Evolution courtesy of Darwin ... no longer works for me ... here's why !

Excellent post and thread, this is a keeper, thanks.

I've often wondered why the Bible warns against eating pork.
Well now, whether you know it or not, I think you just provided the best scientific evidence and reason.
...because eating pork can almost be considered a form of cannibalism.

Originally posted by Kayzar
Well said.
I think the part about "random mutations" as an explanation is along the same lines as saying magic or god. That random mutation bit really gets underplayed if you take into account the odds of a mutation creating something living, odds of a mutation creating something that helps the organisim and the odds of the organisim passing on those benificial mutations.

Except random mutations are an observable, verifiable fact. You're probably right regarding the odds for any one mutation to be "successful" but, given that the average person has between 100 and 200 mutations separating them from each of their parents, you get to roll the dice many many times. In organisms that have shorter generational cycles than humans, the rate of change is even faster.

reply to post by iterationzero


Yes however, despite all the mutations we are still human and so will our children be. In humans it is hard to observe random mutations in the long run due to our life span. Now if we take something like bacteria that can have a life span of a 10min to hours or days if we observed it over time shouldn't some random mutation make the bacteria something completley different?
There are two parts to the random mutation issue first one explains something like how we get from black birds to white birds the other tricky part is how we get from fish to lizzard.

reply to post by Kayzar


That's where millions of years come into play.

Some people like the idea of punctuated equilibrium, but I don't think that the concept can be applied to all speciation/evolutionary events.

reply to post by Kayzar


Well, there's the fun part -

1) Escherichia coli (a common model organism for bacteria, and a commensal gut bacteria) has a generation time of 20 minutes, but this doesn't mean that it only lives for 20 minutes. Asexual reproduction on a single-celled level means that effectively, it's the exact same individual, there's just a lot more of it towards the end, plus accumulated mutations in different copies, which brings me to;

2) Deleterious mutations about are as likely to occur as beneficial ones. In sexual organisms, events like crossing-over during meiosis means that only part of the genome is lost when a deleterious mutation occurrs - in bacteria, on the other hand, if deleterious mutations accumulate, the individual dies and the lineage, without the life-raft of someone else throwing their healthy genes into it (sexual reproduction) dies, too.*

3) In a single-celled organism, how much change is required for it to be unrecogniseable?

[size=-3]*That said, the horizontal transfer of genes does allow the dumping of mutations, in species where it is possible

reply to post by Alxandro


I'm just wondering if the OP is in fact Mr Lloyd Pye, because if he isn't Lloyd Pye he should be.

Coincidentially I'm reading "Everything You Know Is Wrong" by Mr Lloyd Pye and inconjunction with Zecharia Sitchin' works, I'm convinced that WE, yes the human race, were created AND are directly related to ET' who came here eons ago.

Lloyd Pye' book is a must read, he tackles Darwin' theory and destroys it BIG TIME.

Ever wonder why there is some kind of supposed "SECRET" handed down by the secret societies ????

Well surprise, surprise, surprise, the SECRET is we were created by ET and the bible is a crok

Believe it or not folks..............

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by iterationzero
Now if we take something like bacteria that can have a life span of a 10min to hours or days if we observed it over time shouldn't some random mutation make the bacteria something completley different?

Well first of all we don't really have a species concept for bacteria. At the moment we think > 3% difference in 16S rDNA from any other bacteria makes a new species, because this gene is very fundamental for all bacteria as it codes the 16S rRNA (subunit of ribosome). Because of this, it's assumed that this sequence does not change a lot. Now as to what is "completely different" in regard to bacteria, this we have observed in an experiment called "E.coli long-term evolution experiment". In this experiment one of the lineages developed a new metabolic pathway which led to utilization of a new substrate. This has happened in nature too with all species that are now able to metabolize xenobiotics. It's the bacterial world equivalent of going from lizard to bird.

How do you know for certain that this constant known as "random mutation" is not already in the genetic code?

When virtual life forms are created in a Sim lab, the programmers intentionally develop code to cause random mutations to occur, in order to allow the virtual life forms to evolve.

One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why?
He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it.
One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why?
He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it.
One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

That "one acquaintance" is horribly wrong

And what odds related to evolution are you talking about?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

The odds of what happening?
The odds of lifeforms evolving with time?
or the odds of Darwin developing his theory?
or the odds of Darwin's Theory to be Darwin's?

How can people dispute what can be seen with your own eyes (well, and microscopes and brains.) without even understanding it is beyond my comprehension...

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why?
He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it.
One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

That "one acquaintance" is horribly wrong

And what odds related to evolution are you talking about?

Respectfully, I have to disagree with your point of view.

From an evolutionary point of view and assuming that ALL changes within a given specie are driven almost entirely by selective environmental pressures acting on random mutational changes (Darwinism), then there is NO way of escaping the unassailable fact that mathematics is inherent within the random processes generating mutations.
We even have sophisticated branches of mathematics dealing with this very area of random behaviour ... statistics, probability theory, game theory, etc.
In fact, every casino in the world and every game of chance ever invented are ruled by these mathematical areas ... and what nature is doing during every random mutation is the equivalent of rolling a die or picking a card from a deck or spinning a wheel ... basically relying on nothing but the luck of the draw.

Again, using insulin with it's 153 nucleotide sequences as a base example.

The equivalent of what nature somehow has fluked (and not just once but with the total of 20,000 to 25,000 human proteins) is to go into a casino. There they have a special die with only 4 faces. The faces are marked A, C, G and T.
Your task is to roll that die continuously, time after time after time and try to match the nucleotide sequence forming insulin. This is essentially what nature had to do.

I'd be willing to bet ANYTHING that no matter how many times you did the die experiment, that you would never achieve the correct 153 sequence. The odds against you succeeding are 8 x 10^90 against and my money perfectly safe !

Look, truthfully this is such a simple idea to get your heads around, that it surprising that so many people stick so dogmatically to their unfounded and unproven belief that nature can somehow beat such astronomical odds and beat them easily.

And remember, insulin is just ONE out of the approximately 25,000 proteins in the human genome.
So not only did nature beat astronomical odds once, nature beat them 25,000 times !!!

C'mon people ... common sense and logic ....


Oh, and before I finish, thought I'd toss this in as well

Where does the information that is essential to successfully create the 3D structure of the human body get stored ?

As an example, take the human heart.
An extremely complex 4 chambered, hollow structure that is 3D in physical layout. Every human, barring disease, has a heart designed to the very same 3D specifications.

My question is ... where does the blueprint info to build this structure in 3D to be found ? The only conceivable storage device is DNA. And yet as far as I'm aware, no geneticist would admit that this is so. So where does this info come from ? And the info for eye structure .. and the info for skull structure .. and the info for rib structure ... and the info for arm, hand and finger structure ... and ... and ... and ...

And if by some chance this design info IS stored somewhere within the DNA, how did it get there ? surely not by our old friend, random mutation ? If so, then again, the rate of random mutations must be beyond belief to have achieved all this in just 3.8 billion years !

Originally posted by tauristercus


From an evolutionary point of view and assuming that ALL changes within a given specie are driven almost entirely by selective environmental pressures acting on random mutational changes

That is so not Modern Evolution, man...
If you want to make a SCIENTIFIC critique, you will have to learn HOW IT WORKS, go to a college, take a couple biology, microbiology, genetics courses and THEN if you have differences with the current understanding of how we came from goo to michael jackson, use that scientific knowledge to express them.
Kudos for the effort, though

reply to post by tauristercus


Looking at nothing but the mathematical odds logically defeats Darwinism quite handily as you continue to explain in this thread, that is if you are willing to explore, examine and inform yourself of them.
Denial is a fundamental trait that all humans display in all area's of life for various reasons.
The denial of factual math is quite sad to observe however. It's like saying 1+1 doesn't equal 2 because we don't want it to. It's an emotionally based perspective.

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by tauristercus


From an evolutionary point of view and assuming that ALL changes within a given specie are driven almost entirely by selective environmental pressures acting on random mutational changes

That is so not Modern Evolution, man...
If you want to make a SCIENTIFIC critique, you will have to learn HOW IT WORKS, go to a college, take a couple biology, microbiology, genetics courses and THEN if you have differences with the current understanding of how we came from goo to michael jackson, use that scientific knowledge to express them.
Kudos for the effort, though

edit on 18/1/2011 by drakus because: grommer erorrs

I'll take the praise anywhere I can get it ... thanks

However, if I've somehow missed the breakthrough that shows that random mutation is no longer the driving force behind evolution and that there's an entirely new evolutionary principle at play

... you will have to learn HOW IT WORKS ...

then please point me in the direction for further personal research.


But having said that, no matter what mechanism is ultimately responsible, it will still be driven by purely blind chance and randomness ... it doesn't get any simpler than that !
And as long as that is the case, then evolution will continue to be driven by probabilities and the chance of something happening or not happening.

Look, I've demonstrated that the odds of a successful 153 nucleotide sequence being produced by chance are astronomically against it happening. Simple maths ... simple probability theory ... and undeniable.

But I'm open to you or anyone else's alternative suggestion of how nature managed the task and successfully assembled the correct 153 nucleotide sequence to produce the insulin gene.

Any takers ?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Looking at nothing but the mathematical odds logically defeats Darwinism quite handily as you continue to explain in this thread, that is if you are willing to explore, examine and inform yourself of them.

Thats exactly it in a nutshell ... mathematical odds ... and there's no escaping them or bypassing them.

Go back in time far enough and there's a time when the 153 nucleotide sequence for insulin did not exist.
So logically there had to come a time when nature randomly got the 1st of the 153 nucleotides in place, But thats trivial as the odds were merely 1 in 4 ... but as you try to continue adding correct nucleotides in sequence, the odds of achieving this begin to plummet dramatically .. and long before nature even gets half way through the sequence. So if it gets harder and harder to pick correctly in the right sequence, how was it done ?

Personally I believe it's one of those instances where the majority believe it doesn't pay to peer to closely into the fundamental nature of evolution through random processes, fearing that many cherished and long-standing "truths" may become undermined and no longer tenable.

reply to post by tauristercus


My objections about your objections are pretty well summed up in this previous post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And about pointers for personal research, well here (in Argentina) Universities are free and open, so you can go and listen to most classes without having to pay thousands of dollars... I don't know how it works where you live. But there are always educational centers around.

Drakus.

Another thing that I think we must never forget is that the Universe seems to be biased toward life.
And there's a LOT of angles in that concept, concerning genetics, concerning the dissemination of organic material across the galaxies, etc...

Originally posted by drakus
reply to post by tauristercus

 

And about pointers for personal research, well here (in Argentina) Universities are free and open, so you can go and listen to most classes without having to pay thousands of dollars... I don't know how it works where you live. But there are always educational centers around.

Drakus.

You're very fortunate in having such a progressive educational system ... make the most of it.

However, I was simply inquiring what you believe is the currently accepted replacement for the Darwinian Evolutionary model. If not random mutation/selection ... then what ? Just the name of the new theory would be sufficient to start me researching.

Originally posted by drakus
Another thing that I think we must never forget is that the Universe seems to be biased toward life.

It is ????
That's definitely news to me ! Source, please ....

As far as I know, the Earth is still the only confirmed location that life exists.
So until we discover other examples of life out there in the galaxy/universe, I think it safe to say that so far the universe seems biased against life evolving.