Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: EasternShadow
...
Which is why I don't believe human homo homo sapiens ever evolve. Mutate yes. Evolve nope.

So you're talking about homo homo homo sapiens? Since "homo" is the Latin word for "human".

The term homo homo sapiens was already funny to those who realize what's going on concerning the topic of speciation.

Just calling it a new species, arbitrarily cherry-picking a definition for "species" such as one of the 4 definitions listed on talkorigins.com on the page for speciation, doesn't make it one. Especially if none of the proposed definitions such as the ones I referred to, actually work very well. And the original meaning of the Latin word the English word "species" is derived from is conveniently ignored.

Evolutionists might want to consider rethinking their proposed mechanism of mutations acted upon by natural selection one day...

The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

The facts/realities regarding mutations acted upon by what is called "natural selection" aren't going anywhere. Just waiting around for anyone currently ignoring them to acknowledge, figuratively speaking.

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: rnaa
The time scale you want is generations. There can be hundreds of mutations between each individual and it parents. A species that has multiple births in one generation can have thousands of chances at useful mutations (and bad mutations, and neutral mutations). It is random and as a Biologist you should understand that there is no guarantee that a useful mutation will arise at the right time (or ahead of time). Mutation 'rates' differ across species, across genders (human male sperm has a higher mutation rate than female eggs, for example), and in different regions of the DNA structure. On average, the human rate is about 64 mutations per generation (depending on exactly how it is measured).

There are about 130 million human babies born each year. So that is about 8.32 BILLION chances PER YEAR for a speciation level mutation in the human population alone. And that is one heck of a lot more than your 2,640 EST number.

Of course, for that speciation event to actually happen, it has to actually be present in one part of the population and give that population a survival advantage over another, isolated, population that does not have the mutation. Since there are no isolated populations on Earth for the last 100,000 years or so we just aren't going to see such an event until we start colonizing off planet.

Therefore, until we can colonizing off planet, there is no observable speciation evidence that present days human evolve.

Completely untrue.

Tibetan human are still classified as homosapiens despite their million years old variation.

Which “million years old variation” exactly are you referring to?

And we would not see any mythical new species arise from human earth anytime in the future unless something radical change the entire earth, which it did billion years ago.

Right... aside from all of the other species in our genus that have existed, in many instances, contemporaneously both geographically and chronologically, for the last couple of million years.

But then again who knows?

Biologists, Anthropologists,Paleontologists and Geologists would be a good starting point

originally posted by: whereislogic
The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

^^^ quoted and bolded for emphasis. That sums it up. Time to move on from the dead-end theory of evolution. The nihilists have had their time, but it's time for real philosophical thought to endure.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Again no, by saying "it just is! End of story", they are saying; "Do not question it because it is beyond questioning".

LOL dude. NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT. You specifically were talking about INTENDED PURPOSE, rather than evidence that supports evolution.

There really is no other way to spin it.

At least you admit you are spinning it.

/FACEPALM

originally posted by: Barcs


LOL dude. NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT. You specifically were talking about INTENDED PURPOSE, rather than evidence that supports evolution.

What is your point?
Are you saying: "Do not question intended purpose because it is beyond questioning"? If so, I will tell you the same thing. It is a faith based statement, no different that the Creationist saying "God did it, end of story".
There is no way you can actually know that "it just is, end of story". You may say "evidence shows this is how it works" or "as far as we can tell this is how it works".
As soon as you make the statement "it just is, end of story" you cross over to a faith based argument.
If that is ones faith, their religion even, it's OK. Everyone believes in something but they should be able to Differentiate their religion from science.
As far as evidence?
None was provided to my inquiries. All that was offered was a statement based in faith.

At least you admit you are spinning it.

Not at all because it was a very faith based comment.
Others have tried to spin it, as not being so, because they believe (everyone one believes in something(another faith based statement)) they are above faith on this subject.

/Face palm

Face palm indeed.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Completely untrue.

So where is the ancestors of upright human aka Homo Erectus?

Where is human bones prior to 1.8 million years ago?

originally posted by: peter vlar
Which “million years old variation” exactly are you referring to?

The co-existence of both Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestries on a genome-wide scale in the modern Tibetan gene pool.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Right... aside from all of the other species in our genus that have existed, in many instances, contemporaneously both geographically and chronologically, for the last couple of million years.

Bones and blueprints of extinct non human species.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Biologists, Anthropologists,Paleontologists and Geologists would be a good starting point

How about they start to explain the origin of life first?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
What is your point?

My point is that you are misrepresenting the argument and straw manning Noiden. If you asked him, "How do you know evolution occurs, what is the evidence?" and he responded by saying, "Evolution just happens," then you would have a point because he'd be avoiding explaining the mechanisms and evidence supporting it and using a "God did it" type of response. But that's not what happened. You asked about evolution / life having a purpose, something that has zero supporting evidence, and he basically just said that it doesn't have a higher purpose. Stop exploiting semantics, it's dishonest.

Are you saying: "Do not question intended purpose because it is beyond questioning"? If so, I will tell you the same thing. It is a faith based statement, no different that the Creationist saying "God did it, end of story".

Nope, I'm saying there is no evidence of any intended purpose, and in fact there is conflicting evidence when you consider that genetic mutations are copy errors that affect random genes. When was the last time somebody intelligently designed something via completely random changes to the blue print?

None was provided to my inquiries. All that was offered was a statement based in faith.

How do you not grasp that YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT was faith based when you brought up a subjective unfalsifiable idea of a higher purpose. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Burden of proof is on you.

Oh, well, how wrong we are!

We aren't thinking right.

Start thinking left!

If there's one thing you have to grasp it's evolution because then your pizza will taste a lot better. urhgl!

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: peter vlar
Completely untrue.

So where is the ancestors of upright human aka Homo Erectus?

Where is human bones prior to 1.8 million years ago?

Where are they now? Museums, universities, private collections.
Where did they come from? Kenya, Tanzania, S. Africa, Olduvai Gorge... should I continue?
Or are you asking “who” preceded H. Erectus? In that case it’s Homo Habilis that is the antecedent of Erectus.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Which “million years old variation” exactly are you referring to?

The co-existence of both Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestries on a genome-wide scale in the modern Tibetan gene pool.

You do realize that EVERY living person on Earth, today, has Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestry right? Perhaps you could be a tad more specific as to what exactly you’re trying to get at here.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Right... aside from all of the other species in our genus that have existed, in many instances, contemporaneously both geographically and chronologically, for the last couple of million years.

Bones and blueprints of extinct non human species.

Cladistics and Biology consider any member of the Genus Homo to be human. And they aren’t all completely extinct. Some of them live on in our genomes after their populations were absorbed into our own through admixture.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Biologists, Anthropologists,Paleontologists and Geologists would be a good starting point

How about they start to explain the origin of life first?

Title of this thread is ‘Can you prove evolution wrong ‘ not ‘Why aren’t Anthropologists, Biologists, geologists etc... doing the work of an organic chemist and explaining the origins of life’. You are aware that the origins of life on earth have been continuously studied since before the Miller-Urey experiments right? It’s a bit technical but fascinating stuff. The research is there. Being unaware of it doesn’t make it non existent.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Quadrivium
What is your point?

My point is that you are misrepresenting the argument and straw manning Noiden. If you asked him, "How do you know evolution occurs, what is the evidence?" and he responded by saying, "Evolution just happens," then you would have a point because he'd be avoiding explaining the mechanisms and evidence supporting it and using a "God did it" type of response. But that's not what happened. You asked about evolution / life having a purpose, something that has zero supporting evidence, and he basically just said that it doesn't have a higher purpose. Stop exploiting semantics, it's dishonest.

Are you saying: "Do not question intended purpose because it is beyond questioning"? If so, I will tell you the same thing. It is a faith based statement, no different that the Creationist saying "God did it, end of story".

Nope, I'm saying there is no evidence of any intended purpose, and in fact there is conflicting evidence when you consider that genetic mutations are copy errors that affect random genes. When was the last time somebody intelligently designed something via completely random changes to the blue print?

None was provided to my inquiries. All that was offered was a statement based in faith.

How do you not grasp that YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT was faith based when you brought up a subjective unfalsifiable idea of a higher purpose. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Burden of proof is on you.

Now who is being dishonest Barcs?
Go back to page 31 of this thread.
I NEVER made a statement of any kind. I asked honest questions and got the response "It just is, end of story".
I would have been glad to talk about the evidence but I got shut down by a religious person and his faith based comments.
Seriously, I challenge you to take a look.
My first two comments on this thread were talking about Part 1 and ItsTheTooth.
My third post was actually a few questions I had for YOU when I replied to one of YOUR post.
Noinden responded,on your behalf, by saying "Evolution just is! End of story" in response to QUESTIONS.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Here is your original post that was very clearly not asking for evidence, but asking about a PURPOSE:

originally posted by: Quadrivium
If there is not an end goal then what is the purpose of evolution?

This is Noinden's response:

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why must there be a purpose? To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

Yep. You are being dishonest.

He was very clearly saying that if you suggest a purpose for evolution, that must be backed up by you, otherwise it is safe to say that it is a natural process like any other phenomenon that happens in nature unguided.

If you made a mistake in following the conversation, it's no big deal, just admit it instead of doubling down on the dishonesty.

I remember we use to have some pretty heated discussions in the past, and now I remember why.

a reply to: Barcs
Here is the entire post:

Serious questions:
If there is not an end goal then what is the purpose of evolution?
If there is not a purpose to evolution then why evolve at all?
"Life slowly changes in varying environments"- why, if there is no end goal, no purpose?

If he would have left his comment at:

Why must there be a purpose? To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that.

We wouldn't be having this conversation. Yet, he didn't. He added:

Evolution just is. End of story.

Which is the point in which he made a faith based statement.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Quadrivium

Here is your original post that was very clearly not asking for evidence, but asking about a PURPOSE

Stop yelling

Yep. You are being dishonest.

You accuse people of this all the time. Have you ever considered that you're the one with too much bias to see the light?

a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so

says the bigot.

Bigot: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."



I can see other perspectives. You apparently cannot. I came to my beliefs through rational discourse.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so

It's all human nature.
Bias plays a huge role.
You only see dishonesty in "religious folks" because you are biased. Yet, you don't see it when someone puts their faith in science instead of God.
They act the same way as "religious folks", defending their faith.
I believe they attribute much more to science than what science actually claims most of the time.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so

says the bigot.

Bigot: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

I can see other perspectives. You apparently cannot. I came to my beliefs through rational discourse.

Right because everyone who calls you on your bull# is of course... a bigot

Its not intolerance... its lack of appreciation for deceit

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so

It's all human nature.
Bias plays a huge role.
You only see dishonesty in "religious folks" because you are biased. Yet, you don't see it when someone puts their faith in science instead of God.
They act the same way as "religious folks", defending their faith.
I believe they attribute much more to science than what science actually claims most of the time.

Its not bias either... its the same old song and dance in all of these threads

Religious side makes a claim.... science debunks... religion ignores... repeats claim as if nothing was said... science repeats debunking and points to previous conversation where the same thing was said... religion ignores

Wash rinse and repeat

And around we go

God has nothing to do with this thread... as it has been stated over and over

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Everyone else sees it as well... aside from you religious folk who are the ones being dishonest on all these threads... so

It's all human nature.
Bias plays a huge role.
You only see dishonesty in "religious folks" because you are biased. Yet, you don't see it when someone puts their faith in science instead of God.
They act the same way as "religious folks", defending their faith.
I believe they attribute much more to science than what science actually claims most of the time.

Its not bias either... its the same old song and dance in all of these threads

Religious side makes a claim.... science debunks... religion ignores... repeats claim as if nothing was said... science repeats debunking and points to previous conversation where the same thing was said... religion ignores

Wash rinse and repeat

And around we go

God has nothing to do with this thread... as it has been stated over and over

Yet those on "your side" keep bringing their god into it.
You are biased because you don't see it. You won't call them out be because you don't see it.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Which God is this again? There are over 5000 known in human cultures. Science is not a theistic process. So no matter how much you lot say "its a religion" it does not fit the bill. Given Science will (and does) reassess it's beliefs, based on the data. When did your faith do that again?