Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds

[Strikerfox]

There has been no introduction of any new information in the plants. Therefore, this is not macroevolution. There is a huge leap from being naturally resistant to an herbicide to gaining the information necessary to produce thorns, flowers, fruit, pine cones, or whatever else you see in their future.

Look at the super-bacteria in hospitals. They become resistant (overall as a population) to certain drugs. This is not that they are evolving. Rather, some had a natural resistance, so they yield more that also have it. The ones that don't have it die. Guess what they tell people when they are stuck in a hospital for a long time and now have infections they cannot fight with the drugs available at the hospital. They tell them to go spend some time outside where the bacteria aren't exposed to the same drugs over and over again developing resistance. Then, the populations go back to normal and the people get better. It's not evolution, it's small-scale adaptations that leave the bacteria as the same exact bacteria. You could work in your family to yield children with blue eyes by only breeding with people with blue eyes. That's not exactly going anywhere species-wise. In a million years, it wouldn't make a new type of creature. You would have simply been selecting preexisting genes (hence no new information).

This is not macroevolution.

A failure I smell....

It is evolution as it is possible that a weed mutated from one generation to another and that mutation proved beneficial against round up.

Like you said... the information is there. This 'information' can only be there if the plant has mutated from the wild type genotype. If the information was 'always' at the disposal of the plant then all those plants would have been immune to round out.

Again with the bacteria example. These bacterial strains that are now immune to antibiotics had mutated from the wild type. When introduced to the antibiotics, they survive and proliferated. The 'natural resistance' you speak of is a mutation different from the wild type which proved beneficial. The mutation would have occurred before the application of the antibiotics. The bacterial population, as you can have several populations of the same bacterial species in one location since each population spawns from one parent cell through cell division as a reproductive means, with the beneficial mutation will have a slight advantage to the other populations and maybe a handful of them will survive the antibiotic. Over generations, and when talking about bacteria, generations time can occur in matter of minutes to hours, additional mutations may occur on the gene where the initial beneficial mutation occurred and or elsewhere. Over generational time, you will eventually get Antibiotic resistant bacteria to even more powerful forms of antibiotics through selection and eventually form a super bug. This does not always happen though because each mutation needs to be just the right one or set to allow survival. That is why SuperBugs are not widespread and occur in select places. Also there are different different genetic variations of superbugs, as differences arise from the fact they would have started from different populations.

Adaptations occur through MUTATIONS.

As for the children you are making a huge mistake. Because mutations would occur through gene transfer during meiosis.

During DNA replication, errors to our genetic code (ATAAGCGATACG for example) occur around once in a while, including nonsense mutations, deletion and wrong nucleotide base pair. Except cells have a whole system of checks to make sure that these errors are corrected if they occur.

Once in a while these errors will not be corrected which may lead to the cell being killed off or not working. When the DNA of the daughter cell is not the same as the DNA of the parent cell then this is called a MUTATION. Some mutations can be deemed beneficial and amplify over time to lead to changes in a species. Other times a mutation can lead to problem in a cell preventing it from causing apoptosis (programed cell death) which will eventually lead to cancer. Actually in our bodies we have several pre-cancerous cells appearing from time to time which our white blood cells will devour to prevent full blown cancer.

Getting back to the children issue. Gene transfer during meiosis will lead to a new person, though the genetic background will be essentially the same. Once in a while there will either be a deletion or an incorrect transfer of genes between two chromatids (sister chromosomes during mitosis/meiosis) which 99% of the time cause cell death, mentally challenged offspring, offspring with deformation, etc. It is after meiosis and the formation of the zygote that it can be considered a genetically different species. Mutations that occur after you are formed (sperm and egg fuse) are considered localized mutations unless they occur in the gamete. Nevertheless, 1% of the time, relatively, there may yield a mutation that may not be detrimental to the offspring but lead to a change in species if the gene can spread through reproduction and or it is also beneficial adaptation which allows the creature to reproduce more successfully. It may be those who do not have said mutation die off while he stays alive and keeps reproducing, ie bacteria, or maybe his gene makes him more attractive or better pheromones, so he has more sex with more females and fathering more children, who then go on to do the same thing and over take males who cannot compete the same way.
Example: Birds with elaborate feathers to attract mates.
If you keep breeding people with blue eyes, and only the ones who come out with blue eyes, as eye color is dependent on recessive/ dominant genes, you will yield blue eyed people but over time these blue eyed people will have some genetic variation which will differ them from wild type humans.


I could keep going on, but my point is:
You are confusing the concept of adaptation, which is a part of evolution, as something separate from the process of evolution. Adaptations occur through mutations to the genetic code of a species, and each mutations can be hardly noticed for the most part. The majority of the time a mutation will cause the cell or creature to die before it can even do much harm/ change in the/ its environment. Many times you will not be able to distinguish a mutation as useful for adaptation, not only due to the small changes, but because adaptation requires an event to prove the mutation beneficial. This can take long periods of time and or for the mutation to keep mutating, for lack of a better word, which will lead to a new species.


Ive majored in this crap and studied it for many years now.... What I wrote is just the gist of the biological process which in ways is similar and dissimilar between eukaryotic plant cells and eukaryotic animal cells, and also prokaryotes (bacterial cells for example).


Bah.

 

[KSG_Standard]

huffdaddy...maybe you could shed some light on the economics of the issue. Would small scale, organic corn, soybean or cotton farms be viable? What kind of acreage do you have to produce to make a living?

 

[PraXis]

Processed food is killing and sterilizing us.

 

[ehs5mw]

A failure I smell....

snip snip snip


I could keep going on, but my point is:
You are confusing the concept of adaptation, which is a part of evolution, as something separate from the process of evolution. Adaptations occur through mutations to the genetic code of a species, and each mutations can be hardly noticed for the most part. The majority of the time a mutation will cause the cell or creature to die before it can even do much harm/ change in the/ its environment. Many times you will not be able to distinguish a mutation as useful for adaptation, not only due to the small changes, but because adaptation requires an event to prove the mutation beneficial. This can take long periods of time and or for the mutation to keep mutating, for lack of a better word, which will lead to a new species.


Ive majored in this crap and studied it for many years now.... What I wrote is just the gist of the biological process which in ways is similar and dissimilar between eukaryotic plant cells and eukaryotic animal cells, and also prokaryotes (bacterial cells for example).


Bah.

Thank you for this essay. Unfortunately, you have still not shown any new information magically happening through any process that yields new structures or systems. At best, you have offered mutations that suggest devolution or at best lateral movement.

All you managed to do was point out that the information was already there. That was exactly my point. The information must have come from somewhere. Evolution does not adequately account for this, even with billions of years. It's not that hard to see or understand, though I get that with education as it is, it is sometimes challenging to go against what everyone keeps trying to tell you just happens and you have to accept it.

 

[ext1jdh]

Processed food is killing and sterilizing us.

Unless there is a small percentage that are immune to the effects of processed food


Anyway, that's the reason I eat processed food. I don't want kids, my genes are fracked as it is.

 

[CenCalPlayer]

huffdaddy...maybe you could shed some light on the economics of the issue. Would small scale, organic corn, soybean or cotton farms be viable? What kind of acreage do you have to produce to make a living?

Don't know about those crops, but can tell you that small operations that grow tree fruit, i.e. citrus, etc., have a very hard time staying afloat.....throw organic into the description and it gets even tougher. Large scale Ag is what keeps this country and a good chunk of the world fed. Farmers are very careful with our fields and groves, especially with anything that would harm them....if we can use less pesticides, fertilzers, etc. we do in a heartbeat (they aren't cheap). We produce more wth the least amount of these items as we can....News flash for all the "experts" that aren't actual farmers out there, keep your expert hands off our fields and businesses if you want to get fed....we are constantly under assault by educated idiots who haven't got a clue.

 

[geochem1st]

Thank you for this essay. Unfortunately, you have still not shown any new information magically happening through any process that yields new structures or systems. At best, you have offered mutations that suggest devolution or at best lateral movement.

All you managed to do was point out that the information was already there. That was exactly my point. The information must have come from somewhere. Evolution does not adequately account for this, even with billions of years. It's not that hard to see or understand, though I get that with education as it is, it is sometimes challenging to go against what everyone keeps trying to tell you just happens and you have to accept it.

Macroevloution is real and the proof has been around for quite sometime.

If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.

One major consequence of the constraint of gradualism is the predicted existence of parahomology. Parahomology, as the term is used here, is similarity of structure despite difference in function. When one species branches into two species, one or both of the species may acquire new functions. Since the new species must recruit and modify preexisting structures to perform these new functions, the same structure shared by these two species will now perform a different function in each of the two species. This is parahomology. It follows that parahomologous structures have a history that should be explicable from other lines of evolutionary evidence, since derived characteristics, which is what these new functions and structures now are, have evolved from more primitive (older) structures. Consequently, detailed and explicit predictions can be made about the possible morphologies of fossil intermediates.

There are countless examples of parahomology in living and extinct species – the same bones in the same relative positions are used in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, pterosaur wings, whale and penguin flippers, horse legs, the digging forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs. All of these characters have similar structures that perform various different functions. The standard phylogenetic tree shows why these species have these same structures, that is, they have common ancestors that had these structures. This is the conclusion supported by the phylogenetic tree, even though these parahomologous characters were not used to group these species together. Viewed objectively, this is truly a remarkable result, since only shared derived characters, which have the same structure and function, determine which species are grouped together in a phylogeny.

Additionally, independent evidence from the fossil record has confirmed that many of those structures were derived from others. The fossil record shows a general chronological progression of intermediate forms between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds, in which theropod structures were modified into modern bird structures (Carroll 1988; Carroll 1997; Sereno 1999).

This series is exemplified by Eoraptor (~230 Mya), the Herrerasauridae (~230-210 Mya), the Ceratosauria (~220-65 Mya), the Allosauroidea (180-90 Mya), the Deinonychosauria (150-65 Mya), Archaeopteryx (~150 Mya), the Confuciusornithidae (145 Mya), the Enantiornithes (145 Mya-65 Mya), and the Euornithes (65 Mya-recent) (Sereno 1999).

The figure below shows the forelimbs of four representative intermediates of the avian lineage (Carroll 1988, p. 340; Carroll 1997, p. 309).

 

[ehs5mw]

Geo, this same exact evidence is often used as evidence of common design rather than common descent. Things that go completely opposite to evolutionary theory are what we should be looking at. Trilobyte eyes (best we've ever found), ducks and dinosaurs fossilized together, bacteria that are millions and millions of years old and yet the same as what we see today, ferns that are exactly what we see today, the "living fossils," etc. are all incredibly impressive finds that evolutionary models must change in order to accomodate.

How about the nautilus they just discovered? Pretty wild stuff. These observations you mention are all predicted by a creation model, so it's hardly convincing evidence of macroevolution.

 

[huffdaddy]

huffdaddy...maybe you could shed some light on the economics of the issue. Would small scale, organic corn, soybean or cotton farms be viable? What kind of acreage do you have to produce to make a living?

KSG, the simplified answer is no. If you looked at the economics of farming, in general, you would shake your head and wonder why anyone does it at all !

The days of the self-sustaining small family farm are long gone. While my Grandfather and Father could comfortably raise a family on a small farm, the game has changed drastically. Input costs are through the roof. Everything from petroleum based fertilizers, fuel, pesticides, equipment and land prices have sky-rocketed in price. However, the price paid to the producer for the commodity grown has remained relatively stagnant. My Grandfather may have been able to get $3.00 a bushel for corn, but he could buy a new tractor for a couple thousand dollars. Now, we still get roughly the same price per bushel (market dependant), but a new tractor will cost $80-150,000.

As far as your question about organic, again no, for those crops that you mentioned. Organic farming is very labour-intensive, and the so-called cash crops (wheat, corn, soybeans), are only sustaining if grown on a larger scale. Organic farms generally grow more specialty type produce like vegetables, that can be marketed as organic. As someone already mentioned, organic farming brings its own, new hurdles to the table as well. For example, a field has to be pesticide/herbicide free for a certain number of years before a farmer can become "certified" as organic. These types of farms are also typically small (50 acres or less) because of the amount of hands-on labour involved.

Speaking from my own situation, I maintain a small farm which is an oasis surrounded by huge corporate farms. I keep it going because I was raised on it and love it. But I work, on average, 80 hours a week in my other jobs to "support my farming habit." Almost every bit of my spare time is spent working at the farm in some capacity. People who know me think I am crazy, and maybe they are right ! But like I said at the top, you pretty much have to be crazy to even consider farming.

 

[Strikerfox]

Thank you for this essay. Unfortunately, you have still not shown any new information magically happening through any process that yields new structures or systems. At best, you have offered mutations that suggest devolution or at best lateral movement.

All you managed to do was point out that the information was already there. That was exactly my point. The information must have come from somewhere. Evolution does not adequately account for this, even with billions of years. It's not that hard to see or understand, though I get that with education as it is, it is sometimes challenging to go against what everyone keeps trying to tell you just happens and you have to accept it.

Are you serious??
I just said that the information that causes a creature to become resistant comes from a mutation to his genome (DNA). The mutation needs to occur before the application of the pesticide or antibiotics in this example, not during or after for said population which the treatment is being applied to. Thats because if the mutation(s) hadnt occurred prior, they would already be dead.

Let me explain with a little more detail how mutations occur to change a species and lead to evolution.

For a mutation to cause a change in a species, it needs to affect the cells' DNA which will be used to reproduce in the future.
The reproduction process differs between Bacteria (prokaryotes) and plants/ animals (eukaryotes). Prokaryotes means single celled organisms, Eukaryotes are multicelled organisms.

Prokaryotes reproduce through asexual reproduction such as binary fission. This means that before reproduction, the bacteria will mean a copy of its chromosome (DNA) as well as other organelles, and then each Structural combination will move to each end of the parent cell (cell going through reproduction/mitosis) and then split apart into two cells.

When there is a mutation in the DNA of the Prokaryote and either does not get fixed or does not end up killing the bacteria, the mutation is then given off to the daughter cells when the bacteria splits in two. (Since the DNA was copied into two copies.) When the Daughter cells reproduce, then you will have 4 copies of the mutation. This is how a population occurs. Because Bacteria reproduce really fast, ideal down time between reproduction can be a few minutes to a few hours, a mutated population can grow really fast. The reason why a bacteria do not reproduce like wild fire is because reproduction is dependent on the amount of food available, the amount of space available, location (are they Oxygen friendly or will oxygen kill them), waste material in their surrounding.... list goes on. Only when conditions are favorable will they reproduce exponentially but once they hit optimum conditions they slow down reproduction and just live and do their thing.

For a mutation in bacteria to be deemed beneficial and lead to evolution it needs to be one that allows said mutated population to be able to survive and reproduce much better than other populations. Also if the initial mutation proved to be non detrimental or beneficial, then its possible for the same mutated area in the DNA to mutate again during reproduction. If the subsequent mutations do not kill them then you will begin to have a new strain of bacteria different from the original wild type.

In your example about hospital bacteria, what I have explain is what has happened. A mutation which proved to be beneficial had occurred to a bacterial cell some time before the application of antibiotics. When the antibiotics were applied a few bacteria were able to survive from said population. They then go on to reproduce exponentially since there is no competition from the original strain w.o the same mutation. Every time you use antibiotics or antibacterial cleaners you risk filtering the bacterial population for those that were able to survive the application. Once those bacteria with ability to survive one antibiotic occur, chances are they will eventually have a mutation which will allow them to survive stronger and stronger methods of fighting them.

If you want to know how the majority of antibiotics work, they are designed to combat gram positive bacteria (gram positive/negative is a term used to define the type of cell wall a bacterial cell/ species has) by preventing binding of certain cell factors causing the cell to die and also preventing the DNA from coiling up/ uncoiling, which would kill the cell as well. A mutation in the right area will cause the cell to keep working even in the presence of the antibiotics. Considering bacteria only have a thousand genes in their DNA, its possible to a beneficial mutation to spring up from time to time when you filter out for these mutations by overusing batercialcides.

Mutation in bacteria can also occur when a bacterial cell incorporates a part of another bacteria's genome (same species) prior to reproduction or from a free source of nucleotides (such as if a bacteria dies and explodes) in the region which it is living in.

Lastly mutations also occur when a Virus attacks a bacterial cell and either inputs its DNA/ RNA into the cell directly or causes a mutation to occur. These types of mutations are beneficial to the Virus because it causes the bacteria to produce more Viruses, instead of beneficial. Though 1 in a million chance it could backfire and cause a bacteria to gain a beneficial mutation.
Considering there are 10 different viruses for every 1 bacteria species, and we only know of about 1% to 2% of the bacteria in the world.... it can happen anywhere.

Onto Eukaryotic Reproduction, mutation and the topic of this thread.

Mutations in Eukaryotes can occur at different frequencies depending on the amount of cells the organism has. For humans, with up to trillions of cells mutations can occur from time to time. (The number of human cells is debatable as the majority of cells inside our body are bacterial cells in our stomach, intestines, on our skin. Bacterial cells can be so small compared to our human cells that you can fit 50 to 100 of them [small bacterial species] inside one of our cells. Nevertheless the human body is composed of a few million million cells... thats a few trillion cells for those who do not understand the term.)

When cells in our bodies divide to make new cell copies of themselves, it is called mitosis. This process needs to occur as cells die all the time (such as the dead skin on your arm, that scrape on your leg, or that chunk of meat you just lost in that motorcycle accident which needs to regrow...) During mitosis, a cell will undergo multiplication of its chromosomes, making two copies of each, which then will be divided into two new daughter cells.

DNA is made of two opposite facing strands of nucleotides. These nucleotides are short hand named A,T,C,G. A will only bind to T and C will only bind to G.
During DNA replication (making two copies of the DNA/chromosome) a DNA strand will split into the two individual strands and DNA polymerase, an enzyme which partakes in DNA replication, will then add the corresponding base pairs to the DNA strands. Therefore, you end up with two new DNA double helix strands (two copies of the original DNA) which then become the corresponding Genetic material of each daughter cell at the second half of mitosis.

As seen with the picture, the right nucleotides need to be positioned to keep the DNA sequence true without change or mutation. Our cells have come up with many ways to correct errors if they were to happen and errors only occur in maybe 1 in 100 million base pairs. Many mutations would end up killing the cell, either through an inability to function, or Apoptosis (programed cell death) the last resort a cell has to kill itself if it knows the cell itself is not functioning correctly. A cell works through many checks and balances and if certain checks are not met or activated, it can lead the cell to kill itself off. This process prevents cancer from occur most of the time. Cancer will occur when the cell has lost its ability to kill itself off and able to make copies of itself like wild fire. Our white blood cells also kill of any malignant cells all the time but sometimes a mutated population of cells will go unnoticed until its too late and cancer will occur.

The process in which cells in eukaryotic organisms make copies of themselves is similar to the way prokaryotes reproduce, as its a process in the cellular level, but in NO WAY is it Eukaryotic reproduction. Eukaryotic reproduction occurs differently.

Nevertheless, the majority of these mutations and changes that a person experiences in their lifetime would not be transferred out to the offspring, the same way as if you lose your arm and have kids, your kids will still have arms. This is because the mutation or change needs to occur in the genetic code of the cells which will be used to create a new creature. In said example a new human baby.

The cells in question here would be the gametes (sperm/ egg cells), which are the cells that do create a new organism. Gametes are special types of cells which contain only half the set of genetic material which a normal cell would have. Gametes are called Haploid cells, while regular body cells are called Diploid. A picture to illustrate what I mean.

All sperm cells and all egg cells are haploids and need to merge with their counterpart to create a new being. When a sperm and an egg meet up the resulting cell is called a zygote, which now contains a full set of Chromosomes which came from both initial cells.

To create gametes, such as Sperm cells, the initial cells need to undergo a process called meiosis.

In biology, meiosis is a process of reductional division in which the number of chromosomes per cell is cut in half. In animals, meiosis always results in the formation of gametes, while in other organisms it can give rise to spores. As with mitosis, before meiosis begins, the DNA in the original cell is replicated during S-phase of the cell cycle. Two cell divisions separate the replicated chromosomes into four haploid gametes or spores.
Meiosis is essential for sexual reproduction and therefore occurs in all eukaryotes (including single-celled organisms) that reproduce sexually. Meiosis does not occur in archaea or bacteria, which reproduce via asexual processes such as binary fission.

During Meiosis to create sperm cells, a testicular cell which then goes on to become a sperm cell may elect to transfer genes between sister chromatids. This action is one reason for genetic variation between offspring. In the following picture you will see a pairs of chromosomes (color coded) transferring genes to between related chromosomes.

Like i said before this process helps create genetic variation and allows certain sperm cells to carry certain recessive genes while others carry dominant genes.

Mutations that occur when forming these gametes will then be passed on to the offspring if the mutated gamete is the one which becomes the new creature.

Mutations may occur when there is an error replicating the DNA, which is not fixed and is kept. Other mutations occur during Meiosis, where the transfer of genes is not smooth. Instead, a piece of DNA material may be added, lost, replaced on one chromosome, or A chromosome may transfer genetic material with an unrelated chromosome. (Example: Chromosome 1 transfers material with Chromosome 15[unrelated chromosome])

Gametes that do survive the mutation and go on to create a new individual can have one of two effects. Either the mutation is unnoticed/beneficial and the person is fine or the mutation is detrimental and the new individual either dies or is born with some defect. It is these types of mutations in the formation of gametes which can lead to down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, deformed limbs etc.

If people with the mutation were keep reproducing then eventually the mutation would be able to proliferate and create a new species of human with major defects. But because the majority of these mutations are indeed detrimental, said mutations are a case by case occurrence and do not spread. It is only in human civilization where we see the spread and recurrence of bad genes because those with detrimental genes do get a chance to reproduce. In the wild, creatures who cannot compete because of some defect, either mental, physiological, genetic, will die before reaching sexual maturity. This is not the case with humans because we use medicine to prevent people who should already be dead to keep on living. This is where the term survival of the fittest comes from.

On the other hand, Beneficial or non-detrimental mutations will occur much less often than the latter because biological systems are so fine tuned to work in a certain way. If they do occur the mutation may go unnoticed unless it allows a creature to succeed over its fellow kin. Only if the mutation is beneficial AND allows the creature to survive better, and allow it to reproduce may it lead to an evolutionary change in the species.

Furthermore, Evolutionary change takes a long time to be seen on the phenotypic scale (Phenotype=the visible representation of a species) because each change needs to occur to the GAMETE which will then transfer the mutation to a new individual. Eukaryotes (plant/ animals) that reach sexual maturity much faster and reproduce much faster/ more often have a higher chance of evolving quicker than those who take longer. This is because there is a higher chance of a mutation to occur to the gametes. Still, changes will take a long time to be seen on the phenotypic scale because each change needs to beneficial, not detrimental. If you have a creature that keeps having beneficial mutations and then all of a sudden its mutation turns detrimental, then its the end of the line.


Now with plants, plants reproduce much faster than animals and will have more copies of each chromosome than animals do. While animals are known as diploid (two copies of the chromosome), plants are Polyploid, 3 or more copies of the chromosome.

Plants therefore have a higher chance of mutation and also gene transfer than animals do. Combined with faster reproduction, a beneficial mutation to survive pesticides can occur in a human's lifetime. The mutation, which allows them to survive their environment is a form of evolution. It is just one step that we are able to see in our short lifespans. If we were to live for 5000 years we would be able to see how a plant goes from being one type of weed to a whole new species of plant. If we were to live 5 million years, we could see that weed transform into different types of bushes or trees. But since we do not live that long we can not see the drastic transformations which would, in your mind, prove that evolution exists. But if you look at it step by step as to how it works, then you see that round up resistant plants are on a different evolutionary path than the roundup affected plants.


THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the round up resistant plants will take over the non resistant weeds and become the new norm. That would only happen if we keep using round up. If we stop using round up, then their change may become an evolutionary dead end.

To summarize, Evolution occurs due to an Environmental response brought up through mutation, in which the mutation allows the creature to survive much better than those without the mutation.

As long as an environment changes, somewhere at some point a mutation will occur that will allow a creature to survive much better than those before him. If the proper mutation does not occur or is not enough to survive an ever changing environment, then the species will die out. These changes in the species is what we call evolution.

What we forget is that environments change in time spans that range from the thousands to tens of thousands of years. During the Last 2000 years we have been affecting the environment in greater forms. During the last 200 years we have really sped up changes through the industrial revolution. In the last 50 years our knowledge through chemistry, science and physics has allowed us to change environments in the blink of an eye. Plus over population, deforestation and pollution change environments at speeds the earth has rarely seen before, albeit natural disasters of epic proportions such as an asteroid strike or gamma ray burst.

Therefore, we are seeing and causing evolutionary changes in species of plants, animals and bacteria at greater speeds than ever because we actively, though unintentionally, filter for mutations in plants and bacteria, and insects.

Adaptations as you speak is actually mutations and evolution. Adaptation = Evolution as something genetic had to change to allow a species to have the capability to adapt.
If the information was always there, then you could make a human from a bacterial cell, or a plant cell. We all know this is not the case (An argument some religious scientists have made before that the information for all types life has been there from the beginning from the first cell created). If the information was always there then all weeds of said species would have survived instead of them dying when you applied round up. The only way for beneficial information for survival to occur would be through mutation. The mutation needs to occur before the plant is sprayed with roundup, not after its dead. Because you know, dead things cant reproduce.

If the Environment were to promote the change in the weeds then the weeds would slowly evolve into knew forms. Like I said before, evolution takes a long time (though step by step) and environmental change occurs over a long period of time. Human on the other hand are changing things quickly and creating new types of weeds that are different from their parents. But because we keep changing the environment so often, its probably an EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END. Then again maybe not, since we dont live long enough to see the actual change we have brought up by this initial evolutionary step.

Lastly, we have created new species of plants just be farming in the last 20,000 years of human civilization, starting from a change in nomadic lifestyle to farming and localized living. There are certain plants that never occurred before we promoted mutations and evolution and now they exist. Plants like sweet corn, wheat, and rice. They themselves are a whole new species completely different from their ancestral roots, which are able to live in this environment with greater ease. Genetic engineering is also a form of evolution which is no longer left to chance and luck but seen in span of minutes, hours, days or weeks, depending on the species we are changing.

If you still do not understand anything im talking about then this is for you.

From an actual Home schooling textbook (the gun was photoshopped for effect).

And if you didnt know, roughly 80% of families that decide to homeschool their children, elect to teach them a religious education. The majority of home schooling material (teaching packets/ textbooks) are now printed with religious themes in them. Finding real packets and textbooks for an adequate education for homeschooling is now getting hard to find.

 

[geochem1st]

Geo, this same exact evidence is often used as evidence of common design rather than common descent. Things that go completely opposite to evolutionary theory are what we should be looking at. Trilobyte eyes (best we've ever found), ducks and dinosaurs fossilized together, bacteria that are millions and millions of years old and yet the same as what we see today, ferns that are exactly what we see today, the "living fossils," etc. are all incredibly impressive finds that evolutionary models must change in order to accomodate.

How about the nautilus they just discovered? Pretty wild stuff. These observations you mention are all predicted by a creation model, so it's hardly convincing evidence of macroevolution.

The thing is everything can be described by a creation model, but that model does not predict. Evolution does make predictions as illustrated above, that have turned out to be verifiable.

I have no problem with bacteria today being the same as bacteria from a few million years ago. Not all of an organism or species' population needs to adapt or evolve, only those under the pressures to do so.

Trilobyte eyes indeed show evolution, and the author of the website is not happy that his information is being used incorrectly to advance the theory of creationism.

[SIZE=+4]The Trilobite Eye[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]last revised 01 October 2007 by S. M. Gon III[/SIZE]

* I use the term "design" as a lead-in to the parallels between the optic designs of humans and the remarkably evolved morphology of trilobites. Trilobites provide some superb examples of evolution in action (see "loss of eyes" below). Trilobites make it quite clear that evolution of eyes occurs, and that one does not need to evoke "intelligent design" by a creator to explain them. To do so detracts from the idea of an omniscient being. It would have God tinkering with many flawed and suboptimal "designs" and never developing a perfect one....I mention this because this page has been used (without my permission) by people espousing "intelligent design" to the public, and I want it to be clear that I do not share those opinions, nor need that flawed argument to underpin my faith. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and breakthroughs in our understanding of its intricacies occur every year. Evolution is not in conflict with religious belief. Ignorance and intolerance damage the benefits of faith."


The Trilobite Eye

 

[Strikerfox]

Geo, this same exact evidence is often used as evidence of common design rather than common descent. Things that go completely opposite to evolutionary theory are what we should be looking at. Trilobyte eyes (best we've ever found), ducks and dinosaurs fossilized together, bacteria that are millions and millions of years old and yet the same as what we see today, ferns that are exactly what we see today, the "living fossils," etc. are all incredibly impressive finds that evolutionary models must change in order to accomodate.

How about the nautilus they just discovered? Pretty wild stuff. These observations you mention are all predicted by a creation model, so it's hardly convincing evidence of macroevolution.

Eyes have evolved several times through several different species at different time.

Eyes have evolved in insects, fish, jellyfish, crustaceans at completely different periods with completely different functions due to completely different circumstances and environments. This in no way means there is an underlying framework in DNA that at one point was turned on so that eyes can be formed. It is just by chance that changes in the DNA occurred to form eyes through long periods of time.

As for bacteria, if there is no need for change then a bacterial species will remain the same, even for billions of years. As long as there is a niche environment that life can grow in life will find a way to live there. Some bacteria that did live billions of years ago still remain around unchanged because there has been an environment that is able to support them somewhere.

If there was no longer an environment to support them then they would no longer exist, as is the case with billions of bacterial species that lived billions of years ago but no longer exist today.

The environment changes through time. When there is a change, someone somewhere will take advantage and try to fill the void. That is how there was rise to oxygen producing algae and a change from an anoxic atmosphere to an oxygen filled atmosphere. Once you have oxygen in the atmosphere and an ozone layer you can begin to colonize dry land. Before the ozone layer, radiation would bake all exposed land. So now there is a new environment to take over and change. Once plants covered the earth, the environment changed again. When continents move around the planet, their position changes weather patterns and ocean currents. The environment changes in response to that.

If creatures did not evolve through the process of mutation, then there in no way would we have any type of complex life. If bacteria could not mutate, then a change in their environment would cause them to die out instead of Adapting (Adaptation = Evolution caused through a mutational change in the DNA.)

The reason why we find "living fossils" today is because somewhere there has been an environment where the species has been able to live and keep reproducing. Said environment is perfect for the "living fossil" and any mutated offspring either die off before reproducing or find a new environment to live in where they can reproduce and eventually evolve into something new.

Like I said before, EVOLUTION IS A RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT. If you can find an environment that does not change, and some creatures have, then said population will remain the same, although it is possible for some slight changes to occur, as it is INEVITABLE through time. That is why we may still find Living fossils today but they are NOT 100% identical to their ancient counterparts.

Frankly, if you do not study this stuff, then you are not going to understand it. If you do not take microbiology, organic chemistry, and learn about cellular biological processes then you are not going to understand exactly how things work in our body.

I mean, the only reason we even breathe is because we need the oxygen as an endpoint to bind molecules of carbon, by breaking apart molecules of sugar, which released energy that binds 1 phosphate to adenosine diphosphate creating ATP (adenosine triphosphate) which is one of the molecules in our cells that provides energy so that our cells can carry on DNA replication and RNA transcription, so that RNA can create Protein which then carry out the biological processes in all living things. But then you have living creatures such as bacteria which do not need oxygen to carry out this process at all, where oxygen is deadly to them. Instead they use another molecule such as nitrogen.

Biological processes that cells undertake almost seem like magic unless you understand how it works. And when you learn how it works you see that its a complex machine where if one gear fails to work, then it shuts down. The difference with machines is that changes do occur that sometimes allows it work better. Rarely does that happen with technology. Furthermore, Changes must have started at some point and evolved little by little over vast periods of time. Because these changes occurred one at a time over long periods of time there has NEVER been a frame work prewritten that says its supposed to work like this. If you look at how viruses work, simplest form of biological process, its composed of genetic material, protein coat and a mission to infect. Its possible life started in a similar way, with a protein coat or cell wall, basic genetic material and a little bit of luck/chance... And after 3.5 billions years of life on Earth, we find ourselves here making an argument about how life evolves....


My point being, you are making generalized statements for intelligent design which in itself has no real scientific or credible research to show that its a valid theory. I understand how intelligent design makes sense, I myself grew up in a religious household, went to sunday school, sunday mass week, had my confirmation, etc. But at the same time got my degree in Animal Science and Pre-veterinary studies.

But I know even if i throw out all researched points, academically proven theories, and observed 'facts' (since facts can be disproven), I know you have already made up your mind on this subject matter. So really there is no point trying to teach you something, but I do this so others who want to learn something can indeed learn. And those who do have questions on the matter can make up their own minds.

 

[ehs5mw]

I'm not sure why you posted a link to the website of someone rather than a journal article, but point taken. Regardless, the trilobyte eye occurs way too early for evolutionary models. The evolutionary model (I'm not sure why we say this when there are lots of competing ideas for evolution of various species) does make predictions. Often, they are wrong. So we make changes to the model, because it simply must be true. There is no good alternative right now in science (atheistic science, at least), as many scientists are seeking to write out any possiblitity of responsibility to a Creator. It's pretty simple.

Strikerfox, you keep providing information that requires a leap of faith to account for macroevolution. Please show me where we can see a series of mutations accumulating in a population to lead to a new species where information is shown to increase such that we find new types of structures or new systems in organisms. The mutations of which you write are nowhere near the type of mutations we would need to find in order to have single cell organisms work their way up to humans. It's simply not accounted for by what we observe. This is why quick bursts of evolutionary activity are proposed by some. There are many different explanations for how evolution may work, but every single one is disputed by other scientists (and many scientists, not just some small minority). The explanations are simply inadequate.

It's as simple as looking at the evidence and formulating an opinion about what one sees. I do not think evolution is true, though organisms certainly adapt. The examples of speciation we find all fit the model of adaptation that would be predicted by the creation model. There are lots of conundrums in what we observe as compared to the evolutionary model.

By the way, I wasn't homeschooled, nor have I seen any homeschooling materials, so I wouldn't be able to comment on the materials. The page you show on here is quite alarming.

Geo, I appreciate the respect you show in your posting. It is my understanding that you have a desire for the truth to be known. So do I, so I genuinely appreciate your sincerity.

Striker, I do not know why you think that you are smarter than me, offering me suggestions as if I simply am incapable of understanding what you type. I would not suggest that I am smarter than you on this forum, as that would be fairly presumptuous of me and also rude. Still, I have serious questions about your attitude. Are you the type of "scientist" that would alter the bones of a skeleton (Lucy) using a Dremel tool in order to "prove" that she walked upright? Are you the type to offer up piltdown man as proof of evolution? You are certainly the type to make rude, personal attacks without a serious discussion as Geochemist has tried to offer. My degree is from one of the "best" private institutions in the nation, one which puts down the Bible as wrong and lifts up Darwin as a god. My university has put forth some of the leading evolutionary scholarship in the world. It doesn't mean anything to possess knowledge if one does not or cannot analyze what is being taught and the motives behind it.

If you want to offer up Bible verses in your post in order to use them against Christianity, why don't you look at Romans 1:18-32 (NIV)?

God's Wrath Against Mankind

"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Does this not apply to our society today?

 

[geochem1st]

.....
Geo, I appreciate the respect you show in your posting. It is my understanding that you have a desire for the truth to be known. So do I, so I genuinely appreciate your sincerity.

....

Hey you're a fellow Larrivee owner, its all good.

 

[ext1jdh]

 

[ehs5mw]

Eyes have evolved several times through several different species at different time.

Eyes have evolved in insects, fish, jellyfish, crustaceans at completely different periods with completely different functions due to completely different circumstances and environments. This in no way means there is an underlying framework in DNA that at one point was turned on so that eyes can be formed. It is just by chance that changes in the DNA occurred to form eyes through long periods of time.

As for bacteria, if there is no need for change then a bacterial species will remain the same, even for billions of years. As long as there is a niche environment that life can grow in life will find a way to live there. Some bacteria that did live billions of years ago still remain around unchanged because there has been an environment that is able to support them somewhere.

If there was no longer an environment to support them then they would no longer exist, as is the case with billions of bacterial species that lived billions of years ago but no longer exist today.

The environment changes through time. When there is a change, someone somewhere will take advantage and try to fill the void. That is how there was rise to oxygen producing algae and a change from an anoxic atmosphere to an oxygen filled atmosphere. Once you have oxygen in the atmosphere and an ozone layer you can begin to colonize dry land. Before the ozone layer, radiation would bake all exposed land. So now there is a new environment to take over and change. Once plants covered the earth, the environment changed again. When continents move around the planet, their position changes weather patterns and ocean currents. The environment changes in response to that.

If creatures did not evolve through the process of mutation, then there in no way would we have any type of complex life. If bacteria could not mutate, then a change in their environment would cause them to die out instead of Adapting (Adaptation = Evolution caused through a mutational change in the DNA.)

The reason why we find "living fossils" today is because somewhere there has been an environment where the species has been able to live and keep reproducing. Said environment is perfect for the "living fossil" and any mutated offspring either die off before reproducing or find a new environment to live in where they can reproduce and eventually evolve into something new.

Like I said before, EVOLUTION IS A RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT. If you can find an environment that does not change, and some creatures have, then said population will remain the same, although it is possible for some slight changes to occur, as it is INEVITABLE through time. That is why we may still find Living fossils today but they are NOT 100% identical to their ancient counterparts.

Frankly, if you do not study this stuff, then you are not going to understand it. If you do not take microbiology, organic chemistry, and learn about cellular biological processes then you are not going to understand exactly how things work in our body.

I mean, the only reason we even breathe is because we need the oxygen as an endpoint to bind molecules of carbon, by breaking apart molecules of sugar, which released energy that binds 1 phosphate to adenosine diphosphate creating ATP (adenosine triphosphate) which is one of the molecules in our cells that provides energy so that our cells can carry on DNA replication and RNA transcription, so that RNA can create Protein which then carry out the biological processes in all living things. But then you have living creatures such as bacteria which do not need oxygen to carry out this process at all, where oxygen is deadly to them. Instead they use another molecule such as nitrogen.

Biological processes that cells undertake almost seem like magic unless you understand how it works. And when you learn how it works you see that its a complex machine where if one gear fails to work, then it shuts down. The difference with machines is that changes do occur that sometimes allows it work better. Rarely does that happen with technology. Furthermore, Changes must have started at some point and evolved little by little over vast periods of time. Because these changes occurred one at a time over long periods of time there has NEVER been a frame work prewritten that says its supposed to work like this. If you look at how viruses work, simplest form of biological process, its composed of genetic material, protein coat and a mission to infect. Its possible life started in a similar way, with a protein coat or cell wall, basic genetic material and a little bit of luck/chance... And after 3.5 billions years of life on Earth, we find ourselves here making an argument about how life evolves....


My point being, you are making generalized statements for intelligent design which in itself has no real scientific or credible research to show that its a valid theory. I understand how intelligent design makes sense, I myself grew up in a religious household, went to sunday school, sunday mass week, had my confirmation, etc. But at the same time got my degree in Animal Science and Pre-veterinary studies.

But I know even if i throw out all researched points, academically proven theories, and observed 'facts' (since facts can be disproven), I know you have already made up your mind on this subject matter. So really there is no point trying to teach you something, but I do this so others who want to learn something can indeed learn. And those who do have questions on the matter can make up their own minds.

Convergent evolution makes absolutely no sense. Different pressure on different organisms at different times brought out similar mutations that, though they served no purpose we could imagine, somehow added up millions of times to yield similar structures? That simply does not hold water.

 

[geochem1st]

Convergent evolution makes absolutely no sense. Different pressure on different organisms at different times brought out similar mutations that, though they served no purpose we could imagine, somehow added up millions of times to yield similar structures? That simply does not hold water.

The pressures don't bring out the mutations. Mutations are spontaneous. Similar structure within differing species indicate a common ancestry. That the structures have differing functions is a matter of adaptability. I can use a screwdriver to drive screws, or open paint cans with, the choice depends on the short term need.

 

[ext1jdh]

Convergent evolution makes absolutely no sense. Different pressure on different organisms at different times brought out similar mutations that, though they served no purpose we could imagine, somehow added up millions of times to yield similar structures? That simply does not hold water.

Common ancestor.

 

[ehs5mw]

The pressures don't bring out the mutations. Mutations are spontaneous. Similar structure within differing species indicate a common ancestry. That the structures have differing functions is a matter of adaptability. I can use a screwdriver to drive screws, or open paint cans with, the choice depends on the short term need.

I understand this, but that isn't what I felt was suggested by the post above.

Similar structures in my lego buildings mean I was a bad lego-builder.

I have not seen any evidence to date that has shown me that the mutations that we know are possible could have led to what we observe today. I understand the idea, but I find the current thoughts about mechanisms for evolution to be lacking.

 

[ehs5mw]

Common ancestor.

This is exactly the opposite of what was suggested, but it is a plausible theory for certain features.

In the cases of convergent evolution, there is no ancestor pushing forward a structure. The structures happen totally separately.