The Central Flaw of Evolution

Apparently you did not address it properly. because chromosome fusion is not conjecture, it is observed science.

The recurrence of chromosome fusion in inter-population hybrids of the grasshopper Atractomorpha similis

 

You are mistaken about going against the status quo. That is not how humans work, even if they attempt to redefine themselves as purely logical, empirical beings. They are not. They defend their turf, attack any outliers, promote THEIR theories & exclude others.

Evolution does not describe diversity with a scientific theory. it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely dogmatically declared 'science', with no empirical evidence. Diversity is declared.. it is not shown or proven HOW this can happen.

ALL of this variation is horizontal. The dog family stays dog family. The cats stay cats. Horses stay horses. Fossilized remains of extinct variants only show the LOST traits that are no longer available. We do not have saber toothed cats anymore. That trait has been lost. Perhaps a deep tick in some current cat's dna might bring it out.. that is unknown. We cannot correlate the dna to specific traits without living specimens, & even that requires some speculation. All you get from breeding or environmental isolation is specific traits narrowed down to REDUCE variability. The traits that made the zebra more survivable on the savannah were different than the equids in north asia or europe, for example. The wandering animals did indeed adapt to their environment, but only with the traits they ALREADY had in their dna. This is how it works. There is NO mechanism in any living thing that can CREATE genetic information, add or subtract chromosomes or genomes, or any such thing. Variability is restricted to the options on hand, in the creature. They don't make anything. They only adapt with what they have. And those that lose the variability to adapt to changing environmental conditions go extinct. They do NOT make new traits to adapt. They die. Only if they already have some traits in their genes can it even come up, & that depends a lot on the odds.. the number of available possibilities for this trait to come up so they can use it.

This is observable, repeatable KNOWN science. The notion that genetic variability can somehow generate itself is a fantasy.. it is speculation with NO mechanism, & NO observable science behind it. It is merely a philosophical opinion, masked in scientific terms to prop up an ideology. It is not science.

It has become the defacto pop belief of the day. It has been among the intelligentsia for a century. But not because of science. It was needed to prop up a naturalistic view of the universe, once spontaneous generation was debunked. That was the problem, & why deism became so popular after the reformation, the enlightenment, & the age of reason. Science was replacing superstition & mandated beliefs. Truth was being discovered, not decreed. Darwin was able to bring plausibility to a naturalistic view of origins, & they were able to dispense with that pesky god. I can plainly see the IDEOLOGICAL progression of evolution. And even now, with much more science & facts at our disposal, the myth of evolution is still promoted, but not because of the science.. it is because it is needed as an ideological basis. The science is pathetic. it is obviously flawed. Yet it is clung to like there is no other explanation, which is a philosophical or religious reason, not a scientific one.

IMO, it is possible to remain an atheist without a clear, scientific explanation of origins. You do not HAVE to conclude ID. It is not 'either/or'. The other obvious possibility is an unknown natural process that we are just unaware of. That is not satisfying, i know. People want the source for their worldviews, & are not happy with holes. But creationists, arguably, do the same thing. They do not KNOW, scientifically, that creation was the process of our origins. They believe it, but there are just as many holes in the creation theory as the naturalistic one. The universe is just too broad, & our knowledge base is too limited to make any definitive conclusions. We can only have beliefs about our origins & the philosophical mysteries of the universe. I know that many people believe that science has proved the naturalistic view. But it has not. The science is flawed, is prejudicial, intolerant of examination, & way too testy to be called objective scientific inquiry. Evolutionist are too vested in their philosophy to take a critical look at the basic claims.

 

You still have grasshoppers. ..horizontal variability only, you do not 'create' a new species, or make a jump into a more complex genetic state. The mistake is still correlating small changes in variability with the ability to make huge jumps, genetically speaking, by incremental, cumulative changes. THAT is the issue that has been ignored, & which is a major flaw in the 'theory'.

 

You are merely deflecting. Note the topic. That is the subject. I am not debating creationism, or making any claims about 'their theories'. this is not a thread for comparative religion, or competing worldviews. I am refuting a pop religious view of origins, widely believed & indoctrinated as the state religion. I have stuck with the science, & have not addressed the philosophical implications. Try addressing the central point of the OP. Logic & science are the tools used here.

 

This has NOT been ignored...though it would seem the answers provided ARE.

So...lets try one more time.

TIME

Lot's of it.

 

I'm not going to argue any more on the details. I am not a biologist and I believe I would do a disservice to the 150+ years of research and evidence for evolution, however it seems to me that the main crux of the argument is whether we can trust scientists, and the answer is, we don't have to. Every scientific theory is backed by repeatable observation and experimentation. Anyone, you, me, the first biology student, we can all duplicate those observations and experiments and make up our own opinions. I have studied the fossil record, I have bred mutant fruit flies and have looked at DNA in an electron microscope so my support for evolution does not come from dogma or ideology.

Evolution has done so much in the advancement of science. It has predicted the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, explains why it is so hard to eradicate the flu, and why the physiology of certain animals is so badly designed. Heck, it even explains why the penis is shaped the way it is. It not only tells us where we came from, but where we are going.

The idea that evolution is used as a way to "dispense with that pesky god" is utter nonsense. Evolution does not preclude the existence of a god nor does the lack of evolution prove there is a god. Science does not care about whether there is a god or not. Yes, it looks for the naturalistic view of of the universe, because that is what science IS, the natural explanation of the universe without superstition and religion. The moment science starts talking about gods, it is no longer science.

 

Time has no mechanism to affect change. This is merely an assumption, to attempt to use odds to make something sound plausible. How? What factor does time have to overcome the high walls of genetics?

unlike the naturalist posters, i respond to the specific answers given. I point out the flaws in the science, & the assumptions, & the faulty reasoning. But my central point of the impossibility of 'incremental, cumulative changes' have not been addressed, or any evidence given as to HOW this can happen, when all of observational science says this is impossible.

 

I see...so time has no mechanism to effect change? Interesting.......I wonder how you yourself managed to become capable of typing after being born however many years ago. The answer is similar to the answer concerning incremental change though on a far smaller scale. I wish to point out also that virtually ALL of "observational science" shows this is not only possible but obvious reality....to anyone with even a minimal understanding of how this world works.

I suggest you place a bit of water in your freezer, then wait for a preset amount of time....say three hours. When this amount of TIME elapses take a look at the water to see if it has changed.

 

so you are saying time froze the water? Time gave me the ability to type? Don't you see the problem? TIME has NO mechanism to affect change. Other factors did it, not time. Time just plods along, indifferent & powerless to change anything. You are introducing a NON FACTOR. Time is immaterial. Time PLUS other mechanisms can bring about change, usually destructive. Time + sunlight has a detrimental effect on just about everything. But it is the constant bombardment of sunlight that does the actual work.. time is merely a factor in the process.

 

Context grasshopper....This discussion revolves around the time required for evolution to take place and your inability to grasp this concept. I have been using extremely simplified analogy to help you understand this, obviously to no avail. As it seems relatively clear to me that the neural function is simply unavailable for use in this process I will give up now and bid you a pleasant day.

 

You should Google if you really want to find out, rather than maintain a Political/Religious position.

1. Basics: How can chromosome numbers change?
PZ Myers on April 21, 2008
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

There in the foaming welter of email constantly flooding my in-box was an actual, real, good, sincere question from someone who didn’t understand how chromosome numbers could change over time — and he also asked with enough detail that I could actually see where his thinking was going awry. This is great! How could I not take time to answer?

So here’s the question:

How did life evolve from one (I suspect) chromosome to… 64 in horses, or whatever organism you want to pick. How is it possible for a sexually reproducing population of organisms to change chromosome numbers over time?
[......]​

2. Changes in chromosome number during evolution
January 1999
by rwaddle@worldnet.att.net
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html

There are two common ways, polyploidy and chromosome fusion, by which chromosome numbers change during speciation. Ploidy refers to the numbers of sets of chromosomes an individual or gamete has. (A gamete is a sperm or ovum or their plant equivalents.) One set is haploid, 2 is diploid, 3 is triploid, 4 is tetraploid, 5 is pentaploid, 6 is hexaploid, etc. Any individual with more than 2 sets of chromosomes is said to be a polyploid. There are two types of polyploidy, autopolyploidy and allopolyploidy. Autopolyploids have 3 or more of the same set of chromosomes. They are common among plants. Those with even numbers of sets of chromosomes produce gametes with full sets of chromosomes and thus are capable of sexual reproduction. They are reproductively isolated from diploid members of the same species, however - mate a tetraploid watermelon with a diploid watermelon and the result is a triploid which produces seedless watermelons.

Alloploids are the result of hybridization between two related species of plant. The hybrid is sterile because the chromosomes from one parent do not pair with chromosomes of the other parent during meiosis. An accidental chromosome doubling in a growing shoot tip, however, can result in cells that have 2 of each chromosome, the total being 4 sets of chromosomes, i.e., tetraploid. In self pollinating plants, a tetraploid stem can produce diploid male and female gametes and thus tetraploid seed. The plants produced from these seeds are a new species.

In plants, polyploidization, particularly allopolyploidization, appears to be the major way - perhaps the only way - chromosome numbers increase in evolution. Allopolyploids behave as diploids during meiosis. Thus they are also called amphidiploids.
[......]​

as a matter of fact, the second link http://www.talkorigins.org/ has the answers to all your evo questions/hostility.

There are no other theories, much less with the overwhelming evidence evolution has, to explain life's progression.
Creationist Nonsense/goddidit, has No evidence nor logic.

And you say "Central Flaw" as if there are many others. It's a good 'question', but there aren't many others/'flaws.'
+

 

It surprises me how readily the existence and functionality of DNA is accepted by the vast majority of people. After all, it's quite hard to imagine that a set of long and thin molecules is used to essentially self assemble a whole new living being in conjunction with some more molecules (whose structure is also encoded in said DNA) when put together within a cell and provided with sufficient raw materials and energy. Shouldn't all of this be a pill that is very tough to swallow? I would imagine that if you proposed something like that a few centuries ago, you would be met with nothing but disbelief.

For the sake of argument, let's say that DNA exists, can be copied often and holds information by allowing small variations in its otherwise repetitive structure. If a fellow engineer proposed to use DNA as an information storage medium, the question of reliability has to come up eventually. As it turns out, this is a very interesting question when it comes to DNA. The ability to accurately hold and copy information is not an intrinsic property of DNA even in an ordinary environment without outside interference. There are various error correcting mechanisms at work that can reduce the number of errors considerably. Here's a small review on the topic:
http://www.jbc.org/content/279/17/16895.full.pdf

Where do those limits come from? The opening post implies that there is more separating various species than a high number of differences in the genetic material alone. In other words, a mechanism is needed that allows certain small changes in the genetic information, but prevents others. I am unaware of such an mechanism (after doing a little bit of research). The well-known mechanisms work on a low level, involving only small sections of DNA at a time with no memory of past changes. As such, they're unable to prevent large changes over long time spans. The error correcting mechanism that fits the opening post would have to include a way to remember past changes or has to be complex enough to act on large sections of DNA at a time. That should be something that can be discovered, but I couldn't find anything that fits this description.

 

I replied completely in context.

1.You claimed TIME as a mechanism of change.
2. I refuted the ability of time to do any such thing.. it is merely a factor while other forces are at work.
3. You gave the example of me typing & frozen water as illustrations of time changing things.
4. I pointed out that TIME was not the factor in either of these, but something else.

THEREFORE my original statement stands, unrefuted. Time, itself, has NO mechanism to affect change. It can be a factor, if there are other mechanisms in play, but it has no power in & of itself. I completely grasp the subject, & point out the holes in your analogy. I do respect yor wishes to cease participation in this thread.. obviously nobody has to contribute.. this is (from my perspective) a rational discussion of the concepts in evolution that i see as flawed.. many others, too, obviously, but i can only provide my own arguments & reasoning. I speak for nobody else.

BTW, i liked the 'context, grasshopper'.. very witty correlation from the other poster.

 

The mistake is in your understanding of evolution. New species do not arise from a single mutation. Do you even know how many mutations each individual human carries in their DNA?

 

Can you show that mutation?

 

Simple. Sequence the DNA from two related individuals and then measure the differences. Turns out each individual carries between 100 and 200 mutations in their DNA.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827123210.htm

 

Ok, can you show a mutation that adds new information?

 

First, explain what you mean by "information". Creationists have a bad habit of confusing the common definition with the scientific definition.

 

For evolution to exist it would require a single mutation (at first)...

There is no evidence to even suggest mutation is the key to evolution..... Yes, indeed there are gene mutations but like I said in a previous post these mutations would be almost impossible to pass on.....

Look two "little people" can have an average size child, and that kid can grow up and have average sized children...

This gene mutation nonsense is being treated like it's a "disease" almost, because it would have to be to make that a plausible theory...

 

Yes, i remember your introductory thread.. you come off as a rabid dogmatist.. your way or the highway, so i doubt we will have much to discuss. I deal in facts & empirical reality, which is woefully unemotional, unlike the tenets of religious faith, which need defending with jihadist zeal.

That aside, i note that none of your points provide any evidence for the claim. they merely dance around the issue, pointing out things you can do with plants, & extrapolating it to humans or other animals.

Also.
1. There are no creationist arguments being made, at least by me. This is an examination of the CORE flaw of the ToE.
2. Talkorigins has been around for years.. i participated when it was a usenet group, before the world wide web. It is primarily a propaganda site for evolution, avoiding any valid criticisms, making straw men from the opposition.
3. Chromosomes can fuse & vary, but they do not 'create' different traits, or add genomes, or 'evolve' in the ways it is claimed. ALL the evidence points to limits within the DNA that prohibits straying from the possibilities within the dna.

 

You misunderstood. I clearly said, 'incremental, cumulative changes,' which is exactly the claim of the ToE. I very clearly understand evolution. I was spoon fed it for years, through high school & college, where my science background was based. All the tenets of evolution are pretty standard fare, & all the actual evidences for it (none) are assumed.

Neither single or multiple mutations can add genomes, or create new traits. they only alter or distort the ones that are there. This is not a positive, creative process, but a negative, destructive one. It is a huge leap, & not validated by observation or experimentation that mutations can 'create' new traits or variability within an organism. This is asserted, & BELIEVED by most evolutionists as proven fact, but it is not.

 

Well that took a while
I noted you answered other posts to you yesterday (after mine), but you had Not for me for 24 hrs.
You still don't.

I am also a "dogmatist" about Gravity. Yes, I'm a 'gravitationalist'... too.
What an absurd Spin attempt to label someone acknowledging a scientific Fact as a 'partisan'.

You ARE making the Creationist 'kind' argument. (the goofy undefined subjective categories). Wherein species can't change enough to become other species.
Your OP specifically refers to the impossible leap between ie 20-24 chromosome pairs being the biggest part of that hump that prevents those changes.
Now answered.
There was also another website besides TalkOrigins you didn't even acknowledge.
And of course didn't answer T-O either
+

 

The assumption is multiple, cumulative mutations adding up to positive complexity. Unfortunately NONE of this has been observed, & even a neutral mutation is rare.. most are deadly to the organism. But the claim is unsubstantiated by the mechanism. Mutations do not & CANNOT create traits.. they merely alter existing ones. they cannot convert scales to feathers, or fins to legs. They cannot create all the components of the eye, all at once, simultaneously so you get a functioning eye. they cannot add genome pairs, simultaneously to different offspring at the same time, so a breeding pair is produced. All of these claims are absurd, scientifically, yet they are believed as fact.

 

After our last exchange, i was considering ignoring your posts as being mostly trolling, which your intro thread seemed to be.. IMO, of course. You have not made any scientific arguments for this phenomena of change, but merely asserted it authoritatively. How did you 'answer' this? By assertion.

Show me. Talk is cheap. Show me ONE valid bit of evidence that demonstrates HOW you can go from 20 or 26 or whatever you presume genome pairs to the human & chimp 23 & 24. It is physically & genetically IMPOSSIBLE, yet you assert it as true as gravity. I can measure gravity. I can repeat it. I can observe it. I cannot measure, repeat or observe anything of the sort in life of this nature. It is contrary to genetics, & is a biological impossibility.

 

Scientists should be able to tell us the mutation in plants that produced flowers, fruits, etc since none existed in history. They should also be able to tell the mutation that created mammals to grow their babies inside the womb, the mutation that caused hair to grow, etc.