Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by chr0naut

Many of the specific things you cite as examples of evolution happened within very few generations of the organism.

ased on this assumption, it was assumed that the mitochondrial offspring would get exact copies of the mitochondria that the mother had except if there was a mutational error. This error rate in the non-coding portion of mitochondrial DNA has long been thought to occur once every 300 to 600 generations, or every 6,000 to 12,000 years for humans.

So basically, you are WRONG.

Obviously life forms with a shorter lifespan can change a lot faster than for example humans or turtles...

SIMPLE

The "Missing Link"

the link that connects us to the apes, is still today missing.

Originally posted by EL1A5
SIMPLE

The "Missing Link"

the link that connects us to the apes, is still today missing.

SIMPLE...you're wrong and obviously haven't read up on the theory

Then where is this link?

bones that were put together doesn't really prove anything, I can take a skeleton of a monkey and a skeleton of a human, and mix them together and BAM!

"the missing link"



people are desperate when it's a race for fame.

and i don't think you read up on it neither as you give me a link to Youtube

reply to post by EL1A5


Hilarious claims given I just posted an almost 10min ling video refuting all your silly claims. How about looking at the facts for once instead of giving a knee-jerk response (especially considering you posted this 3min after I posted a 10min video)?

reply to post by MrXYZ


I never said I watched the video.

Why watch something that somebody tells me what I should believe.

Your avator would be ironic in it's own certain way if I did that

Originally posted by EL1A5
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I never said I watched the video.

Why watch something that somebody tells me what I should believe.

Your avator would be ironic in it's own certain way if I did that

edit on 26-4-2011 by EL1A5 because: (no reason given)

Well, they back up their statements with objective evidence...but you aren't interested in facts if they go against your blind belief, as is pretty obvious from your response. You're so blind in your belief, you aren't even able anymore to look at reality and facts, nor do you want to. Kinda sad tbh

Here's a text link, not that I have any hope of you ever accepting facts if they go against your belief...but I guess one can hope you're not as blind as you pretend to be

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.

Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution.

Originally posted by EL1A5
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.

Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution.

And once again you're wrong.

But who cares about facts, right?

reply to post by EL1A5

Originally posted by EL1A5
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.

Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution.

Except that they do exist. Insertions and duplications. They exist. DNA mutates in four basic ways (I'm not going to go into the biochemistry of it because I'm frankly unqualified), two of those four methods are an increase in genetic information: Insertion and Duplication

reply to post by EL1A5


Which one? And we already know we're apes, that's genetic.

reply to post by EL1A5

With every new "Missing Link" found there are two new "missing links."

This notion of "missing link" is a media creation, and honestly its comical, it gives scientists something to laugh about.

I don't think there is any scientist alive today that thinks they can pinpoint one particular morphological event that occurred where a "new species" emerged (aside from what we've observed today in the lab). In retrospect we can identify phylogenic relationships based on post and pre-zygotic barriers, transpecific gene complexes, and anatomical homologies, but what future animal will a rabbit turn into? Change acts on a population spanning millions of years. Its a continuum. Line up all your descendants back to the very first self-replicating entity, and each generation would like virtually identical to the previous.

I will leave this thread with this

False Evolution

Reasons Evolution is WRONG!

Human Dinosaurs?



-PEACE

S&F for a compelling argument

reply to post by EL1A5

This first link boils down to two arguments against evolution: fraudulent evidence used to support evolution and the inability of scientists to reproduce evolution in the laboratory.

Keep in mind a few things regarding the fraudulent evidence presented:

1. The frauds that are cited were not the work of scientists, but they were exposed as frauds by scientists.
2. While instances of fraud like Piltdown man can be cherry-picked to make a point, they ignore all of other paleontological evidence that has been vetted. Further, fossil evidence is only one part of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. In the absence of fossil evidence, there is enough genetic evidence to fully support the theory.

Ah, the use of the word “type” when referring to organisms… the favorite goalpost for a creationist to move. Please define exactly what a “type” is before trying to use it as evidence against evolution so we can be exactly sure of the level of evidence that needs to be attained. Beyond that, the ability for a scientist to recreate a phenomenon in a laboratory setting isn’t a make-or-break point for a scientific theory – since we can’t replicate nuclear fusion, I guess that means it must no happen in every star. Further, going to the article’s use of the vinegar fly as an example, have the scientists working with these organisms exerted an environmental pressure that would cause the level of speciation needed to change the organism’s “type”? Probably not.

Finally, I really like this line:

In view of the discoveries in genetics made during the past 35 years, those who have a legal training marvel how any geneticist can believe that the great variety of animals that now exist are offspring of some ancestor far more simple than an amoeba...

This is because law and science are two different fields with two different burdens of proof. Just because the explanation isn’t easy to understand or can’t be boiled down to a soundbite for a jury doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Or I could just point out that, in law, it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to be convicted of taking a bribe that the briber was acquitted of having offered.



There’s a bit too much to comment on in the second link to cover in one post, but let me hit some key points.

There’s no such thing as an evolutionist. It’s a word used in a bigoted sense to try and downplay the theory of evolution. Other scientific theories, such as the theory of gravity, tectonic theory, heliocentric theory, cell theory, germ theory, etc., carry the same weight of evidence. Yet, I’ve never heard a single person referred to as a “gravitationist” or a “germist”. The description of the concepts of evolution that are being referred to by the theory of evolution is a strawman – the theory of evolution only deals with the change in frequency of alleles within a given population. So trying to claim that theory of evolution isn’t valid because we’ve never observed cosmic evolution is just a blatant lie regarding the content of the theory. So there’s one keystone concept of that argument against evolution that’s either incredibly intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid, and we’re not even out of the introduction to the website yet.

Then it goes on to the old false dichotomy of microevolution vs macroevolution (hint: biologists recognize that these are the same concept applied to two different scales), a strawman argument about which genetic processes proponents of evolution believe in (hint: it’s that entire list in combination with each other, not an either/or situation), irreducible complexity (hint: every example given to date of irreducible complexity has been shown to be reducible), how statistics prove evolution wrong (hint: the model given at that site is valid assuming irreducible complexity, which is invalid, and that there’s only one organism and not an entire population mutating, which is false), and many many many other creationist claims that have been debunked by science repeatedly. All apologies, I would like to keep ripping your second link apart point by point, but I don't have the time to do it right now and it's all information that's been covered in other threads on ATS.



So… dragons = dinosaurs… haven’t seen this come up in a serious conversation in ages. The first two points at that link are based on “eyewitness accounts”, because if you’re going to take artwork literally it’s the same thing as an “eyewitness account”. Only we don’t have those eyewitnesses to talk to in order to verify what they saw. This is why scientific hypotheses need to be testable and measurable.

And I find it ironic that the “human footprints next to dinosaur footprints” claim is being made by someone who also posted a link regarding how fraudulent evidence perpetrated by nonscientists makes the theory of evolution weaker. By that logic, the fraudulent evidence designed to work against evolution should make the case for evolution stronger, no?

reply to post by EL1A5


iterationzero did a good job at pointing out why the links you posted, apart from being unsourced, are complete and utter nonsense.

I will leave this thread

In other words you're out of arguments after being caught making blatantly wrong statements like this:

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.

Then where is this link?

reply to post by MrXYZ


You quoted 300 to 600 generations for a genetic error to occur. This does not equal a succesful germ-line mutation which could be expected to take more generations.

Example 1:
The European Peppered Moth, a standard example used by evolutionists, has a life cycle of one year. So 1 year = 1 generation.

The peppered moth was originally lightly coloured for camouflage against trees but during the industrial revolution they darkened as the trees were darker due to sooting (carbon deposits from industry). Now, with better environmental standards, the numbers of light coloured moths are bouncing back.

So, in essence we have had two genetic changes in 200 years. Please note that this is faster than the minimum 300 to 600 generations required.

If you actually care to study this on a case by case basis (where the generational data has actually been recorded), I believe you will find similar for all examples where apparent evolution by natural selection and genetic drift has been observed.

For evolution by natural selection and genetic drift to be viable, it has to happen at the time the changing environment puts survival pressure on the organism.

300 generations or more is, in most cases, far too late and the species would likely be extinct (predated or ill-adapted for survival) in in far fewer generations.

Something else is obviously going on.

reply to post by chr0naut
Its a continuum of genetic change. Peppered moths were predominantly darker because they reproduce differentially, now ones that are lighter are reproducing differentially. I doubt if any mutation was even required for such changes to take place, its just the distribution of alleles within a gene pool over successive generations. In all honesty its probably an example of physiological versatility rather than one particular sequence of nucleotides that formed a novel protein.

The mutation rate in this scenario is beyond trivial.

reply to post by uva3021


So you are saying that what has happened with the European Peppered Moth is not an example of evolution?

(and apologies, I was editing the text as you were replying).

reply to post by chr0naut


You would be correct if mutation were the only way evolution works...but that's not the case. If the trees are suddenly darker, darker moths have a larger chance of survival (because their natural enemy, birds, have a harder time finding and eating them)...and ergo are the ones reproducing more. Once that happens, most moths end up dark...and the reverse can happen as well.

Add to that pollutants that can effect melanin production, which is also a possibility.

And lastly, just because it takes on average a certain amount of time for mutations to manifest, doesn't mean that's always the case.

Easy example:

If you play poker 1vs1, and get dealt AA...you will win on average 4 out of 5 times. Now, calculate the variance and you realize that losing 3 times in a row with AA isn't anything out of the ordinary...and something you should know if you played poker

Now, even assuming you are correct and "something else is going on", the chances of it being a natural cause is a gazillion times more likely than divine intervention given that we have ZERO evidence of divine intervention ever occurring. So if you suggest that "god" had something to do with it, you're basically filling a gap in knowledge with "magic"...god of the gaps, again

reply to post by chr0naut
Of course its an example of evolution. If you were to ask me can a population of moths now mate with moths from 200 years ago, I would say probably not, because of the intensity of parasitic pressure. Thus we have a new species of moth that more or less look the same.

Its not as easy as one gene, one trait, i.e. a mutation to a color gene changes the color of moths. In fact, genetics is one of the things in science that remains full of mysteries (this is why genes are called "eyeless" or "distal-less" because manipulation to the sequence of nucleotides correlates with some phenotypic abnormality). We reduce it to things we can calculate to make it easier, and it appears to work to some degree. But I highly doubt there is one protein responsible for coloration pattern in moths, and traits are also getting feedback from their local environment. Any species of moth that had a high amount of physiological versatility would certainly spread in the population compared to a species that specializes in one color.