The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

You know there probably aren't any processes going on in the cell (at the molecular level) that work at highest possible efficiency because the "design" is not perfect. If there was a designer then how come the design is flawed? As your argument stands, it's just nonsense..

Whoa! Thats arrogant! who says the design is flawed? its worked for billions of years. can you come up with a better bio design?

At molecular level the very first thing I'd improve is the Calvin cycle. It's so far from perfect. Any 2nd year biochemistry student ought to come up with much more efficient design(s) for carbon fixation.

Chance has a huge role in the life history of our planet. For example there would not be humans if a certain piece of rock didn't hit Earth some 65 million years ago.

more arrogance. who says so? What makes us human more than our homonid ancesters? The transition happened much later than the K-T event. So mammals arose, thats not to say they wouldnt have anyway.

Who says so? Everybody who has a clue I guess. Mammals started to radiate (in greater scale) only after the dinosaurs were gone. Here's a question for you. Why did mammals start to radiate only after the dinosaurs were gone? If you can't answer this you clearly have absolutely no idea how evolution (in theory) works.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Mammals started to radiate (in greater scale) only after the dinosaurs were gone. Here's a question for you. Why did mammals start to radiate only after the dinosaurs were gone? If you can't answer this you clearly have absolutely no idea how evolution (in theory) works.

If we exclude organic cancer, then AIDS and cancerous cells are the same thing, and that answers your question why there is detectable radiation.

Maybe I should save my breath on why this happens.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Mammals started to radiate (in greater scale) only after the dinosaurs were gone. Here's a question for you. Why did mammals start to radiate only after the dinosaurs were gone? If you can't answer this you clearly have absolutely no idea how evolution (in theory) works.

If we exclude organic cancer, then AIDS and cancerous cells are the same thing, and that answers your question why there is detectable radiation.
Maybe I should save my breath on why this happens.

Your answer doesn't make any sense. Try again or give up. Also may I ask, why are you taking part in this argument? You clearly haven't studied how evolution (in theory) works.

My hopes aren't high. A person who calls acquired immune deficiency syndrome and cancerous cells the same thing clearly doesn't know too much. Since when were living cells and a disease the same thing? It's like saying that white blood cells and depression are the same thing.. Doesn't make any sense at all.

p.s. What is organic cancer? Are all other cancers inorganic?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

Hey everyone! I have a question, after reading books on evolution and i will continue to do so on both sides of the argument as i feel it is one of THE most important subjects to try and understand...

one thin ki haven't come across is how exactly the first land animals arose and came out of the water? I mean i dont get how mutations over so many years can create legs and arms from fish, or am I wrong?

I mean how could a fish evolve from having gills to lungs without dying?
to go from taking oxygen from water to air,

just putting it out there!!

reply to post by Zenithar
Good question. Lungfish? Fish with legs. There's plenty of evidence to support the transition of marine life to land lifeforms.

edit(sp)

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

Actually yes, flagella are irreducibly complex.

Actually no, flagella are NOT irreducibly complex.

This ID poster child has been demonstrated to be false for so long and so thoroughly that I am amazed that you can still seriously propose it here. Or are you just trolling?

Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum

The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Claim CB200.1: Bacterial flagella and Irreducible Complexity (See also the related claim CB200.1.1 which follows this one.

That's enough.

reply to post by randyvs

Can you think of one example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be shown to increase the information in the genome?

All of 'em.

Not really. They all have the potential to increase information, but it is probably true that most of them don't. Some of them change information in a neutral way or in a way that is not particularly useful immediately, and some of them do increase information in a way that is immediately effective.

Here is a discussion of one such example:
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug

There are many, but you only asked for one.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Your answer doesn't make any sense. Try again or give up.

That only shows your gave up to even try to understand as you thought you knew everything enough to tell others to give up. Maybe everybody should just give up and live you completely alone (with copies of yourself).

Also may I ask, why are you taking part in this argument? You clearly haven't studied how evolution (in theory) works.

How would anybody understand that there was a prerequisite to study Theory of Evolution to understand the nature of evolution itself.

My hopes aren't high.

Go to the hospital if you are hopeless.

A person who calls acquired immune deficiency syndrome and cancerous cells the same thing clearly doesn't know too much.

Knows there is a difference between us. One understand viruses. The other one doesn't understand the concept of pregenesis.

Since when were living cells and a disease the same thing?

How do all doctors in the entire world know not to kill a disease that may be the last hope to survival of the fittest.

It's like saying that white blood cells and depression are the same thing.. Doesn't make any sense at all.

When people look at a wall, it doesn't make sense to them that they don't actually see a wall. They see just the reflection of light off a wall.

Obviously for those where this make perfect sense, they are misunderstood by those that don't actually see a wall.

What is organic cancer?

How would you not have a clue. Study here: Spirulina

Are all other cancers inorganic?

How would science ever have known to draw the difference between ordinary metals and... radiation as you said.

Originally posted by rnaa
They all have the potential to increase information, but it is probably true that most of them don't. Some of them change information in a neutral way or in a way that is not particularly useful immediately, and some of them do increase information in a way that is immediately effective.

How would a constant physical universe that neither creates nor destroys matter contain itself if increase in information is inevitable.

Some just radically say the universe ultimately expands and deny any form of creationism, and that is highly illogical.

Those who believe in ever 'increase in information' should realize that something needs to store that information, which means physical resources are used to store that information, which mean there is a constant take over of the physical universe from natural resources to resources that are only used to store information.

Survival of the fittest obviously means either a 'decrease in information' while you deny creationism or a suddenly leap of faith towards creationism.

Choose.

reply to post by Zenithar

Even the supposedly "simple cells", those first organisms, single celled and billions of years old, were simply not SIMPLE!

even one cell contains around 2000 proteins, each protein with around 500 amino acids in each, then threes the nucleus housing the code for life, the double helix formation, which undeniably contains information, this is an amazing organism, and the chances of chance creating this are literally astronomical...One can only truly realize the holes in evolution when you study the cells and particularly proteins, oh and the cell membrane, the brain of the cell!!!

You are making the classic 'anti-evolutionist' error of mistaking evolution for abiogenesis.

Evolution makes no attempt to explain how life was created, that is a different field of study, the study of abiogenesis, which i do not believe is sufficiently advanced to be called a theory. There are several hypotheses that are getting close to being coalesced into a theory.

Here is a video from the labs of one of the top thinkers in the field, Jack Szostak that addresses exactly your issue with 'simple cells are still not simple'. The answer: that is correct, but the first 'life' was no cellular.

reply to post by DeathShield

I still fail to see how evolution disproves creation.

It doesn't.

The Theory of Evolution (proper name 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis') is totally silent on creation.

Please let that sink in. Evolution says absolutely NOTHING about creation.

I fail to see how attacking evolution does anything to support creation.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Zenithar

 

Even the supposedly "simple cells", those first organisms, single celled and billions of years old, were simply not SIMPLE!

even one cell contains around 2000 proteins, each protein with around 500 amino acids in each, then threes the nucleus housing the code for life, the double helix formation, which undeniably contains information, this is an amazing organism, and the chances of chance creating this are literally astronomical...One can only truly realize the holes in evolution when you study the cells and particularly proteins, oh and the cell membrane, the brain of the cell!!!

You are making the classic 'anti-evolutionist' error of mistaking evolution for abiogenesis.

Evolution makes no attempt to explain how life was created, that is a different field of study, the study of abiogenesis, which i do not believe is sufficiently advanced to be called a theory. There are several hypotheses that are getting close to being coalesced into a theory.

Here is a video from the labs of one of the top thinkers in the field, Jack Szostak that addresses exactly your issue with 'simple cells are still not simple'. The answer: that is correct, but the first 'life' was no cellular.

no no i am not mistaking the two at all, What i m saying is even to get from a non cellular being to a cellular one surely still requires random mutations,(which is sticking within the realms of evolutionary theory) all im saying is i find it hard to see that happening, and i am not anti evolution at all in case your wondering , I just question a lot of things about it, because as you know in science theirs nothing that can be definitively proven, only dis proven!!

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Zenithar

 

Good question. Lungfish? Fish with legs. There's plenty of evidence to support the transition of marine life to land lifeforms.

okay so these are fish with legs, cool, but where are the pictures instead of drawings? or should i just look further...
my question is not WAS THERE FISH WITH LEGS, its how did a species survive the change from sea dwelling to land dwelling without perishing in between!! surely there must be some fossils with both aquatic systems of taking in oxygen and land dwelling lungs within that same creature, this would be evidence of the transition no?




edit(sp)

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by Zenithar


There are creatures alive to day that can both breathe water and (rather badly, but well enough) breathe air. You don't even need fossils, you can have a, somewhat old, video:



You sound so sure it never happened, yet you clearly haven't spent 5 minutes trying to answer your own questions. Your lack of objectivity is showing.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Zenithar

 

There are creatures alive to day that can both breathe water and (rather badly, but well enough) breathe air. You don't even need fossils, you can have a, somewhat old, video:

You sound so sure it never happened, yet you clearly haven't spent 5 minutes trying to answer your own questions. Your lack of objectivity is showing.

First its a total insult to pretend i haven't tired to answer my own questiones, i do it every day, im NOT saying it didn't happen, all im saying is that its hard to imagine for me at this moment, showing me a video of fish that can do both does not answer my question at all,

how did that transition happen, have we found fish fossils with indications of lungs as well as gills,

look im not saying it didn't happen and i feel that evolution through mutations does take place almost surely, but my research of late has led me to believe that these mutations may not in fact be so random, and may not occur over such long periods,,,,

Originally posted by Zenithar

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Zenithar

 

There are creatures alive to day that can both breathe water and (rather badly, but well enough) breathe air. You don't even need fossils, you can have a, somewhat old, video:

You sound so sure it never happened, yet you clearly haven't spent 5 minutes trying to answer your own questions. Your lack of objectivity is showing.

First its a total insult to pretend i haven't tired to answer my own questiones, i do it every day, im NOT saying it didn't happen, all im saying is that its hard to imagine for me at this moment, showing me a video of fish that can do both does not answer my question at all,

how did that transition happen, have we found fish fossils with indications of lungs as well as gills,

look im not saying it didn't happen and i feel that evolution through mutations does take place almost surely, but my research of late has led me to believe that these mutations may not in fact be so random, and may not occur over such long periods,,,,

also, great video, thats simply amazing, if this kind of thing can truly occur with random mutations then thats stunning, still, there are many mystries around evolution!!!!

reply to post by Zenithar

so most spontanes mutations cause an animal do die? i did'nt know that and i've read a few books now on evolution...surely this random process must be more destructive to the dna then anyting?

No.

All mutations do 1 of three things: make it harder to reproduce, have no effect on reproduction, or make it easier to reproduce.

Birth defects causing death before reproduction is only one way of making it harder to reproduce. It could also be enable it to be eaten quicker, or reduce the size of the 'litter', or make it less attractive to potential mates. Notice that less attractive to potential mates doesn't mean that they don't find a mate at all. They could find lesser mates and the offspring would be find it harder to reproduce yet again. So 'bad' traits can linger in the population for a few generations. But individuals with 'better' traits outnumber the individuals with 'bad' traits very quickly.

Neutral mutations can stick around in the population indefinitely and so build up over time. The time may come when the traits associated with the neutral mutation may prove beneficial. It is this pool of potentially useful traits that allow Stephen Jay Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' to operate.

To illustrate, suppose you have a population of beetles that is very successful in its forest habitat. Sometime or other, a beetle gets a mutation that allows it to swim a bit. It is of no real benefit, but doesn't hurt either. The beetle doesn't 'know' it can swim or need to swim, it just can. It passes this trait on to its offspring so after a few generations the swim trait is shared by a small but significant percentage of the population. Then a beaver fells a tree in just the right spot and dams the creek nearby flooding the beetles habitat. All of a sudden the beetles that can swim have a distinct advantage over those that can't, and they soon dominate the population near the dam. Given enough time, and enough changes, (maybe something happens that allows the swimmers to hibernate during the dry season or something) the population near the beaver dam will be completely different to it cousins over the hill.

An immediately beneficial mutation might be one that allow a moth to more closely match the coloring of a different tree, thus increasing the range of trees the moth population can use to rest in.

reply to post by Mista Kool

The more we learn about life, the more we discover an underlying degree of order at the molecular level. This is exactly what one would expect to find if life were the product of design, and the exact opposite of what the "blind watchmaker" brand of evolution has predicted.

The "Blind Watchmaker" is not evolution in the way you suppose. Here's a video that explains it quite well.




[edit on 28/2/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 28/2/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by dzonatas

How would a constant physical universe that neither creates nor destroys matter contain itself if increase in information is inevitable.

We are not discussing the universe. Nor are we discussing the creation of matter.

We are discussing the organization of matter in a finite 'relatively' closed system and its behavior with respect to the known processes of chemistry and physics.

Edit: Sorry I hit enter too soon and missed the other half of your post.

Those who believe in ever 'increase in information' should realize that something needs to store that information, which means physical resources are used to store that information, which mean there is a constant take over of the physical universe from natural resources to resources that are only used to store information.

How so? Most mutations that result in an 'increase in information' still use the exact same number of molecules that existed before the mutation.

If you are saying that mutation inevitably lead to larger organisms, that just isn't necessarily true, or population overload, well there are other mechanisms that serve to counter those trends. So far mankind is the only one that seems to (so far) escape the overpopulation trap, and the evidence is piling up that that isn't going to last much longer.

[edit on 28/2/2010 by rnaa]

Regardless of Creation vs Evolution I don't understand one thing.

Why is it that Creationists demand extraordinary evidence from scientists, who already research tirelessly to provide mountains of evidence, while creationists don't feel that it is necessary to prove the foundational fact of the existence of their creator?

It really seems to be a double standard to me. If scientists are required to provide indisputable proof of evolution, then why isn't the same standard being held to creationists who feel that they are exempt?