The Central Flaw of Evolution

I cited a list of documented speciation events on this thread that included changes in numbers of chrimosomes, etc

In the crows analogy you noticed that science has proof of falsity - which has been pointed out repeatedly. But the point was that there is no proof of correctness of an hypothesis. Even if all crows are indeed black, nothing the scientist can possibly observe would prove that.

 

If all of the variability present in dogs comes from the parent stock, then why do wolves only have hind leg dewclaws when they have interbread with dogs?

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ves_as_evidence_of_admixed_ancestry_with_dogs

 

Evolution explains what has happened with dogs.

Most of the breeds of dogs today were created by the selective pressure of humans who selected for traits they wanted. I don't know of anything that was eliminated. We chose dogs that have smaller bodies, not dogs with no bodies. Calling shorter dogs cases of "devolving" makes no sense.

Humans evolved blue eyes, the new genes necessary to provide a way for adults to digest milk, and smsller, more complex brains - losing a brain volume about the size of a tennis ball over the last 20k years. These are brand new developments, not a "narrowing" of what was there in some "parent stock".

 

Yes, yes, you're so brilliant that you insist on telling everyone every day. I have read too much of your self-promotion already. No more.
Silence is the best response to....
~ciao

Ignore List

AboveAlpha Cosmo DarkDaimon Derideo_Te Egalitarianjay02 FreshAir Fugazi Giftedone HonestJoe JDliberal Jonsa Moriah RandomObserver RiaRaeb Selivan Shiva_TD Taxonomy26 TBryant tecoyah trevorw2539 WillReadmore _Inquisitor_

 

True!

I'm not sure what kind of projection you are referring to.

Here's the thing. A random person on a forum who cannot prove his/her credentials tells me one thing, and thousands of scientists how have degrees that I can verify tell me another. Who do you think I'm going to believe?

So where should I get this evidence if not from a publication? Am I expected to do original research? Where do you get your evidence from?

Consensus is how science works. The theory with the most supporters wins, until a better theory comes along or that theory is disproved.

So in what form should this evidence be in?

This is not the 16th century where the sum of all human knowledge can fit into a library. This is the age of specialists. Every two days, we create as much knowledge as the whole of human history until 2003. Do you really think knowing the basics allows someone to actually be proficient enough to argue effectively against someone who has spent years studying the topic.

The issue is not believing them, it is believing you. Why should we believe you?

- - - Updated - - -

Congratulations Taxonomy26, you made the list!

 

What words? These words:
Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo View Post
Creation Science is an oxymoron.

--------------------

You people ALWAYS attempt to derail threads and change the subject, in violation of the rules.
Let me remind you AGAIN, the SUBJECT is the central flaw of evolution.
Stop bringing up your irrelevant talking points.
Darwinism doesn't fail because of anything to do with the Christian Bible, or creationism. When will you people EVER get that through your thick heads?

"We don't know" is a perfectly valid explanation, and far surpasses Darwinian tautology: Traits are *selected* when those organisms survive, and they survive when they are *selected*. It says nothing. It explains nothing. You people act as if you cannot live another day without Darwin's "theory" to hang your hat on. What nonsense. See also The Three Games Darwinists Play in another thread.

 

There is but one Darwin conclusion and this by working backwards from modern man to the abiogenisis.

Darwin's theory is supposed to prove all animal life originated with the bacteria.

Does this group honestly think their most distant ancestor is bacteria?

 

What precisely are you attempting to prove?

What is it you seek to prove wrong?

 

First of all there are many different kinds of single celled organisms that are not Bacteria so your lack of knowledge on this is showing.

Secondly every single existing form of life on Earth all have Genomes that have millions upon millions of various Viral DNA encodings in them as every time a Virus which is NOT ALIVE but has DNA is taken into a living cell past it's membrane as the cell takes in the Virus as food or O2 mistakenly....the Virus than at that point ENCODES it;s DNA into the Genome of the Living Cell.

It reprograms the cell to use it;s own cellular material to make more and more Viruses and eventually so many Viruses exist inside the cell that the cellular membrane erupts ripping open and spraying the Viruses all over which helps the Virus infect more cells.

Now even though there are millions of viral DNA encodings in all species of life's genomes there is only ONE IN THE SAME Viral DNA encoding within every single Genome of all life!!

This is 100% PROOF POSITIVE that all life on Earth EVOLVED from an ORIGINAL SINGLE CELLED LIFE FORM.

AA

 

No. How silly to think that our most distant ancestor is bacteria, it is archaea.

 

I do not present myself as more than a person that has studied this topic a lot. Yes, books on this are read by me and are still in my library. Even a super good book called evolution as taught at a university.

As Dr. Schopf discusses in his book, Cradle of Life, life has more than merely the animal form. He goes into details in h is book as to the variety of life.

A single cell says nothing to me. Was it a plant cell? A fungus cell or something else?

So, while you wish to look smart by putting me down, it failed to work.

So, you claim a single cell is the grand dad of all life, including the variety Dr. Schopf discusses.

Very interesting.

 

Why do you bother reading crap like this?

Look....there is no proof either way whether a GOD exists or not.

But one thing we do know is if a GOD does exist....this GOD used both Quantum and Biological Evolution to generate the Universe, Multiverse and all life within.

AA

 

You are the sole person talking to me that ever called the Professor Schopf book crap and decided to insert GOD into the same topic as if his book is about religion.

Some of these days, some Democrat will up and decide to get an education.

 

My mistake.

I should have read it more carefully.

I saw the name Educational Psychology and as I totally disagree with his concepts specific to Educational Psychology I jumped the gun.

Oh...and I am NOT a Democrat.

AA

 

Unfortunately I read AA's attempt to derail the thread because Robert quoted it.
Once again, the THREAD TITLE is: The Central Flaw of Evolution

You Darwinists are so hung up on your archaic beliefs that you must still be trying to build perpetual motion machines.

AboveAlpha
This message is hidden because AboveAlpha is on your ignore list.

 

Fact: Selection acts on EXISTING variability.

source

You are arguing with what most evolutionists believe to be 'settled science'. I have merely quoted & sourced the studies of others. You think hind leg dewclaws is some kind of 'new' trait that was 'created' on the fly? What evidence do you have that this was not ALREADY present in the parent stock? What proof do you have that this significant evolutionary development of hind leg dewclaws is the result of time & mutation? What other mechanism can 'create' this astounding adaptation?

You say 'evolved', but you don't know that the traits you speak of were not already present in the parent stock. HOW did they come about? WHAT mechanism 'created' these traits? Blue eyes evolved? seriously? These were traits already in the gene pool.. you have no evidence that blue or brown eyes 'evolved' from nothing. That is merely your belief.

How else do you 'breed' dogs? You eliminate the undesired traits in your breeding pairs, & selectively choose the ones you want. You are, in effect, DEVOLVING the breed, by eliminating the choices from the gene pool. It does not have as much adaptability, as the choices from the pool are much more limited. You put a bunch of chihuahuas in the arctic tundra, & they will all likely die, as they do not have the traits of thick fur to draw from. They will only produce more chihuahuas, they will not suddenly pop out some malamutes. Environmental pressure experiments have been done a lot, to try to prove that traits are 'created' on the fly, but they have all failed. Unless the trait is ALREADY present in the gene pool, you won't get any new ones.

Of course traits are eliminated.. or nearly so. the goal of breeding is to minimize any outliers, so there is consistency in the breed. You will still get, on occasion, a deeply hidden trait that comes up by chance, but the goal of breeding is to keep eliminating those outliers so that the odds are very slim you will get any aberrations in the morphology.

Check it out. Look at any breeding manual. Study any biological history of any species, & you will find the same conclusion that other evolutionists have: Selection acts on EXISTING variability.

They have to come up with other 'theories' as to how these traits got there. Do you want to examine any of those? Do you think they hold more water, or have more evidence for them than the debunked 'traits created on the fly' theory? That's what this thread is for. To examine the claims of the ToE, & see if it is based on real science, or belief & conjecture.

 

You are still making mistakes.

William Schopf is not a professor of Psychology.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/s...at-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years

 

Anyone who states Life has not evolved for 2 billion years is either blind, Ignorant, Stupid or lying.

 

Post limit thread closure notification.

Shangrila
Moderator