

The complexity of the brain? It HAS to be complex .. Thats the way it evolved so it could store more information and therefore more intelligence and actions

Of course it has to be complex, and I never said that it should not be, but if you knew how complex it was, then you will think about it differently. I will post this section at a later time, but here is a preview:

“The information content of the brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons about a 100.000.000.000.000 bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a small space”. (John Polkinghorne, ‘One World’, London SPCK, 1986, Page 57).

I am only 14 -- And I find you're last question to difficult to take a crack at .. sorry ..

The Fine tuned Universe means that everything is as it should be, without any errors. If even the smallest mistake was made during the design of the Univers (Big Bang), entire galaxies could not have existed. Here is an example:

“If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060 (i.e. one million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million) the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible (i.e. an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target)”. (This quote is from Professor Robin Collins).

And don't think that the 7 subjects that I listed above are everything that I have, because I have got much more information including quotes, such as this one about the eyes:

“Before you finish reading this sentence, approximately 100.000.000.000 operations will have been completed inside your eyes”. (Harun Yahya, ‘Miracle in the eye’, Book published in 2005, Page 25).

[IamsSon]

Iams,

The definition of evolution does not change anymore than the definition of gravity. Why does it bother me you are unqualified and trying to give a definition of evolution (because that is what you did, you did not point anything out, but gave your own definition)? Frankly, I could really care less that you are unqualified and uneducated on the matter, that is your own bone to pick with yourself. When I do have a problem, is when you unintentionally or intentionally create a false definition then post it in a public forum.

If you did it due to simple lack of ignorance on the subject, then you can be forgiven. This is also a fixable problem. If you did it to be dishonest and purposefully pander a point (your obvious religious/theological motives), then I have big problem with that. If it is indeed the latter, then that makes a few times now I have seen your "pseudo-Christian" morals come shining out of your personality.

I would hope, for the sake of your integrity, that it was an honest mistake that we can rectify.

Fullywired, the discussion is about evolution, NOT creationism, NOT ID, not anything else, but the theory of evolution. I DO NOT have to propose any other theory in order to investigate one, or to question it. The fact that you want to use my personal beliefs to derail this discussion is sad. If this thread had to do with Christian values and a Christian asked "Well, what about the values of your belief?" it would be OBVIOUS they were trying to redirect attention away from the topic to something else, and yuo trying to redirect the topic away from you religion is just as obvious.

Wow I didn't think I had committed all those offences in one facetious remark.I see I have been overestimating you,I thought you would see it

anyway forget it I promise to wear sackcloth and ashes for a month ,that ought to cover it ,(mea culpa)

fullywired

Guys, since by replying to your stupid personal attacks I am helping you derail this thread, this is the last post in which I will waste my time addressing these types of posts from you.

Edited October 11, 2007 by IamsSon

[Neognosis]

questionmark, we've provided you with studies that show that mutations can NOT be caused by an outside stimuli, but I don't think you are agreeing and I don't think I'll change your mind by posting more studies. (though I'll post one or two more just for good measure).

It seems that you believe that an outside stimuli causes a mutation, and I'm sorry, but that just is not true. You are putting the horse before the cart.

Mutations happen independant of outside stimuli. If they are beneficial, they get stand a chance of getting passed on. If they are not, they may not be passed on.

Your example of the white northern rabbit and it's brown southern cousin belies your misunderstanding of the process. The snow and cold temperature did NOT cause the rabbit to turn white. The rabbit mutated into white on it's own. For agrument's sake, let's say that all rabbits, north and south, were brown. A mutation for white occurs in BOTH populations. the white rabbits in the warm south can not hide and are killed and do not reproduce in great enough numbers to pass on the white gene.

The white rabbits in the cold, arctic north BENEFIT from this RANDOM mutation and can hide better. They out reproduce their still brown northern relatives, and within a span of time the white mutation becomes the norm for northern snow rabbits. The mutation is NOT caused by the environment. It happens independently, and continues because, by chance, it is of benefit to the organism.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/

There are two ways in which DNA can become mutated:

Mutations can be inherited. This means that if a parent has a mutation in his or her DNA, then the mutation is passed on to his or her children.

Mutations can be acquired. This happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division.

The environmental agents are NOT things like cold, heat, disease, etc. They are a very specific list of chemicals and radiation. Mutation does NOT happen in response to other environmental changes beyond those that damage the dna, like radiation and some chemicals. You can't make a rabbit species turn white or grow thicker fur by putting it in a cold environment. That has to happen on it's own, randomly, and be of benefit.

For a more complete treatise on how mutations occur, see:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disor.../mutationbg.cfm

You'll please note that the only external stimuli that can cause dna mutation are radiation, UV light, and some chemicals. They do NOT occur in response to things like temperature and environment.

I don't know where you got the idea that genes mutate in response to environmental stimuli, and I would like to see a source on that. They simply don't. DNA mutation is NOT caused by environmental factors beyond radiation and chemical damage.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Neognosis

[truethat]

questionmark, we've provided you with studies that show that mutations can NOT be caused by an outside stimuli, but I don't think you are agreeing and I don't think I'll change your mind by posting more studies. (though I'll post one or two more just for good measure).

It seems that you believe that an outside stimuli causes a mutation, and I'm sorry, but that just is not true. You are putting the horse before the cart.

Mutations happen independant of outside stimuli. If they are beneficial, they get stand a chance of getting passed on. If they are not, they may not be passed on.

Your example of the white northern rabbit and it's brown southern cousin belies your misunderstanding of the process. The snow and cold temperature did NOT cause the rabbit to turn white. The rabbit mutated into white on it's own. For agrument's sake, let's say that all rabbits, north and south, were brown. A mutation for white occurs in BOTH populations. the white rabbits in the warm south can not hide and are killed and do not reproduce in great enough numbers to pass on the white gene.

The white rabbits in the cold, arctic north BENEFIT from this RANDOM mutation and can hide better. They out reproduce their still brown northern relatives, and within a span of time the white mutation becomes the norm for northern snow rabbits. The mutation is NOT caused by the environment. It happens independently, and continues because, by chance, it is of benefit to the organism.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/

For a more complete treatise on how mutations occur, see:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/disor.../mutationbg.cfm

You'll please note that the only external stimuli that can cause dna mutation are radiation, UV light, and some chemicals. They do NOT occur in response to things like temperature and environment.

I don't know where you got the idea that genes mutate in response to environmental stimuli, and I would like to see a source on that. They simply don't. DNA mutation is NOT caused by environmental factors beyond radiation and chemical damage.

That's not really "mutation" as a forward process though is it? That's really about natural selection. So the white rabbits simply survive because they can hide better. And so more of them survive and pass it on. But at the same time, the white rabbits can still have brown babies, is that correct? Or is it like two blue eyed parents not really having a brown eyed child?

As I stated before that suggesting that mutation is the process of life rather than the anomoly is wierd to me. Most mutation effects the creature in other ways that are detrimental to its survival.

For example Down's Sydrome is often used to show how a gene can gain more information via a mutation. But people born with downs syndrome are not usually viable people. Or am I getting this all wrong?

Edited October 11, 2007 by truethat

[The Puzzler]

Are you talking about the Snowshoe rabbit or some other kind of American rabbit I am not familiar with, what is the name of the rabbit you are talking about? White Northern Rabbit?

[Neognosis]

That's not really "mutation" as a forward process though is it? That's really about natural selection. So the white rabbits simply survive because they can hide better. And so more of them survive and pass it on. But at the same time, the white rabbits can still have brown babies, is that correct? Or is it like two blue eyed parents not really having a brown eyed child?

They CAN still have brown babies, but those babies do not outsurvive or outreproduce their white counterparts. Thus, the entire race becomes white, with the occasional brown rabbit showing up until that gene for brown is wiped out entirely. This brings in the question of dominant and recessive genes, and the complex interplay between them. Even a completely recessive gene, if the benefit is strong enough, will out compete the dominate brown gene if given enough time.

As I stated before that suggesting that mutation is the process of life rather than the anomoly is wierd to me. Most mutation effects the creature in other ways that are detrimental to its survival.

But mutation IS the process of life. We already have a pretty good handle on the rate certain genes mutate. Whether or not mutation is a "flaw" or an accepted process is purely a matter of human interpretation. It happens. It's always happened, it continues to happen. There really isn't much guesswork about this anymore, we've observed mutations due to things like genetic drift in lizzards in spans as short as 50-100 years.

Again, though, Darwin's finches didn't change their beaks to eat different food: Their beaks changed in a small group randomly, and since they were of benefit, they reproduced, passed the genes on, and within a span of time, a new species develops. (keep in mind, though, that taxonomy is a completely HUMAN invention.)

Are you talking about the Snowshoe rabbit or some other kind of American rabbit I am not familiar with, what is the name of the rabbit you are talking about? White Northern Rabbit?

i was just talking about a metaphorical rabbit as an example. We can talk specifics, though, if you want.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

That's not really "mutation" as a forward process though is it? That's really about natural selection. So the white rabbits simply survive because they can hide better. And so more of them survive and pass it on. But at the same time, the white rabbits can still have brown babies, is that correct? Or is it like two blue eyed parents not really having a brown eyed child?

Natural selection is one of the reasons evolution occurs. As the brown rabbits are wiped out there will be less and less of the brown gene left until all the rabbits that are born are white.

As I stated before that suggesting that mutation is the process of life rather than the anomoly is wierd to me. Most mutation effects the creature in other ways that are detrimental to its survival.

The key phrase here is "weird to me", it isn't weird to biologist that actually understand the subject. You are correct, most mutations are not beneficial. In most non-human species offspring with non-beneficial mutations will either die or fail to reproduce. Those mutations will tend to die out. However the tiny fraction of mutations which are beneficial will give those offspring and avantage and hence will survive, eventually becoming dominant.

For example Down's Sydrome is often used to show how a gene can gain more information via a mutation. But people born with downs syndrome are not usually viable people. Or am I getting this all wrong?

No you are getting it right. Down's Syndrome will not be the future of mankind because it is not an beneficial mutation.

[The Puzzler]

Again, though, Darwin's finches didn't change their beaks to eat different food:

Is this true? I was sure it was because of the differing food on each of the islands off the Galapagos and that was basically how Darwin actually reached his conclusion.

i was just talking about a metaphorical rabbit as an example. We can talk specifics, though, if you want.

Oh, a hypothetical rabbit? No wonder I was perplexed since a snowshoe rabbit is one and the same whether it's brown or white.

[Neognosis]

Is this true? I was sure it was because of the differing food on each of the islands off the Galapagos and that was basically how Darwin actually reached his conclusion.

yes. The beaks changed randomly and because they were of benefit, they became a permenant change. The different nuts did not CAUSE the beaks to change. The beaks changed due to random mutation and because it was of benefit, the mutation was passed on.

There most probably were mutations to the beak that were not of benefit, but because they were not of benefit, those carriers of that mutation did not outcompete the current beak design and therefore did not pass on their genes.

The food did not cause the beaks to change.

[The Puzzler]

yes. The beaks changed randomly and because they were of benefit, they became a permenant change. The different nuts did not CAUSE the beaks to change. The beaks changed due to random mutation and because it was of benefit, the mutation was passed on.

There most probably were mutations to the beak that were not of benefit, but because they were not of benefit, those carriers of that mutation did not outcompete the current beak design and therefore did not pass on their genes.

The food did not cause the beaks to change.

Well I'm not too sure on that. It was not nuts it was shellfish and insects. Powerful beaked finches on the island with shellfish, and long beaked finches able to extract insects from tree bark on another. How am I to believe you when it wasn't even nuts?

Nuts and hypothetical rabbits? This is your evidence?

Quote from book: "He noticed that the finches of each island had adapted to suit their habitat and that therefore they all differed slightly." Note: Adapted to suit their habitat.

Edited October 11, 2007 by weareallsuckers

[Neognosis]

Well I'm not too sure on that. It was not nuts it was shellfish and insects. Powerful beaked finches on the island with shellfish, and long beaked finches able to extract insects from tree bark on another. How am I to believe you when it wasn't even nuts?

You don't have to believe me. Do your own research. It's not a question of belief, it's a question of scientific fact we already know.

Nuts, shellfish, who cares? We already KNOW that external stimuli don't cause mutation. External stimuli only determine whether a mutation will be of benefit and survive or will fall aside.

[truethat]

Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it.

I do want to address one point though. We often see the phrase "given enough time" used to explain how mutation is the process of life. It comes across to me like that old expression "If you give 1000 monkeys a typewriter and let them type for 1000 years then they can type the works of Shakespear" or something like that.

While it is true, that given enough time nearly anything is possible I don't think that the numbers are accurate in the theory of evolution. I am not a YEC or anything like that. I don't believe in Creationist theory (note the disclaimer that I always have to post) but I simply think that a lot of the timelines are set in stone and yet are constantly being over turned in one form or another. For example species that are supposed to have lived in different time periods turning up in the same era. Or the famous soft tissue dino bone. Etc etc.

White rabbits will continue to have brown babies all the time. And suggesting that the white ones will dominate due to the fact that they won't be eaten suggests that the brown ones won't find other ways to hide.

I understand the basic gist of this but the brown ones will still be born. White bunnies surviving doesn't erase the ability to have brown off spring.

And mutation as I said, often leads to a weaker less viable creature over all. So even if the white bunnies might not be eaten, they might not be as intelligent or as fast etc.

There are many variables that come into play. The Color of somethings hair or body to me is a far cry from a Human evolving from a fish. And this is what the debate is really about. I don't think people argue with adaption, mutation and physical changes of this nature.

In order for this type of change to develop into a grand scale of evolution we'd need nearly an infinity for it to work. And it is for this reason that the age of the earth and the dating has to be soooo old.

But I think there's a missing piece of the puzzle that will change everything .