[LeGrande]

Hmm, would it be fair to say that you agree that genes can and do change within species and that your basic problem with TOE is that it doesn’t have much proof to demonstrate massive changes, like say between a fly and an elephant? And that TOE (theory of evolution) does not explain the origin of life? I will assume that is a correct assessment of your position.

First of all you are correct, TOE proponents cannot prove their theory. No theory can be proven, they can only be falsified. All you have to do to disprove TOE is provide some evidence that disproves common ancestry or shows that mutations don’t occur. Simple : )

Second, TOE simply does not explain how life was created. It merely provides clues, much like the expanding universe provides clues of how the universe was born. Similarly, the theory of relativity doesn’t provide answers to the creation of the universe but it does provide clues.

Now on to your real problem. You want proof that little genetic changes add up to big changes over time. There is no proof. You are correct that even fossil records that show dramatic differences (like between a bull dog and a whippet) don’t necessarily demonstrate a species change.

So what does evolution have, it has clues and evidence and some of the evidence is lack of evidence (much like the dogs not barking in the Hounds of the Baskervilles).

We now accept that spontaneous generation doesn’t have much evidence to support it, even though TOE requires it for the creation of life. We do know that offspring require parents and that we are made of of cells and that cells multiply by division. By inference that means that all living things should go back to a single common ancestor. Right now the evidence is good that all life goes back to at least three common ancestors, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Viruses.

Genetically tracing everything back to those three basic precursors is relatively easy. Also genetic comparison testing is easy and genetic testing shows our close relatives from our immediate family to our cousins the primates to monkeys etc. all the way down the taxonomic ranks. The genes show where the separations occurred between species, genus, families etc. That fact directly contradicts the Bible, in essence it falsifies it.

Genetic tracing was entirely unknown at the time the TOE was being created and yet it supports TOE without exception. Now it is relatively easy to compare genes and see how closely related any living thing is. As techniques improve, accurate dating of when classes diverged will also become easy.

The real interesting thing is that the genetic record is accurate and it shows how small changes over time become big differences. There is less than a 2% difference between our DNA and a Chimpanzee’s. That indicates that we had a common ancestor in the not too distant past. Even now scientists are comparing DNA from the quagga, horse and zebra to see when the lines diverged. There is a very small genetic difference between those three species who clearly had a common ancestor, probably the quagga.

My question to you is this. Do you have any evidence at all that small changes don’t over time add up to large differences? That should actually be easier to show than the reverse.

[mrjesse]

I haven't much time right now so this'll be short.

The real interesting thing is that the genetic record is accurate and it shows how small changes over time become big differences. There is less than a 2% difference between our DNA and a Chimpanzee’s.

Assuming of course the people doing the research are being honest. But I must remember that I've already seen all sorts of skulduggery things here even in my short existence on FR, you making and holding onto the absurd claim about the sun's gravity and light are displaced by 2.1 degrees, then we have Soliton and I think one other saying that lying is sometimes okay, probably when he can get away with it I'm guessing, and we have professors and scientists who take the issue personally and fight with a religious ferver for evolution, and we have tons of people who believe it by faith without knowing the facts, so I must realize that things may not be exactly as they are being taught.

We now accept that spontaneous generation doesn’t have much evidence to support it, even though TOE requires it for the creation of life.

A case in my above point! Even though spontaneous generation of life has zero proof for it (except that life exists) and lots of proof against it, it is still what is being taught! And is it being taught in the context of an idea which hasn't been proven even possible and doesn't have much supporting evidence, as you say? Go look - I'm betting whatever textbook you pick up for any grade or highschool and many college textbooks will say that it's how life began and present it as a nice tidy theory that is well known to be accepted and true. And thus my concern about being sold a bill of goods in order to support the cause of evolution is a valid concern!

Even now scientists are comparing DNA from the quagga, horse and zebra to see when the lines diverged. There is a very small genetic difference between those three species who clearly had a common ancestor, probably the quagga.

Yeah and by my classification system (which I explained before, perhaps to Coyoteman, which says there were created distinct kinds) those three species are all the same kind. Just look at them! All leather upholstery, four wheel drive, etc. They (at least the still living ones) still interbreed to form generally sterile offspring. Those are the same kind, and prove nothing beyond that.

My question to you is this. Do you have any evidence at all that small changes don’t over time add up to large differences? That should actually be easier to show than the reverse.

I think you're asking me to prove the negative! You're the one claiming that it did happen, so prove it - don't ask me to prove that it didn't happen! I wasn't there watching it for a billion years.

But since you asked, I do see things in nature that sure don't make sense to me to have happened by Evolution -- for example, the vulnerable placement of the jugulars. I mean the spinal cord and the lungs and the brain are all set inside bone armor plating. And the eye balls just peer out on most mammals anyway just enough and because they have to see out, but are set in deep sockets. And speaking of balls, there's something else that is in a must vulnerable place. Imagine primitive man, running through the forest, either in pursuite of another man or an animal, or perhaps running for his life, and a sharp stick catches him just so, and no more kids for him! Or a sharp stick could slash his neck. Then there is the bilateral symmetry theme of external and some features: If there are two, they are right and left.If there is one, it's in the middle. I see no reason why evolution wouldn't have created odd-numbered legged creatures. As a matter of fact, there's a lot that just doesn't make sense to me. Of course my faith doesn't demand that I believe ASBE either, so I can see why these things wouldn't bother you but they bother me. My faith says that God created the universe and that doesn't bother me because my faith says that God exists. So I know what it's like to have a faith. By the way, I do find my observation of the universe consistent with my faith. Anyway, I can understand why you would accept evolution, even though some of it doesn't quite make sense, since your faith requires it to be true.

Thanks,

-Jesse