What bugs me about the theory of evolution

a reply to: Barcs

Yeah... It doesn't work that way. You actively avoid answering a question/challenge I brought forth, and then all you have to offer is a personal attack.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah... It doesn't work that way. You actively avoid answering a question/challenge I brought forth, and then all you have to offer is a personal attack.

What was avoided? You are just posting ignorance.

talkorigins.org...

Go ahead and refute just one of them.. Oh wait... you won't, you will either post more straw mans, more red herrings or more direct lies. I know the game. Evidence doesn't agree with you so you avoid it like the plague.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah... It doesn't work that way. You actively avoid answering a question/challenge I brought forth, and then all you have to offer is a personal attack.

What was avoided? You are just posting ignorance.

talkorigins.org...

Go ahead and refute just one of them.. Oh wait... you won't, you will either post more straw mans, more red herrings or more direct lies. I know the game. Evidence doesn't agree with you so you avoid it like the plague.

And yet all you can offer is a condescending attitude, and spamming the same link with a tsunami of information that doesn't directly tackle the question. I guess you're just as ignorant, if not more ignorant, since obviously you can't explain anything in your own words, but have to rely on generalities, repetition and attempts at shaming anyone that has questions.

a reply to: vasaga

If you think posting scientific research is ignorant, then I really don't know what to say. By definition your unwillingness to even read it make YOU ignorant, not me. I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm asking people to back up their claims and refuting illogical fallacious arguments made by religious people posing as scientists. I'll stop posting that link the second somebody refutes anything in it, but that's never happened in over a decade of referencing that link.

You also accused me of avoiding a question, yet you didn't even say what question you were referring to. We all know where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from here.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah... It doesn't work that way. You actively avoid answering a question/challenge I brought forth, and then all you have to offer is a personal attack.

Well, it often works that way on this subforum. And it works that way in the field of propaganda (and the victims tend to pick up the behaviour and way of arguing). It also works that way amongst religious zealots (since they tend to be victims of propaganda as well). Cult leaders sometimes do it too when one of the cult members starts asking inconvenient questions. Of course, that's after the dismissive 'answer' that doesn't really make the one asking the question any the wiser about what he/she was asking about. Only to give the impression to the other cult members that an answer was provided (if the conversation happens in their presence). Or the type of answer that refers to an overload of information so one can start the 'you don't want to read it' debate-routine, usually more like 'go read this or that book or go study biology, the numerous articles on evolution, etc.'. Be glad you got the more condensed version.

Of course, that's not what you meant with "it doesn't work that way". As in if you want to have a rational reasonable conversation with someone who is open to agreement on something relevant at least.

Wanna see a proper definition of evolution? Click the link, notice which subject it includes that fans of evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines prefer to separate from the topic of evolution. The man in the video below calls it "the no-go zone":

The earlier link about "evolution" also addresses the following question related to the comment you asked your question about:

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

But if you want some details about mutations try this article:

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations​—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—​can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19
...
The facts. ... Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
...
...the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
...
22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants. Lönnig believes that life was created. His comments in the article above are his own and do not represent the opinion of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research. Obviously, cause that would be a big no-no for them. I suspect we both know how it works:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 1 of 10)

Oh, here's the whole paper I found via google:

Mutation breeding , evolution , and the law of recurrent variation - Semantic Scholar

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

If you think posting scientific research is ignorant, then I really don't know what to say. By definition your unwillingness to even read it make YOU ignorant, not me. I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm asking people to back up their claims and refuting illogical fallacious arguments made by religious people posing as scientists. I'll stop posting that link the second somebody refutes anything in it, but that's never happened in over a decade of referencing that link.

You also accused me of avoiding a question, yet you didn't even say what question you were referring to. We all know where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from here.

So someone's ability to post a link containing supposed scientific research somehow magically removes his ignorance. Cool story bro.

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words. What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing. You have standard repetitive replies that either say nothing, are condescending, or are deliberately obtuse, so you can pretend to somehow have the upper hand in the debate. All the while knowing and understanding nothing of what you yourself link.

a reply to: vasaga

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words. What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing. You have standard repetitive replies that either say nothing, are condescending, or are deliberately obtuse, so you can pretend to somehow have the upper hand in the debate. All the while knowing and understanding nothing of what you yourself link.

Sounds more like you and not Barcs! Laughable.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words. What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing. You have standard repetitive replies that either say nothing, are condescending, or are deliberately obtuse, so you can pretend to somehow have the upper hand in the debate. All the while knowing and understanding nothing of what you yourself link.

Sounds more like you and not Barcs! Laughable.

Of course you would say that, considering you failed to reply to my criticism.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words. What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing. You have standard repetitive replies that either say nothing, are condescending, or are deliberately obtuse, so you can pretend to somehow have the upper hand in the debate. All the while knowing and understanding nothing of what you yourself link.

Sounds more like you and not Barcs! Laughable.

Of course you would say that, considering you failed to reply to my criticism.

And you failed to debunk evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words. What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing. You have standard repetitive replies that either say nothing, are condescending, or are deliberately obtuse, so you can pretend to somehow have the upper hand in the debate. All the while knowing and understanding nothing of what you yourself link.

Sounds more like you and not Barcs! Laughable.

Of course you would say that, considering you failed to reply to my criticism.

And you failed to debunk evolution.

Obviously. Because you love shifting goal posts constantly, and even when a specific point has been challenged, you will strut about ignoring it, as if you're still right anyway.

I can ask it again, and you will most likely be unable to reply...

What is the difference between adaptation and evolution?
Short version of the reply was, adaptation happens at the individual level, and evolution happens at the population level...
My criticism was(now explained in a more detailed manner)...;

If you have say 100 bacteria, and you use antibiotics, 99 die, and one survives.
That one bacteria reproduces and produces a total of 100 bacteria again, all resistant to anti-biotics.
Is this adaptation or evolution?
From the perspective of the single bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics, it's adaptation.
From the perspective of 100 bacteria not being resistant to being resistant, it's evolution.

So, which is it?

To anyone capable of critical thinking, it seems quite clear that the previous answer that adaptation happens at the individual level, and evolution happens at the population level, is either incomplete at best or completely wrong at worst.

I'll wait.

a reply to: vasaga

What is the difference between adaptation and evolution? 
Short version of the reply was, adaptation happens at the individual level, and evolution happens at the population level... 
My criticism was(now explained in a more detailed manner)...; 

Evolution is mutations in a population over time. These mutations often include adaptation which correlates with the survival of the fittest description.

If you have say 100 bacteria, and you use antibiotics, 99 die, and one survives. 
That one bacteria reproduces and produces a total of 100 bacteria again, all resistant to anti-biotics. 
Is this adaptation or evolution? 
From the perspective of the single bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics, it's adaptation. 
From the perspective of 100 bacteria not being resistant to being resistant, it's evolution. 

it is both.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words. What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing. You have standard repetitive replies that either say nothing, are condescending, or are deliberately obtuse, so you can pretend to somehow have the upper hand in the debate. All the while knowing and understanding nothing of what you yourself link.

Sounds more like you and not Barcs! Laughable.

Of course you would say that, considering you failed to reply to my criticism.

And you failed to debunk evolution.

Obviously. Because you love shifting goal posts constantly, and even when a specific point has been challenged, you will strut about ignoring it, as if you're still right anyway.

I can ask it again, and you will most likely be unable to reply...

What is the difference between adaptation and evolution?
Short version of the reply was, adaptation happens at the individual level, and evolution happens at the population level...
My criticism was(now explained in a more detailed manner)...;

If you have say 100 bacteria, and you use antibiotics, 99 die, and one survives.
That one bacteria reproduces and produces a total of 100 bacteria again, all resistant to anti-biotics.
Is this adaptation or evolution?
From the perspective of the single bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics, it's adaptation.
From the perspective of 100 bacteria not being resistant to being resistant, it's evolution.

So, which is it?

To anyone capable of critical thinking, it seems quite clear that the previous answer that adaptation happens at the individual level, and evolution happens at the population level, is either incomplete at best or completely wrong at worst.

I'll wait.

Let’s try to dumb this down enough to make some sense to you.

In every living organism on earth, our cells die off and replicate continuously. Epithelial cells, myofascial cells, all of your organs.... every cell in your body is constantly dying and replacing itself. When this happens we often see SNP’s. Single Nicleotide Polymorphisms. What this means is that there are often errors in the replication process.

The vast majority of mutations arising from SNP’s are neutral. Neither harmful nor beneficial to the organisms. Occasionally, something positive happens. Even more rarely, those beneficial mutations begin to slowly build up within a population over generations until it becomes fixed within the popultion. The original individual was exhibiting adaptive traits. When those traits became prevalent through the population, the population as a whole is evolving.

Does that make any sense or are you still hung up on adaptation existing but evolution being imaginary?

a reply to: whereislogic

LOL @ quoting your Jehovah Witness propaganda site as a legitimate definition of evolution. Give up the ghost, bro, you just spam the same links over and over and nothing you say proves anything except your willingness to be brainwashed.

originally posted by: vasaga
So someone's ability to post a link containing supposed scientific research somehow magically removes his ignorance. Cool story bro.

Evolution is not proved by a single piece of evidence, it is proved by all of the evidence put together and analyzed. There is nothing "supposed" about that link every single claim is backed by supporting peer reviewed scientific research papers. I gave you the opportunity to pick and choose whichever one you wanted to refute and you can't even do it. It's just funny because you did the same exact thing and misrepresented the paper you quoted.

For someone to not be ignorant, they have to actually read, understand, and be able to explain what they understood in their own words.

Yep and that describes your abysmal understanding of evolution to a T. You have literally explained nothing, you just quote mined and cherry picked.

What have you ever explained in your own words on here? Nothing.

Complete and utter nonsense. I have been arguing this for the better part of a decade on this website. I've explained it so many times, it's honestly not worth it anymore, especially when the people you explain it to are completely closed minded to anything you say and aren't receptive to new information that conflicts with the pre-programmed propaganda and blatant lies about science.

This is evidence by your silly response above that claims small changes in populations is adaptation and not evolution. It's like saying something is an car but not an automobile. It's stupid and requires equivocation.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants.
...
Oh, here's the whole paper I found via google:

Mutation breeding , evolution , and the law of recurrent variation - Semantic Scholar

I just realized, since Lönnig said the following in 2006:

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

Source: Why We Believe in a Creator: Awake!—2006

That must mean he now has approx. 41 years of experience studying mutation genetics in plants (if he still works in that field that is). So if you want to know more about mutations and what they are capable of in terms of the evolutionary ideas including the one sometimes referred to as "modern evolutionary synthesis", you may want to pay attention to him. The abstract of the previous linked article by him about the law of recurrent variation also mentions "the synthetic theory of evolution" which is also referred to in this article about the "Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution" a.k.a. "Neo Darwinism Theory" (according to the website I just linked) or "the Neo-Darwinian theory".

Here's what that abstract mentions:

In the present paper the history of the rise and fall of mutation breeding as an autonomous branch of breeding research is documented as well as its positive side effects for plant breeding and biology in general. Perhaps the most important generalization on the basis of the total outcome of mutation breeding will be termed “the law of recurrent variation”. It states that “treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants. This consistently occurs when the experiments are carried out on a scale adequate to isolate the potential of alleles causing phenotypic and functional deviations (saturation mutagenesis). However, due to almost invisible residual effects of changes in redundant sequences and/or of further chromosome rearrangements, the corresponding saturation curve is asymptotically approaching its limit for the micro-quantitative part of variation.” Also, reasons are given why the law is relevant for heterozygotes and allogamous species as well, and the genetical basis of the law is briefly defined.
In addition, arguments are presented why the overoptimism and euphoria at the beginnings of the period of mutation breeding are to be evaluated in connection with the basic assumptions of the synthetic theory of evolution − i.e. the assurance that mutations and selection constitute the entirely sufficient explanation of the origin of all species and higher systematic categories of the plant and animal kingdoms alike. This point established, the question is discussed whether the finite nature of the mutant spectra found in plant breeding research might also have repercussions on the present theory of the origin of species.
Providing an affirmative answer of the applicability of the law of recurrent variation not only to cultivated plant and animal lines but also to species in the wild, the statements and assertions of the synthetic theory as quoted below will have to be revised.

Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’ But often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.

*: Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions (2 of which referred to by Lönnig in his abstract):

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

Researchers have discovered that mutations​—or random changes—​in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.”(quoted by Lönnig)

a reply to: wildespace

I have always wondered why the possibility of exposure to high amounts of radiation either from SOL or other celestial objects has not been considered with the evolutionary processes.
These high amounts of radiation exposure to the flora and fauna to 1 would possibly cause physical effects and or changes to the created vegetation and wildlife exposed.

a reply to: wildespace

Further it has also been considered that the "common ancestors" did not originate from planet EA*RTH...

Does one evolve forever or is there a end to ones evolution ?

a reply to: wildespace

Its very hard to have the common ancestor, as we may not know what it was. Its for the most part a theoretical construct. Science makes no bones about that. You get even more of this when you apply bioinformatics and molecular clocks to it. Because the statistics often give you multiple paths.

Basically there is nothing wrong with this, its just difficult for some folks to cope with.

a reply to: whereislogic
Ah, Lönnig retired some time prior to 2015. He's also been on ID the Future, the radio show that runs out of the Discovery Institute.

Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation – Pt 1 (Discovery.org)

For those interested in the facts regarding mutations and their implications regarding evolutionary ideas and stories. For those who aren't, well no need to respond to my comments then is there? Unless one has alterior motives to distract from the facts or get people to ignore them or not draw any relevant conclusions from them (especially regarding the things being said in this thread about mutations and natural selection).