Evolution Debate Settled By A&M, To A Degree

Here's an interesting quote to the article.

"Kao has reportedly developed "the first direct evidence of aspects [of the evolutionary process], which up until now have remained mostly theory." Does this mean it hasn't really been a fact all this time?

And here's another...

"According to Garcia, Kao watched evolution, and was able to document -- using DNA-based testing -- how and when a cell adapted to its environment."

Let's see. Kao watches evolution, observes how cells adapted to their environment.... and concluded evolution is a fact. *shakes head sadly* What will they come up with next?

My prediction...The Evo vs ID showdown in Austin will be a blowout...in student's favor. It means students will get the opportunity to think critically and independently......like scientists are supposed to do.

The debate is not over micro-evolutions which is the variation within a gene set. We can all agree on that. The problem is macro-evolution which is a rise in new gene information that directs new cell development to form entirely new systems and reproduce them through random chance and unguided events without knowing what it will become.

Part of the article says:
"Aggie researcher and assistant professor Katy Kao ... Kao watched evolution, and was able to document -- using DNA-based testing -- how and when a cell adapted to its environment.

"She can see different populations rise and fall under the microscope, and she definitely set out to evolve these things generation after generation," Garcia says. ... But here's the catch: Kao obtained the evidence in yeast cells"

The observation showed varition in the yeast kind,
and that ... yeast produce yeast.

This is evidence for creation, as recorded in the Bible,
where the different kinds of creatures were told to
reproduce: "according to their kinds"
See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11&version=31

Variation ... yes
Evolution ... one kind of creature changing to another kind ... no.

See also: Variation within created kinds
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-variation.asp

Umm "evolution" is NOT being debated.

The debate is about the mechanism(s).

Were organisms designed to evolve? Or did they evolve via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

SciAm lists the stickle-back fish as an example of "macro-evolution".

However as Joseph said that is in-line with the Creationists' baraminology.

I thought that evolution was already supposed to be a well established fact, as certain as gravity or helio centricity. Yet we are now being told that it MAY have been proven by the demonstration of something that everyone knows about and no one disputes i.e. microevolution. If we are only now starting to discover the actual evidence for microevolution now, then does that mean that we have been lied to all these years over the “evidence” for macroevolution?

No Alan, macroevolution takes millions of years so we haven't been lied to. Joseph, can you tell me if your god put wolves and dogs on the alleged ark? You see we all know dogs came from wolves and were bred and domesticated. However, no one says they own a wolf for a pet like they do with a dog. So, since they aren't the same species/kind I'm wondering if you could confirm if it was the dog or wolf that evolved from what your god put on the ark? Mike, yes, it will be a blowout. Please let me know if the ID folks have some way to test ID? If not, the blow out already happened and ID lost...md457@hotmail.com

No Alan, macroevolution takes millions of years so we haven't been lied to. Joseph, can you tell me if your god put wolves and dogs on the alleged ark? You see we all know dogs came from wolves and were bred and domesticated. However, no one says they own a wolf for a pet like they do with a dog. So, since they aren't the same species/kind I'm wondering if you could confirm if it was the dog or wolf that evolved from what your god put on the ark? Mike, yes, it will be a blowout. Please let me know if the ID folks have some way to test ID? If not, the blow out already happened and ID lost...md457@hotmail.com

Was this "research" conducted by the same people at A&M who "discovered" cold fusion? Sounds like they used a similar process.

Joseph wrote: "This is evidence for creation, as recorded in the Bible, where the different kinds of creatures were told to reproduce: "according to their kinds."

Please define "kind." This kind of language was used to justify racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.

TXatheist wrote:
"Joseph, can you tell me if your god put wolves and dogs on the alleged ark?"

"only two of the original dog kind were needed on Noah’s Ark"

" . . . In the journal Science, 22 November 2002, secular scientists reaffirmed something that has been well known and accepted. All dogs from wolves and dingoes down (the word ‘down’ is important as you will see) to poodles are all closely related. From a biblical perspective, this means they are all within the same kind (one of the kinds that God created to reproduce ‘after their own kind’ as we read 10 times in Genesis 1).
. . . If all dogs are the same kind, then from a biblical perspective, only two of the original dog kind were needed on Noah’s Ark. After these dogs came off the Ark and the population of dogs increased on the earth, new species of dogs formed as the dog population split up and moved to different places over the earth—but they are all dogs, nonetheless.
See: Did God create poodles?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp

Also,

Sabina wrote:
"Please define "kind." This kind of language was used to justify racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage."

The Bible tells us that humans are all the same kind (mankind) and the same race, i.e. the human race, and that we are all descendants of Adam:

Acts 17:26,27
26 From one man he made every nation of men,
that they should inhabit the whole earth;
and he determined the times set for them
and the exact places where they should live.
27 God did this so that men would seek him
and perhaps reach out for him and find him,
though he is not far from each one of us.

See: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts17;&version=31

and

Are There Really Different Races?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

TXatheist wrote:
"Joseph, can you tell me if your god put wolves and dogs on the alleged ark?"

"only two of the original dog kind were needed on Noah's Ark"

" . . . In the journal Science, 22 November 2002, secular scientists reaffirmed something that has been well known and accepted. All dogs from wolves and dingoes down (the word 'down' is important as you will see) to poodles are all closely related. From a biblical perspective, this means they are all within the same kind (one of the kinds that God created to reproduce 'after their own kind' as we read 10 times in Genesis 1). . . . If all dogs are the same kind, then from a biblical perspective, only two of the original dog kind were needed on Noah's Ark. After these dogs came off the Ark and the population of dogs increased on the earth, new species of dogs formed as the dog population split up and moved to different places over the earth—but they are all dogs, nonetheless.
See: Did God create poodles?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp

Also,

Sabina wrote:
"Please define "kind." This kind of language was used to justify racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage."

The Bible tells us that all humans are the
same kind (the humankind) and the same race, i.e. the human race, and that we are all descendants of Adam:

Acts 17:26,27
26 From one man he made every nation of men,
that they should inhabit the whole earth;
and he determined the times set for them
and the exact places where they should live.
27 God did this so that men would seek him
and perhaps reach out for him and find him,
though he is not far from each one of us.
See: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts17;&version=31

and

Are There Really Different Races?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

If macroevolution takes millions of years and the alleged experimental "proof" of evolution necessarily refers to uncontroversial cases of microevolution, then we rely on the fossil record for evidence of macroevolution. Lets summarise the evidence for macroevolution.

a) The Cambrian explosion – the appearance of over 30 new phyla with no prehistory,

b) The overwhelming persistence of “stasis” in the fossil record (also known as “palaeontology's trade secret”).

c) The abrupt appearance of new species and anatomical innovations in the fossil record.

d) A scattering of alleged gradual transitional sequences which get over hyped. They are invariably pieced together from bits of bone according to Darwinists preconceptions and come from areas in which the fossil record is poorest and most open to interpretation / speculation i.e. land the based invertebrates.

e) A prior commitment to upholding the philosophical position known as methodological naturalism.

In the absence of actual examples of evolution by variation and natural selection, Darwin skillfully turned to ID for help. He used the flawed analogy between his undirected naturalistic mechanism and the intelligently guided breeding of animals. If breeders can do so much with animals in a few generations, then what cannot nature achieve given millions of years? Lets find out.

When intelligently designed “pure breeds” are returned to the wild, the power of natural selection is revealed. Extreme varieties are soon killed off by natural selection and the remaining dogs interbreed (they are all the same species after all) to give something akin to the original wolf type. In the absence of intelligent designers, natural selection is seen to be a conservative force which predominantly resists novelty. This would explain the overwhelming persistence of “stasis” or the stability of species, in the fossil record.

Genuine novelty therefore depends on the assumption that all the required new genetic information can be provided by random mutation. This article of faith is crucial to Darwinism. It is coming under fire from all sides and is the weakest link in the Darwinists blind watchmaker hypothesis i.e. the idea that it is somehow easier to produce novelty by many thousands of small beneficial mutations, ones which would have to appear by chance and in the correct sequence, than in a sudden macro mutation.

In addition to the fact that the above argument is fallacious, gradual undirected evolution now has a host of irreducibly complex cellular structures and biochemical processes to contend with.

>

Joseph, can you tell me what the carnivores are while on the Ark? In the past, biblical literalists have told me that there were no carnivores until after the "flood". Yet when I ask to see the evidence for the change in dentition, all I get is silence. See Joseph, a lion has teeth that evolved to aggressively eat meat. Their digestive tracts have evolved to handle all this meat. If lions were herbivores until after the flood, we would see a sudden change in jaw structure, dentition, etc. But we don't. Not for lions, or any other carnivore. The other question is, what did the animals eat after the flood? Salt water would have contaminated all the fertile land, so nothing would grow for quite a while. Plus, the Ark would have come to rest at a fairly high altitude. Not a lot of lush vegetation there, saltwater not withstanding. Plus, if the lions (for example) suddenly miraculously became carnivores after the flood, the first thing they would have eaten were those 2 plump tasty lambs. Trouble is, once those 2 lambs got eaten, there would have been no more sheep in the world.

To Primewonk, your questions have been answered in many books and articles, e.g http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6178/

You may have been told by creationists in the past that all animals were herbivores until after the flood of Noah, but that article demonstrates that this is probably incorrect, both Biblically and based on fossils.

As for lambs, Noah took 7 of all the clean animals onto the ark and since lambs/sheep are clean animals, 7 (or more depending on whether mating occurred on board) would have come off the ark. So even if the carnivores immediately tore into their ex-shipmates, there would have been plenty to ensure they were satisfied without anything necessarily going extinct immediately.

I hope you approach my post and the link with an open mind, and I'm sure any further questions you have can be answered, and probably have been answered, by websites such as creationontheweb.com. They have an excellent search facility. The Bible is also a good source, rather than taking my (or anyone else's) word for it.

It's great to see that Darwinists have nothing to say in defence of their secular religion, in response to scientific critiques. It becomes clear from this that most hold on to versions of Darwinism without any detailed understanding of the theory, and principally on the authority of others. That would make them blind followers. It is also apparent that they can scarcely hide the reason for their strong emotional commitment to Darwinism i.e. not the evidence but instead a prior commitment to metaphysical naturalism or atheism. I would hope that they continue to remain absorbed in attacks on straw men of traditional religion while ID theorists continue to dismantle the case for Darwinian evolution using reasoned arguments and the tools of modern science.