Revolutionary new food item! :D

[Zephyr]

There are several reasons. The most obvious one is that it's psychologically satisfying to do it. Other reasons why it would be in our interest, as opposed to just "fun", is that it keeps the ecosystem better able to withstand disturbances if it has a higher biodiversity and that every species has potentially valuable genetic information that we may one day find a use for. Right now, worms are drastically reducing the biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems in North America.

But if evolution is driving for change, wouldn't the fittest survive? Let's say due to the worm's expansion, hence environmental changes, only garter snakes survive. They're the fittest of the fit; everything else failed. That would be evolution. But due to the lack of diversity, evolution wouldn't be able to happen. Evolution isn't a drive for change: It's a drive for finding the best and keeping it that way. Hence the reason why it doesn't work.

If that ever happened, I'd have to stop believing that the theory of evolution is a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way.

Well, apparently ichthyostega just sorta crawled out of the ocean and became the first amphibian. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change; the evidence it has suggests a very rapid change. So what if you have sinoropteryx and archaeopteryx, and you say one "evolved" into another? Where's every little step in between, the specimen that is a little different than archaeopteryx, then a teeny bit more, then a little more, that evolution would require? The data shows a rapid change; not a slow one.

And by entirely different, you mean of course from a cat to a dog, not through gradual changes over a long period of time until the existing species is entirely different from the one it started out as. And you are of course incorrect, it has been observed and recorded several times.

Then let's take a look at Canis lupus familiaris. Over the past 1000 years, a relatively short window in the "history" of the earth, humans have spawned the many breeds we see today. In just that little time, we took a "wolf" and made it a "dog." Even so, we still see fertile dog x wolf crosses, of two animals that don't even have the same temperament, hunting techniques, or most anything else. You could barely even classify the dog as a subspecies of the wolf, more or less a variety. The selection and production of the dog by man shows that even within a comparatively short series of time, one thing can change its appearance but not what it is.
Same with goldfish; You can take a crucian carp and convert it to a pudgy, bubble-nosed aquarium pet, but no amount of even human selection could change it into anything near an amphibian. You can only work with what you have: In horses, 64 chromosomes, in donkeys, 62. If you so much as subtract one chromosome, you get a sterile animal. So how on earth do you expect me to believe that evolution defied known science and flopped the count of a few original chromosome sets and made man, more or less even a fertile animal! It's also known that it's easier for things to fall apart than stay together, like when an untended garden becomes overrun with weeds. The same is true with genetics; you can only subtract to get a desired outcome. Using this information, evolution wouldn't be adding genetic information, but rather deleting it. One bacteria isn't immune to an antibiotic; the immunity isn't added but rather the information in the bacteria's genetic structure deletes the weakness to the antibiotic, therefore making it immune. Therefore, to change any feature, you have to delete genetic material that says you can't have it. So, we're looking at the first organism being the most genetically complex organism to exist on Earth . Which coincidently, was formed entirely by accident. You can simulate early Earth conditions in a lab, but no matter how much help you give your materials, you'll never make life. The chances of a whole bunch of proteins and other structures snapping together to make a living organism defies the odds itself!

The evidence. Who's to say that it isn't?

This could go back and forth. But until some one travels back in time, snaps a photo, and brings it back with written observations of how everything occurred, I won't be entirely convinced.

[GartersRock]

Thumbs up Zephyr!! So far, no evolutionist has shown me anything to believe that it is true. Just a bunch of backpeddling.

[Stefan-A]

But if evolution is driving for change, wouldn't the fittest survive? Let's say due to the worm's expansion, hence environmental changes, only garter snakes survive. They're the fittest of the fit; everything else failed. That would be evolution. But due to the lack of diversity, evolution wouldn't be able to happen. Evolution isn't a drive for change: It's a drive for finding the best and keeping it that way. Hence the reason why it doesn't work.

Evolution isn't a drive for anything and neither is natural selection/survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest isn't an ideology, or a goal. It's a process.

In the garters' case, the introduction of the worms may provide one new food source, but it's one that does in fact cause habitat loss, which may very well harm the garters directly, especially in the long run. And if the conditions changed in a way that would knock out the worms, then those species dependent on the worms would also be knocked out. Even if the worms do fine, then the empoverished ecosystem has little or no resilience when something like climate change, or a natural disaster for example, occurs.

Well, apparently ichthyostega just sorta crawled out of the ocean and became the first amphibian. The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change; the evidence it has suggests a very rapid change. So what if you have sinoropteryx and archaeopteryx, and you say one "evolved" into another? Where's every little step in between, the specimen that is a little different than archaeopteryx, then a teeny bit more, then a little more, that evolution would require? The data shows a rapid change; not a slow one.

You do realize that the "rapid" means rapid to geological terms, i.e. millions of years, not a few hundred or a few thousand?

According to what I've just read in the past 5 minutes, Sinosauropteryx and Archaeopteryx weren't even closely related. But even if one was a direct descendant of the other, it's an unrealistic expectation to find a fossil of every single animal in the whole chain between them. It's a completely ludicrous requirement to have a representative of every single mutation.

Then let's take a look at Canis lupus familiaris. Over the past 1000 years,

The evidence suggests it's more like 15 000 years.

a relatively short window in the "history" of the earth, humans have spawned the many breeds we see today. In just that little time, we took a "wolf" and made it a "dog." Even so, we still see fertile dog x wolf crosses,

We see fertile crosses, because they have been separated merely for a few thousand years. You probably already know this, but reproduction between dogs and wolves has become more difficult, partially because of the size difference between many dog breeds and the wolves, because of differences in behavior and because wolves are often having trouble identifying dogs as members of their own species. Most wolves don't treat a dog as another wolf, they treat it as prey. Speciation is already occurring, because the reproductive separation is already well established, albeit relatively new.

Same with goldfish; You can take a crucian carp and convert it to a pudgy, bubble-nosed aquarium pet, but no amount of even human selection could change it into anything near an amphibian.

Again, they don't jump from one limb of the phylogenetic tree to another, and thus far, we have been unable to do more than to select. When we breed, we do not create the mutations, we just work with the ones that have occurred naturally and more importantly, mutations that we can detect. Provided that we had an infinite amount of time and thus an infinite amount and kind of mutations to choose from, we could get the correct random mutations that would make it possible for us to breed an amphibian-like animal that descends from goldfish. There is no natural law that could prevent it, if you ignore the simple fact that we do not have an infinite amount of time and cannot therefore choose the mutations that will turn a goldfish into a salamander.

You can only work with what you have: In horses, 64 chromosomes, in donkeys, 62. If you so much as subtract one chromosome, you get a sterile animal. So how on earth do you expect me to believe that evolution defied known science and flopped the count of a few original chromosome sets and made man, more or less even a fertile animal!

It's very simple. Chromosomes fuse and split to form new chromosomes and they still retain the information we need to determine a common ancestor. Remember, we're talking about gradual changes, not a horse giving birth to a freak with two less chromosomes. I haven't bothered checking the counts, they're irrelevant to the discussion.

So how would I expect you to believe? Well, there are no competing scientific theories to the theory of evolution and every new discovery fills in another gap in our understanding of it.

It's also known that it's easier for things to fall apart than stay together, like when an untended garden becomes overrun with weeds.

Ah, the good old entropy argument. You have no idea how many times it has been torn apart.

The same is true with genetics; you can only subtract to get a desired outcome. Using this information, evolution wouldn't be adding genetic information, but rather deleting it.

Now that's simply untrue. "Copying errors" and mutations constantly add information to the genetic code, it's not something that is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics.

One bacteria isn't immune to an antibiotic; the immunity isn't added but rather the information in the bacteria's genetic structure deletes the weakness to the antibiotic, therefore making it immune.

Incorrect. It can be a question of deleting information or adding information, but the end result is that the antibiotic doesn't have an effect on the bacteria. It's a matter of changing bacteria, which doesn't mean that information has to be deleted.

Therefore, to change any feature, you have to delete genetic material that says you can't have it.

Not at all.

So, we're looking at the first organism being the most genetically complex organism to exist on Earth.

Complete nonsense, considering that the molecule can gain material and does so.

Which coincidently, was formed entirely by accident.

It's called chemistry, there's not much that's accidental about it.

You can simulate early Earth conditions in a lab, but no matter how much help you give your materials, you'll never make life.

And why not?

You're not talking about evolution anymore, you're talking about abiogenesis and there are a number of possible ways that we know of, that could have started it all.

The chances of a whole bunch of proteins and other structures snapping together to make a living organism defies the odds itself!

Nonsense. We're talking about chemistry here, it follows strict rules, some of which makes it easier and much more probable for molecules to "snap together" in a certain way. Talking about odds is pointless, too. The often quoted probabilities are completely irrelevant.

This could go back and forth. But until some one travels back in time, snaps a photo, and brings it back with written observations of how everything occurred, I won't be entirely convinced.

The photo could be fake, the person could be lying or may just have misunderstood what he saw. That's also something that could happen if you had the opportunity to go back and see for yourself. Without applying the scientific method, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.

[Stefan-A]

Just a bunch of backpeddling.

Such as?

[GartersRock]

Whoops. It all got deleted... Darn! Hold on...

[GartersRock]

Evolution mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. I have always agreed that there is variation within species. But there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than the already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible.

[Stefan-A]

But there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed,

Care to elaborate on what these "strict limits" are and how they are enforced?

something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

That would be the fact that selective breeding has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.

Rubbish, we see it all the time. And then there's the evidence creationists are more than happy to ignore or just deny without even a basic understanding of genetics or biology in general.

They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria.

What problems? The evidence for it is plentiful.

But they never turn into anything new.

Yeah, how many times do I need to tell you this? The change is gradual. Somebody obviously isn't listening.

Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Actually, that's the exact opposite of what scientific research is showing us. But please, keep ignoring the facts.

But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components

Less intricate than you might think. Our genetic code is a real mess, like a hard drive that desperately needs to be defragmented. We have genes that don't serve a purpose anymore, genes that never had a purpose, genes that work even if you flip them around and move them about, genes that have been deactivated.. In short, it's not a well-organized filing cabinet, it's more like a wall in a public bathroom.

[GartersRock]

You know what. I was going to type a detailed response. But this is going back and forth. It appears to me you are not listening. It appears to you I am not listening. Well I am listening. No need for sarcasim... I could very well say YOU are not listening for continuing to say the change is gradual. After years of constant arguing with people on many subjects.. Dogs, vaccines, evolution. Some changed their opinions, most didn't. I have learned after a few exchanges to let it go. Which is what I am gonna do. I have learned over the years the signs of those whose minds won't be changed by back and forth disscussions and refuse to waste my time.
(And NO this is not be "giving in". It is very hard for me to back off of a debate. But is something I have learned to do in situations where the debate isn't going anywhere).

[MoJo]

I may have missed part of the argument but bacteria are changing all the time. The fact that many bacteria become resistant to antibiotics show that.

Let's take an antibiotic that kills a bacteria by breaking down the cell wall of the bacteria. The bacteria don't become resistant to the antibiotic by saying to themselves "Hmm this antibiotic breaks are cell walls by doing abc, let's develop something in our genes that does not allow abc to work". The bacteria are not that smart. The reality is by chance some bacteria already had something in there genetic make up that did not allow their cell wall to be broken so they were the ones to survive and went on to reproduce/divide. So now you have more of that bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic making the antibiotic useless for that bacteria. Other bacteria never by chance had that gene so they stay susceptible to the antibiotic. If this isn't natural selection or evolution at work I don't know what is. Just because the bacteria is still a bacteria does not mean evolution is not true. It evolved in a different way.

There are many other examples today that are available. Why do black people have more sickle cell disease than white people? It is because they lived in hot tropical climates where malaria was common. The abnormal red blood cell (sickle cell) did not allow for malarial infections to be successful i.e kill the human being. So people who carry the sickle cell gene on only one of their chromosomes had less chance of dying from malaria and going on to reproduce. These is called sickle cell trait and they have a smaller number of red blood cells that "sickle" and they do not die of sickle cell disease. It was evolutionarily beneficial to carry the sickle cell trait. That is no longer the case for the most part.

I will give you another possible example. I can wiggle my ears, as can my father and all three of my children. For the most part this is a useless behavior. Let's say that in the future someone decides they want to exterminate all Americans but believes that anyone who can wiggle their ears is somehow magical and should not be exterminated. Well then, my kids will survive to reproduce as will other ear wigglers and eventually a large portion of the population will be able to wiggle their ears. Pure chance that this silly hereditary trait was beneficial! But again showing "survival of the fittest".

[Zephyr]

Might I mention one last thing?
Evolution is just a theory. If it were so true, and the evidence unsurmountable, then everyone would believe it; The universal LAW of gravitation as compared to the THEORY of evolution.