"My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely."
How do you explain how we've bred dogs/cats into so many forms? That's basically artificial evolution.
"Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting."
We follow the "rules", we're a species in a state of evolutionary stasis because of our circumstances/choices... Evolutionary change will only change if there's pressure on the population. Think of it like this: if there's only food available up high, tall animals will survive, if being small allows one to hide, small animals survive. If those pressures don't exist, all traits will eventually be expressed equally. Because there's no pressures on humans, and because we mate with everyone (no traits selected for), any mutations don't have a chance to be advantageous, because everyone already "wins".
"The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations."
Nope. Beings with disadventageous mutations either die out, or are bred into nonexistence in favour of those with advantageous mutations.
"The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them. Look at this article on horse "evolution" http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...21/i3/horse.asp."
Again, that article is grossly inaccurate, and again, I'll reccommend against using creationist sources.
A large part of the article deals with people just saying that the 'family tree' is bad, not why.
"Informed evolutionists now realize that the picture, even in their own framework, is not a straight line at all. While they still believe in horse evolution, the modern view of the horse fossil record is much more jumpy and ‘bushy.’"
Yes, science changes as more evidence is found. The evolution of the horse is definitely not a straight line.
"Their age is generally assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial."
So very very wrong. Radiometric dating?
"Based on the biblical framework, we should expect many, but not all, fossils to have been buried during the Flood, so the oldest would really be only about 4,500 years old."
Argh.
"the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus were found in the same layer. This indicates that they were living at the same time, and thus provides no evidence that one evolved from the other."
1. "Same layer" can just mean that the fossils were disturbed, and re-buried. But of course, since this site believes the earth is 6k years old, they won't mention that radiometric dating is ridiculously more accurate, and would've been used.
2. The article already established that the horse family is a "bush" rather than a linear tree. This means that there were a couple types of horses in existance over the years. more specifically one with one toe, and one with three. That means that there were indeed two species of horses alive with one toe and three toes, but it doesn't discredit evolution at all. This chart says it well:
"Note that this sorting process involves a loss of information, so is irrelevant to particles-to-people evolution, which requires non-intelligent processes to add new information."
Mutations add information. This article is poorly written. It doesn't get to the point very well, or explain their points very well. Probably because then they'd be wrong.
"Sometimes a horse is born today where the genes are switched on, and certainly many fossil horses also had the genes switched on. This would explain why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size."
Well... yes. That proves my point.
"These mechanisms would explain the alleged horse evolutionary series as variation within the equine (horse) kind."
How did they come to that conclusion from just listing features of horses now? For one thing, the horses existed at different times, so it can hardly all be attributed to variation within the kind. There certainly was variation, as I said, there were one toed, and three toed variety. This doesn't discredit evolution either. You could interpret the fossils being different over time because god created new horses, but that's ignoring the genetic aspect that points to that the change is more likely due to changes in the genome.
"Previous evolutionary theories would have asserted that because they all had high-crowned teeth, they must have been grazers. But the amounts of stable carbon isotopes 12C and 13C impregnated into the teeth indicated that the horses were browsers, not grazers."
Uh, what? What does amounts of carbon have to do with how they ate? and sure, sometimes judging what things eat by their teeth is wrong, but most of the time it's correct.
"Again, this information loss is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, much like the long-furred bears in the diagram of Ref. 15."
Ref. 15 = http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/bears.asp
this is SO wrong I nearly chipped a tooth gritting. I can't believe a doctor wrote this! If there's a loss of information with such changes, how in the world could there be toe genes to turn on again, like it said previously in the article?? It's the same thing here! Geez, it's not even interally consistant, let alone being consistant with science and evidence.
"The fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is not irrelevant, a perfect gradient would give evolution a strong basis, an imperfect one (especially like the one we have) simply makes the theory seem less likely."
We have A gradient, is what I meant. That's the best we could hope for. A pecfect gradient will never be found for anything, because fossilization is too unlikely is what I meant.
"There is no way to show common ancestory. The problem is that first of all, if you look at those skulls/remains they look similar enough to human skulls to be remains of human beings or slightly mutated human beings. (if you haven't noticed many of the skulls are partly decomposed)"
To you I'm sure they look the same, since you know little about skull anatomy. You're not an expert. I've studied skulls a little bit, and they're much more intricate than they seem. They can tell. Besides that, with some skulls they can do DNA tests.
"They would change in small ways, but after a very long period of time they could still be approximately the same as they were at the beginning of that time."
Small changes over millions years = big change! Would you call chihuahuas and great danes "approximately the same"? I wouldn't.
"The theory of evolution sees these changes and decides they would certainly be capable of causing the evolutionary tree."
The way I see it, evolution puts two and two together. Changes that cause variation + time = small differences is a fact (microevolution). We look at fossils and see big variation + big time = big differences. We assume the mechanisms that cause them are the same (genetically). That's evolution. See why I'm confused as to why you believe one but not the other?
Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn't mean it can't be how it is. And since you've acknowledged microevolution, that seems to be the only reason you're denying it.
"Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits."
In your own words, speciation is macroevolution.Originally Posted by Auronhart
"Those fossil records aren't as full as you seem to think."
I think you're quite mistaken. I studied a small bit of it last year, and it was overwhelming.
"I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion."
You could just say that for all the evidence, yet you still debate.
"Not without the capability to evolve in all ways it doesn't."
What do you mean by "all ways"?
"Even then, that everything evolved from a cell is still far far away from being proven."
Why would life evolve some, and then stop? I suppose you could say that god spurred evolution or something, but that's really not consistant.
