Natural selection is evolution?

[CFLarsen]

Isn't that the guy who thinks Einstein physics are bull because he apparently knows better than all the physicists in the world? Stop feeding the troll.

Case in point:

The Crackpot Index
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics

 

[articulett]

Evolution. Is there nothing it can't do?

I love Cyborg and his repartee with the inane, but I have to point out that a big part of evolution is sexual selection, and whilst a huge penis is one possibility, let's not forget that a cozy vagina decorated with a lovely vulva is another option when pulling pants down...

 

[articulett]

It's like he thinks we're all morons or something.

Because yeah if:

1) We realise, gasp!, he too was once an 'evolutionist'
2) He is no longer an 'evolutionist' because of 'common sense' arguments he definitely didn't crib off anyone else
3) We too must renounce the evils of evolutionary faith! Faith is dead! Long live faith!

Just how retarded do you think we are you lying sack of ****?

Nothing like lying for invisible sky buddy, eh...

I like the, "I used to be an atheist..." one too. And then it's usually followed by some old argument as if it had just sprung into the mind of the believer, "But, gee, did you ever think of the eye... " They don't even recognize that their snafus were once thought of by evolutionists... and then answered!

 

[Iamme]

Well their are a lot of contradictions to that. By replacing a gene, you are talking about an incredibly complex change in sequences of codons to produce the right amino acids, to produce the right proteins that produce the right cells that produce the right genes. That infers introducing a "complex" change of high order and lots of intelligence. You can't just tweak bits and expect a radical different sequence of complex components of the gene mentioned above. That too would have nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection destroys possibilities.

Explaining this highly complex introduction of new precise DNA is almost as daunting as producing the complexity in the first place.

Also, you ignored the fact that you "replaced" the gene. You didn't add it. So you are suggesting that all the possible "new species" preexist and Natural Selection offers no explanation for that nor the exponentially diminishing variations and instances.

It's always nice to hear differing points of view on scientific matters that many believe is already a proven thing.

I am wondering if you have given any thought to why back millions of years ago, we had many creatures that were like the creatures of today, except they were giant sized, and now they are relatively pint sized. What happened?

 

[articulett]

(hey, don't interrupt... I want to see Iamme and rttjc have a discussion)

 

[rittjc]

Sure. You could claim that there was an intelligent designer who, for instance, designed the incredibly complex human immune system and then designed malaria with a complex suit of traits and behaviors specifically suited to allow it to bypass the human immune system. That would be way more contradictory.

You will get no traction here. Whether the designer created a destructive force or whether the free will organisms violated that began this entropic process, destruction cannot be seen as part of the process of creation. What creation does is completely separate than what process it took to make creation exist.

Luckily, the gene pool is constantly replenished by mutations. Evolution is not natural selection. It is natural selection in combination with mutation. Mutation provides the ever filling pool of variation that natural selection acts on.

Genetic mutation is destructive. To change a gene to be beneficial, you can't randomly change the condons an amino acid and get anything useful. The changes would have to be infinite. But I sit here and listed to the use of known variability to calculate the possible blood type, baldness, etc, in that of the offspring. Then comes the switcheroo con game of saying mutations are random. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Quit asking for free rides.

Inbreeding doesn't destroy DNA. It just increases the chances that harmful recessive traits already existing in the gene pool will be matched and thus expressed.

It most certainly does. The DNA is a full component of the being. If parts are missing the DNA is defective.

But note that you finally admit that the "defective" gene comes from the same preexisting genes in parent and therefore no genes are created. You have the same number in the child as the parent. This does not offer a path to where the "information" (genes) came from. There is no creative force, it is simply defective. Back to square one for evolution. Not to mention the free ride on abiogenesis.

Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it. Perhaps you would like to be the first?

Creationists are always doing this or doing that..blah blah. Creationists are intelligent humans just as you and have every right to question your religion as you have to question theirs. Just say "I hate God and I hate those that like Him and therefore will fraud my philosophies as science to keep them in their place" and get it over with. Bigotry is not become someone that thinks they have answers. If you have answers they would speak for themselves and wouldn't need you insulting their critics to hide the weaknesses of your answer.

Animal breeders tend to inbreed animals because they are trying to achieve particular results quickly and stringently select for the particular characteristics they are trying to preserve. Nature can afford to work changes at more gradual pace (it's had billions of years to work with as opposed to the 10 thousand or so human breeder have had), and thanks to mutation, it has a constant supply of new genetic material to work with.

Yes, you are right but you haven't got the slightest clue of the magnitude of what you said. They are aware the DNA of animals has the features already designed and ready to go for variation. So why the stupid idea that defects are what create that change? You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

They also know inbreeding is information destructive. You must reintroduce genes into the gene pool artificially or the dogs would become still born or have two heads or something freaky like that until there was not one left.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. A thing that has been observed is in no sense "mythical". Also, before declaring that a mutation is a loss of information, you need to define what you mean by information. A point mutation in an opsin gene can cause that opsin to be sensitive to a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In what way is this a loss of information?

Loss of information. The child's genes that "mutates" has less information to vary than the parent's. It has decreased potential. You keep forgetting that life is critical on the molecular level too and that genes are not simple black boxes that can turn into other black boxes if you simply change.

That's like saying I don't want Windows so I will take instances of Windows and keep inserting random bit changes until I get Linux. It is that preposterous but it does solve your religious demands.

As already noted, this is a Creationist straw man. Please define information and explain how the frame shift mutation that created the nylon bug was a loss of information.

Anytime a creationist points out the emperors new clothes of evolution, you call it a strawman argument.

There was a genetic lose on Nylonase because the parent can produce Nylonase AND other variations that Nylonase cannot. But the name Nylonase is a contrived name because "ONE" of the things it can consume is Nylon, a Dupont creation. That's another con game of evolutionary thinking. All bacteria destroy things. Streptococcus will eat, amongst other things skin, but you don't call it "Skinase". Why, because you are not so stupid to think it was "created" by some need to destroy skin anymore than Nylonase suddenly appeared because of the presence of Nylon.

You are dangerously close to the very definition of the shameful practice of pushing "Spontaneous Generation". This is the philosophy of the evolutionist. I am surprised that you are not challenging me with how then genes of exposed flesh mutates into flies.

This is a rather insulting claim about a lot of intelligent, highly trained, professional scientists. It's also a load of horse manure.

Thats what I say about your claims against scientists that are creationist. They are highly trained and professionals too.

No. Scientists accept evolution because it fits all available evidence better than any alternative. You calling evolution self-contradictory and illogical does not make it so.

No it doesn't but it doesn't make it false either. This is why people need to judge for themselves as you people should quit being so afraid of people being able to see a critical view at your religious pseudoscience.

Relativity cannot be used to explain abiogenises either. Does that make Relativity false? Evolution answers the questions it was intended to answer. That is sufficient.

Relativity does not address the organic life forms and portray itself as a mechanism of its advance by using claims of its destruction. It is not obligated to. Evolution is but never does.

They know it happens because it has been observed (unlike special creation).

Why do they hide this evidence if they can see it because they are constantly bombarded with requests to demonstrate it. They can't even agree amongst themselves. Your faith in men rivals that of a Catholic's faith in the Pope. You believe in men and you are set up for a fall.

 

[rittjc]

It's always nice to hear differing points of view on scientific matters that many believe is already a proven thing.

I am wondering if you have given any thought to why back millions of years ago, we had many creatures that were like the creatures of today, except they were giant sized, and now they are relatively pint sized. What happened?

Well, the average size of a dinosaur was that of a small dog. But keep in mind reptiles continue to grow as long as they live.

All the name Dinosaur means is "large lizard". Why are large Crocs, Alligators, Lizards, Komodo Dragons not called "dinosaurs"?

This is part of the marketing of evolution. It goes along with other dubious sales pitches of evolutionists like "Oort" clouds that killed off the Dinosaurs and saved all the mammals and other reptiles.

But lots of herbivores grow huge. The five largest animals are herbivores. The size of something doesn't mean anything. There are some pretty large komodo dragons and crocodiles.

Man tends to limit the population of animals on earth. This is part of his dominion over them. If a giant dinosaur stepped on a villagers he is probably going to be had for dinner by that village.

I find the "claims" of the earth being millions of years old to be dubious. There are aspects of science that seem to refute that. But I don't want to get into that on this thread because it would give the dubious evolutionist a tangent to go off on. If you wish you can post a new thread on "How old is the earth".

But, one last thing. You need to understand what causes fossilization. This will send the evolutionists scurrying like bugs when the lights are turned on.

Fossilization does not happen because something dies. It requires that something be buried under sediment like a flood sediment. When an animal dies, predators eat it, whether they are large predators or microbes. You have to stop this process. You can't bury it in the ground because the microbes can get to it there.

Most fossils are petrified. Petrification means it needs water to deliver minerals to harden it so it doesn't decay and retains it original shape.

Fossils are NOT formed over millions of years. This is why there are polystrate fossils that sort of demonstrate that the different "evolutionary" layers are were all formed at the same time instead of they mythical gazzilions of years between the fossils.

It's all part of the evolutionist's show. Get some popcorn and sit back and watch the next act. You can bet it will be a good one.

 

[cyborg]

All the name Dinosaur means is "large lizard".

1841, coined by Sir Richard Owen, from Gk. deinos "terrible" + sauros "lizard," of unknown origin. Fig. sense of "person or institution not adapting to change" is from 1952.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dinosaur&searchmode=none

Why are large Crocs, Alligators, Lizards, Komodo Dragons not called "dinosaurs"?

Because words are made up things and that one was made up to describe things that are not crocs, alligators, lizards and so forth.

You really like being wrong about everything don't you? Let's not even get into the scientific mistakes here - let's just see if you can acknowledge your dumbassery when it comes to language first.

 

[rittjc]

I love Cyborg and his repartee with the inane, but I have to point out that a big part of evolution is sexual selection, and whilst a huge penis is one possibility, let's not forget that a cozy vagina decorated with a lovely vulva is another option when pulling pants down...

Enough of you sick you pervert. I have to block you because you are simply childish and disgusting.

 

[cyborg]

Ah, sexual repression added to the list of problems then.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trolling trolling, over the ocean blue....

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, much of your post appears to be meaningless bibble-babble, but the bit which are comprehensible appear to be lies.

Genetic mutation is destructive. To change a gene to be beneficial, you can't randomly change the condons an amino acid and get anything useful.

Wrong.

You're still wrong.

By the way, I think you mean "codons", although what you would mean by "codons an amino acid" is beyond me.

The changes would have to be infinite.

Obviously it doesn't take an infinite number of mutations to produce a finite piece of DNA.

Then comes the switcheroo con game of saying mutations are random.

Do you deny that mutations are random?

Are they guided, in your opinion, by magic mutation fairies, or what?

Creationists are always doing this or doing that..blah blah. Creationists are intelligent humans just as you and have every right to question your religion as you have to question theirs. Just say "I hate God and I hate those that like Him and therefore will fraud my philosophies as science to keep them in their place" and get it over with.

Why should we tell your lies for you?

If you wish to pretend that evolution is something to do with "hating God", then this filthy and degraded lie should sully your lips, not ours.

Yes, you are right but you haven't got the slightest clue of the magnitude of what you said. They are aware the DNA of animals has the features already designed and ready to go for variation. So why the stupid idea that defects are what create that change?

I don't know, where did you get that stupid idea?

They also know inbreeding is information destructive. You must reintroduce genes into the gene pool artificially or the dogs would become still born or have two heads or something freaky like that until there was not one left.

WTF?

Seriously, dude.

Loss of information. The child's genes that "mutates" has less information to vary than the parent's. It has decreased potential.

Saying this doesn't magically make it true.

That's like saying I don't want Windows so I will take instances of Windows and keep inserting random bit changes until I get Linux. It is that preposterous but it does solve your religious demands.

As has been pointed out to you, processes analogous to evolution do produce functioning computer programs.

There was a genetic lose on Nylonase because the parent can produce Nylonase

You made this up. I notice that you don't actually know what the word "nylonase" means, which must be a big help when you want to talk rubbish about it.

AND other variations that Nylonase cannot. But the name Nylonase is a contrived name because "ONE" of the things it can consume is Nylon, a Dupont creation. That's another con game of evolutionary thinking. All bacteria destroy things. Streptococcus will eat, amongst other things skin, but you don't call it "Skinase". Why, because you are not so stupid to think it was "created" by some need to destroy skin anymore than Nylonase suddenly appeared because of the presence of Nylon.

I'm sure you think this means something.

What do you think "nylonase" means?

Nylonase is the name of an enzyme. It is indeed customary to name enzymes after the chemicals they break down, e.g. lactase breaks down lactose.

You are dangerously close to the very definition of the shameful practice of pushing "Spontaneous Generation".

You mean, like this?

This is the philosophy of the evolutionist. I am surprised that you are not challenging me with how then genes of exposed flesh mutates into flies.

You still find it surprising that we only say things which are true?

You'll get used to it.

Thats what I say about your claims against scientists that are creationist. They are highly trained and professionals too.

Really? How many Nobel Laureates do you guys have?

Feel free to link us to AiG's list of philosophers, civil engineers, and plastic surgeons.

Why do they hide this evidence if they can see it because they are constantly bombarded with requests to demonstrate it.

Scientists do not, of course, hide the proof that they are right. The fact that you refuse to look at the evidence doesn't mean that it is being hidden from you, it means that you are hiding from it.

---

By the way, you score bonus Mad Points for being a religious fanatic who uses the term "religion" as an insult.

 

[Paulhoff]

Well, the average size of a dinosaur was that of a small dog. But keep in mind reptiles continue to grow as long as they live.

Many dinosaur where warm blooded, and where anything but reptiles
All the name Dinosaur means is "large lizard". Why are large Crocs, Alligators, Lizards, Komodo Dragons not called "dinosaurs"?
The same reason that whales or not called fish, dinosaurs were not lizards.
This is part of the marketing of evolution. It goes along with other dubious sales pitches of evolutionists like "Oort" clouds that killed off the Dinosaurs and saved all the mammals and other reptiles.
Marketing of evolution, evolution is a fact, religion is marketed because it is false. And no scientist said the Oort clouds had to have anything to do with the killing of the dinosaurs.
But lots of herbivores grow huge. The five largest animals are herbivores. The size of something doesn't mean anything. There are some pretty large komodo dragons and crocodiles.
A 60 tons dinosaur standing on you foot means nothing, OK.
Man tends to limit the population of animals on earth. This is part of his dominion over them. If a giant dinosaur stepped on a villagers he is probably going to be had for dinner by that village.
Limits the population, yes many humans are stupid and also the villagers came 65 million years to late, so on worries.
I find the "claims" of the earth being millions of years old to be dubious.
No doubt you would, it is beyond your understanding.
There are aspects of science that seem to refute that.
Name one tested one please.
But I don't want to get into that on this thread because it would give the dubious evolutionist a tangent to go off on. If you wish you can post a new thread on "How old is the earth".
4.3 billion (billion American) years.
But, one last thing. You need to understand what causes fossilization.
You do, yea sure.
This will send the evolutionists scurrying like bugs when the lights are turned on.
And the religious to once again lie about the facts, oh by the way lightning is not the wrath of a so-called god.
Fossilization does not happen because something dies. It requires that something be buried under sediment like a flood sediment. When an animal dies, predators eat it, whether they are large predators or microbes. You have to stop this process. You can't bury it in the ground because the microbes can get to it there.

Most fossils are petrified. Petrification means it needs water to deliver minerals to harden it so it doesn't decay and retains it original shape.
Funny first you say it can't be done, then you show how it is, please make up you mind.

Fossils are NOT formed over millions of years. This is why there are polystrate fossils that sort of demonstrate that the different "evolutionary" layers are were all formed at the same time instead of they mythical gazzilions of years between the fossils.
You make no sense here at all, what is your point, I mean lie.
It's all part of the evolutionist's show. Get some popcorn and sit back and watch the next act. You can bet it will be a good one.
So who made you so-called god all at once.

Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is part of the marketing of evolution. It goes along with other dubious sales pitches of evolutionists like "Oort" clouds that killed off the Dinosaurs and saved all the mammals and other reptiles.

What a sad little liar you are.

No-one claims that the Oort cloud killed the dinosaurs or saved the mammals from extinction.

But, one last thing. You need to understand what causes fossilization. This will send the evolutionists scurrying like bugs when the lights are turned on.

What a bizarre fantasy. We know how fossils are formed, it was real scientists who found this out.

Fossilization does not happen because something dies.

Of course not.

Oh, wait, wasn't I meant to be "scurrrying like a bug" at that statement?

Fossils are NOT formed over millions of years. This is why there are polystrate fossils that sort of demonstrate that the different "evolutionary" layers are were all formed at the same time instead of they mythical gazzilions of years between the fossils.

Oh, look, the polystrate fossils lie!

Tell me ... what do you think the word "stratum" means?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Enough of you sick you pervert. I have to block you because you are simply childish and disgusting.

By the way, if merely mentioning the existence of vaginas is sick, perverted, childish, and disgusting, then where would designing the vagina fit into your scale of moral values?

 

[articulett]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dinosaur&searchmode=none



Because words are made up things and that one was made up to describe things that are not crocs, alligators, lizards and so forth.

You really like being wrong about everything don't you? Let's not even get into the scientific mistakes here - let's just see if you can acknowledge your dumbassery when it comes to language first.

That's actually a Ken Ham lie to make the arc story sound plausible...

It's so cute when they act like they know what they are talking about, but they regurgitate the babble of their preacher-gurus like it's the word of god...

I wonder if he thinks men have one less rib than women... see that's an easy thing to disprove, but a lot of the real whack-jobs believe this one. It's like they don't check their sources. Who needs evidence when you have "the good book" and FAITH.

 

[articulett]

By the way, if merely mentioning the existence of vaginas is sick, perverted, childish, and disgusting, then where would designing the vagina fit into your scale of moral values?

Not to mention impregnating a virgin and telling her about it after the fact... and then killing her kid in front of her to atone for sins of people not yet born...

Interesting moral system, he has--
And what's super duper interesting is that these guys always convince themselves that they are pillars of morality!

It's too bad he has me on ignore, because I was really going to gross him out by mentioning fallopian tubes, the uterus, and the labias--minora and majora...

 

[rittjc]

natural selection prefers those who have success at reproduction.

The weaker still have success at reproduction. But reproduction means you already have a reproducing species. You can't get out of the starting blocks as an evolutionist.

You think nature has intelligence and reasoning and "prefers". That makes no sense at all. Do you believe mother earth is able to talk as well?

One of the proofs is that there are traits which are beneficial to reproduction but detrimental to the individual. It is not about 'survival of the fittest' it is about survival of the breeders.

But breeders had to have preexisting capabilities and information to pass on to offspring. That's a heck of a "given", a free ride, or a black box you demand to defend your theory. "First everything existed, then natural selection took over". That as unscientific as you can be.

Natural Selection can also called "extinction". But when you use that word it shows how stupid the idea of evolution is so we go back to using the term "Natural Selection" lest evolution be exposed for what it is. However, a rose by any other name...

I believe you should meet Mr. Pot , Mr. Kettle.

When have used absolutes? You simply can't address the scientific arguments by IDers and creationists that tear evolution to pieces with common sense, and without bailing out with insults to the creationist. People reading this are probably smart enough to see there is trouble in Evolutionland and desperate tactics are a good indicator of this.

 

[rittjc]

By the way, if merely mentioning the existence of vaginas is sick, perverted, childish, and disgusting, then where would designing the vagina fit into your scale of moral values?

It just shows a lack a lack of class. Its the kind of thing children do. There was no point being made just someone trying to show how low their IQ was. When I was a child I acted like a child. But then I grew up. Nice attempt to bait me but you just aren't as clever as you think you are.

 

[rittjc]

What a sad little liar you are.

No-one claims that the Oort cloud killed the dinosaurs or saved the mammals from extinction.

You are a liar. This has been an offered source of the mysterious disappearance of dinos.

What a bizarre fantasy. We know how fossils are formed, it was real scientists who found this out.

Then why use the fossil record to record millions of years of time. That is simply deluding.

Oh, wait, wasn't I meant to be "scurrrying like a bug" at that statement?

Oh, look, the polystrate fossils lie!

Tell me ... what do you think the word "stratum" means?

If you deny the existence of polystrate fossils, you made my point that evolutionists don't know squat about fossils. You fired a mortar into you own camp.