Evolution is a Joke IX

In this ninth addition of evolution is a joke, I would like to take in and specifically start with mutation. Because, understanding biology, one can see that mutation "alone" would not compliment a species (word used lightly) at all... IN fact, it would more than likely be a species ruin.

Next natural selection. Let's say a snake is moving around on the ground and has stubby back legs (not front - haven't got that mutation yet). Would natural selection "keep" the back legs or remove them? Per what Natural Selection says - they would be gone because they don't benefit evolution. So, that leads me to believe that front and back legs must just - come into existence ready to go, or else "Natural Selection" would see no purpose in those stubby things sticking out and get rid of them... They would be a hindrance...

Those two things are just reek of religion. It's a fairytale that doesn't adhere to it's own science! Because there is no science behind it. NONE! People who believe in Evolution are Religious... They believe we can clone a whole human

Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-09-2012 02:30 PM

 

You need to look into beneficial mutations. Ugh. Forget it. There's no point trying to argue with a crazy person.

 

You're totally ignorant. Please read something by an actual scientist and not some Christian blog, please.

If a gene gives even a slight reproductive advantage then it's more likely to be passed on.

Really crappy eye sight is better than being blind. You don't need a fully formed eye before it becomes benificial.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked so many times you creationists need to get better material.

 

Most mutations will be neutral, not having a significant impact on survival either way. Some will be negative, reducing an individuals ability to survive but a few will be positive, even if only a little. Those are the ones which will survive and propagate through the generations.

Mutation alone isn't the only factor in evolutionary development anyway.

Not necessarily. Two stubby legs could be beneficial in some environments. Animals like seals benefit on land with just two flippers and they probably evolved in a way that balances their use in the water and on land.

Of course, four legged land animals didn't necessarily develop each pair of limbs separately. It seems more likely they were a development of fins on amphibious creatures that, over generations, spent more and more time out of the water.

There is vast amounts of science behind it, you're just choosing to ignore it. There are countless books, written at all sorts of levels, which explain the logic behind all of the questions you're asking and much better than anyone here can do. Why are you not referring to them?

 

did you come from a single celled critter (sperm/egg) combination?

Did YOU consume mass/energy (eat) to grow?

can YOU now make another 'sperm/egg' combination to enable another 'life' to live?

How long did it take the earth in an accretion scope of 'combining' into 'earth' as it is today? (dont forget the water)

Every generation changes bit.


and ps.... we still in an 'accretion'; you just learned a bit bot bop

 

IF you want to know how much the OP knows about Evolution, just ask him/her/it about Human Chromosome 2

 

I am not a Christian and do not read Christian blogs... What is irreducible complexity? I am just explaining facts... Do you click on the link and take the high school refresher course...? At least that will make it so you understand what I was saying - a little...

 

I know what beneficial mutations are... They happen about once ever billion to the billionth power in generations... Also, what do you consider a "beneficial" mutation...?

 

here i will put this so we are all on the same page from the other site:

 

Originally Posted by rstones199
If you want to know how much knowledge the OP has about Evolution, ask him/her about Human Chromosome 2

It's a fused chromosome... what does that have to do with evolution? I would love to see you list 10 species of life that are similar to show a trend in this "Chromosome 2" fairytale.

As I have stated to this poster before, in order for there to be "evidence" for evolution there needs to be other examples. There are plenty of life out there that has "identical" features, but do not share chromosome count. We'll say the American Beaver and Euro-Beaver... Exactly the same flippin beaver to me - different chromosomes.

Is it true what they say about Chromosone 2 in us is also shown in other life on the planet like the Beaver? If it is not present - then it's meaningless... Thta's how science works.

Been about a year - still waiting for you list of this fairytale of Chromosome 2 being something significant dealing with evolution...

 

The bad ones get propagated through generations also. There is no evidence in nature with anything that this your statement is correct. DNA replication has no idea what is good and what is bad, thus everything is dublicated. Are you suggesting that DNA, when replicating, does not replicate DNA that it might think will cause that lifeforms death?

I think it is the foundation to evolution… without it – there is no such thing as evolution.

This is a correct statement, but what if it isn’t at first and could become beneficial 10,000 generations down the road… Isn’t that how they describe “natural selection”? Something us useless until something happens and then the ones that don’t have that mutation end up dying…?

That to me is a fairytale… sorry… DNA doesn’t know that a creature is “spending more time out of the water” when it replicates. How could it?

I do refer to them to prove that evolution is a joke and a religion. I do not ignore them, I read them and use them to show the world that believe in the religion of Darwinism that it is a fake. A farce and something that people are using because they want to “combat” religion. So, the “force” evolution to be true. Even Evolutionary Biologist do not all agree on what evolution is. They have different flavors of evolution – did you know that? They all have the same platform, but when it comes to the questions (like the ones I offer) there might be different answers.

My first question would be or is, how did evolution become a theory when it hasn’t passed (gotten through) the scientific method? Where is the experiment that pushed it to theory.

Next – at one time a lifeform (animal) would evolve and not be able to have viable children with its former species… Who or What does it mate with? *An easy example is a bird of prey gets larger wings to fly faster, and larger muscles… Well, that just ruined it’s chance to mate because it jacked up its mating dance… that benefit is done. that example is actually adaptation, but you get what I am trying to get at right?

 

I don't believe you. I'm a complete amateur but even to me you seem to demonstrate complete ignorance of the basic principals (unless you're being dishonest). If you really wanted answers to your questions, you'd be posting in the evolution sections of a science board, not the religion section of a political one.

Just like the idiots who "combat" evolution because they think it opposes religion? Are you one of them?

Personally, I don't see how evolutionary theory contradicts any of the mainstream religions anyway. It would only be an issue to the most literal interpretations and they've got problems with much more fundamental science. I've no interest in playing that game from either side.

 

It's the idea that if you have a mechanism that has a lot of moving parts, say a watch, it could not have been formed by a gradual evolutionary process because until you have all the working parts of the watch, the individual cogs aren't useful to the protowatch. I think the idea has merit for some structures, like the Flagella found on unicellular organisms (or on sperm). It's got a very complex structure and a partial flagella does not function, nor could it be used for other things in the meantime. OTOH, the eye would be useful even if it didn't have all of the parts, as even a light detector could be used to navigate in simple ways.

 

Indeed, every generation does change a little. As a glaring example, our height; humans are becoming increasingly tall through natural selection. Tall people are viewed as more attractive mates, therefore they are more likely to pass on their DNA. This is a viewable aspect of NS.

 

From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2]

Four essential elements[31][32][33] of a scientific method[34] are iterations,[35][36] recursions,[37] interleavings, or orderings of the following:

Characterizations (observations,[38] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses[39][40] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[41]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[42] from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments[43] (tests of all of the above)

Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology). The elements above are often taught in the educational system as "the scientific method".[44]

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[45] In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow, but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.


The TOE is was not 'pushed into theory' by any one experiment. When the sum of the characterizations, predictions, hypothesis and experiments has the 3 features enumerated by Kilcher:

Unity: "A science should be unified…. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems" (1982: 47).
Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies" (1982: 47–4.
Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save" (1982: 46) (e.g. the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit).

it becomes recognized as a theory....

If a life form evolved that could not have offspring it would go extinct. Reproductive isolation due to any number of reasons may result in one species evolving into two....

Pretty simple stuff..

 

Pic says it all

 

First, and most important – I am not or do not “combat” evolution out of religious purposes… it is because people have been lied to and they believe in a myth, a fairytale, and some have even taken it as far as it being a religion. They know nothing about biology and follow Darwinism blindly. Believing whatever their preachers tell them without question…

The basic principles… I know them quite well… Here is a site I tell everyone to read. It’s from University of Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

This is one of the sites I link most often.

And the basic mechanisms of evolution are:

Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?
Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:
• Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
• Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
• The importance of genetic variation;
• The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
• How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
• How different species can affect each other's evolution through coevolution.

I don’t care or have any concern with religion when speaking on evolution. They should “never” be put together… ever… they are two totally different things…

 

The pic says a lie… Do I need to point out the American Beaver and the Euro Beaver again…? Exactly the same, but at one point an offspring was unable to make babies with its kin… And now you post something that states that a whole species – at the same time – has the same mutation… Really… Because that’s what your little picture suggests… Because how it works “in the real world” someone (your cousin) has a mutation and now can’t have babies with other humans… If there is another person who has her same mutation – then she can have babies, but we mostly run on what we have… But, wait – there is this miracle where if she waits, all the babies born on November 28th 1987 have the exact same mutation – she just needs to find those people and get that party started!!

Your pic isn’t a lie… Upon further review – it’s retarded…

And missing links? There should be – it’s what we came from… It’s what everything comes from – which we do not have from any lifeform on this planet today…

Still waiting for that list of species to prove your Chromosome Fairytale…

 

See… this is what I say by religious…

Is there a missing link? Yep… What did we come from… Do we know what it was? Nope.. Well, wait a second… What about the bumble bee, we have a missing link for that right? NO!! Wait then… we have must have one for some plant or insect right? No… Well what about a mammal or fish…? NO!!! HOW ABOUT ANYTHING ON THIS PLANET LIVING TODAY!!!

NO!!!!

Then how can you sit and say we came from another lifeform if we have no evidence or know of ANYTHING on this planet that came from something…? Well, at least we have done the scientific method and we can see that we can… what… don’t even finish that statement since there isn’t any experiment showing something “evolving”? Okay then… At least we can see things evolving in nature now – we can look out our window and see that squirrels are giving birth to two different species of squir… no… not that either…

Hmmm…

I know – we can look in the fossil record at extinction and see how the life that survived the extinction evolved into new species!! That’s it!! NOT THAT EITHER!!! THE SPECIES THAT SURVIVED STAYED THE SAME!!!

Okay… Okay… Playing hardball are you. Well, how about we go in a lab, change our own or another lifeforms DNA to reflect what we think we would see in… don’t even say it… really… We can’t…

So, basically you want me to believe in evolution because “you” say so… You want me to have “FAITH” without any evidence of evolution – to just “believe” in it…

 

This simply isn't true. The most widely known example of this is that some of the proteins from the proton motor at the base of the flagellum are the same as the proteins that other bacteria use to inject poison into other cells. source. There are other parts of the flagellum that have other uses, but I can't find the article that discussed them. The point is, every example Michael Behe has tried to use to demonstrate irreducible complexity has been debunked. Design "Theory" is junk science at best.

 

OH… The idea of evolution is a good one. But, it should stay as that – an idea. Is there “anything” you find suspect dealing with evolution or no…?

 

But, growing taller is adaptation, not evolution. Those gene sequences are not changed, but when "evolution" comes into view, we are mixing and matching DNA...

 

I know it’s simple…. That is why evolution is not a theory… That is why I posted that… Thank you – there are several readers that have followed along since the beginning… Your post is good!

 

Hmmm - What Burz is saying here is that there are many types of flagellums. Each does a number of things. You can look up types of flagellums and go from there.

Michael Behe? Irreducible Complexity? Have we discussed him or that subject before?

 

That's not quite what I'm saying. Michael Behe has said the flagellum is irreducibly complex because there isn't any functionality to its individual parts. All flagella are basically the same: a whip-like filament that is spun by a motor, powered by protons. Behe thinks that the filament or the motor don't have any function on their own; they only work together as a whole unit. But that's not true. Most of the motor of the flagellum appears in other bacteria as a poison-delivery mechanism. The whole point is that Behe is a crackpot and ID and Irreducible Complexity are garbage. His ideas are forms of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy that have been debunked.