Skip to comments.Evolutionary Explanations Assume Evolution Explains
Posted on 12/06/2009 7:20:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
So are claiming you’ve never used that word? I’m not worried about getting banned since you’re still around. You certainly can’t be a despicable in real life as you are on these threads. Unless you’re really a liberal troll.
Makes sense to me, since ya’ll spend no time debating the article. It’s absurd and dishonest that you’d even make that comment.
Since you read your bible all the time you’ve read about pearls before swine and answering a fool according to his folly. These principals apply to troll.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you one of those disgusting self-important finger-waggers?
Your arguments prove youre not really here for debate.
I understand science and the scientific method. I use those in my discussions. Maybe you just can't keep up.
Attacking science in the name of “defending religious freedom” again?
I will if you will. That looks like the best offer you've got so far.
Oh, how unevolved of you.
Ok. So you are saying the Bible is wrong and so is evolution?
>>Oh, how unevolved of you.<<
LOL! Good cap-note.
I didn't say that but you will not find where I used it as a personal slur on FR.
Why try to debate the article when GGG says it is his strategy NOT to debate, but to hit and run.
“The evolutionary theory does not state that we would ever find a cat-lizard It only explains the fact that a cat and a lizard share a common ancestor at some point in the distant past.”
Then it’s not science. An “explanation” is at best a hypothesis, but more like a fairy tale. You know, there was a fairy at the bottom of the garden named Darwin, and he turned a lizard into a cat.” Nice story, but that’s all it is.
And it’s OK if you want to believe it, and probably no worse than the story of the Old Man in the sky who created everything. At least the second story doesn’t pretend to be science and demand gobs of taxpayers’ money for more storytelling, ... err, research.
See, both stories “explain” where things came from, even though nobody knows, but to be science, they would have to demonstrate how what they claim actually happens by means of a reproducible experiment. Cannot be done.
I do not believe in a God, by the way, nor in any of the so-called “sciences” that deal with things that no one can demonstrate, such environmentalism, evolution, and most of what goes by the name psychology, in the name of which the biggest frauds in history are being put over.
GGG admits hes a fraud & professional troll
Just like when they tried to smear DLR with accusations of the stuff he was supposedly involved with on the internet.
Speaking of dupes, do you really believe EVRYTHING you read on the internet?
Just like the attacking religion in the name of science that goes on.
What’s the matter? Don’t you like the thought that your own tactics are being used against you?
David Lee Roth?
I think he broke up Van Halen.
Jim authorized pop psychology to be in News/Activism? Wow, what's next, how women decide between Coach purses?
It's a start. You're beginning to realize that the absurd examples of behavior that evolutionists claim as examples of evolution are just that....pop psychology.
Sure seems **you** do...
Your sickness runs deep and wide CW; I’m glad you are able to find solace in your lies; you certainly have nothing else to cling to.
You mean truths of yours like the earth being stationary, antibiotics are killing people, relativity is bunk, and creationism?
I have read and found the phrase "and God saw that this was good". It means that God used some kind of at least semi-autonomous process, and He needed to check the results. Otherwise he wouldn't need to see. He would KNOW, even before the act of creation.
You seemed to have overlooked the fact that there is empirical evidence that is repeatable and can be falsified to support my assertion and that is what makes it science.
However nice attempt at the straw-man. Might I suggest that you take the time to take a remedial science class so that in the future you might have at least a basic understand of a topic prior to presenting an argument against it.
Your religion is so fragile that it can’t handle a little science?
Got martyr complex?
Nice tactic attempting to reverse everything is...same one you always use. Next up: Asking asinine questions and demanding the answers.
Just like when they tried to smear DLR with accusations of the stuff he was supposedly involved with on the internet.Something I missed...?
Amazing! Well, you can see how that does it for me, I just won’t be a Young Earth Person (YEP) no matter what anyone offers.
That being the case I shall have to return your generous contribution forthwith. Quite alright, no need for thanks.
And a fair one at that... you’re always on the “A” list anyway when it comes to debate and discourse, in my opinion.
I think you give them too much credit.
Some people seem to be congenitally incapable of answering a question.
“Might I suggest that you take the time to take a remedial science class ...”
Yes, you are just the kind that might, that is, make recommendations before you learn anything about a person or their background.
No worry. I’ll just put it down to the same ignorance and gullibility that makes you worship at the alter Darwin.Since in the recorded history of the world there has never once been an example of abiogenesis, or one specie evolving into another, you are certainly not going to be able to “repeat” what has never happened even once.
It is because I studied evolution and found so may questions that evos never answer and always evade, and because they threaten and ostracize those who do not drink their Kool Aid the same way global-warming “scientists” treat the real scientists who are on to their fraud that I became aware of the total lack of science in what goes by the name evolution. Someday, maybe, but right now it’s a pseudo-science just like global-warming science; a huge wild-ass guess based on a handful of incomplete fossils.
Richard Leakey said that if all the bones we had were put together in one room, they’d barely cover a couple of large trestle tables. Scant evidence for a “science” that claims to explain practically everything there is to know about life. Don’t you think?
Well Hank your understanding of the definition of a scientific theory is incorrect.
Also abiogenesis is not addressed by the evolutionary theory so you are incorrect on that also.
And this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html will show you examples of observed speciation so you are also incorrect regarding that.
Also the fossil record is only a very small amount of the overwhelming evidence that support s the evolutionary theory so you are incorrect on that too.
It appears that you did not pay very close attention during your study of evolution, perhaps a refresher course in remedial science might not be a bad idea it is your factual errors and misunderstanding of science, or should I say the available evidence and not your background that I used to make my suggestion, and you reply just reinforced that obsevation
Thank you, sir.
See, this is what you guys always do, and is why anyone with a bit of sense can see immediately you have no interest in science or truth.
From the link you sent:
“... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding.” (Dobzhansky 1937)
The question is whether or not new species have ever evolved from other species. That is a basic question regarding the validity of evolution—the thing that needs to be proved.
If you are going to define “specie” in terms Of evolution (which is the thing that still needs to be proved) you are using what you hope to be the conclusion of your argument as one of the premises. That is the logical fallacy called “begging the question.”
You know you are dishonest whenever you make those kinds of arguments. Perhaps you’ve been brainwashed by your, “courses,” and that is your problem.
Consider some real science. If this is difficult for you, just ask and I’ll explain:
The so called Theory of Evolution was first proposed by Darwin based on observable, physiological characteristics. This was seized upon as an escape from the dominance of religious thought, which had held that man was a being made, and thus owned, by a mystical God.
Some - a very few - fossilized remains of human-like bones were found, and the flow-chart constructed which fitted the theory. Basically, the theory was, in order to explain similarities of form across species, the various species must have had a common ancestor and then diverged in small but cumulative ways. It was a neat story. And there are some small ways it does workbut only within species. As an explanation for the variety of species, and for the origins of the existence of man, it is thus far an unproved and unprovable hypothesis.
The fossil record theory of evolution had to rely on a few scattered bones for its evidence, from geological strata dating back 4 million years. Very littlerelatively speakinghas been discovered, the majority of which are scattered bones from which final body shapes have had to be reconstructed. The evidence is scanty. The famed paleontologist, Richard Leakey said that if all the bones we had were put together in one room, they’d barely cover a couple of large trestle tables. However, with the discovery that the genome was the conveyer of hereditary material, came the link that paleontologists were looking for. DNA carries the information for the amino acid content of proteins and triglycerides of lipids which make up the enzymes, organs and structure of the body. Minor physical variations which were passed on to offspring within species were discovered by Mendel, and rediscovered in the early 20th Century (Mendel’s work was largely ignored since no one could understand it, and it was assumed to be either wrong or fakedan attitude which persists in science and academia to this day!!). Using simple crosses, these variations could be linked to genome diversity, later discovered to be variations in DNA content and information.
This is where the major error was made. Information regarding genetics was linked to known anatomy and physiology, and assumed to be direct. In other words, the genes provided the information for the structure of the human form, different humanoid forms had been found and posited to have arisen from previous forms, with humans and apes having arisen from a common ancestor, and all animal life having sprung from the same set of cells with accumulated random errors in the DNA inherited by offspring the means of transmitting that variability.
How Do Genomic Variations Occur?
There are four ways that genomic variations occur:
1. Point mutation. This is when damage to the DNA from external sources such as radiation, or cellular aging, the DNA changes one of its base pairs, thus changing the code from one amino acid to another. Almost always this is deleterious.
2. Recombination. This occurs when DNA from one part of the genome breaks away and rejoins at another part of the genome. It is more regularly and frequently an event in all genomes, prokaryote and eukaryote, as small sections of DNA are exchanged between chromosomes during the phases of cell division, usually being either neutral in effect or deleterious as in Philadelphia 21, which leads to Chronic Myloid Leukemia.
3. Transposition. Small fragments of DNA known as transposons are able to lift fragments of DNA and transport them, in the case of bacteria into a different cell via plasmids and viruses, or in the few eukaryotes found to have them ie. Drosophila, around the cell genome.
4. Re-assortment. Possession by eukaryotic cells of two pairs of genetic information which separate randomly in cell division and then pair with the opposite from the second parent during fertilization.
Which type of genomic variations are important for evolutionary theory?
Since evolution posits that changes are acquired and passed on to offspring, only changes in the germ line DNA, i.e. sperm and ova, have any significance. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory.
Thus, the unit of significance is not time, but generations.
Bacteria have been studied extensively for years. They have a single, looped genome, which has been fully analyzed. With a short life span [E. coli) under optimal conditions reproduces in 20 mins] they are ideal for examining generational changes. Many can swap DNA very fast, as the spread of antibiotic resistance genes demonstrates. In spite of years of treatments and environmental changes, alterations to genomes, spread of genes via phages, plasmids, transposons, no bacteria has ever shown any sign of any characteristics of anything but itself. Even bacterial types, eg. staphylococcus, tuberculosis, streptococcus, do not change into one another.
Eukaryotes (Multi celled organisms).
The most extensively studied eukaryote is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. With only 4 chromosomes and a reproductive cycle of 7 days, they have made an excellent tool for investigation. Used since 1910, when T. H. Morgan first started modern genetics with them, we have been able to study 4,940 generations. (If we assign 15 years as an arbitrary generational time for humans this is the human equivalent of looking back 74,100 years).
Drosophila, over this time have been exposed to just about every sort of mutant generator. Mutations have been found for almost all characteristics, the wings, color, eyes, thorax components, and many more. Certain genes that convey rapid mutations have been isolated. Drosophila come in every wing shape (including wingless), color and twisted up contorted variety. But in all this time, they have never shown any indication of being anything other than D. melanogaster.
There are reasons why Drosophila is more likely than humans to express an evolutionary changethey have less DNA to be changed. With only 4 chromosomes compared to humans 22, there is a smaller target area.
Moreover, they have transposons, which can move DNA rapidly around the cell. Humans have no transposons, and have to rely on point mutation, re-assortment and recombination. However, there is even here a difficulty. Females form their ovaries and ova while they are still themselves embryos. At birth, all of a females reproductive capacity is already in place. Ovaries are buried deeply, not easily exposed to environmental assault, and each ova has partially completed its cycle to final stages of release ready for fertilization. We have a better chance with males, whose sperm are made freshly and frequently, in very large amounts, and whose organ of construction is more exposed to the environment. But this means the chances of genetic mutation are halved to only one of the two needed to produce new generations.
Further problems are encountered when considering that:
Most mutations are deleterious, those that are not are usually neutral (for example, brown eyes to blue).
Because only one parent will be carrying the chance arisen genetic variant, it must be dominant in its expression, that is, it is expressed in the phenotype in preference to the original gene carried by the other non-mutant bearing parent. In most cases, the mutant form is recessive (again, brown eyes to blue).
There is a dilution effect. Down generations, a single mutation, which may gain expression in 100% offspring in the F1 cross, will gain less expression in the F2 as the offspring reproduce with partners without the mutant form and genetic reassortment of chromosomes will produce offspring not carrying the mutant variant. [From this, of course, comes the claim of every observed trait being evidence that we have all arisen from the same cell, female etc. If it was acknowledged cross fertilization with individuals not carrying strain occurs, we are looking at dilution. However, if we all arose from incestuous crossings among siblings, there is more chance of the trait becoming more present in a population].
From plants, prokaryotes, simple single celled organisms, and more complex organisms all studied extensively, forcibly mutated, crossed and re-crossed with selected mates, the only variation ever seen is always within the species. No specie has been seen to change into the beginnings of another.
The theory claims that the selective pressure for a species to change is survival. However, the problem with this is that species survival is directly related to the ability to produce more offspring in the face of the challenge. This means that a change has to occur quickly, yet the theory states that changes are slow, over millennia.
If the theories claim that changes occur but lie dormant until selection favors them, we have to ask how and why changes of complexity which require the entire change to be present occur, and why should they, when the organism was obviously surviving well enough. An example is that of certain insects which when clustered look like a flower. Co-ordinated changes all must occur at the same time, for each insect which carries the different colors and shapes to produce its part of the jigsaw. Given that the insects were obviously surviving well enough to produce these changesslowly over time according to the evolutionists, we have to assume they were surviving well enough as they were in order to have got to that point. So, why would they change, and how would such a complex change occur by “random mutations”?
The issue of complexity is knotty problem for classical evolutionists. Quite apart from the frequently cited case of the mammalian eye, all aspects of which need to be in place to work, we can simply consider that of the working cell itself. Lets look at DNA transcription to produce a protein. The correct DNA sequence must be in place. The mRNA must have been produced correctly by its DNA, and be in place; the tRNAa different one for each amino acidmust have been correctly transcribed and formed; and the ribosomesboth units must have been correctly transcribed and their tertiary structure formed and the enzymes involved must all be present and active. The ATP pump must be working to provide the energy required. The correct solution of salts and trace elements must be present and at exactly the correct pH. The cellular pool must have all components for each amino acid present.
And this is just to form one simple protein. To suggest a small change in one gene can bring about major changes in the entire organism, in the face of such complexity beggars belief.
The Genetics/Paleontology Problem
But there is another major problem which those who linked genetics to paleontology seem not to understand.
To return to the protein, once all the amino acids are linking into the chain, this is only the first stage. The protein then takes a tertiary conformation. Almost all proteins form an alpha-helix. Since a helix can twist right (d) or left (l) in theory this could be either. In fact, apart from a very few rare instances, all proteins are left helices. This tertiary folding is dependent, not only on the amino acids being present in the correct order, but the molecular shape and charge of the amino acids, the liquid environment the protein is suspended in, and the presence of various trace elements and minerals. Since all proteins take a (l)-alpha helix, we are left facing the conclusion that the shape, the three dimensional attribute, is something which the environment the protein is in forces on it, and that there is only one shape available to proteins because of this constraint.
The issue of tertiary structure is found in DNA, which is not linear, as the diagrams represent, but forms a twisting, twisted and twined shape manipulation of which is essential for genetic transcription and recombination to occur.
Which brings us to Developmental Biology.
Developmental biology asks, “what makes the final body shape?” Why an elbow? How come a knee? What rounds a heel, gives a liver the exact shape and conformation it does? And the answer is, we do not know. We do know of certain complexes of gene groups which contribute certain factors involved in the skeleton, largely because of the altered effects seen when the genes are altered. The products of some of these genes, acting in concert with a multiplicity of other factors, does play a part in at least providing the cellular components required to form a developing limb bud, cranium and jaw structure. However, many of the experiments which claim an effectiveness are simply noting the presence of an essentially toxic compound useless to the body, and a malformation, as the Hox1a gene associated with slightly mal-formed hands and feet of those carrying the variant (very very rare). This does not, of itself, prove the Hox box does in fact control limb structure, since the product of the mutant gene is a shortened form of the required protein, therefore unrecognizable to the body and possibly treated as many other toxic elements are and consigned to the furthest limbs. There is some other, more positive evidence, which does support the contention that the Hox box provides some of the requirements for limb bud formation in the developing embryo up to the 12 week gestation. However, although it provides the limb bud, there is no evidence that this directs and controls the final shape, ie the anatomy of the limb.
There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely and solely genetically driven. And the skeletal form is the basis of all of paleontology. The evolutionists are in fact basing their entire “theory” on a mistaken linkthat of genetics with skeletal form.
Ultimately, there is far too much complexity to the living cell, plant and animal, for single changes to do much other than contribute to likely elimination of the individual carrying the mutation. To suggest a single mutation can so affect an entire species is like suggesting that the fruit seller at the gates of a vast and complex industrial city can significantly affect the entire city by altering where he is standing by a few feet.!!
An alternative Speculation to Intelligent Design and Evolution
It is stated by scientists today, that either humans “evolved” from previous, different animals by random mutations in DNA, or we were made by a God. It is never considered that both may be wrong, and there could be other explanations for speciation, a different explanation for the “fossil record.” This is due as much to the blind virtually religious fervor of evolutionists as to the same religious dogmatism of the creationists. If one does not accept that something is possible, one does not, after all, go looking for it.
I would like to propose (this should be called the Hewitt Conjecture !!) that it is perfectly possible the reason shape is largely conserved across species, and has stayed so for millions of years, is the same as that which directs tertiary formation of proteins. That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of descent from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another. That the fact that this is a water and air based planet, that all living things are made of carbon, with some hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen thrown in, the combination of molecular shapes and charges, pH, salts, trace elements and minerals, water, temperature, gas pressures and many more, combine to effect the developing animal such that the final tertiary structure cannot be anything other than what it is, and which in almost all cases conforms to the same basic shape.
I suggest that the animal forms we see now have always existed as they do, but have minor variations within species, which can arise from a variety of sources, largely genetic recombination, and which has the effect of allowing specie continuity in the face of minor environmental changes, such as the case of pale and dark moths on trees darkened by industrial smoke pollution. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of sea dwelling animals, including the mammals, have an overall “fish” structure. The starfish and octopi are minimally represented.
There is one final point. The fossil record is not as sequential as paleontologists represent it. Fossil remains have been found “out of sequence” in the time scale and are either ignored or written off as “aberrances, or washdowns.”
And fossil remains have been found in strata dated at millions of years old; they are identical to Homo sapiens sapiens. That is, us. Hundreds of examples exist. Mary Leakey, of Olduvai Gorge fame, claimed to have found a footprint identical in every respect to that of modern man, in strata identified as being 3.6 million years old. A huge variety of human artefacts, flint tools and bones identical to homo sapiens sapiens have been found in strata confidendently dated to the mid-Pliocene - 3.5 million years ago. A Professor of Geology found, in the lower Pliocene strata of Castelnodolo, near Brescia, a complete human skeleton indistinguishable from that of a modern woman. The staining in the bones, the depth and number of different strata above the skeleton and its position made it very highly unlikely it could have been a more recent burial. The inescapable conclusion is that this speciment of homo sapiens sapiens was walking around 3.5 million years ago.
Why are these facts so ignored? Because, in the words of a noted evolutionist, Professor R.A. Macalister, in 1921, “this implies a long standstill for evolution which is contrary to Darwin’s theory, and therefor must be disallowed...” We will of course, overlook the sharks, which haven’t changed for 150 million years !! A flat contradiction of the “fossil record” and evolution......but which never gets addressed by evolutionists. Wonder why?
To us who have actually studied the science supposedly behind evolution, the evos notion the “the science is settled” sounds very reminiscent of the language used by those “peer reviewed” global-warming environmentalists. The reason the real scientists questioning evolution are not heard is because of the same “peer review” bull manure as that in global warming.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Evos never answer questions. All they can do is “call names” and stamp their feet, like good environmentalists and scream, “there is so evolution,” just like the enviros, “there is so global-warming.”
I’ll make it simple for you. The entire evolutionary premise now lies in the belief that genes are responsible for all morphology (structure of organisms), but cannot account for most of it. Two quick illustrations. Identical twins have many differences. If genes determine everything, why do identical twins, with exactly the same genes, have different finger prints?
Since every cell in the body has all the genes that any other cell has, how do those genes know where in the body they are, so as to not produce a finger where an eye should be?
If you do not understand the significance of these questions to the evolutionary hypothesis, then you really do not understand the hypothesis. If that happens to be the case, you have to ask yourself why you would so vehemently defend something you don’t understand. What’s the motive.
I do not believe in God, nor in so-called intelligent design, but know evolution cannot be the only alternative, because there are too many things wrong with it. Why does that bother people so much?
There is no point of a discussion with ignorance and bigotry
Who has said that "genes determine everything", and meant literally "everything", right down to your fingerprints?
“Who has said that ‘genes determine everything’, and meant literally ‘everything’, right down to your fingerprints?
No one, as far as I know. It’s one of the “evo” things that is just assumed until someone like me points it out. No genes, for example have even been identified that determine how many fingers and toes we have, much less that we have any.
So, if everything is not determined by genes, what are they determined by, and where do you drew the line, as to what is determined by the genes, and what isn’t?
And if genes do not determine everything, morphologically, what does, and how can evolution be determined by changes in genes if something else is determining morphology?
Just questions evos never want to address.
I expected better arguments than that. You don't know of anyone who's ever said it, but you know they're all assuming it?
“I expected better arguments than that.”
So sorry. But you know exactly what I mean.
But that’s fine, because I’m not the least bit interested in convincing anyone else. Believe whatever you wnat—and be prepared to pay the consequences.
That you posted it seems to indicate otherwise.
Believe whatever you wnatand be prepared to pay the consequences.
I never found God out of fear.
“I never found God out of fear.”
I have no idea what that means. I like cryptic answers, but that seems meaningless to me. What does the concept “God’ have to do with anything I’ve written to you? Reality is reality, and every choice has consequences. If you base your choices on mistaken views of reality the consequences will be bad, which is all I wrote meant.
An odd mix of mental abilities you have. Simultaneosly able to discern unspoken assumptions, and blind to implications.
Yeah, but it’s a serious question. I’m a little busy and can’t join in the crevo fights much anymore (I miss them) but I want to know if I’m being talked about.
Yes it's a serious question. But, I also see the humor in it.
Ohhh, I get it. A cheap shot.
S’okay...ammo’s more expensive than it used to be.
I am sorry. I still need to reply to you. Creationism is not on the top of my list.
>>I am sorry. I still need to reply to you. Creationism is not on the top of my list.<<
Not really — I got tired of this. One of these days I am just going to get all the colors of the horses and benches on these merry-go-round threads and then tokenize them.
1) E=Evolution, C=Creation
2) C=Comment, R=Response
4) # indicating with standard comment/response or sarastic comment
Std means Standard and is there for clarity:
The threads would be:
Std EC 1
Std CCR 1
Std ECR to CC1
Std CCR 2 (+CCS1)
Std EC 2 (+ECS1)
etc. etc. etc.
We really don’t get into anything new — I just pop in to let the outside world know many of us do know science and to see if any of the usual suspects have seen the light yet.
This is the ‘got-ya heads I win tails you lose’ land. Will explain later but it is the method of ‘winning’ public debates. More later.
Current gravity is testable, past evolution is not. You can propose historical theories, but cant show them. (Yes, to a much lesser extent this applies to most theories that require measurement.) Now what is a scientific fact? That is not proved?
My analogy to Creationists is about Dish’s theory that God created light in space to make the universe look old, when it is young. So if he could do this, he could create a universe that looks evolved but is created young. Maybe 100 years ago. As I explain, this is not science. Creationists hate this.
I still need to post about the creationist got-ya games.
>>Current gravity is testable, past evolution is not. You can propose historical theories, but cant show them. (Yes, to a much lesser extent this applies to most theories that require measurement.) Now what is a scientific fact? That is not proved?<<
Please don’t make me go through this again. You have to know what a scientific theory is and why there is no such thing as a “scientific fact” before we can proceed. Else we are speaking different languages.