• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's wrong with this rant? Evolution vs. Creation

hammegk said:
...
I'd say the quote refers to the fact that anything resembling what a non-geneticist would say is a 'new species' has never been directly observed in the lab.
...
Click to expand...
Betrays a bias toward macroscopic visual morphology; very unscientific.

What about what non-astronomers have to say about crab nebulas? I think that's vital too.
 
All those damn fruit fly mutations -- and still flies, don't 'ya know?
Back again to the notion of "kinds."
 
pupdog said:
All those damn fruit fly mutations -- and still flies, don't 'ya know?
Back again to the notion of "kinds."
Click to expand...

Yeah, us doofuses -- thinking a horse is horse, a whale with legs is still a whale, a cat isn't a dog, and man vs. monkey? ;)

A bias toward macroscopic morphology is how we obtain most data. Some is pre-enhanced by microscopes, telescopes, and other technology. :)

And a bacterium remains a bacterium, albeit with differing dna.
 
hammegk said:
Yeah, us doofuses -- thinking a horse is horse, a whale with legs is still a whale...
Click to expand...
Okay, hammy, have it your way. It may be the size of a cat and have no hooves, but it's still a horse. Or then again, it may have hooves, but it's still a whale. Put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes tightly, stick your head --- in the sand --- and repeat after me: "Intermediate forms aren't intermediate forms. Amen."
 
I bet this guy hasn't worked a day in his life. After all, the average work day is eight hours. Take out an hour for lunch, and that's seven hours a day. Seven hours a day times 365 days a year is 2555 hours a year, or about 107 days a year. Take out 104 days for weekends, and that's only three days a year. He probably takes three days of vacation, which means he doesn't work at all.

This guy seems to have strung a bunch of numbers without any showing that they're relevant. Isn't it incredibly conceited to think that no one in evolutionary theory has ever thought of these concerns? He's so incredibly smart that he's discovered a problem that no one has ever noticed before?


According to most scientists, the minimum number of mutations that are necessary for a new structure in a species is five What a load of [censored]. Some structures arise from one mutation.. But, to add to that, each of these mutations must be of the right type and also affect five genes that are functionally related. That does not follow. Mutations of any type occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (but many scientists believe even far less frequently) Cite?. If we are to assume that the first living organism had 10,000 genes, which is the same number as E. coli, one mutation would exist for every 10 cells. Wow, that's incredibly silly. One new mutation would exist for every 10 cells. What, does he think that mutations just pop up in one generation, then disappear in the next? This guy has no understanding of biology. Add to that, the fact that only approximately one out of every 1,000 mutations is non-harmful (does not cause death or serious functional problems). Isn't he double counting? Is being a mutation on the "right" gene and being "beneficial" really independent events? In this case, there would be only 1 non-harmful mutation for every 10,000 cells. The odds that this mutation would even effect sic a particular gene is one in 10,000. With that in mind, there must be a population of 100,000,000 genes in order to have a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.

The odds of a singe cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific functionally related genes is beyond astronomical. [color]Only if all of the preceding argument is valid-which it most certainly is not- and only if the five are independent- a huge assumption to be making.[/color] If one-hundred trillion bacteria were produced every SECOND for five billion years, the resulting population would still be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what is needed for a non-harmful mutation of a species. And these are only the odds of getting a non-harmful mutation. In order for a new structure to be produced, all these mutations must integrate and function perfectly with one another. The odds of this have been computed to be 1 in ten to the three-hundred thousanth power. In other words, evolution is a scientific improbability. So first he presents a wildly fallacious argument "showing" that it is one in 10^40, then he just jumps to 10^300,000 with absolutely no justification other than "it's been computed"? To me it's beyond that- it's basically impossible.

No matter how much an organism changes, it is still the same organism as when it started. An incredibly stupid statement, and one that shows that, despite his dishonest claim to have an open mind, his mind is completely closed to the possibility that evolution is true. If I take some grass and feed it to a cow, is it still grass? Organisms are genetically altered by scientists on a regular basis, and are even said to be "drastically altered," but in the end, they still remain the same type of organism. Sheep do not become birds, reptiles do not become dogs, dogs do not become horses, etc. Another stupid argument. No scientist has able to create a Picasso painting in the lab. Does that prove that Picasso didn't exist? Did God make his paintings? Science today says it is not possible for a species to change drastically enough to become a completely different species Now he's just writing outright lies. Yet, people are willing to believe that they HAVE changed drastically over the period of so many years.

I know that is probably a bit hard to follow, but it does make absolute sense. This is information that I've read in tons of books, researched myself, and also have heard from scientists in college, who worked with my father, and so on. Most scientists that I have met will admit that the theory of evolution is scientifically improbable and basically impossible. More lies.
Click to expand...
 
Hawk one said:
Pray tell me, who are more qualified than a geneticist to determine whether or not it's different species we're talking about? After all, they are the one that has the facts about the genetic structure.

And what will the evolutionary thory predict: That a fly that speciates will instantly be non-fly species, or that there will take a lot of speciations before would eventually start to get something that could classified as something else than a fly? And is what is actually happening consistent with the predictions?

If you actually know about the real evolutionary theory (and not your strawman version you have so far presented), you should be able to answer these questions.
Click to expand...

Bumped to give hammgk a chance to answer these questions.
 
Martin said:
Which is, of course, precisely what evolution predicts.
Click to expand...
No, that is what mutation predicts. Evolution predicts the appearance of legs so the critter can crawl out of the petri dish and bite the researcher. :p
 
Evolution predicts the appearance of legs so the critter can crawl out of the petri dish and bite the researcher.
Click to expand...
Ummm..........No! It is funny, though.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Not any more. The data is in the DNA now.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Oh? When did dna analysis become common when examining the fossil record?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:

Okay, hammy, have it your way. It may be the size of a cat and have no hooves, but it's still a horse.
Click to expand...
Seems so. Or it could be a chihuahua or saint bernard; still one species by any definition.

Question. Have you fossil evidence you could cite that traces a similar lineage of wolf to chihuahua? Wolf to saint bernard is more similar to the ones I'm aware of.


Or then again, it may have hooves, but it's still a whale.
Click to expand...
Don't believe I've ever even implied anything that hyperbolic ... ;)

Then again, toenails=hooves, huh?
 
hammegk wrote:
Oh? When did dna analysis become common when examining the fossil record?
Click to expand...
Oh, about 1985.
Well, actually when did PCR become commonplace?
 
hammegk said:
No, that is what mutation predicts. Evolution predicts the appearance of legs so the critter can crawl out of the petri dish and bite the researcher. :p
Click to expand...

I wonder where hammegk first learned about evolution. The Tremors movie series, perhaps?
 
cbish said:
hammegk wrote: Oh, about 1985.
Well, actually when did PCR become commonplace?
Click to expand...
Pardon me for neglecting to mention "meaningful" dna analysis.

Yeah, I know, a theist ... http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF12-96Mills.html

Significance of Fossil DNA Studies to Evolutionary Theory

DNA sequence studies with these two tree leaf fossils provide very good evidence of the ancestral descent of living bald cypress (T. distichum) from the fossil bald cypress (T. distichum) that lived 17-20 million years ago. The studies also provide reasonable evidence that the modern magnolia (M. macrophylla) and the fossil magnolia (M. latahensis) are closely related sister groups that may be considered to share a common ancestor that lived at least 17-20 million years ago. Likewise, the living termite (M. darwiniensis) and the fossil termite (M. electrodominicus) are closely related sister groups that share a common ancestor that lived at least 25-30 million years ago.

The ancestral descent that we are dealing with in these cases is clearly of a very limited nature. In the bald cypress, it is ancestral descent within a particular species. In the other two instances (magnolia and termite), it is ancestral descent within a particular genus. After reviewing the data on the bald cypress, Gould notes "Y in this case we may be looking at an unbroken and unbranched evolutionary sequence - a true continuity over 20 million years - and the smaller percentage of changes, with no alterations at all in amino acids may record the actual architecture of evolutionary stability.31 I would agree perfectly with Gould's conclusion to this point.32 One might even use this case to illustrate the stasis of Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibria theory of evolution.33 Gould then goes on to say, however, that the data represents the " best kind of evidence that we can produce for the factuality of evolution itself."34 Can Gould really illustrate the dramatic change aspect of punctuated equilibrium by citing cases of stasis? I believe not.
Click to expand...

Point is, just another area to debate, and sfai can see from a bit of googeling, by no means of any particular use demonstrating some good, old-time macro-ev: the changes evolutionists have faith must exist -- somewhere.

Do any of you darwinists/punk-eqs/whatever think dna comparisons from the 20-cm horse & the 20-hand horse will demonstrate macro-ev either?
 
hammegk said:
Pardon me for neglecting to mention "meaningful" dna analysis.

Yeah, I know, a theist ... http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF12-96Mills.html



Point is, just another area to debate, and sfai can see from a bit of googeling, by no means of any particular use demonstrating some good, old-time macro-ev: the changes evolutionists have faith must exist -- somewhere.

Do any of you darwinists/punk-eqs/whatever think dna comparisons from the 20-cm horse & the 20-hand horse will demonstrate macro-ev either?
Click to expand...
Eh, there is only one sort of evolution, microevolution, which is taking place in the genome. The genome is the only way in which an organism can transfer data to other organisms, sometimes their offspring.

The macroevolution mumbo jumbo is utterly irrelevant.
 
I'm no biologist, but can't the concept of evolution be taken for granted when we know that every new living thing isn't 100% genetically identical to its predecessors? Isn't that margin of imperfection "evolution" per se?
 
hammegk said:
IIRC, Eohippus.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're thinking 20 in., not 20 cm. Or maybe you have in mind the famous killer midget Eohippus of Pangea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom