Because when an addition is made there is a higher chance that it is a defect and not a benefit. At least that is in observed mutations. The way it supposedly happened has not been observed. It is easy to "predict" that something happened that way, and yes of course it did, because we can see the end process. There have been no actual experiments in adding needed information to DNA. We have great results in manipulating the information in the DNA we already have.
The above is from books and information that I can get my hands on, and we have had threads or derailed threads on the topic, but no one has yet cleared up, expanded on, or outright denied the information presented. I am not even trying to claim, I am right. I have no problem that DNA can be so similar and seems to be inter-related to an ancestor like pairing. What I put forth is that we all live on the same planet and breathe the same oxygen and exhale the same carbon dioxide or as in plants the opposite process. It would be difficult for some life forms to even exist if the DNA was radically different and out of place.
I will attempt to help you with the bolded bit. I am outright denying that this description of evolution is accurate. It is in fact a description of a popular way to misunderstand it.
The key misunderstanding is the idea that organisms change ONLY by adding some mutation, 'adding information' that results in a net benefit. All you need for selection to get working is that there is some variability in the offspring. If one generation has 100 offspring, ranging from 75% to 125% of the average height of the first generation, and being taller has an advantage for some reason, e.g. better access to food, then you'd expect the taller members to breed more, so generation 3 will be taller than generation 2, and generation 4 even taller again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_selection is a good starting place to read. Things like Darwin's finches or Cichlids in Lake Victoria are good examples, where an isolated population has evolved to fill empty niches, niches that aren't available elsewhere because there's more competition.
Which is also a good example of the next point, that the amount of competition matters. Say you're a fish, living somewhere where there are a heap of catfish that are really good at feeding off all the dead stuff on the bottom of the river. If your kids happen to be better at feeding off the bottom, worse at catching other fish to eat, they're not going to do well, because they have to compete with the catfish, they'll get nowhere and not breed themselves.
But now, say you're the same fish, and you're living in a huge lake that's been cut off from the ocean by the changing geography, and has no catfish at all. Now, if you have those same kids, they'll do better than normal, because they don't have to compete with all their cousins to catch live fish for dinner, instead they're the only ones vacuuming up the ready-made food supply off the bottom, and they'll do awesome. Fast forward a whole lot of generations, and your descendants now look a lot like a catfish, evolved to do that same job, specialised at feeding from the bottom, terrible at catching live prey.
Changes, especially more sudden changes don't have to make you better at what your parents did. If they make you worse at what your parents did, but better at some other helpful thing, that's a net win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment is another good starting point, that's an awesome, really really interesting experiment. And is absolutely an example of mutations ending up being beneficial.
When the Bible mentions something that scientist may be vaguely interested in, it is when God has stepped in and manipulated the natural. Are you asking when will science be able to do that?
I think it is more about when science will change its collective mind because it's found new evidence of the bible being factual. For instance, discovering evidence that says there really was a global flood.
Yes, but from what I have heard, science has pretty strict guidelines, and is not very forgiving when it comes to accepting things that fall outside of it's observable window.
Like what?
I am sure there are certain points in history where the scientific method was not being actively used. I do not see how using it can go back any further than it's actual use.
I suspect what Harv is referring to is that quite famous story about an apple, right at the start of a particularly popular book, in which one of the main messages is that acquiring knowledge results in you moving further away from god.
That a corpse or even a live body can be changed into something that is different from what we know now in a split second is not that different of a concept than it taking millions of years to do so. It is more along the lines that God is not constrained by time.
It is hugely different. In fact, finding one single example of that sort of change in a single generation would prove evolution wrong.
The whole point of science is interpretation and doing experiments over and over to make sure that interpretation is right. If the results do not work out, that means there is a wrong interpretation somewhere, but it is tossed out not as a wrong interpretation, but as inconclusive.
There are lots of ideas that have been shown to be wrong, and tossed out. Because they're conclusively wrong. Not inconclusive.
What is the problem with kind?
Lots. I'm a christian, I love animals, I want to grow up to be a vet, or maybe a zoologist. How do I work out what kind an animal belongs to? If I know two animals belong to the same kind, what does that tell me? Assume the ark had two of each kind. The snake kind, the kangaroo kind which somehow only ended up in australia, the bear kind, the cat kind (or is it the big cat kind and the house cat kind?), etc. I discover some new animals, like the koala, the thylacine, the quoll, the wombat & the echidna. How do I work out what kind they belong to? Is it just how they look? So koala = bear kind, quoll = cat kind, echidna = porcupine kind, thylacine = not sure, is it dog kind or cat kind? Sort of looks in between to me. I dunno what kind the wombat belongs to, is it a totally new kind or what? Or is there some other way to do it? Are these kinds related in any way at all, or completely separate? If they're related, how do I work out the relationships? Within a kind, how do I work out the relationships? Polar bears & grizzly bears & giant panda bears & red panda bears & koala bears, they've all 'evolved' from the same pair of ur-bears that were on the ark, the sole representatives of the bear kind. But how did they do it? Did the ur-bear have 5 kids, one of each sub-type that then went their separate ways? Or did it only have 2 kids, one that went on to have kids that became the panda, grizzly & polar bear, while the other was smaller, and became the red panda & koala? How do I find out? The primary message of creation science is that the evidence does agree with the bible, that this is science, that it is evidence based, that there is a procedure for doing these experiments, etc. So how do I learn the science I need to collect more evidence that proves the bible right?
How about plants? How many kinds are there? Cauliflower & Broccoli are obviously the same kind, because they're basically the same thing, just one's green and one's white. Cabbage & Brussel Sprouts are the same kind, as one's just a big version of the other. Kale & Collard greens are the same kind, they're practically the same leaf with different names. But those are quite obviously 3 different kinds, Cauliflower, Cabbage & Kale, they look completely different to each other. What other vegetable kinds are there, how do I start making a list, what methods do I use to make sure my list of kinds matches your list of kinds matches the scientists' list of kinds?
I don't think there is proof that such a one-celled organism ever existed.
Probably not. How do we know life only got started once, for instance?
I don't think that there is enough information in the current DNA of a single cell organism to provide the ability to act as another ancestor to another trillion species, but I may be wrong.
As pointed out, the idea that this needs to be the case relies on a fundamental misunderstanding.
It is not the science behind the concept that is called to task. We have a skewed view of behavior even in a couple of threads in OT that either blame or confuse evolution as a cause. It seems to me falling back on science for answers may be fun, but even if it is the "fault" of evolution, can we really change what has already been? Even if we were able to start changing genetics can we really stop evolution? Do we have guarantees that we would not trigger something worse instead of something better?
Why would we want to change what has already been? Why would we want to stop evolution? Why do you think that falling back on science for answers is done for fun? Do you not think it's done because it's interesting? Do you not think it's done because it's potentially useful? Do you think evolution is a special case, that it's a non-useful bit of science, whereas stuff like how electricity works, how fibreoptic cables work, that stuff is useful science? Or is science useful only as long as the results don't contradict the bible?
)
