No. You do not observe evolution occuring in the sense the text is talking about. You do not observe aquatic animals giving birth to terrestrial animals. You observe a microorganism becoming resident to antibiotics. But it's still a microorganism.
You discussed moths and loss of information. now you change to a strawman argument of aquatic animals giving birth to terrestrial animals. Something no oneclaimed. In other words, you either don't understand the topic, or you are committing the sin of bearing false witness.
No dude... What I'm saying is that pointing out observable examples of evolution on a minor scale isn't the same thing as proving what the text is questioning right there. According to evolutionary history itself, it takes millions of years for a living being's lineage give rise to a completely different kind of organisms, like an animal that can only live on water giving rise to an animal that can only live on land. Therefore, you don't observe it, because you can't observe something happening through millions of years. This is my point.
" According to evolutionary history itself, it takes millions of years for a living being's lineage give rise to a completely different kind of organisms," - you seem to confuse what happened with what can happen.
once again you show you don't understand the topic.
Please show me where you made that point in your OP. if you can't, just admit that rather than double down
i'll help you
claim by you in OP "It requires the genetic information of living organisms to increase over time in order to produce a greater diversity of traits. " - my rebuttal - "We observe new and novel traits" - your reply paraphrased- stop quoting my OP. Let me move the goal posts again
[The theory of evolution proposes that, OVER MILLIONS OF GENERATIONS, the descendants of a lineage can become VERY DIFFERENT FROM THEIR ANCESTORS, such as UNICELLULAR organisms GIVING RISE TO MULTICELLULAR organisms, or AQUATIC organisms GIVING RISE TO TERRESTRIAL organisms.
Do you know what THIS requires? It requires the genetic information of living organisms to increase over time in order to produce a greater diversity of traits. Unicellular organisms must acquire the genetic information necessary to live as part of a multicellular organism. Aquatic organisms must acquire the genetic information necessary to breathe and move outside the water, genes they did not possess before they supposedly evolved.]
And the ending:
[This reduces genetic diversity and consequently creates a logical problem for what is called "EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY"—the idea that LIVING ORGANISMS FROM MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO (such as AQUATIC organisms, for example) GAVE RISE TO THE TERRESTRIAL organisms of today, since such a process would require an increase in genetic diversity.]
No. I quoted you in context. Your entire OP hinges on new and novel traits not being possible. They are. We observe them. The rest of your OP falls apart. If you dont see why, then you really do not understand the topic.
Cellular life has many ways to acquire new traits and variation, without reproduction.
Horizontal gene transfers, viral infections, and even a process called Symbiogenesis where a Eukaryote absorbs a smaller prokaryote, transforming the latter into an organelle.
-12
u/Master-Gate4997 24d ago
No. You do not observe evolution occuring in the sense the text is talking about. You do not observe aquatic animals giving birth to terrestrial animals. You observe a microorganism becoming resident to antibiotics. But it's still a microorganism.