It's called observation. We see populations evolve via evolutionary mechanisms. That's why we call them "evolutionary mechanisms"; they're the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.It's called circular reasoning.
I told you...mutation.The challenge to this from entropy requires you to explain the mechanism that converts energy from the sun into genetic information.
Yet we see evolutionary mechanisms causing populations to evolve all the time. Huh....:think:The problem is that Darwinsm relies on randomness, which can never produce anything but noise.
Which as the paper I linked to earlier shows, is a directly observed and documented fact.And yet, evolution requires upward progression of complexity.
No, we don't.We see populations evolve via evolutionary mechanisms.
In every other scenario, random changes are always bad for information.mutation.
Nope. We see degradation, or, at best, adaptation in response to environmental changes.Yet we see evolutionary mechanisms causing populations to evolve all the time.
Uh huh.No, we don't.
What are they result of then?When changes are observed in a population, they are demonstrably not the result of random mutations and natural selection.
Not in evolution.In every other scenario, random changes are always bad for information.
Lol....tell that to a plant.And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.
By what mechanisms do populations adapt?Nope. We see degradation, or, at best, adaptation in response to environmental changes.
Well, doesn't dna already hold the trait? I was under the impression maligned dna doesn't help modification. Again, in your court, as I've a general overall of the field, but am not versed.Why not?
:e4e:Understood.
Yep.Uh huh.
That's the issue. Entropy is a physical necessity. Evolution is just a theory. If all you have is your idea, entropy wins.Not in evolution.
Even better, let's test our competing ideas.Tell that to a plant.
Don't know exactly. Organisms are designed, and that design likely contains contingencies so they can survive in varied conditions.By what mechanisms do populations adapt?
I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.Lol....tell that to a plant.Stripe said:And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.
I think it's explained quite clearly.If a YEC declared that the fountains of the great deep brought forth the water that flooded the Earth, but when asked to explain how that happened simply restated their idea, the Darwinists would cry foul — and rightly so.
Superficially?? Greg....selection results in a loss of genetic variation. It is science.Greg Jennings said:....Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)
Greg, you got caught making up stories about sharks growing an extra fin, so you should be careful that you aren't making up another story. Please post research showing mutations caused the coconut crab / robber crab to get bigger and more carnivorous.... then we can discuss it.Greg Jennings said:But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?
You want us to explain it when you just did? :AMR:Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others. And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crabSome shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?
I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.
=
The thread titled 'Why Evolution is real science...' suggests either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)
God's Word tells us He formed man from the dust, and woman from mans rib. (That is not science).
You seem to believe 'fish' evolved into philosophers.
Funny (sort of) that you abject to clarifying terminology before we start the discussion.
Also funny (sort of) that you and the thread author only want to discuss "Why Evolution is real science" but don't want to discuss why 'evolution is NOT Real science.
Even if that were the case with plasmodium, that still begs the question....where did the genetic sequences for its traits come from? Do you believe God deliberately put them there?Well, doesn't dna already hold the trait?
Let's stay on topic here. Remember, we're talking about where the genetic sequences that allow pathogens, parasites, and pests to be so terrible came from. Creationists like to argue that evolutionary mechanisms can't do it and that only "intelligence" (i.e., God) can. So on the surface that seems to indicate that God specifically and deliberately created things like plasmodium with the ability to cause immense suffering and death.I was under the impression maligned dna doesn't help modification.
Good thing we have direct observation and documentation of populations evolving.That's the issue. Entropy is a physical necessity. Evolution is just a theory. If all you have is your idea, entropy wins.
Already done, but apparently you don't hold yourself to your own criteria.If you want to declare a local reduction in entropy, you have to describe the mechanism by which energy is used to build better genomes.
No need to assume. We see it happen directly.And you don't get to assume the truth of evolution to establish evolution. That is called begging the question — a logical fallacy.
Here ya go: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00978.x/fullDefine your terms, then shine sunlight on some plants and see what we get: Dead plants, or plants with improved genomes.
So you say populations adapt, but you have no idea how. Further, you say "organisms are designed" but you've done nothing but assume that to be true, which as you note above is begging the question.Don't know exactly. Organisms are designed, and that design likely contains contingencies so they can survive in varied conditions.
Done. See above.There's also a means to test the adaptation hypothesis against the evolutionary model: A group of organisms exposed to conditions that see it change will not be as robust as the original population.
I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.
:rotfl:Exactly! As long as there's an input of energy, localized decreases in entropy can occur.
A limited diet is the typical cause of stunted growth.Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?
We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others.
Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)
An expanded diet is the typical cause of non-stunted growth.And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crab
But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?
You're not even making sense. Again, input of energy is what allows the localized decreases in entropy required for chemistry to occur.You think the loss of energy involved in converting hydrogen and oxygen gasses into water is not entropy?
Try and keep up.....that's exactly my point. As long as there is available energy, localized decreases in entropy are possible.Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system.
I am making sense, you are the one spreading nonsense.You're not even making sense. Again, input of energy is what allows the localized decreases in entropy required for chemistry to occur.
When you add the increase in entropy from the energy used with the so-called decrease in entropy from the conversion, you still end up with an net increase in entropy, not a decrease.Try and keep up.....that's exactly my point. As long as there is available energy, localized decreases in entropy are possible.
Nope.Good thing we have direct observation and documentation of populations evolving.
Nope.Already done, but apparently you don't hold yourself to your own criteria.
Nope.No need to assume. We see it happen directly.
Evolution is assumed. I used "robust" in a specific, measurable way. You don't get to use it in another way and claim to have shown my assertion wrong.Plants, living in sunlight, evolving into new species that have larger genomes and are more robust than their parental species.
Nope. You can read my ideas.So you say populations adapt, but you have no idea how.
Nope. Assertions are fine. Your problem is that you use your assertions as if they are evidence.Further, you say "organisms are designed" but you've done nothing but assume that to be true, which as you note above is begging the question.
Not even close.See above.