Support NeoGAF

[Pandaman]

How did you come to the conclusion that I can't grasp the concept of evolution?

That seems like a wild assumption at best.

no, its the solution that best fits the evidence.

its possible you're that one outlier who isnt mindfuckingly retarded, but the fact that you someohow missed out on the keystone of modern biology is a pretty majour hint.

 

[KHarvey16]

Vizion, what is your strongest argument against evolution?

Mclaren, a person who does not accept evolution(in general, some details are certainly up for debate and are debated constantly and passionately by scientists) as a fact and as a scientific theory is either woefully ignorant or on the verge of a scientific discovery that will change the world. Perhaps someday we'll see the latter, but forgive me if I don't believe he or she is a member of gaf(yet).

 

[jay]

Is there anyone who didn't first presuppose religious truth who has come to the conclusion that evolution is false?

When an agnostic or an atheist comes to the conclusion that it's incorrect, then I'm interested. I'm not at all surprised that people who have an agenda to discredit evolution have found their "reasons".

I met one person in high school who was not religious but didn't believe in evolution. He thought aliens put us here but had no explanation for where the aliens came from. I think he was just trying to be contrary. Or an idiot.

 

[Vizion28]

Scientific community pretty much unanimously accuses this book of not only spreading FUD, but intentionally misquoting many scientists. I assume you'd rather believe the book, then nearly every scientist misquoted and a host of researches calling this bunk, but I figured for anyone else out there with an actual open mind, they'd enjoy the reading.

Unanimously? Hardly. And then there is another part of the scientific community that rave about the book such Kenyon Martin and Paul Chein.

And right off the bat, you bring in some absolutely terrible logic.

Lets play by your rules, most mutations are deleterious or neutral. What happens to offspring who have these mutations? Either they die, and are unable to pass on these genes, or nothing whatsoever.

Many mutations are passed on, sickle cell anemia is just one example - there are millions of people who have this genetic disease and they are still reproducing.

The fact that there are thousands of genetic diseases only highlights the fact that evolution is not the work of some perfect deity, it is a messy, gross process, and most of the time, doesn't succeed in indefinitely keeping a chain of descendants alive.

Over 99% of all documented species to ever have walked the earth have gone extinct. We're the lucky ones, remember that.

It only highlights the fact the genome of organisms are degenerating as scientists say. That is not "evolution" - that is through such process you can't get a single cell to an ape in billions of years when mutations accumulate in the genome. That's like saying by adding typos to a sentence you can get a Shakespeare play. That goes against logic. There is no scientific evidence which supports a claim. Otherwise show it!

1. The assumption that evolution = more information. Evolution isn't a 'one way street' - Evolution is just change.

I never said that. But to get a single cell to an ape there needs to be a lot more genetic information. That's obvious.

2. Those who have sickle cell are immune to Malaria, which is a much MUCH worse disease, that's why people who have sickle cell in Malaria infested countries live longer, breed more, and spread this disease around. It is the lesser of two evils if you will, and it very clearly shows evolution at work. Evolution isn't a deus ex machina fix all, it may only take you from a -10 to a 2, but 2 is still a 'positive', even if its no 10. If the works of evolution lead to the manifestation of a cure for all diseases, that would actually go against our current understanding of Evolution, and point to a very generous deity working his magic. The fact that it doesn't well... speaks volumes.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You said "Either they die, and are unable to pass on these genes, or nothing whatsoever."

Sickle Cell Malaria can't be used as an example for "upward evolution" because the people with the disease are actually impaired despite that it gives them a survival advantage in certain regions of the world.

Yeah, you cant just throw radiation at stuff and expect a super race to emerge, that's not exactly the best way to put selective pressures on an animal. There have been literally hundreds of other experiments that show evolution at work.

I don't think the scientists ever expected a super race to emerge. But I assume they expected at least a viable fruit fly with a new function or at least a different function. All they got was sickly, deformed fruit flies.

Many of the experiments in the URL is not "evolution" at all when the mutant types are less viable than the wild types.

To the bold. What the fuck? Can I just pass off bullshit like that too? My dick is equivalent to a deity, and deities are always extremely powerful. Fact. You can't just say stuff is equivalent to other stuff and cross your fingers and hope no one notices.

?

Again, evolution doesn't work in one way. It goes in multiple directions. If you were to give a species evolution points every 1000 generations, the species that reproduced a bunch would get many more points than the one that grew some cool limbs but did shit with them.

You're losing me.

Yes, they say stuff that doesn't contradict evolution. Mutation a lot of the time is bad. And? Sometimes it's good. And when that happens, species live longer, they evolve and they adapt. Not too hard of a concept to grasp.

Bring forth the hard scientific evidence. I have been in these types of debates many times and I all get is rhetoric which is useless in a scientific debate.

Also, a lot of your damn quotes are literally ONLY found on creations websites and forums. Really annoying looking through those pages for some sort of concrete reference or confirmation.

Also the irony of you quoting scientists when the vast - vast majority take Evolution as fact is not lost on me.

I wouldn't expect the quotes to be found on Talkorgins. So what? They are Evolutionists who are honest enough to say something that contradicts their worldview.

Hey, about about this bacteria evolving!

Ha, the Nylon eating bacteria example, which produces a new enzyme through evolution. I was expecting this one.

For those who don't know what this is. Supposedly at the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. But this is really not an example of evolution - that is can be used as an example to get a cell to an ape. Molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity. This is similar to the example of the Lenski study of E. Coli.

Evolution does not necessarily mean the introduction of new information, HOWEVER, we have plenty of cases in which new information has been observed in Evolution (a bacteria that has evolved to break down a synthesized material, ie, something that hasn't been around since 'creation' is a pretty clear indicator of that). If it happens just once, it entirely invalidates your claim that it 'never' happens.

Let's clarify what I mean by Evolution. The context of Evolution I am using is the genetic change of organisms through random mutations and natural selection which accounts for all life. Evolutionists assume that all life derived from some hypothetical primordial cell through such processes. There is no scientific evidence to support such a notion. Otherwise show it.

Your mention of mutations being bad - yeah, there are mutations that are bad, good and neutral. Even if we were to say most are bad, that means diddly. It has absolutely no bearing on the validity that positive mutations do effect the ability for an animal to breed more, spread this gene more, and effect the overall changes occurring in it's gene pool. It's so simple it physically hurts me that you don't understand this.

I completely understand it. You can't get a cell to an ape in billions of years with an accumulation of genetic mistakes. There is the huge problem that 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). If you really believe that through evolution you can get a cell to an ape then provide the hard scientific evidence for your claim. I'll be waiting. And please just don't give me rhetoric. That's not science.

 

[jaxword]

This is the guy who equated being gay with bestiality. So not only is he a troll and religious nut, but he's also a bigot.

That's pretty awful to think of homosexuals like that.

 

[BocoDragon]

I met one person in high school who was not religious but didn't believe in evolution. He thought aliens put us here but had no explanation for where the aliens came from. I think he was just trying to be contrary. Or an idiot.

Yeah you've got a point. You don't need to be technically religious to believe in crazy bullshit without evidence.. See conspiracy theories..

 

[Vizion28]

For what it's worth, Vizion28, I'm a biochemistry major who's getting ready to start his Masters program and I agree with much of what you've said.

No Mclaren, you're supposed to believe what the majority believe and not delve deeply to find valid information which contradicts it.

 

[KHarvey16]

You can't get a cell to an ape in billions of years with an accumulation of genetic mistakes.

Do you believe mutation is the only source of variation in evolution? Why?

 

[jay]

No Mclaren, you're supposed to believe what the majority believe and not delve deeply to find valid information which contradicts it.

Good to see Expelled taught you how to present yourself as the oppressed.

 

[mclaren777]

When an agnostic or an atheist comes to the conclusion that it's incorrect, then I'm interested.

You might enjoy this book...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1551118637/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[koam]

Is it wrong that I consider anyone who doesn't believe in evolution a moron?

 

[jaxword]

No Mclaren, you're supposed to believe what the majority believe and not delve deeply to find valid information which contradicts it.

Could you please answer the questions you're avoiding?

 

[mclaren777]

What ways? (And that's not something you put "Besides, …" in front of)

Fossil evidence from China's Guizhou Province regarding the Cambrian explosion (and the ability for fragile tissues to be fossilized). The persistent inability to generate non-racemic amino acid mixtures from Urey–Miller-esque experiments. The existence of genuine informational code (DNA, RNA, proteins) and the 'computation' of one into another.

Stuff like that.

 

[Vizion28]

I met one person in high school who was not religious but didn't believe in evolution. He thought aliens put us here but had no explanation for where the aliens came from. I think he was just trying to be contrary. Or an idiot.

I guess you don't know about the Panspermia hypothesis championed by several renown scientists.

Dr. Fred Hoyle, the man who coined "The Big Bang", believed aliens created life on Earth because he understood the sheer improbability of life forming by chance.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

 

[Zaphod]

No Mclaren, you're supposed to believe what the majority believe and not delve deeply to find valid information which contradicts it.

Besides you constantly repeating that we can't have come from a common ancestor I don't see much evidence for your claim.

Why do all land animals go through the same phases during development from a fertilized egg?

Why do we share so much DNA with a mouse?

Why do all land animals have a similar layout in terms of bone structure, 4 limbs and such while fish have multiple layouts?

Why do chickens resemble raptors?

Why do mass extinctions always precede an explosions of new species?

Unfortunately I have to be off to bed but I imagine your response will be a cut and paste joy to read in the morning.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I guess you don't know about the Panspermia hypothesis championed by several renown scientists.

Dr. Fred Hoyle, the man who coined "The Big Bang", believed aliens created life on Earth because he understood the sheer improbability of life forming by chance.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

Oh yeah, the disingenuous "747 in a junkyard" analogy.

The one that ruins its own validity by comparing it to a manmade object, and completely fails to understand how organic chemistry works by assuming that it's all random chance.

And a protip: Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" because he was mocking the idea and thought anyone who believed in it was stupid. We all know how that turned out when background radiation later showed very strong evidence for the Big Bang.

 

[KHarvey16]

I guess you don't know about the Panspermia hypothesis championed by several renown scientists.

Dr. Fred Hoyle, the man who coined "The Big Bang", believed aliens created life on Earth because he understood the sheer improbability of life forming by chance.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

Hoyle did not understand statistics(or, largely, the big bang, since he rejected it).

 

[FunkyPajamas]

Why do we share so much DNA with a mouse?

Why do all land animals have a similar layout in terms of bone structure, 4 limbs and such while fish have multiple layouts?

Why do chickens resemble raptors?

Well, if DNA is code, and whoever created us is a developer, it's probably just copy/paste or legacy stuff.
[edit] before I get banned I want to make clear I was making a joke. Now I'm out.

 

[jay]

Oh yeah, the disingenuous "747 in a junkyard" analogy.

The one that ruins its own validity by comparing it to a manmade object, and completely fails to understand how organic chemistry works by assuming that it's all random chance.

And a protip: Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" because he was mocking the idea and thought anyone who believed in it was stupid.

I think Blind Watchmaker handled the plane analogy pretty well.

The other issue is that saying aliens did it just shifts the question back a step. Unless by aliens, you mean Jesus, which is what vision means.

 

[Vizion28]

What religious environment were you raised in?

What does it have to do with the discussion at hand?

If you must know my mother was a church goer but never pushed any religion or anything like that on me. She's not even even religious.

My dad is a deist and doesn't go to church. He believes in evolution.

 

[Vizion28]

Do you believe mutation is the only source of variation in evolution? Why?

The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation. It is the supposed source of all new genetic information.

Are you debating that?

 

[foodtaster]

The "hivemind" GAF has is ridiculous. I am adamant in my beliefs about evolution, but to discount the opinion of anyone who does not believe is absurd.

 

[jay]

The "hivemind" GAF has is ridiculous. I am adamant in my beliefs about evolution, but to discount the opinion of anyone who does not believe is absurd.

I'm not sure what this means. Not paying much attention to copy and paste shotgun style arguments from fundamentalist Christian creationist groups doesn't seem that absurd.

 

[Vizion28]

I think Blind Watchmaker handled the plane analogy pretty well.

The other issue is that saying aliens did it just shifts the question back a step. Unless by aliens, you mean Jesus, which is what vision means.

Where do you believe life came from?

If you believe it came about by chance then you have a lot of faith.

Is there anyone who didn't first presuppose religious truth who has come to the conclusion that evolution is false?

When an agnostic or an atheist comes to the conclusion that it's incorrect, then I'm interested. I'm not at all surprised that people who have an agenda to discredit evolution have found their "reasons".

Former evolutionist Biophysicist Professor Dean Kenyon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeT2f79QibY&feature=related

Why should GAF have to put up with religious trolls shitting up science threads?

Attack the arguments or counter arguments instead of blithely calling me a religious troll. Nevermind I never post anything religious.

 

[Korey]

The "hivemind" GAF has is ridiculous. I am adamant in my beliefs about evolution, but to discount the opinion of anyone who does not believe is absurd.

Why should GAF have to put up with religious trolls shitting up science threads?

 

[Heretic]

The "hivemind" GAF has is ridiculous. I am adamant in my beliefs about evolution, but to discount the opinion of anyone who does not believe is absurd.

oh snap! change that junior.

 

[Kinitari]

Unanimously? Hardly. And then there is another part of the scientific community that rave about the book such Kenyon Martin and Paul Chein.

Of course, the few religious scientists who refuse to believe in Evolution will eat up any book that claims to kick the legs out from under the theory. We could do this forever, but I'll just stick to the point that this book has been torn to pieces, many many times over. You can just google it and see the clear, simple and straight to point break down.

Many mutations are passed on, sickle cell anemia is just one example - there are millions of people who have this genetic disease and they are still reproducing.

I don't understand your point here... if you could clarify, I would really appreciate it. Do you mean many negative mutations are passed down? Yeah, they are - but if they're negative enough to be lethal, that usually means that strain of mutations leads to early death and less chance of passing around, repeat this enough time and it weeds itself out - humans avoid this natural process pretty efficiently, but not perfectly.

Also, sickle cell isn't necessarily negative, if you are just a carrier you can keep get the benefits of malaria immunity without suffering any negatives from sickle cell.

It only highlights the fact the genome of organisms are degenerating as scientists say. That is not "evolution" - that is through such process you can't get a single cell to an ape in billions of years when mutations accumulate in the genome. That's like saying by adding typos to a sentence you can get a Shakespeare play. That goes against logic. There is no scientific evidence which supports a claim. Otherwise show it!

I don't understand your point exactly but I have a general idea of what you are trying to say. First of all, silly analogies aren't necessary and comparing typing, or computers or clocks to evolution is an act in frivolity. How about just a simple explanation? We see many, many many examples where animals have net positive mutations. We have examples where creatures have developed genes that can only be explained by an 'addition' of information.

I never said that. But to get a single cell to an ape there needs to be a lot more genetic information. That's obvious.

Yes. And there is no reason why more 'information' cannot come about. Heck we've observed it happening. It happening once is enough reason to say "it happens".

Now you are contradicting yourself. You said "Either they die, and are unable to pass on these genes, or nothing whatsoever."

Sickle Cell Malaria can't be used as an example for "upward evolution" because the people with the disease are actually impaired despite that it gives them a survival advantage in certain regions of the world.

First I should apologize, sometimes negatives mutations are passed one, but would you agree that a negative mutation poses no benefit for a creature, and reduces its chances to reproduce? Thus increasing the likelihood that mutation will die off.

Second, I misrepresented sickle cell a bit. For example, you can carry it, have the immunity to malaria, and not suffer from any adverse sickle cell effects. Thus, it is a net positive.

Thirdly, here is a make believe scenario. Disease A is killing off most people in a region, while they are young and unable to reproduce. Disease B comes along and, while it kills you off before your time, you still live till... lets say, 40. If you have disease B, you are immune to disease A. Would being born with disease B be a benefit in this situation?

I don't think the scientists ever expected a super race to emerge. But I assume they expected at least a viable fruit fly with a new function or at least a different function. All they got was sickly, deformed fruit flies.

Forcing evolution through constant radiation is a bad idea, because radiation makes too many radical changes that usually end in death. Positives are usually much more subtle.

Many of the experiments in the URL is not "evolution" at all when the mutant types are less viable than the wild types.

That is the exact same thing as Evolution. This is exactly what scientists claim are evolution. Even then, you say "many" does that mean you concede that some are? Have I gotten through to you?

?

You can't just make up ideas and concepts. Mutations are like noise, noise is bad, therefore mutations are bad.

HOW are Mutations like noise? Even if you want to say that it is like noise, it isn't the exact same thing as noise, thus A != B.

You're losing me.

You keep stressing positive evolution as the increase of information. Positive evolution is the increase in reproduction and survival, the amount of information is irrelevant.

Bring forth the hard scientific evidence. I have been in these types of debates many times and I all get is rhetoric which is useless in a scientific debate.

Dude, I wrote a -really- long OP. It's all there. All of it.

I wouldn't expect the quotes to be found on Talkorgins. So what? They are Evolutionists who are honest enough to say something that contradicts their worldview.

I mean, I can't find them -anywhere but- those types of sites. A neutral, scientific site, great. If it's ONLY on whythebibletrumpsdarwin.com or whatever, I am sorry, it's not too useful.

Ha, the Nylon eating bacteria example, which produces a new enzyme through evolution. I was expecting this one.

For those who don't know what this is. Supposedly at the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. But this is really not an example of evolution - that is can be used as an example to get a cell to an ape. Molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity. This is similar to the example of the Lenski study of E. Coli.

Now you're losing me. Are you saying it's an example of evolution, but not a... good enough one? If evolution happens, it happens, doesn't matter how fabulous it is.

Let's clarify what I mean by Evolution. The context of Evolution I am using is the genetic change of organisms through random mutations and natural selection which accounts for all life. Evolutionists assume that all life derived from some hypothetical primordial cell through such processes. There is no scientific evidence to support such a notion. Otherwise show it.

First of all, do you understand the concept of Gene duplication? I'm honestly not very proficient, but basically, its well understood that genes sometimes, as a mutation, basically just copy themselves. Here is a good example

When that happens, occasionally, the duplicate genes fuse and make something new.

For example, 1010 = digesting vitamin A. 1010+1010 = Digesting vitamin A and B.

That's it, that's how (I think just one way) new information is introduced into DNA. Simple right?

I completely understand it. You can't get a cell to an ape in billions of years with an accumulation of genetic mistakes. There is the huge problem that 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). If you really believe that through evolution you can get a cell to an ape then provide the hard scientific evidence for your claim. I'll be waiting. And please just don't give me rhetoric. That's not science.

You just gave me 4 claims without backing them up in the least, and you want me to avoid rhetoric? Damn.

Show me hard scientific evidence that supports 1-4 (A wikipedia page would be preferable) and we'll talk.

 

[Madman]

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on this article, Vizion?

Toxic Toads Evolve Longer Legs, Study Says

 

[crazy monkey]

Besides you constantly repeating that we can't have come from a common ancestor I don't see much evidence for your claim.

Why do all land animals go through the same phases during development from a fertilized egg?

Why do we share so much DNA with a mouse?

Why do all land animals have a similar layout in terms of bone structure, 4 limbs and such while fish have multiple layouts?

Why do chickens resemble raptors?

Why do mass extinctions always precede an explosions of new species?

Unfortunately I have to be off to bed but I imagine your response will be a cut and paste joy to read in the morning.

there was old folk saying from what i remember " we are all made from same pot"

 

[foodtaster]

I'm not sure what this means. Not paying much attention to copy and paste shotgun style arguments from fundamentalist Christian creationist groups doesn't seem that absurd.

Why does it matter if he is quoting, copying or pasting from a website if it is to help get his point across? I will admit, I have only read the last 3 pages, but he doesn't seem like a troll to me. Provocative, yes. Troll, I don't think so. If provocativeness and being a troll are synonymous then I apologize.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

The "hivemind" GAF has is ridiculous. I am adamant in my beliefs about evolution, but to discount the opinion of anyone who does not believe is absurd.

Evolution isn't a belief, so you're creating a false premise. Deriding someone for not accepting evolution is less like deriding someone for their choice of operating system and more like mocking someone for honestly numbing their own sense of reasoning enough to think the moon is made of cheese.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I guess you don't know about the Panspermia hypothesis championed by several renown scientists.

Dr. Fred Hoyle, the man who coined "The Big Bang", believed aliens created life on Earth because he understood the sheer improbability of life forming by chance.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

Anyone who uses that analogy doesn't understand evolution. Events that seem improbable by complete chance are made quite probable when they are enforced through a step by step process. For example, the Dawkins weasel program, which would have taken untold time if it relied upon chance, actually only took about half an hour to complete through a process that involves selection and variation. You can argue that Dawkins was wrong, but pointing out the flaw in the 747 analogy is so obvious that it's almost banal, and so the fact that you're using it says that you don't even understand evolution.

 

[foodtaster]

Evolution isn't a belief, so you're creating a false premise. Deriding someone for not accepting evolution is less like deriding someone for their choice of operating system and more like mocking someone for honestly numbing their own sense of reasoning enough to think the moon is made of cheese.

If you can believe in something, then you would have belief in it, would you not?

 

[danwarb]

I think you just have to accept that some people are so entrenched in their views that no amount of evidence will convince. There is a strong emotional attachment. Science is better if you're after reality.

Well, if DNA is code, and whoever created us is a developer, it's probably just copy/paste or legacy stuff.
[edit] before I get banned I want to make clear I was making a joke. Now I'm out.

I don't know if this video is any good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCHcH9XLNfI

Endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes.

 

[KHarvey16]

The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation. It is the supposed source of all new genetic information.

Are you debating that?

Yes I am. Random mutation is not, and is not claimed to be, the only source of genetic variation.

 

[jay]

Why does it matter if he is quoting, copying or pasting from a website if it is to help get his point across? I will admit, I have only read the last 3 pages, but he doesn't seem like a troll to me. Provocative, yes. Troll, I don't think so. If provocativeness and being a troll are synonymous then I apologize.

It matters because his style screams that he doesn't want to have a real discussion. Why not just link us to answers in genesis and be done with it instead of hitting five different topics in a 10,000 word post? If it's all innocent and he is just unaware that people don't respond well to walls of text on forums, I apologize for not being warmer.

I just noticed you also set up a conditional apology, only mine wasn't sarcasm.

If you can believe in something, then you would have belief in it, would you not?

Out of curiosity, what sort of dismissal wouldn't count as some sort of hive mind? If we laughed at someone claiming man didn't land on the moon? If we ignored someone who thinks the Earth is flat?

 

[Kinitari]

Fossil evidence from China's Guizhou Province regarding the Cambrian explosion (and the ability for fragile tissues to be fossilized).

How does this negatively impact the current understanding of evolution? Sincere question.

The persistent inability to generate non-racemic amino acid mixtures from Urey–Miller-esque experiments.

Bro, this stuff is way over my head, doing some simple reading - but I don't see how this sheds any negative light on evolution?

The existence of genuine informational code (DNA, RNA, proteins) and the 'computation' of one into another.

Stuff like that.

RNA into DNA isn't exactly 100% validated, but there is strong evidence supporting it. Besides that, how is this a recent development?

Also, you seem to have some understanding of the subject, what do you say about this?

 

[Kano on the Phone]

If you can believe in something, then you would have belief in it, would you not?

You're awful at playing devil's advocate. Since when does being able to believe in something make it valuable or worthy of any level of respect? Evolution is true whether or not people acknowledge it. People believing things that aren't true doesn't actually mean anything and it shouldn't be given any more credibility than people who believe in ghosts or people who believe gays are genetically inferior.

 

[foodtaster]

You're awful at playing devil's advocate. Since when does being able to believe in something make it valuable or worthy of any level of respect? Evolution is true whether or not people acknowledge it. People believing things that aren't true doesn't actually mean anything and it shouldn't be given any more credibility than people who believe in ghosts or people who believe gays are genetically inferior.

I am not playing devil's advocate. Evolution is a belief if you "believe" in it. Which I do. I do think that evolution has taken place and this is almost assuredly so, but many do not agree with that. Because of this, I respect their opinion and "believe" in evolution, rather than force this "belief," as you are doing now.

It is only in this context that I would "believe" in evolution. Otherwise, yes, I completely agree with you. You can replace evolution with something like "God" and you will see why I choose to "believe" in it. I just don't want to offend anyone =/

 

[Lesath]

In my years of study I have specifically focused on Evolutionists' claim that random mutations (coupled with natural selection) can turn a primordial cell to an ape in a few billion years. This is not scientifically supported, in fact science contradicts such a claim. For the sake of brevity I will just focus on this aspect of Evolutionary theory.

I will try to address most of your points. After reading several of them, I want to emphasize two points: 1) individuals do not evolve, populations do, and 2) evolutionary fitness is described by reproductive success, and not structural complexity.

Please keep these in mind as your read on. If you feel that I have missed anything, feel free to point it out. I implore, however, that you give my response the time I had given yours.

Most mutations are almost always deleterious or neutral to the organisms. That is why it is unbelievably silly to think mutations can be one of the mechanisms to get a primordial cell to an ape. Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases.

Yes, most mutations are deleterious (missense, nonsense) or neutral (silent). Severely deleterious mutations are either lethal, or render offspring infertile.

It is important to note, however, that neutral mutations can accumulate, and these form a basis of the available genetic material. Additionally, though beneficial mutations are rare, they exist. It would be just as silly, I would think, to dismiss the idea merely because it sounds foreign to you, and even more so if you are not completely familiar with it.

Let us go back to the idea of genetic diseases: of those how many categorized are both haploinsufficient and lethal before reproductive age? 4,500 plus observable genetic diseases is a surprising few given the tens of thousands genes we have.

Yes, there are some genetic mutations that may be beneficial for survival but still deleterious to the organism. For instance, the mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection. But the mutation is nonetheless a loss of information. The hemoglobin's normal function is impaired, not improved, and the protection from malaria is simply an incidental side benefit — the pathogen happens to be destroyed along with the person's own defective cells. This mutation does not introduce a new level of complexity; there is no new functional information or novel structural feature for evolution to build on. Considered in itself, this mutation is destructive and harmful, as are so many others. It is difficult to see how any genetic change of this sort could lead to a true evolutionary advance.

Evolution does not care about "improvement", and fitness is found not in structural complexity or wholeness, but reproductive success. There was an incredible selective advantage for heterozygous carriers of sickle cell anemia. Compared to wild-type humans, they are able to reproduce, and more of their offspring can survive to reproduce in their given environment. That is all that matters.

As in the famous case of Theodosius Dobzhansky where he was bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.

I admit that I am unfamiliar with the case, but there are some problems with using that as a case example: DNA is the mechanism through which evolution occurs, and placing it under such stress is like beating your mechanic and tearing up spare parts while he is fixing your car.

What can you expect? Well, generations of fruit flies, if exposed to moderate (nonlethal and nonsterilizing) amounts of radiation, may be adapted to reproduce in such an environment. They would look sickly, you say? Well, they're not dead; throw some wild-type flies in there after some generations and see how they fare in comparison.

If they die or cannot reproduce, then you have thrown them outside their possible range of tolerance. Sometimes populations of animals do not have the capability to sufficiently adapt to changing environments. which leads to extinction.

Random mutations are equivalent to noise, and noise only destroys information and degrades functionality. Ask any communications engineer - in the world of digital communication there is no example anywhere of adding noise to a signal and getting a better signal that contains more information and more functionality.

In Claude Shannon's information theory, noise is mathematically identical to entropy. Its damage to a signal is irreversible.

In other words mutations are a cause of degeneration not "upward evolution". In fact, we are "devolving". Genetic fitness is being reduced (entropy) every generation as mutations accumulate in the genome.

Again, the mutations that sufficiently 1) destroy information and 2) degrade functionality sufficiently tend to lead to nonviable offspring. List any functional organ in the human body, and we likely know of a more primitive, yet functional precursor. Do not expect evolution to do otherwise.

A signal is incorrect comparison because there is no ideal form, no specific image as to what an organism should be.

Scientists say it themselves:

<A lot of quotes.>

Forgive me if I do not address all the quotes individually. Please, select three at a time and I will discuss them at your leisure.

Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations. In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

Is it the same Lenski, who, upon introducing groups of bacteria to a citrate solution, eventually yielded a population that could metabolize it? I see you address this later, but apparently the mutations were not all degenerative, were they?

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.

The definition of "species" is fairly eukaryote-biased, and the author fails to be cognizant of the idea that categorizations are a human tool to organize data. How many, and what type of changes would you like to see in a strain of bacteria before you call it a different species?

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.

The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

I am not familiar with the paper in question, but longevity is likely a multifactorial trait. And of course, "few" does not mean "none."

One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."

They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.

You are looking for an instance of a fixed gene in a multifactorial trait. Glossing over UCI's article, it appears they did find some 500 genes associated with the trait for rapid development, but not all 500 are required. Given the genetic complexity of this vague trait, how can you expect any given one to be completely fixed?

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

Evolution: the change in allele frequencies over time. Have allele frequencies changed?

Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary "spin," the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.

http://www.icr.org/article/5779/

One example I come across on the internet of random mutations adding a new function of an organism is Lenski’s supposed “evolution” of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli:

Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli – Michael Behe
Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we’ve seen evolution do, then there’s no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/page/3/

I am not sure what Behe expects: evolution builds on what exists, and doesn't bow to some irrational human demand for complete novelty.

Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutation s-in-bacteria

Fitness is only relevant to reproduction, and reproduction was only relevant in that given environment. The fact that they were less fit at 20C or 40C is equivalent to saying dolphins are less fit than humans on land.

New Work by Richard Lenski:
Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/new_work_by_richard_lenski027101. html

In reality there is no "evolution". The mutant E. coli had reduced fitness. How can a mutation which results in reduced fitness be held as an example of random mutations involved in "upward evolution"?

Fitness: an individual's ability to propagate its genes. Nothing else. See above.

Another example used by evolutionists as "evolution" caused by random mutations are microorganisms attaining resistance to antibioitics.

Dr. Lee Spetner, author of Not By Chance:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

"To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops."

"...there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken."

In adapting to sudden changes in environment, selection favors those that can survive and reproduce in the short term. In an analogy, if you needed to do long division in five minutes or die, would you build a calculator or grab a paper and pencil? Likewise, the genetic material of the bacteria has no cognition: a random deleterious mutation, which would have otherwise been disadvantageous in the natural environment, is suddenly the phenotype that is able to resist a sudden change in environment.

 

[Kinitari]

I am not playing devil's advocate. Evolution is a belief if you "believe" in it. Which I do. I do think that evolution has taken place and this is almost assuredly so, but many do not agree with that. Because of this, I respect their opinion and "believe" in evolution, rather than force this "belief," as you are doing now.

It is only in this context that I would "believe" in evolution. Otherwise, yes, I completely agree with you. You can replace evolution with something like "God" and you will see why I choose to "believe" in it. I just don't want to offend anyone =/

Believing in evolution is similar to believing that 1+1 = 2. I use the word believe sometimes, but I probably shouldn't - what's more accurate is saying "I understand evolution" just like you understand why 1+1 = 2.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

I am not playing devil's advocate. Evolution is a belief if you "believe" in it. Which I do. I do think that evolution has taken place and this is almost assuredly so, but many do not agree with that. Because of this, I respect their opinion and "believe" in evolution, rather than force this "belief," as you are doing now.

It is only in this context that I would "believe" in evolution. Otherwise, yes, I completely agree with you. You can replace evolution with something like "God" and you will see why I choose to "believe" in it. I just don't want to offend anyone =/

Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in a solar system that revolves around the sun? Do you believe your mom gave birth to you? Do you believe that the wind is air moving fast? No, you accept these things as the truth. It would be beyond ridiculous to call any of those things a belief, like it is with evolution. Truth is always going to offend those who deny it, it isn't your job to coddle them.

 

[foodtaster]

Believing in evolution is similar to believing that 1+1 = 2. I use the word believe sometimes, but I probably shouldn't - what's more accurate is saying "I understand evolution" just like you understand why 1+1 = 2.

I understand this. I do usually use the word understand. But again, if you're entering a "MATH IS WRONG" seminar, you wouldn't walk in there in go and say that 1+1 =2 now would you? I do it out of respect, not out of necessity.

Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in a solar system that revolves around the sun? Do you believe your mom gave birth to you? Do you believe that the wind is air moving fast? No, you accept these things as the truth. It would be beyond ridiculous to call any of those things a belief, like it is with evolution. Truth is always going to offend those who deny it, it isn't your job to coddle them.

This is true, indeed. (Especially the bolded) But again, I'm just too respectful, if that's possible. Though some of your examples are interesting. Heliocentrism used to be accepted as the "truth," but now it is just simply a belief. Makes you wonder if some things we accept as true will later become just beliefs.

 

[GloveSlap]

I firmly believe in evolution, but i do think that there is more going on than just random mutations. Is it crazy to think that organisms, especially complex ones, guide their own evolution to a degree? I'm talking about a kind of connection between body and mind where the brain can sense/analyze environmental pressures to make beneficial changes over time.

 

[Kinitari]

I understand this. I do usually use the word understand. But again, if you're entering a "MATH IS WRONG" seminar, you wouldn't walk in there in go and say that 1+1 =2 now would you? I do it out of respect, not out of necessity.


This is true, indeed. (Especially the bolded) But again, I'm just too respectful, if that's possible.

I understand your position a bit better, and I can appreciate people like you. I just think that conceding or bowing in this particular topic can lead to a spread of misinformation, and the literal 'dumbing down' of our society. If people have two pools of information available to them, accurate information, and inaccurate information - wouldn't you rather the accurate information pool was readily available, and the inaccurate one was just... shut down, or put away somewhere where it can't hurt anyone?

I firmly believe in evolution, but i do think that there is more going on than just random mutations. Is it crazy to think that organisms, especially complex ones, guide their own evolution to a degree? I'm talking about a kind of connection between body and mind where the brain can sense/analyze environmental pressures to make beneficial changes over time.

I wouldn't say it was crazy per se. I would say it was baseless. It's a nice thought, and I think it would be cool, but I haven't seen or read anything that indicates 'subconscious thought' playing any role in the reconstruction of our genes.

 

[foodtaster]

I understand your position a bit better, and I can appreciate people like you. I just think that conceding or bowing in this particular topic can lead to a spread of misinformation, and the literal 'dumbing down' of our society. If people have two pools of information available to them, accurate information, and inaccurate information - wouldn't you rather the accurate information pool was readily available, and the inaccurate one was just... shut down, or put away somewhere where it can't hurt anyone?

That is true. I feel that way regarding sex education (I live in Texas so y'know how it goes). I do see you and Kano's point though. In this particular topic it would be better to be more assertive about advocating the right "belief."

 

[Kano on the Phone]

I understand this. I do usually use the word understand. But again, if you're entering a "MATH IS WRONG" seminar, you wouldn't walk in there in go and say that 1+1 =2 now would you? I do it out of respect, not out of necessity.


This is true, indeed. (Especially the bolded) But again, I'm just too respectful, if that's possible. Though some of your examples are interesting. Heliocentrism used to be accepted as the "truth," but now it is just simply a belief. Makes you wonder if some things we accept as true will later become just beliefs.

If they are some day relegated to only beliefs, then we can treat them as beliefs then. If you're going to noncommittal about everything just because it might someday be proved false you might as well be completely agnostic about every single thing in the world. Does this shirt look nice on me? Fuck, I better go shirtless because I might find out it doesn't. Does my girlfriend love me? Fuck, I cant believe it because she might not someday. We accept truths based on the facts we have available to us, and if you're going to wait for the facts of the universe to present themselves to you before you're willing to name things "truths," I feel bad for you and all the times you'll be stranded on the side of the road because even though "E" usually means empty, some day your gas gauge might break.

I'm not trying to beat up on you, bro, but come on, stand up for what you know to be true.

 

[Lesath]

I firmly believe in evolution, but i do think that there is more going on than just random mutations. Is it crazy to think that organisms, especially complex ones, guide their own evolution to a degree? I'm talking about a kind of connection between body and mind where the brain can sense/analyze environmental pressures to make beneficial changes over time.

The closest I can imagine would be sexual selection. Rather than random mating, certain species utilize certain characteristics as a way to judge the fitness of potential mates.

Beyond that, I do not think that there is any precedent.

 

[jaxword]

It would be beyond ridiculous to call any of those things a belief, like it is with evolution. Truth is always going to offend those who deny it, it isn't your job to coddle them.

You'll find yourself going up against about 5 billion people who think beliefs (as in, without fact) should be coddled.

Of course, if you LIKE a challenge, maybe that's not daunting.

 

[Kinitari]

That is true. I feel that way regarding sex education (I live in Texas so y'know how it goes). I do see you and Kano's point though. In this particular topic it would be better to be more assertive about advocating the right "belief."

I hope we didn't come off as too hostile. Honestly, 3 or 4 years ago, I held a pretty similar position to you. But then something happened and I realized that being more confident and not always worrying about hurting people feelings had a net positive effect on me, and the people I care about. Not trying to make this a happy, love feely post or anything, you can be the person you want to be with whatever set of standards and morals you want - you know my position, and in a way I respect yours. It's not really too important though in the end - we've essentially been discussing the use of a word for the last few posts.