Creationist debates the entire Berkley University about evolution

[John Galt?]

My belief is that Natural (and sexual) selection can not explain all the diversity and all the different levels of evolution. Also NS/SS are very slow taking hundreds or thousands of generations to have a real effect and it seems (to my non-expert eyes) that there were times when species exploding at a very fast rate i.e Cambrian Era. So there must be other mechanisms at work.

We know that NS/SS don't need that long a time to create new features.  The Cambrian explosion is an explosion in a very slow moving sense. The explosion takes place over millions of years (5 being the lowest estimate and 40 being a credible estimate). We've seen plenty of evolutionary changes in existing animals over the same 5-40 million year time frame - heck 5m years for example takes us back in time to when the Hominidae are begining to split from other primates...and that is the low end.

Yeah I get the 5-40 million yr time frame but the Cambrian explosion encompasses a move from simple jellies and sponges to vertebrates. We are talking communal one-celled organisms to finned fish and sharks in just 40 million yrs. My point is that other mechanisms MAY be at play besides JUST natural and sexual selection. I AM NOT talking about any fringe or spiritual supernatural stuff but rational ideas like viruses transporting genes between species or organisms incorporating genetic material from consumed prey. Both ideas witnessed and verified in the lab.

For example: species A evolves (thru mutation and NS) photo-sensitive cells giving it a significant edge. A virus infects species A and copies a new virus which includes the gene for photo sensitive cells and then infects species B which is not even in the same family as A and reprograms some of B's DNA to include the photo-sensitive genes. Now Species B has a huge head start w/o NS or SS to develop eyes.

Or multi cellular critter A feeds on single cellular B. B evolves the ability to smell the approach of A and swim away becoming B2. Critter A manages to catch a B2 and instead of digest all material, it can incorporate the genetic material of B2 into its own genome. A few generations later A2 can now smell B2 and zero in on the attack.

Both those examples have been observed, leeches have been found that keep some of the genetic material of their hosts. Viruses have been found to transfer DNA from 1 species to another.

To deny that these observed events didn't happen millennia ago is just silly.

[deadzone]

I firmly believe the human race is devolving.

Agree.......just look at the clowns that posted above us.

[dalbuc]

Yeah I get the 5-40 million yr time frame but the Cambrian explosion encompasses a move from simple jellies and sponges to vertebrates. We are talking communal one-celled organisms to finned fish and sharks in just 40 million yrs. My point is that other mechanisms MAY be at play besides JUST natural and sexual selection. I AM NOT talking about any fringe or spiritual supernatural stuff but rational ideas like viruses transporting genes between species or organisms incorporating genetic material from consumed prey. Both ideas witnessed and verified in the lab.

For example: species A evolves (thru mutation and NS) photo-sensitive cells giving it a significant edge. A virus infects species A and copies a new virus which includes the gene for photo sensitive cells and then infects species B which is not even in the same family as A and reprograms some of B's DNA to include the photo-sensitive genes. Now Species B has a huge head start w/o NS or SS to develop eyes.

HGT isn't a mean of evolution, just like random mutation (RM) isn't an evolutionary mechanism. HGT and RM are means to create genetic variability. NS/SS are the methods by which those variations are selected for. I have no doubt that HGT happens and did happen but that happens at the level of an individual and no one individual matters all that much except for his ability to pass on those mutations to his/her offspring. In other words, even if HGT happened it doesn't explain "faster" evolution because HGT is nothing more than a means of mutation and still has to be "spread" to the population.

[tatmanfish]

Yeah I get the 5-40 million yr time frame but the Cambrian explosion encompasses a move from simple jellies and sponges to vertebrates. We are talking communal one-celled organisms to finned fish and sharks in just 40 million yrs. My point is that other mechanisms MAY be at play besides JUST natural and sexual selection. I AM NOT talking about any fringe or spiritual supernatural stuff but rational ideas like viruses transporting genes between species or organisms incorporating genetic material from consumed prey. Both ideas witnessed and verified in the lab.

For example: species A evolves (thru mutation and NS) photo-sensitive cells giving it a significant edge. A virus infects species A and copies a new virus which includes the gene for photo sensitive cells and then infects species B which is not even in the same family as A and reprograms some of B's DNA to include the photo-sensitive genes. Now Species B has a huge head start w/o NS or SS to develop eyes.

HGT isn't a mean of evolution, just like random mutation (RM) isn't an evolutionary mechanism. HGT and RM are means to create genetic variability. NS/SS are the methods by which those variations are selected for. I have no doubt that HGT happens and did happen but that happens at the level of an individual and no one individual matters all that much except for his ability to pass on those mutations to his/her offspring. In other words, even if HGT happened it doesn't explain "faster" evolution because HGT is nothing more than a means of mutation and still has to be "spread" to the population.

I think a good .5mil worth of years would be sufficient enough time. we are talking 5-40 million years for either event or both to play a significant factor.

[GrimmReaper]

Read Spontaneous Evolution, or Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton....a biologist. You will never see evolution the same again.

To briefly sum up the meat of it. Genes change due to changes in environment.....healthy cells put in a stressful environment become sick. Sick cells placed in a healthy environment become healthy.........and no genetic disorders are hereditary. Species change because of the environment they are in.

It's more about what you believe....we are creating everyday. Make sure to create a good healthy environment for yourself.

So, Darwin was definitely not right, and neither is the church. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble.

[John Galt?]

Yeah I get the 5-40 million yr time frame but the Cambrian explosion encompasses a move from simple jellies and sponges to vertebrates. We are talking communal one-celled organisms to finned fish and sharks in just 40 million yrs. My point is that other mechanisms MAY be at play besides JUST natural and sexual selection. I AM NOT talking about any fringe or spiritual supernatural stuff but rational ideas like viruses transporting genes between species or organisms incorporating genetic material from consumed prey. Both ideas witnessed and verified in the lab.

For example: species A evolves (thru mutation and NS) photo-sensitive cells giving it a significant edge. A virus infects species A and copies a new virus which includes the gene for photo sensitive cells and then infects species B which is not even in the same family as A and reprograms some of B's DNA to include the photo-sensitive genes. Now Species B has a huge head start w/o NS or SS to develop eyes.

HGT isn't a mean of evolution, just like random mutation (RM) isn't an evolutionary mechanism. HGT and RM are means to create genetic variability. NS/SS are the methods by which those variations are selected for.

Okay, my semantics were wrong.

 I have no doubt that HGT happens and did happen but that happens at the level of an individual and no one individual matters all that much except for his ability to pass on those mutations to his/her offspring.

I disagree. If mutations are caused by a virus, then it is possible that a large portion of a population could be affected epidemically. Small pox didn't just affect "some individuals" but most of the Western Euro population (survivors were far more immune) which greatly helped Europeans in displacing Native Americans in central and South America. If a virus carries a positive mutation, that could be quickly spread to a majority of a geographic population.

 In other words, even if HGT happened it doesn't explain "faster" evolution because HGT is nothing more than a means of mutation and still has to be "spread" to the population.

HGT would cause "faster" evolution because you would have large numbers of organisms in close geographic proximity getting the same mutation at the same time verses random mutations which would be much more infrequent and occur in individuals scattered both geographically and chronologically.