Replies

It may be hard, but I think it has been falsified, here's why: while evolutionists say the above there is no such thing as 'given enough time'. According to their own statements which they agree to we have the following: life has been on earth some 4.5 billion years, mammals separated from reptiles some 150-200 million years ago, man separated from apes some 10 million years ago. Let's take the last two. Since the mammalian genome is some 50% different than the reptilian one that means that in that time there would have had to be a minimum of 7.5 beneficial mutations per year (3 billion dna base pairs/2/200million). Since the human genome is some 5% different from that of the apes, that would mean some 15 beneficial mutations a year. Since we have yet to see the first beneficial mutation in some 150 years of looking for them (and not just in men and mammals but in uncountable numbers of the over a million species alive today) it is fair to say that evolution has been scientifically refuted.

Hmmm...2 points to consider here, however. 1st of all, is your information that the reptile genome and the mammal genome are 50% different accurate? And what do you mean by 50% different? Related to that, the fossil record shows long periods with no changes, and then WHAMO, huge changes suddenly appear. I argue with the TOE proponents (who push the concept of long periods of gradual microevoluion) that the fossil record does not back that up, but -- those huge changes could cause the big differences you cite. Cause? Unknown.

Secondly, beneficial mutations are defined as providing selective advantage in either having more surviving offspring, or in having offspring that survive better. However this is something that is hard to see in the wild, since something as small as a slight change in color in a birds pin feathers might make it a more attractive mate. Who would notice in 150 only years?

Related to that, the fossil record shows long periods with no changes, and then WHAMO, huge changes suddenly appear. I argue with the TOE proponents (who push the concept of long periods of gradual microevoluion)

Wrong, SO VERY WRONG!!!

This is called Puncuated equilibria.

Gould and Eldredge came up with the theory to be a part of evolutionary theory, NOT separate from it, it is a minor piece as well, because it does help explain some of the sudden appearances of some species in the fossil record, and does not at all discredit phyletic gradualism.

So again, you have been misinformed.

Here, maybe this will be helpful.

PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which "punctuations" are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.

It is NOT an exclusive theory as you seem to think, it is an inclusive theory, that helped explain something that before had been somewhat unexplainable.

It was supposed to add to evolution, it has not and does not refute it.

If you believe that somehow Puncuated equilibria discredits or hurts the theory of evolution, you are sadly mistaken.

Both Gould and Eldredge accept the theory of evolution as true, but wanted to explain one of the problems they saw through the theory of Puncuated equilibria.

Hmmm...2 points to consider here, however. 1st of all, is your information that the reptile genome and the mammal genome are 50% different accurate?

It is hard to tell exactly since reptilian genomes have not been completely sequenced. The human genome has been and quite a few simple organisms but very few vertebrates, none of the apes has been completely sequenced although it should be done soon. However, there are vast differences between mammals and lizards. Even taking the number at 25% (which would be the absolute minimum of differences) still means that we should have observed lots of beneficial mutations in the last 150 years amongst the over one million species on earth. We are looking for them. There is a tremendous amount of biological research going on around the world the last 50 years at least and such would have been found.(BTW the 5% for the apes is the latest estimate by an evolutionist).

And what do you mean by 50% different?

In all cases I am speaking of differences in DNA bases. Of course that can get a bit subjective and since there are only 4 bases blind luck would mean at least one out of four times it would be right. It really is a silly way to measure differences, but that is what evolutionists use and when you are trying to disprove someone's theory it is best to agree to most of their assumptions and show that even then, they disprove their statements.

Related to that, the fossil record shows long periods with no changes, and then WHAMO, huge changes suddenly appear.

I am in complete agreement with the above. I was just discussing the point that there is enough time for evolution. I think I show there is not. Let's remember also that each animal, even if similar in features still is different from other species so you need a lot of mutations when you consider the whole range of living things.

Well, one thing we have learned for certain in the last 100 years is that the DNA of an organism determines what its features as well as how the organism functions. So any change in features is due to changes in the DNA of an organism. We do look very closely at many species to learn from them. Some of the simpler ones are used a lot because of speed and indeed simplicity which makes it easier to determine their overall functioning. Other more complex ones are studied because they are closer to us - such as rats (and not even PETA makes an argument about killing rats). So a wide spectrum of species is being studied and we should seen something by now.

I argue with the TOE proponents (who push the concept of long periods of gradual microevoluion) that the fossil record does not back that up, but -- those huge changes could cause the big differences you cite. Cause? Unknown.

I agree with that. When one thinks of how many different organs there are in a human being and that each one of them requires quite a lot of DNA coding in order to function at all, the idea of gradual evolution is totally ludicrous. However, Gould's idea that all the parts of a new organ could come together all of a sudden without design by mere chance, is equally silly.