New fossils demonstrate that powerful eyes evolved in a twinkling (w/ video)

... it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.

There is no such thing as a "primitive" animal. Even the most simple looking animals have surprisingly intricate and complex functions. God made them that way.

The notion that animals started out primitive and developed into different, more complex animals over millions of years by natural selection of random mutations is not supported by the evidence, and this process has not been observed anywhere by anyone.

From genetics we learn that mutations are almost always detrimental and cannot create any new DNA information.

... it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.

Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution. When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.

The comparison between pixels and compound eyes is a bit off, because it forgets that the brain of the creature probably stacks the information it recieves and deduces details smaller than any one image cell

You aren't still sore about that religion conversation are you?

... it would be nice if evolution and natural selection didn't work. That way we could actually just keep using the same old antibiotics with no end in sight.

Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution. When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.

Just allow me the opportunity to actually make a comment before you attempt to lecture me on anything.

Johannes414: Typical inane physorg resident creationist babble

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Bacterial antibiotic resistance does not constitute proof for Darwinian evolution. They are two different things, check your biology folks.

Antibiotic resistance is simply a mutation that disables an ability to bond with a particular protein. No new information is added to the genome at all, but information is in fact lost - devolution instead of evolution!

i noticed you gave those same examples two days ago!

I don't think it's so much a case of forgetting the underlying physiology of perception, rather they're using a single common metric among a wide range of species - the light sensing cells, for comparative purposes. Generally, the more light sensors you have, the better you can see.

If the intelligent source is missing, the message cannot be coded, get it?

"Random information" is in fact an oxymoron.

With mutations, either the information already existed, or there is a net loss of meaningful information.

Ethelred is really wants to know the exact date of the flood.

Whatever the subject of discussion is, he has to ask about the flood.

If we ever have an article on physorg.com about the flood, Ethelred will be prepared for the discussion.

When we expose a bacteria to an antibiotic and don't kill all the bacteria, the surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. We have selected for that resistance trait. It did not evolve.

We should not feed the troll ...

It is so funny when people like Skeptic_Heretic resort to random personal insults because they lack the ability to rationally discuss anything.

Go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong.

You're the one who makes their commentary worthy of derision. You state that evolution doesn't exist, just diversification and selection by the environment for expressed traits (which is evolution).

See, now you lie. I have never said that evolution doesn't exist.

I was only pointing out the difference between selection and evolution. There is a difference.

Adults should behave better.

I never said that evolution doesn't exist when you claim I did.

The flood of Noah was global not local.

and all the life perished.

f the flood had been local all the animals could have migrated elsewhere, and Noah would have conveniently walked over to the dry side.

The Bible does not provide a date for the flood.

But geology shows it must have been quite recent.

A clue is the advent of the first walled cities in Sumeria and Akkadia.

Beyond those societies, there seems to be a gap going back to some older, more global oriented civilization in the time of Noah.

So how about you make your actual postition clear and the stick with it ...

Why don't you look up the meaning of "evolution"

election is one of the mechanisms by which evolution is expected to occur

I have made myself clear on these issues.

Correcting a misconception is not attacking anything.

Breeding for traits is not the same as evolution.

he surviving bacteria are those with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic

It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable. I can't help your limitations in understanding.

It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution"

evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable

I can't help your limitations in understanding.

You state you know who votes and how they vote. How do you know this.

On the issue of religious statements, you constantly make statements about the flood when no one is discussing it but you.

Skeptic_Heretic,

I can't help your inability to understand the difference between selection and evolution either.

Perhaps you can try to believe that they have different meanings? Or perhaps you could use a dictionary?

Evolution theory proposes that speciation results from such changes as selection, mutation, genetic drift. None of those represent evolution until speciation occurs.

To put it in simple terms that you should be able to grasp, a trait selected for may not survive. In that case there is no speciation and no evolution.

You exhibit a strange inability to understand the simplest concepts.

Go fuck yourself. I don't care whether you're sincere and you're actually as dumb as you make yourself out to be or whether you're a troll. Either way, you're completely wrong.

I was like them once. Until the Lord gave me a new heart and a new Spirit. He came to earth specifically for sinners to come to repentance and knowledge of the truth.

It is apparent fron your rant that you do not understand that the term "evolution" and the term "selection" are not interchangeable. I can't help your limitations in understanding.

Selection over multiple generations is evolution. You appear to be the one who is unable to grasp this simple concept.

Random mutations cannot generate new information. Information is a coded message sent by an intelligent source. If the intelligent source is missing, the message cannot be coded, get it? "Random information" is in fact an oxymoron.

With mutations, either the information already existed, or there is a net loss of meaningful information.

Dogbert, does speciation occur?

Evolution theory proposes that speciation results from such changes as selection, mutation, genetic drift.

None of those represent evolution until speciation occurs.

To put it in simple terms that you should be able to grasp, a trait selected for may not survive.

. In that case there is no speciation and no evolution.

You exhibit a strange inability to understand the simplest concepts.

Evolution and selection are different concepts.

Allele frequency shift over time is evolution.

However, natural selection can guide it.

They work in conjunction, but they're separate things.

Are you truly unaware that the world is filled with many species?

Are you?

Good. Now, are we through discussing the obvious?

You guys are seriously getting hung up on speciation?

There's no such thing as a species.

There are only groups of organisms whose common ancestor(s) are more or less distant in generations.

No. Not at all. Mutations MUST be involved or all you have is a change in the proportions of genes not a change in the genes themselves. At the base evolution of life on Earth is a change in the actual DNA or RNA. For instance the white vs black moth in England example that some people are found of isn't really a case of evolution. It is just a change in the gene FREQUENCY not the genes themselves. It can be thought of as mere adaptation vs. evolution.

That's the definition of evolution- change in allele frequency of a population over time.

Linnaeus was a Chritian who believed in creation.

His view on speciation was that the original plants and animals in the garden of Eden contained all the information necessary to generate all the species.

Speciation to him was not random or open-ended.

I can read.

But unfortunately you can't.

DNA copying and insertion is not proof for Darwinian evolution.

Its exactly what it says: a copy.

So no new information is created.

We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.

Surprise: although weighing a million times as much as your average bacterium, its still a bacterium.

Duckbert's non-answers are more creationist quacking. If it sounds like a duck...

We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.

Information requires intelligence, because information only has meaning within a coded system of rules. It is not the same as random bits or noise.

Your contention that randomness wrote the DNA sequence is statistically impossible, and no example of this kind of mutation has ever been produced.

Hi Thrasymachus ,

So does the DNA code represent information according to you or not?

No that is not what I asked. But thanks anyway. There is no example where random mutations added new information (new, not copied from an existing source) onto the genome.

By the way, your random generator program probably needs some intelligent source to program it. Random is random, no cheats allowed. Or did the program also write ittself ?[q/]

Judging by your introduction of that non-sequitur, you don't seem to understand much.

The program would generate random letters in that sentence. That's it. You asked me to prove that, by randomly changing letters in a sentence I could make a different sentence, but you're not letting me use a random letter generator to change the letters?

I have something for you to read about:

http://en.wikiped...ki/Logic

So life evolving is like a lottery? Random? I thought evolutionists always denied that evolution was just about chance...its about natural selection they say, and pressures and this and that.

If evolution was really like the lottery, a different kind of system would have developed. Penrose wrote some material on that. However, we "evolved". That fact requires some explanation other than: the lottery.

That's the definition of evolution- change in allele frequency of a population over time.

Right. I am sure Darwin and Wallace knew all about that.

Only someone that is in to avoiding mutations would use that as a definition. You don't get real change without actual change in the DNA. Frequency change only is not evolution its is just a change in the percentage of alleles in a species. Which leaves out all non-sexually reproducing organism. It is the sort of thing someone might push if they think there is no evidence for speciation.

Where the heck did you get that wimpy worthless definition from anyway?

Ethelred

We are still waiting for an example of a random mutation creating NEW information on the gene.

The random mutation IS the new information. It wasn't there before. That's what makes it a mutation.

The copying is just that mutation being selected for through reproduction and survival.

Isn't Evolution Totally Random?
While it is true that new traits can appear through the accumulation of small random genetic mutations, it is the non-random process of Natural Selection that determines which traits to keep and which to discard. For example, a random mutation may cause a brown squirrel to be born white. But if the squirrel lives on a brown tree, its color will quickly alert predators to its existence. The white squirrel will not live long enough to reproduce and pass on the trait. In this environment, nature selects for brown squirrels, not white. If the process were random, then the white squirrel would survive just as well as the brown.

No one denies that mutations occur and natural selection occurs.

Especially since there is no example of new information (new! not a copy!) being created on the gene by random mutations.

And that is required for Darwins theory to work: the advent of completely new functions, like eyes, ears, skin, lungs, wings and brains from a single cell over millions of years.

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved

Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?

That kind over time led to many different species which are the result of different combinations of the same genes, as genetic anaysis has shown

Science is supposed to be about free thought, free speech and critical thinking.

In fact only complete species are found in the fossil records, no intermediates or mutants exist as evolution requires, in order to be true

Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?

Hi Thrasymachus,

hdcjlldlskm cnkdjbv kujvkdsjfvbks uijjf jfj dfr vggg ?

Hope you got the information-message there! Be blessed.

Hi Jn,

Chihiahua and big Danes are not able to interbreed. Are they both dogs according to you?

You see, all dogs (as well as wolves, dingo, coyote and jackall) share a common gene pool that goes back to the original kind that was created by God.

That kind over time led to many different species which are the result of different combinations of the same genes, as genetic anaysis has shown. No evolution as in amoeba-to-Adam.

Science is supposed to be about free thought, free speech and critical thinking.

Johannes, stop using a small mind and start using the rest of your ability to cognate.

If individuals like Johannes414 still exist in the information age, it's frightening to think what selection pressures were brought to bare in his upbringing (indoctrination).

That's a textbook definition.

Are you taking me for a creationist?

Note that that definition doesn't imply that mutation and natural selection aren't the phenomena

Doesn't even admit they exist

What? Me?

That definiton is not in conflict with anything you've said.

Gene composition and allele frequency are interchangable.

I feel as though you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter WHAT changes the allele frequencies.

I'm NOT implying that mutation & NS ISN'T what causes it

The definition doesn't have to be long to be meaningful.

I feel this sufficiently got my view across

and this has gotten convoluted,

Let's get back to what really matters.

I am saying the FREQUENCIES don't matter. It is the CHANGE in the actual code of the DNA that matters.

The white vs dark moth in England is a perfect example of how a change in the allele frequency IS NOT a change in the DNA of the species.

It completly ignores mutation.

So I am curious. Just who the hell put that worthless string of words together in what book?