Plus at the personal level I really do not accept it in the sense that it shows all life evolved from a common ancestor. But it cannot breed with other mosquitoes so that does that make it a macroevolution example. It is still a mosquito but..........
Back to shifting those goalposts.
You asked for evidence that supported macro-evolution.
No it is an argument from allotted time for the evolution to take place.
No, it is YOUR personal incredulity.
The age of the Earth was something that had the potential to falsify evolution.
Guess what? It didn't do so.
The problem that you are running into is that the time frames are virtually incomprehensible.
I know you are aware that is we uses viruses and bacteria to study evolution because of the prolific reproduction rate so we can study many generations in a relatively short period of time. The mosquito and E. coli have produced more generations and numbers far beyond human generations and numbers and even with that huge number of all those E. coli/mosquito generations/populations the end result is really not much.
They are not huge numbers. On the time scales that we are talking, they are on the order of a litre of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
I can see where it is a big deal to evolutionists but to average guys like me it is, oh great just we need another species of mosquito!
So?
Why do you think that you are qualified to make a judgment of the veracity of evolution? Is there any other field of science that you feel you are qualified to judge?
It is hard to get good information
No. It isn't.
I agree so I usually go with the most stated examples admitted by both sides. Everything I have ever heard or read concerning mutation states that there is a loss information regardless of the type of mutation.
Then you are only reading ID and creationist sources.
Polyploidy is a duplication of genes. It doubles (or triples, quadruples..) the genes. If genes are information, then that is an increase by
any definition.
A frame-shift changes the protein made by a particular coding.
A frame-shift in a duplicated area can give us completely new information.
That's an off-the-cuff explanation based on my (very) limited knowledge of some of the things that can happen during reproduction.
The way I have always seen it written is mostly neutral, sometimes harmful and rarely beneficial all resulting in a loss of information. I saw an argument once for frame shift mutation that states this adds new information and a counter argument stating that although new information may be added more old information is still actually lost and they are usually detrimental.
The common information I have read for a beneficial mutation is you gain function but still lose information. Why do you disagree with this?
See my above comment. It was new information without any loss.
I read somewhere that somebody managed to breed horses and cows in some kind of reverse evolution type manner and eventually produce offspring strains that had been extinct.
You may have read it, that doesn't make it true.
And this doesn't pass the "smell" test.
If such be true then maybe much more in the junk DNA than any of us think.
Whether or not it is true doesn't matter.
"Junk DNA" is such a broad term that it is virtually meaningless. It pretty much means all of the stretches of DNA that doesn't currently do anything that we know of.
We both already agreed that the bible does not give a written in stone definition of kind. Also even in biology and zoology they have what they call the species problem even to this day. The KJV bible was written in 1611. At that time there was no real definition of a species. The biological definition of a species was not introduced until the 1680's and has been revised and argued about ever since. In 1611 the idea of a species was the agricultural concept similar gives birth to similar. As stated there is no solid definition from then until even today. Now if the biologists zoologists etc can't come up with a solid definition why do you seem to think I can?
I said from the outset that you probably couldn't. Nobody that I know of has been able to produce a coherent, intelligible and useful definition of "kind".
But part of what you are saying is that evolution is limited to variation within Biblical kinds.
I'm saying that you cannot make that claim if you cannot define what a "kind" is.
No rather an argument of complexity.
That
is an argument from incredulity.
"It's complex. I don't see how it could have happened. Therefore, God (oops, an anonymous, indeterminate
intelligent designer) did it."
I know we do not yet know how the information arose. If we can not explain the actual source of the information then it is little early to be popping Champaign corks claiming victory that it can all be explained by natural processes.
The entirety of human history and knowledge consists of our increasing understanding of
natural explanations for things.
The entirety of human history and knowledge consists of the complete failure of explanations other than natural ones.
Scientists aren't stating that abiogenesis has a natural cause. They are investigating natural causes because that is the only thing that they
can investigate. It just so happens that everything that we have ever come to understand has a natural explanation.
Not surprised to here you say that but he is always going toe to toe with somebody over on his blog site.
So what? Behe deserves to be completely dismissed. He has been forced to admit that the standards that he uses to claim that ID is a science would also mean that
astrology would be a science. When presented with entire
textbooks describing what he claimed to be impossible (evolution of the human immune system), he admitted that he was not familiar with them,
but he dismissed them, unread, as not relevant to his claims.
Behe is an embarrassment.
No I am not even talking about the origin of life. I am talking about the origin of information in the genes.
The evidence thus far seems to indicate that genes predate life.
Besides, you are still being so vague with your terminology that an answer is virtually impossible.
What do you mean by "information in the genes"?
Even starting 6 million years ago with the supposed common ancestor for humans
Common ancestor with what?
Six million years ago is about one million years before
Ardipithicus ramidus...and nearly 4 million before
Homo habilis.
Nevermind...google-fu to the rescue. Six million years would be the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees...
that is one heck of a lot of information to add to get from that point to here starting with a small population via natural selection with random mutations.
Hold on. What information was added? Humans have 23 pairs of genes, chimpanzees (and the other great apes) have 24. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two "chimpanzee" genes.
If you're interested, here's a YouTube clip (only about 4 minutes) of Dr. Ken Miller (Biology Professor and Roman Catholic) explaining this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk"]YouTube- Ken Miller on Human Evolution[/ame]
Humans
are great apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. There is nothing about us that is not a variation of a characteristic found in the other great apes. And fairly minor variations, at that.
And that is just considering humans. That is not taking into account all the other millions of species. I know you say argument from incredulity but so be it. I just do not see the process of evolution being able to get the job done.
That is a fault with your understanding, not with evolution.
ID is nothing more than creationism presented in a dishonest fashion in an attempt to make it look valid.
Do you feel the same way about theistic evolution? After all they believe that God started it all thus everything we see according their view still has an intelligent cause.
No, that's God-of-the-gaps. It is an attempt to reconcile faith in God with scientific advances in knowledge.
ID is the
dishonest attempt to pass religious creationism off as science.
My claim: "Every single piece of relevant evidence supports the Theory of Evolution."
Show me one piece of relevant evidence that does not support the Theory of Evolution.
We are discussing only a very thin slice of the issue here and I have no desire to expand it but to me from the universe itself to the most micro level of the cell we see complexity that seems to show that life was intended to rise in one form or another.
And this is the primary difference.
I'm talking about evidence. You are talking about how things seem "to you".
Complicated symbiotic systems simply do not just happen.
That's right. They don't. They evolve very, very gradually.
If it were all simple and just a few systems I might be persuaded but it isn't.
It was...about 3 billion years ago.
We are see numerous complicated systems in a very extreme form.
That have arisen after about 3.5
billion of years of evolution.
That is about how many seconds there are in 1,000 years.
To think that from the big bang until today all this arose due to random evolution to me is an appeal to incredulity in itself.
No. That would be a
strawman representation of cosmology and evolution.
Evolution is not random. It is a selective process.
Maybe you are in a better position to see and evaluate the actual evidence than I am but from my limited perspective I just do not see it.
There are a couple of rules that will help you with that.
1) Creationists tell lies. They either naively and innocently repeat lies (the majority), or they directly tell lies (like Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind).
2) There is no scientific conspiracy regarding evolution (or anything else, for that matter).
