The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

a reply to: TzarChasm

This article you posted is a perfect example of how the scientific elite have adopted the dogmatic view that "evolution did it". They say:

"We have contributed evidence that the prefrontal cortex and its connected areas in the cerebellar cortex have not evolved independently, but in concert with each other as a single functional unit that has been subjected to the same selection pressures. "

They had to have evolved in synchrony with each other, but there is absolutely no known mechanism, in terms of a single mutation event, or even subsequent successful mutations, that could possibly alter both brain regions along with an alteration in the neural tract connecting the two. Notice how they offer no solution as to how it could happen, but only see that it is the way it is, and arbitrarily accredit evolution for creating it. This is the same logic you ridicule theists for saying "God did it". At least God is inherently intelligent, the mechanisms of evolution rely on randomness which is a ridiculous postulate considering that humans have approximately 7,000,000,000 more neurons in their cerebral cortex than apes (and 10,000,000,000 more neurons than chimpanzees)



Not to mention neuronal growth is deadly or epileptic without a corresponding increase in cranial capacity, assisting astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and so forth. Evolution does not have the necessary mechanisms to synchronize these, and the many, many other factors, that would be involved with increasing brain and neuronal volume.

Not to mention neuronal growth is deadly or epileptic without a corresponding increase in cranial capacity, assisting astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and so forth. Evolution does not have the necessary mechanisms to synchronize these, and the many, many other factors, that would be involved with increasing brain and neuronal volume.

Yes it does. It's called genetic mutation. Neurons don't just grow during an individual's lifetime. You are confusing things here big time.

originally posted by: Barcs
Yes it does. It's called genetic mutation. Neurons don't just grow during an individual's lifetime. You are confusing things here big time.

You are wrong. Neuronal growth past maturation - adult neurogenesis - was proven to occur long ago.

"Approximately 40 years after its first report, the addition of neurons to the brains of adult mammals has now been generally accepted" Source

But to avoid your diversion, can you explain how 7,000,000,000 neurons could have possibly been added to the cerebral cortex in a non-destructive manner accompanying an increase in cranial capacity and necessary glial cells simply through genetic mutation??

So if we can actually witness "micro evolution" and we can see that human's evolved different traits based on where they live...why is evolution so hard to comprehend?

originally posted by: amazing
So if we can actually witness "micro evolution" and we can see that human's evolved different traits based on where they live...why is evolution so hard to comprehend?

Take for example skin tone. All genes involved to determine skin tone, and the various combinations shown here:



these genes must have all been present to allow any of these skin tones. Notice how the potential to be black or white, and any shade in between, was always existent from the beginning of humanity. No evolution occurred, just a shift in alleles among a population based on geographic location:



These alleles must have always been present, otherwise, well, we don't even know what would happen, because they have always been present in humans.

Even though the Russian and US governments are enemies, the Russian and US scientists are allies for they come to the same scientific conclusions.

Funny that.

Coomba98

Double post

a reply to: norhoc

"it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10(39) attempts might be successful is only one out of 10(60)/10(39), or 10(21)."

Oh dear. I din't realize the odds against it were that high.

Thank you for doing the maths for us; it should be interesting - the responses you get.

It’s a thought that ‘just popped in there’, but can something without intelligence and self determination create something intelligent and with self determination? And if creating intelligence and self determination is the end goal or on that path (because DNA/RNA is a program remember, so needs planning), then that intelligence must have been waaaay smarter than, and more forward thinking than can be conceivable to us; the most advanced organism detected in the universe so far. And we still don’t know 100% how we work day to day. It was only a few hundred years ago we knew how to # properly (metaphorically). What was the spark that made us, and us ONLY, aware of the universe?

Statistics?

Science is actually god?

I recommend Rupert Sheldrake’s theories as a third way apart from blind faith and blind science.

a reply to: tinymind

Oh, rather than I guy, I guess I should have said, one of about fifty little clay figurines which a tribe of goat herders worshiped a few thousand years ago.

tinymind indeed, when you resort to denigrating inhabitants of the Middle East as goat herders.

than excepting the possibility of "life" finding

the word you're looking for is "accepting". LOL

a reply to: tinymind

They play this in order to attempt to give themselves status and bring meaning into their lives.

But you did this a few posts up when you showed your racism by calling people "goat herders". Why should we even bother reading your offensive posts?

a reply to: Akragon

Well this is interesting.

You often post against Paul, and yet you are a Christian.

Now you attempt to derail this by citing an example from another thread, written by turbonium1, to do with denying gravity.
To use your vernacular FFS

Stupidity is running rampant in the world... and its spreading here as well

No thanks to some...

originally posted by: firesnake
It’s a thought that ‘just popped in there’, but can something without intelligence and self determination create something intelligent and with self determination? And if creating intelligence and self determination is the end goal or on that path (because DNA/RNA is a program remember, so needs planning), then that intelligence must have been waaaay smarter than, and more forward thinking than can be conceivable to us; the most advanced organism detected in the universe so far.

My thoughts exactly. This realization would be easier to come to, but we are taught from such a young age that we are a random accident - even in christian schools.

Science is actually god?

Science, that is, actual empirical observable science, consistently demonstrates the intelligent nature of the created world. All physical laws are meticulous mathematical patterns that have not quit since the beginning. Obviously mathematics are an indication of intelligence (math homework never completed itself randomly). Phi and pi are irrational numbers that have an infinite number of non-repeating decimal places, implicating an infinitude of data in each. Both pi and phi are present through the patterns of cosmos, planets, branching patterns, animal symmetry, etc, etc. It is a well-contrived system we live in.

I recommend Rupert Sheldrake’s theories as a third way apart from blind faith and blind science.

Yeah he's impressive, really puts a monkey wrench in material reductionism too.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: amazing
So if we can actually witness "micro evolution" and we can see that human's evolved different traits based on where they live...why is evolution so hard to comprehend?

Take for example skin tone. All genes involved to determine skin tone, and the various combinations shown here:

these genes must have all been present to allow any of these skin tones. Notice how the potential to be black or white, and any shade in between, was always existent from the beginning of humanity. No evolution occurred, just a shift in alleles among a population based on geographic location:

These alleles must have always been present, otherwise, well, we don't even know what would happen, because they have always been present in humans.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. There’s nothing extraordinary about stating “they must have always been present in humans”. It’s a declaration of willful ignorance not evidence to support the claim. It’s interesting the demands you make of others to support their statements yet you reach a conclusion and then build an argument around your preconceived notions. That doesn’t resemble anything remotely close to science.

a reply to: cooperton

it might be a pointless question, but did you bother to examine the list of reference materials?

Ramnani N (2011), “Frontal Lobe and Posterior Parietal Contributions to the Cortico-cerebellar System.”, Cerebellum (in press).

Balsters JH, Cussans E, Diedrichsen J, Phillips KA, Preuss TM, Rilling JK, Ramnani N (2010) Evolution of the cerebellar cortex: The selective expansion of prefrontal-projecting cerebellar lobules. Neuroimage, 43:388-98.
Jill X. O’Reilly, Christian F. Beckmann, Valentina Tomassini, Narender Ramnani and Heidi Johansen-Berg (2010). “Distinct and overlapping functional zones in the cerebellum defined by resting state functional connectivity”, Cerebral Cortex, 20:953-65.

Diedrichsen J, Balsters JH, Flavell J, Cussans E, & Ramnani N (2009). A probabilistic MR atlas of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage, 46(1), 39-46.

Ramnani N (2006) “The Primate Cortico-Cerebellar System”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(7):511-22

Ramnani N et al. (2006), “The evolution of prefrontal inputs to the cortico-pontine system: Diffusion imaging evidence from macaque monkeys and humans”, Cerebral Cortex, 16(6):811-8. (doi:10.1093/cercor/bhj024)

Ramnani N and Owen AM (2004), “The Anterior Prefrontal Cortex: What can functional imaging tell us about function?” Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 5, 184-194. [Download PDF]

more importantly, you would need to address specific points within those materials and demonstrate their inaccuracy.

Researchers who use neuroimaging methods increasingly rely on probabilistic atlases to guide their anatomical inferences. The anatomical organisation of the human cerebellum is complex, and varies considerably from case to case, suggesting the need for a probabilistic atlas of the human cerebellum in MNI standard stereotaxic space that can supplement anatomical inferences made on the basis of single-subject anatomical MRI scans.

lets see your probabilistic atlas for a divine superbeing who meddles in bioengineering. right after you finish debunking modern evolutionary synthesis (not to be confused with classical darwinian evolution).

originally posted by: firesnake
It’s a thought that ‘just popped in there’, but can something without intelligence and self determination create something intelligent and with self determination? And if creating intelligence and self determination is the end goal or on that path (because DNA/RNA is a program remember, so needs planning), then that intelligence must have been waaaay smarter than, and more forward thinking than can be conceivable to us; the most advanced organism detected in the universe so far. And we still don’t know 100% how we work day to day. It was only a few hundred years ago we knew how to # properly (metaphorically). What was the spark that made us, and us ONLY, aware of the universe?

Statistics?

Science is actually god?

I recommend Rupert Sheldrake’s theories as a third way apart from blind faith and blind science.

if the premise here is that something complex, self aware, and able to engineer marvelous devices and techniques from its environment could not possibly have "just happened"... then who designed god? how did that just happen by itself?

a reply to: cooperton

Can you just lay out your hypothesis here? And allow for a "peer review" of your ideas?

Doesn't seem necessary to put all of this effort into "disproving" evolution if you don't have an alternative.

Intelligent Design is quite meaningless unless you can show exactly how it works mechanically within the confines of biochemisty and physics. Unless you think none of this has to do with biology?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Akragon

Well this is interesting.

You often post against Paul, and yet you are a Christian.

Now you attempt to derail this by citing an example from another thread, written by turbonium1, to do with denying gravity.
To use your vernacular FFS

Stupidity is running rampant in the world... and its spreading here as well

No thanks to some...

Im not Christian... never claimed to be either

originally posted by: peter vlar
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. There’s nothing extraordinary about stating “they must have always been present in humans”. It’s a declaration of willful ignorance not evidence to support the claim. It’s interesting the demands you make of others to support their statements yet you reach a conclusion and then build an argument around your preconceived notions. That doesn’t resemble anything remotely close to science.

Glad you joined. Let's stick to the OP topic, I'd rather not side track (the skin tone topic deserves its own thread). Explain the correlation between genetic mutation and the synchronous increase in functional complexity of the eye, optic nerve, and visual cortex. The extraordinary claims of evolution should have some foundation in reality, right?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

it might be a pointless question, but did you bother to examine the list of reference materials?

more importantly, you would need to address specific points within those materials and demonstrate their inaccuracy.

Instead of sending me to go fish, can you point to a particular explanation portrayed in any of those papers that offers a mechanism as to how genetic mutation could alter the neurological structures involved in human optics?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: cooperton

Can you just lay out your hypothesis here? And allow for a "peer review" of your ideas?

I am critiquing the current standing dogma and demonstrating why it is impossible. It is the responsibility of those making the claim (evolutionary theorists) to defend and demonstrate their theory. I am pointing out the impossibilities of the theory.

Doesn't seem necessary to put all of this effort into "disproving" evolution if you don't have an alternative.

To think you know something that is wrong is very harmful, because you are incapable of considering other ideas. To realize you actually don't know, is a great leap in the right direction because you are no longer anchored by an erroneous, dead end belief system.

a reply to: Akragon

People make all sorts of assumptions my friend. Just remember I am always an atheist because I'm a scientist and don't question evolution.

So yeah, you've never said you are a Christian, just like I have never said I am an atheist. Yet here we sit regularly mislabled. I guess its as bad as me expecting someone who wants to talk evolution to have an education in it