Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by thehonestone

Originally posted by thehonestone
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Cancer is caused by toxins and unnatural chemicals entering the body.

No, cancer can be caused by carcinogens. It's not always caused by carcinogens, as it can simply be caused by freak genetic mutations. The crazy thing is that 'cancer' isn't a unified disease. There are various forms of it and they each have different causes. What's crazier is that even the most experienced oncologist won't be as confident as you in declaring the causes of cancer.

You seem to lack knowledge.

You seem to be overconfident.

Our government openly acknowedges that something as simple as Teflon, found in certain stove top pans can lead to cancer.

Yes, if you decide to ingest quite a bit of it...more than is found on those pans.

Ciggaretes lead to cancer.

They can. They don't always. There are plenty of people who smoke their whole lives and don't die of cancer and never get cancer.

It has NOTHING to do with randomness

Except for prostate and breast cancer, which you can just get randomly...

and your post was some-what off topic and seemed almost offensive. You are indeed a trouble-maker. "It is wiser to sit in silence and let the people THINK you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. "

Says the person who doesn't understand evolution.

reply to post by thehonestone


...they are in the process of evolution. Of course, you don't understand evolution, so you're just spouting off nonsense and pretending like it disproves evolution. The fact is that we couldn't recognize a transition quite easily for one good reason: we wouldn't know what it's transitioning to. It's easier to locate older transitions because we have the previous form and the following form right there in front of us.

reply to post by thehonestone

Originally posted by thehonestone
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

How in any way, shape or form can you look outside the window and see any animal species in the proccess of evolution?

Well, evolution is a species wide population genetics event. It happens. It can happen through several mechanisms, such as natural selection. We see it all the time. It also happens through genetic drift.

You weren't even thinking at a simple enough level to get what I said.

When you have to think simply about complex scientific issues there might be a problem.

Religion is a reality

Yep, people practice religions. That's very real. The claims of religion, on the other hand, aren't proven.

and there are no fossils of any humans from millions of years ago, because millions of years ago, humans as we know them didn't exist.

As per evolution. We were other forms of hominids.

We were in spiritual bodies, not flesh and bone.

Citation needed.

Evolution isn't doing anything because evolution doesn't exist. A true scientist would probably laugh at what I just said.

(change to quote in bold)

There, fixed that for you. Evolution does exist, we have all sorts of evidence that it does.

My point is, there would still be humans that looked like half monkeys.

...humans are sort of 'half monkeys'. We're (relatively) hairless apes. We are apes through and through.

Just use your common sense. People often confuse extinction due to pollution and destruction of our own doing with evolution.

...extinction is the dead end of evolution. And extinctions occurred long before our species evolved...

reply to post by vasaga


Well, the mechanism itself may have evolved from an accidental mutation, and I was just spitballing.

And evolution isn't accidental. Sure, the mutations are, and we have decades of genetics research to prove that they are, but the selection of them is not accidental. Were there a conscious mechanism behind mutation then there would be no need for natural selection and evolution would no longer be a species-wide phenomenon but an individual phenomenon. People would mutate and develop immunities to toxic conditions...hell, if the idea is correct than there should be a bunch of radiation-immune Japanese people who descended from the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I take it that after every E.L.E. God creates all the new living things? As well as looking after the universe? I find that hard to take in, I cannot see God spending all his time looking at this Petri dish stuck in the outskirts of an average size galaxy.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

Well, you might not like it, but you ARE a slave of your genes. Cancer can be linked to genetics, which is why if cancer has always been occurring often in your family over the generations, you have an increased risk at cancer. It's genetics...and so far there's nothing you can do about it, no matter how much you don't like it

Ok. What's your OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of this? =)

Genes can not select themselves. Genetic determinism falls flat on its face because of that. You really have some research to do on genetic determinism.. Look up epigenetics while you're at it.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

But, it happened anyway, meaning, mutations are not random, and/or they can happen without reproducing. Bacterial adaptability definitely seems "guided", which is why they proposed that bacteria "choose" their genes.

Even if mutations weren't random, what's your OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for a deity or intelligence interfering? To say "it seems" isn't scientific and most certainly not evidence or proof. Mutations could be a response to the environment...if it rains, you go indoors in order not to get wet. Doesn't mean someone's guiding you to go inside

Uhm.. You are the one who chose to go inside? Doesn't make it unguided.. You guided it... The intelligence in that case, would, be, oh I don't know, you? You could also not mind being wet and stay outside?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Evolution isn't based on things being random!! The entire theory is based on the fact that species constantly adapt to their changing environment. Wether there's a random element and to what extent doesn't really matter as the simple fact of adapting to a changing environment is part of the theory and most certainly not evidence for a guiding intelligence.

Lol.. See, this is the whole problem. You people love to change the view of it when it suits you. Now it suddenly isn't random, but everyone spouts the whole random mutation nonsense over and over again.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Also, there will eventually come a point where scientists have to realize that randomness does not exist. It's all dynamics which we don't understand or misunderstand..

Again, wether randomness plays a part or not doesn't matter.

Of course it does. It's the whole essence of telling people how they have no purpose and they are just an accident. It's how they keep people under control. Basically it comes down to "you don't have a purpose anyway, so we'll give you a purpose". Yeah, all you people can see are different topics, and you don't see the connection to the whole.. Not to mention the whole "we can give you a pill to fix you" nonsense.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The theory is largely based on species adapting to a changing environment. And even if it's not random, it's based on the ENVIRONMENT and there's ZERO evidence a guiding intelligence is involved

The environment? Ok. Who observes or is aware of the environment? It's the same issue you're bringing up now, as in your prior rain example. And it's funny that you're unaware, that if it's guided by the environment, genetic determinism is then false. It falls on its face, no matter from which side you look at it.

You people are all so unaware of what's going on. You've bought into what's been told to you by the media and regular school books, without actually looking at papers that have been released. Until now, I'm the only one who provided scientific papers to show what I mean, and, an article posted by you people, turned out to support it actually.. The rest of you are simply repeating the same stuff that you've been told over and over again, with no sources to back up your claims whatsoever. And you are the people that supposedly know the truth, and always have a # ton of evidence.

reply to post by vasaga


Here is an interesting summary article about the matter and the subsequent development.

Within a few years, evidence accumulated for non-teleological models of mutation. By 1998, essentially everyone in the field, including Cairns and his closest collaborators, agreed that the original observation did not reflect "directed" mutations, which by that time had been re-baptized with the less loaded term "adaptive mutations" [5, 6]. Nevertheless, several interesting features of bacterial biology had been discovered in the process. One alternative model for the observations proposes that starved bacteria enter a "hypermutable" state , either by virtue of a specific genetic "rescue" program, or as a result of breakdown of normal cellular control mechanisms [7]. In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene. Importantly, this mechanism has relevance for the onset of bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs, and possibly to certain cellular states involved in cancer development [5]. In another novel mechanism which has been observed, a multiplication of the copies of the crippled gene ("amplification") is first favorably selected because it leads to a small but detectable increase in its product's minimal activity [8]. This massive gene amplification makes for better chances of mutation, and when these occur the extra gene copies become a burden, and are eliminated by selection. The final result is the appearance of highly targeted mutations. Research on all these mechanisms is actively ongoing [9].

And random mutations happen ALWAYS, not just during bacterial reproduction, altrough the rate increases then.

Another explanation stems from a similarity in cellular mechanisms underlying the acquisition of adaptive mutations in the bacterial stationary phase cells and in the mammalian tumor cells. In both cases the adaptive mutations arise in response to a sustained stress environment and are promoted by high rate of genomic mutations.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Someone who lacks faith could easily tell themselves lies until they have built a strong delusion. I doubt you truly with all your heart believe in evolution. You seem to have some type of sense. Same goes to the big athiest. It's just easier for u to say that there is no God to accept the misery in your lives. Try your hardest to find faith and truth I assure you not only will science/history tie into the biblw perfectly but you will have a peace of mind that no monkey to human theory could ever prove. But then again evolution has never been proved just like I can't prove that God exist. It's similar to the argument that aliens exist because we can't prove they don't and vice versa. A rather pointless arguement, we all seem to have our minds set, but in the end you will feel embarrassed for believing something as great as a human came from a stinking animal.

reply to post by thehonestone

One does not believe in evolution. It's simply a matter of understanding and accepting reality. No faith required.

reply to post by Maslo


Yeah... Doesn't the first quote only confirm the same thing? And lol... "Become a burden". It's funny how they express themselves sometimes. Everything is supposedly material, and yet, they throw words like "burden" around. Burden only applies to things with awareness. But that's another story...

Also, random mutations always happen, but are not expressed. That would be like saying that a random mutation in you right now can give you feathers and make you fly. We know that's not the case. Not to mention, we know you can remove the nucleus of the cell, where all the reproductive genes are stored, and the cell keeps working exactly the same as before. If the nucleus is there or not, doesn't matter. Same is for the genes in the nucleus. It's only used for reproduction and are expressed afterwards.
Before someone comes with the argument of cancer cells in our bodies, living cells themselves don't turn into cancer cells. Living cells have mutations in their nucleus, but work perfectly fine still, but, after reproduction, the new cell derived from that cell is a cancer cell. A normally working cell will not randomly turn into a cancer cell by changing its genes. The genes need to be there before the whole cell is fully formed. I might be wrong on this, so, if someone can show me a paper that says otherwise, it's welcomed. Maybe in mitochondrial DNA, but as far as I know, those mutations are always harmful, or are eliminated.

But honestly, don't you think it's funny what the article is saying? Cells are under stress, so, chance for mutations increase, but because of the "burden" of reproduction only the right one is selected and expressed, giving the "illusion" of a selected mutation.. I mean.. Seriously? I don't know.. Maybe if it looks like bird, flies like a bird, sounds like a bird, it is a bird? Just a thought...
The whole argument is under the assumption that everything happens in a randomly materialistic way. You can view the same evidence and data the other way, which is, the selection is directed, and whole stress/mutation-increase/burden/selection/expression thing, is the mechanism by which this choice is expressed.. But of course, you're not allowed to look at it that way...

Originally posted by vasaga
Not to mention, we know you can remove the nucleus of the cell, where all the reproductive genes are stored, and the cell keeps working exactly the same as before. If the nucleus is there or not, doesn't matter. Same is for the genes in the nucleus. It's only used for reproduction and are expressed afterwards.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read this week. How about you provide a link to a source (hight impact scientific journal) that confirms this? I promise to send USD 500 to you if you manage to do this.

reply to post by vasaga

After reading the paper, I question whether or not you've actually read the paper. It was a mathematical postulation concerning the appropriation of mutant forms in a bacterial solution infected with a bacteriophage virus, an experiment done years earlier. It merely suggests, from a mathematical perspective, the rate of mutation appears to increase when placed in an infected solidifying agent, perhaps indicating sensory mechanisms to induce higher mutation rates. Obviously their results have yet to be duplicated, therefore being downgraded from a hypotheses, to a mere thought.

This is what you are hanging your hat on? An obscure postulation from 23 years ago? Imagine this scenario, a scientist doing experiments on gravity, and mathematically he developed a formula that measures the acceleration due to gravity at 9.6 m/s^2 rather than 9.8 m/s^2. "Gravity is false, hooray for God, YES I'M HAPPY AGAIN."

Why such a deep seeded hate for evolution. It happens, there is more evidence for evolution than gravity, and scientists don't have to believe in evolution, because it exists. You don't see scientists holding hands in a church saying "I believe in evolution, I believe in evolution."

reply to post by vasaga

Ok. What's your OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of this? =)

There...your genetics influence how prone you are to develop certain kinds of cancer: LINK

I have to admit though, it's slightly amusing that you keep on asking us for evidence, but you completely fail to present any objective evidence that would suggest a deity even exists

Uhm.. You are the one who chose to go inside? Doesn't make it unguided.. You guided it... The intelligence in that case, would, be, oh I don't know, you? You could also not mind being wet and stay outside?

Exactly! There's 2 parties, the species (me in this case) and the environment (rain) and NO crazy magic third party...at least there's no objective evidence of the existence of that magic third party. The species adapted to the environment and wasn't guided, it made a decision based on the impact of the environment on its body.

Thanks for proving my point!

Of course it does. It's the whole essence of telling people how they have no purpose and they are just an accident. It's how they keep people under control. Basically it comes down to "you don't have a purpose anyway, so we'll give you a purpose". Yeah, all you people can see are different topics, and you don't see the connection to the whole.. Not to mention the whole "we can give you a pill to fix you" nonsense.

So wait, in your mind, unless there's a god, you feel as if you have no purpose? WOW! What a sad way to live your life, constantly being forced to trick yourself into believing something we have no evidence even exists.

You can chose your purpose! For some it's having children and giving them the best life possible, for others it's helping others, for even others their main purpose is to make money and live like a king.

Next time you're in hospital and they wanna give you a pill to save your life, tell them "pills don't fix people, god does, I refuse to take it"

The environment? Ok. Who observes or is aware of the environment? It's the same issue you're bringing up now, as in your prior rain example. And it's funny that you're unaware, that if it's guided by the environment, genetic determinism is then false. It falls on its face, no matter from which side you look at it.

Or maybe they're not mutually exclusive and adaption to the environment as well as genetics happen both at the same time...but of course you refuse to accept that fact because it could damage your precious fantasy land that you constructed in your mind.

Reality isn't as scary as you think, but if you seriously believe you have no purpose if god doesn't exist I really pity you...

reply to post by uva3021


It's called "grasping at straws". Over the past 150 years, science has been able to debunk a lot of the religious claims, and their fantasy world is slowly breaking apart. But of course they fight tooth and nail because in their mind, they are without purpose without god...it's really kinda sad, as reality isn't as scary as they think it is. It's just that they've been conditioned by religion for years that they are meaningless without god and religion. The old "controlling the masses" thing once again, where people get brainwashed. It's always easier to say "god wants it" when people ask questions rather than having to explain why you really want them to invade the middle east, kill witches, blow up innocents with suicide bombs, and so on...

But judging from the dropping numbers of believers, it's only a matter of a time until religion won't be taken literally anymore.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Lol it's true whether you want to believe it or not. The only difference is that they can't reproduce and they can't manufacture protein. Lots of people believe the cells die because they lack the nucleus, but they stay alive without it. They just die over time because they can't replenish proteins that are worn out without the nucleus, but they are very much alive and functional without it. Do you die if they remove your balls? Well maybe if you lose blood by it than your body can make, you'll die a few hours/days later, which is exactly what happens with cells.. It doesn't mean your balls are your brains.. Today enucleation is used for cloning and vaccines.. It's a common concept.. Remove the nucleus of an egg cell, and because it stays alive, you can insert another nucleus so when it's fertilized, it becomes something else..

It's funny. The same people are always getting the stars. You guys are nothing more than a cult. Biased to the bone.

Here's your evidence and links, abstract of the document:

To dissect further the molecular pathway that underlies this autoregulatory phenomenon, we have now investigated whether enucleated cells still retain the requisite regulatory machinery with which to alter tubulin synthetic levels in response to fluctuations in the pool size of unpolymerized tubulin subunits. Using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis to analyze the patterns of new polypeptide synthesis, we have determined that such cytoplasts can indeed respond to drug- induced microtubule depolymerization by specific repression of new fl-tubulin synthesis. Moreover, the response of cytoplasts is, if anything, greater in magnitude than that of whole cells. We conclude that autoregulatory control of fl-tubulin gene expression must derive principally, if not exclusively, from a cytoplasmic control mechanism that modu-lates fl-tubulin mRNA stability

And further down:

By preparing populations of enucleated cell frag-ments we have now demonstrated that most , if not all of the cellular machinery responsible for establishing B-tubulin syn-thetic rates is retained in enucleated cells.
--------------------
At first thought, it may be somewhat surprising that cyto-plasts can retain such a regulatory mechanism. However , it is well known that cytoplasts are remarkably viable. For exam-ple, Albrecht -Buehler demonstrated that even very tiny frag- ments of enucleated cells remain alive for at least 8h, as judged by ability to produce and move filopodia or ruffle membranes (20)

Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And here's another one:

Several years ago, Goldman et al. (3) showed that enucleated animal cells (cytoplasts) generated and moved surface projections and also locomoted like whole cells

Source: www.pnas.org... (first page bottom left)

Can I have my 500 dollars now?

Edit:
And oyeah..: In before "those articles are not about that but about the testing of blah blah"

And response to everyone else:

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by vasaga

 

After reading the paper, I question whether or not you've actually read the paper. It was a mathematical postulation concerning the appropriation of mutant forms in a bacterial solution infected with a bacteriophage virus, an experiment done years earlier. It merely suggests, from a mathematical perspective, the rate of mutation appears to increase when placed in an infected solidifying agent, perhaps indicating sensory mechanisms to induce higher mutation rates. Obviously their results have yet to be duplicated, therefore being downgraded from a hypotheses, to a mere thought.

So what? His point was still clear. A few posts above you, someone quoted a paper which was basically about discrediting intelligent design. Why didn't you address him about that? I never mentioned intelligent design. That was not the point of the discussion. And your argument is nothing more than a way to try to ignore what was being stated.

Originally posted by uva3021
This is what you are hanging your hat on? An obscure postulation from 23 years ago? Imagine this scenario, a scientist doing experiments on gravity, and mathematically he developed a formula that measures the acceleration due to gravity at 9.6 m/s^2 rather than 9.8 m/s^2. "Gravity is false, hooray for God, YES I'M HAPPY AGAIN."

Irrelevant nonsense argument.

Originally posted by uva3021
Why such a deep seeded hate for evolution. It happens, there is more evidence for evolution than gravity, and scientists don't have to believe in evolution, because it exists. You don't see scientists holding hands in a church saying "I believe in evolution, I believe in evolution."

I have no hatred for evolution. I dislike falsehoods by repetition. And again, I never said evolution does not happen.. Geez... That's the problem with you people..

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

There...your genetics influence how prone you are to develop certain kinds of cancer: LINK

That is not a scientific paper. Just a random medical website.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I have to admit though, it's slightly amusing that you keep on asking us for evidence, but you completely fail to present any objective evidence that would suggest a deity even exists

Strawman. Where exactly did I say there is a deity? Quote me on that. Again, that's the problem with you people. Always strawman-ing others because you simply refuse to look at the evidence. Appeal to ridicule does not win you any pointers.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Uhm.. You are the one who chose to go inside? Doesn't make it unguided.. You guided it... The intelligence in that case, would, be, oh I don't know, you? You could also not mind being wet and stay outside?

Exactly! There's 2 parties, the species (me in this case) and the environment (rain) and NO crazy magic third party...at least there's no objective evidence of the existence of that magic third party. The species adapted to the environment and wasn't guided, it made a decision based on the impact of the environment on its body.

Thanks for proving my point!

Where exactly did I say there's a 3rd party? You're putting words in my mouth again...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So wait, in your mind, unless there's a god, you feel as if you have no purpose?

Again, where exactly did I talk about God? STOP THE DARN STRAWMAN. But oyeah. I forgot, you people can't argue for # without ridicule because you yourselves know nothing. All you do is repeat what you've heard.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
WOW! What a sad way to live your life, constantly being forced to trick yourself into believing something we have no evidence even exists.

You can chose your purpose! For some it's having children and giving them the best life possible, for others it's helping others, for even others their main purpose is to make money and live like a king.

Next time you're in hospital and they wanna give you a pill to save your life, tell them "pills don't fix people, god does, I refuse to take it"

Appeal to ridicule.. Fallacy..

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Or maybe they're not mutually exclusive and adaption to the environment as well as genetics happen both at the same time...but of course you refuse to accept that fact because it could damage your precious fantasy land that you constructed in your mind.

Reality isn't as scary as you think, but if you seriously believe you have no purpose if god doesn't exist I really pity you...

More appeal to ridicule... You should read a paper called "Metaphors and the Role of Genes and Development"

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by uva3021

 

It's called "grasping at straws".

Like your friend above is doing?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Over the past 150 years, science has been able to debunk a lot of the religious claims,

And you yourself are doing?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
and their fantasy world is slowly breaking apart. But of course they fight tooth and nail because in their mind, they are without purpose without god...

Still doing it... Hypocrites..

Originally posted by MrXYZ
it's really kinda sad, as reality isn't as scary as they think it is. It's just that they've been conditioned by religion for years that they are meaningless without god and religion. The old "controlling the masses" thing once again, where people get brainwashed. It's always easier to say "god wants it" when people ask questions rather than having to explain why you really want them to invade the middle east, kill witches, blow up innocents with suicide bombs, and so on...

But judging from the dropping numbers of believers, it's only a matter of a time until religion won't be taken literally anymore.

All of you assuming I'm religious are completely wrong. You should know, if you actually read my sig, you would read that can't embrace possibility if you can't let go of a dogma. You think a religious person would have that? That's the position you people are in. Yeah. I'm gonna get backlash for that statement.. I don't care.. You're no better than religious people. You all go behind dogmatic beliefs. Criticizing them for doing that while you do the same is hypocritical and makes you actually worse. Want to see some comparisons?

"You disagree. You're going to burn in hell!!" - "You disagree. You're a stupid creationist!!"
"You're ignorant because you don't believe in God" - "You're ignorant because you don't understand evolution"
"Religion is the only right way" - "Mainstream science is the only right way"
"Jesus was right" - "Darwin was right"
"God created everything" - "Randomness created everything"
"We are better than you" - "We are better than you"

Grow up. This is my last post. You've already made up your minds and there's no sense in discussing with people who believe in dogmas.

reply to post by vasaga

I'm sidestepping the issue by directly evaluating the paper that is the base reference for whatever your argument is?

And my analogue of gravity is perfectly reasonable. Nothing you have presented has in any way dis-proven evolution, but simply presents possible ways the modern synthesis concerning the theory may shift, and those possible ways appear to be idealistic drivel because people struggle with the idea of innate randomness being the ultimate purveyor of life's diversity.

Cells devoid of nucleic acids can not serve as units of natural selection, so why even bring that up, its a huge tangent that is completely irrelevant, and does nothing to contribute to your "ideas" other than showing lack of focus.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by vasaga

 

I'm sidestepping the issue by directly evaluating the paper that is the base reference for whatever your argument is?

And my analogue of gravity is perfectly reasonable. Nothing you have presented has in any way dis-proven evolution, but simply presents possible ways the modern synthesis concerning the theory may shift, and those possible ways appear to be idealistic drivel because people struggle with the idea of innate randomness being the ultimate purveyor of life's diversity.

Cells devoid of nucleic acids can not serve as units of natural selection, so why even bring that up, its a huge tangent that is completely irrelevant, and does nothing to contribute to your "ideas" other than showing lack of focus.

Straw-manning...

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

- My argument is not about evolution not being true. It's about evolution not occurring the way it's being told to the majority of people

reply to post by vasaga

You base your views of evolution on a 23 year old mathematical population? Experiments weren't even done it was a re-assessment of previous experiments from a different mathematical perspective.

And I posted his latest paper from 2002 where there were no references to directed mutations governed by environmental stimuli, yet you assume no other evidence has been provided other than the article that you posted, which wasn't even evidence. A more recent paper would not in any way be irrelevant, its like saying "In 1839 Darwin said this, who cares what he said in 1858, he's not allowed to change his ideas."

The 1988 article BTW was addressed
www.genetics.org...

The only evidence for directed mutations are circumstantial, which I pointed out before (a matter of observation convenience), and coincidental. While the evidence for mutations following a Poisson Distribution are overwhelming to the point of being as good as an assertion of a fact as we have.

If a gene were dimorphic for cell metabolism and, for example, location at the replication fork of a DNA molecule, then there may be differential gene replication. In that case it would still be completely random. Almost apropos to meiotic drive, which is entirely random in and of itself, and does not indicate directed evolution.

reply to post by uva3021


Circumstantial? You mean the thing that has everything that looks like a bird but is not a bird? I know that paper "Unicorns revisited". That paper has also been "addressed", and, it has been confirmed that genetic mutations increase when it's "needed", so to speak, Read what's possible of this paper:
www.sciencemag.org...
It's also what one of the links MrXYZ posted said.. They still apply.. "Circumstantial" is really not a proper way to saying it's not evidence, since random mutations on itself are circumstantial. But whatever...

Never mind... You're all right and I'm completely wrong. Have a nice uh.. day/month/life.

reply to post by vasaga
Inducing higher mutation rates is not directed evolution driven by environmental stimuli, all it is is higher mutation rates, which enables advantageous mutant forms to evolve at a faster rate. I honestly do understand how hard it is to grasp the concept. I can recall taking a class on Evolution and Sex, and my classmates could not get pass the Lamarkian view of evolution, because randomness is not an endearing quality.

I suggest stepping back and just accepting how mutations work, rather than dismissing evidence devastating to your opinions as being irrelevant. There is no amount of cellular machinery that actively seeks out matter in order to alter the state of nucleic acids. Its purely accidental.