What bugs me about the theory of evolution

originally posted by: peter vlar

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?

Funny. Saying you're dumbing it down and then trying to use fancy words you yourself don't even understand to somehow appear smarter than you really are and instill some sort of superiority. How I know? Myofascial cells. There's such a thing as myofascial tissue which consists mostly of collagen. Myofascial cells? You made that up on the spot. Nice try though.

Ultimately, you didn't say anything I didn't already know. Basically it's the same old drivel of mutations happening during reproduction, and the beneficial trait becoming more prevalent as it spreads out in the population.

Did you know, that an experiment was made by John Cairns, where he put E-coli bacteria in a starving environment (lactose as the only food) where they couldn't reproduce? No food = no reproduction. Ultimately the bacteria adapted/evolved (whatever you want to call it) to be able to process the lactose.
Here's a paper trying to explain how, an failing, because they still cannot explain it from a purely mechanistic random mutation perspective.
www.genetics.org...

Cairns own conclusion was, and I quote;
"some experiments [are] suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur."

a reply to: vasaga

(a): What is "myofascial tissue" made of? Cells. Why not call them myofascial cells? What would be your name for them?

(b): The experiment: What if there were IN THE INITIAL POPULATION already mutated bacteria which could thrive under the given environment while ALSO be able to live under a different environment? Both sets of genetic features were enabled (without disabling each other) in one cell. Or just the lac+ bacteria in small numbers already included. I found nowhere in your link that they did make sure that there were no lac+ bacteria in the initial population.

originally posted by: CharlesT
I think the most evident proof of evolution would probably be found in the mutations witnessed in bacterial strains as they become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. Wouldn't you call that process evolution? Take TB for instance, it is becoming ever more resistant to antibiotics over time.

originally posted by: vasaga
What's the difference between evolution and adaptation?

Never mind the difference, here is what some geneticists, zoologists, evolutionary theorists, biologists and biochemists acknowledge regarding "mutations" in relation to "evolution" (as far as I can quickly tell, the ones I'm quoting support the teaching of evolution, allthough they have different variations of the storylines they're selling, such as neo-Lamarckian evolution when we're talking about Pierre-Paul Grassé, author of over 300 publications). As quoted by Dr. Lönnig:

...
Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation

Schwabe earned his PhD in 1965 in biochemistry. He was a professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School up until 1971.

That link under "vgl. Diskussion", is a discussion about bacterial resistance. But it's in German so it won't do you any good, but just to show how these statements relate to CharlesT's comment about bacterial resistance, mutations and evolution. Cause some people are very hard at work to make some people lose track of what's really important to realize here, as for example bolded in Pierre-Paul Grassé's statement (only 1 of those important things to realize that shows what's wrong with CharlesT's proposed meaning for the word "evolution"; other things are also covered in my previous commentary that uses the term "macroevolution" and the related mythology).

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: vasaga

(a): What is "myofascial tissue" made of? Cells. Why not call them myofascial cells? What would be your name for them?

As already explained... Myofascial tissue is made primarily of collagen... The term myofascial cell is never used, because even though it does contain a few cells, it is not primarily made of cells. It is the connection between cells, the so-called extracellular matrix. If he really wanted to mention the cells that produce the fascia, he would've mentioned fibroblasts. Relevant info;

A fascia (/ˈfæʃ(i)ə/; plural fasciae /ˈfæʃii/; adjective fascial; from Latin: "band") is a band or sheet of connective tissue, primarily collagen, beneath the skin that attaches, stabilizes, encloses, and separates muscles and other internal organs.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Collagen /ˈkɒlədʒɪn/ is the main structural protein in the extracellular space in the various connective tissues in the body. As the main component of connective tissue, it is the most abundant protein in mammals,[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

In biology, the extracellular matrix (ECM) is a three-dimensional network of extracellular macromolecules, such as collagen, enzymes, and glycoproteins, that provide structural and biochemical support of surrounding cells.

en.wikipedia.org...

A fibroblast is a type of biological cell that synthesizes the extracellular matrix and collagen,[1] produces the structural framework (stroma) for animal tissues, and plays a critical role in wound healing.[2] Fibroblasts are the most common cells of connective tissue in animals.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
(b): The experiment: What if there were IN THE INITIAL POPULATION already mutated bacteria which could thrive under the given environment while ALSO be able to live under a different environment? Both sets of genetic features were enabled (without disabling each other) in one cell. Or just the lac+ bacteria in small numbers already included. I found nowhere in your link that they did make sure that there were no lac+ bacteria in the initial population.

The original paper by Cairns;
fire.biol.wwu.edu...

Wikipedia article regarding follow-up investigations to his findings;
en.wikipedia.org...


And lastly, a short video explaining the whole thing;

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

Rnaa provided an excellent answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So adaptation is the individual, and evolution is a population? Sounds like nonsense to me. Why? What about this;



You need only a single bacteria to adapt against antibiotics and reproduce, while all others die off, for adaptation to now magically become evolution.

So is there a difference, or isn't there a difference? You can't have it both ways.

I just happened to see this response. What's so difficult to understand? Rnaa explained it thoroughly - an individual doesn't evolve in a vacuum. A population, which carries the mutation(s) forward to successive generations, does evolve.

Judging from all your responses to myself and others, it seems that you don't understand the science of evolution and genetics. These are ongoing processes - they're not stagnant. The operative word here is "PROCESS".

If you could outline exactly what it is that you don't understand or disagree with, perhaps we can provide some answers and/or reference material. Evolution describes change. Everything in the universe changes. I don't understand why people find the concept of change so difficult to accept.

originally posted by: vasaga

And lastly, a short video explaining the whole thing;

Theistic evolution? Meh, boring. I know he doesn't actually call it that or describes it in the exact same way, but the general notion of combining creation with evolution is the same. He calls his version of the storyline "fractal evolution" as far as I could quickly see on the channel that uploaded that video.

Shortly after Charles Darwin made the theory of evolution popular, many so-called Christian denominations started looking for ways to marry their belief in God to their acceptance of the theory of evolution.

Today, most prominent “Christian” religious groups seem willing to accept that God must have used evolution in some way to create life. Some teach that God preprogrammed the universe to develop in such a way that living things inevitably* evolved from lifeless chemicals and eventually produced mankind. Those who subscribe to this teaching, known as theistic evolution, do not feel that God interfered with the process once it started. Others think that, in general, God allowed evolution to produce most families of plants and animals but occasionally stepped in to move the process along. *: the word also being used in one of the threads on this subforum called Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable says physicist (and biochemist, Jeremy England, in a recently-published paper)

Is the theory of evolution really compatible with the teachings of the Bible? If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18-24) Is that how Jesus viewed this Bible account? “Did you not read,” said Jesus, “that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”​—Matthew 19:4-6.

Jesus was here quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter 2. If Jesus believed the first marriage to be a fictional story, would he have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage? No. Jesus pointed to the Genesis account because he knew it to be true history.​—John 17:17.

Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible. Any attempt to marry these beliefs can only give birth to a weak faith that is prone to being “tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching.”​—Ephesians 4:14.

For centuries the Bible has endured criticism and attack. Time and again the Bible text has been vindicated. When the Bible touches on history, health, and science, its accounts have repeatedly been proved reliable. Its advice regarding human relations is trustworthy and timeless. Human philosophies and theories, like so much green grass, sprout and then wither over time, but the Word of God “will last to time indefinite.”​—Isaiah 40:8.

The teaching of evolution is not limited to the realm of scientific theory. It is a human philosophy that blossomed and then flourished for decades. In recent years, however, the traditional evolutionary teaching of Darwin has itself evolved​—in fact, mutated—​as efforts have been made to explain away the increasing evidence for design in the natural world. By now, there is a veritable smorgasbord of (slightly) different evolutionary philosophies for the fans (described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4) to feast on, from the earlier mentioned neo-Lamarckian evolution and neo-Darwinian evolution to theistic evolution and apparently "fractal evolution" now as well (and then you've got subtopics or added storylines such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "panspermia").

What is evolution?

One definition of “evolution” is: “A process of change in a certain direction.” However, the term is used in several ways. For example, it is used to describe big changes in inanimate things​—the development of the universe. In addition, the term is used to describe small changes in living things​—the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. The word is most commonly used, though, to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions (allthough not that often on this forum, most have been well indoctrinated and conditioned to separate the topic of chemical evolution or abiogenesis and ridicule or otherwise discredit anyone who refuses to follow that behaviour or accept it as an honest use of the word or concept of "evolution"). This third notion is what is meant by the term “evolution” when I use it. Allthough more often I refer to evolutionary philosophies/ideas, as a collective term for all of the ones that haven't been verified (or have parts of the storylines unverified), from the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" to parts of the stories in "cosmic evolution" to the macroevolutionary storylines attached to "biological evolution" and the topic that involves the term "common descent" (or "ancestry").

2 Timothy 4:3,4

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [Gk: myʹthos; KJ: "myths"]

As the examples of some of these myths/false stories have been given throughout my commentary and in the article I linked called "Evolution—Myths and Facts".

Oh, btw, there are 2 more parts to the interview on ID the Future with Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig. The other 2 parts may not be so obvious to find, so here's the link to part 2 (which has part 3 linked at the bottem), cause that's where it really gets to the meat of the matter:

Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation – Pt 2

a reply to: whereislogic

As far as I know, he's not a Christian. Even though the idea of combining creation with evolution is in there, it differs greatly in the details. An example is that Christians believe that God, as a separate being, created the universe and life. Lipton believes that everything that exists IS God, so to speak... And that's where the fractals come in. The other aspect is that beliefs (as in, the perception of the environment) drive evolution.

An interview;
www.sfgate.com...

Video where he explains his background and how he came to his views;

There is macro and then there is micro evolution.
They say we evolved from the same ancestor as the monkey.
If this is true, why did the monkey not evolve?

Why is the monkey still here in its form today?

a reply to: jacobe001

Please be satire!

a reply to: vasaga
Yeah, I'm familiar with the ancient Pagan religious pantheistic (everything is God, nature is God, i.e. Mother Nature) version of evolutionary philosophies. That's the part Darwin stripped when he was doing his figurative copy-pasting and pretending he had come up with something new and refreshing. Because of his main target audience (or market) not desiring any form of a theistic aspect to evolutionary thinking.

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

It really is nothing new. Ecclesiastes 1:9,10:

9 What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?

It already existed from long ago;

It already existed before our time.

I guess one can call it pantheistic evolution to be more specific than theistic evolution, which is a term that is already taken by another view+storyline.

The user AlienView promotes something similar on this subforum.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces (also recognizable in phrases such as 'Nature found a way to..." and the famous one from Jurassic Park for example "Life finds a way"). So it's also still not far off from the pantheistic versions of the evolutionary storylines, just more sneaky (sometimes I call it 'pantheism in the closet'; especially when I'm talking about "philosophical naturalism" which I also describe as 'Mother Nature-worship in the closet').

Programming 101. Courtesy of Hollywood entertainment. There's another as used by the philosophical naturalist Stephen Hawking: ...the universe can and will create itself..." (in his book The Grand Design). Attributing godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. The universe in this case (he also mentions the Law of Gravity at the beginning of that statement), it all basically boils down to the same argument: '(Mother) Nature did it'. And apparently hoping that his listeners or readers will not consider that the universe can't do anything when it doesn't even exist yet, let alone create itself. Here's a more detailed discussion of Stephen Hawking's book and the full quotation, most relevant part (or a minimum recommendation to check out) runs from 16:13 - 23:04 (starting with that quotation):

originally posted by: jacobe001
There is macro and then there is micro evolution.
They say we evolved from the same ancestor as the monkey.
If this is true, why did the monkey not evolve?

Why is the monkey still here in its form today?

Because you dont understand what the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis actually means.

a reply to: jacobe001

Wow you are either trolling (and not very well) or you've never read what elocutionary theory says.

A monkey and an ape are different. We are apes, sorry but we are, and we share a common ancestor with Chimps and bonobo. The common ancestor is not here, yet Chimps, Bonobo, and Homo Sapiens are here. We did a great job on making sure it was just US however.

The reason why I don't believe in evolution is because of the evidence.

I consider myself a strict empiricist, so I go only by evidence.

If you think only in terms of scientific evidence evolution would be viewed as a very weak fringe idea, like a science fiction idea, not really true or close to true.

I really use to believe in evolution before when I didn't go by evidence, but then I started to think about things in terms of only evidence and empirical observations so I stopped believing in evolution.

The reason why most people believe in evolution is because of authority, incredulity, or really wanting to believe in evolution, not because of evidence.

I just don't know how anyone who goes strictly by evidence can believe in evolution, something that ordinarily would be viewed as like a crackpot theory, not even real science.

Usually since evolutionists realize how weak the evidence supporting evolution is they resort to avoiding discussing evidence and just discuss:

Authority: Authority figures believing something or agreeing that something is true isn't equivalent to scientific evidence that it's true. What matters to me is what the scientific evidence shows us not what authority figures believe. You can't determine what's true or false by what authority figures personally believe.

Incredulity: Usually the evolutionist will say something like "what alternative is there?", which is just an argument from personal incredulity. You can't determine what's true or false by using incredulity.

An example of how evolutionists don't value evidence can be seen with the fact that 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will (faculty.bennington.edu... ) even though evolution requires free-will to be non-existent and even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is more concrete than the very weak evidence supporting evolution.

The arguments free-will believers use (non-determinism, disorder, unpredictability) falsifies evolution, so how can evolutionists believe in free-will?

How can someone believe in both evolution and free-will unless they don't understand science in general? Things can't evolve to have free-will, they can only evolve to have the feeling or perception that they have free-will.

It really shows you the type and kind of people that evolutionists are, how they don't value evidence or care about scientific evidence they just care about forcing their way and their beliefs onto society.

The real reason why so many evolutionists believe in free-will (79%) is because they thought in their mind "Who cares about evidence? 'The Problem of Free-will' argument is used against religion, I don't care about evidence".

The real reason why so many evolutionists believe in evolution is because they thought "Who cares about evidence? Evolution is used against religion, I don't care about evidence".

If so many people hadn't doubted evolution because of religion my guess is that the media and society would allow people to question evolution and treat evolution the same as any other theory especially since the evidence supporting evolution is so unbelievably weak and since the media and society right now allows people to question the evidence on free-will, GR, QM, etc...with all types of unscientific junk.

I haven't heard anything on TV or in the media about Professors being fired for questioning the evidence on free-will with unscientific junk, but if you question the evidence on evolution with valid scientific criticisms you could get in trouble.

Evolutionists always change the subject away from scientific evidence at all costs (since they know how weak the evidence supporting evolution is), they only believe in evolution to fight off religious people or because they're biased towards evolution, not because of the scientific evidence.

What matters to me is what the scientific evidence shows, not what someone's motivation for the belief is.

Since evolutionists still can't comprehend how evolution and free-will contradict each other and how evolution REQUIRES free-will to be non-existent, I don't know why I even talk to evolutionists, pseudoscientists, protoscientists.

79% of evolutionary biologists believing in free-will proves undoubtedly that evolutionists don't value evidence, or understand science in general.

Since evolutionists are unwilling to question the unbelievably weak evidence supporting evolution but willing to question the unbelievably concrete evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent this proves that evolutionists don't really care about evidence, they just believe in evolution because they're really biased towards evolution and really want to believe that it's true.

If you don't get how evolution and free-will contradict each other then this means you don't understand science in general (a theory which requires determinism with little to no entropy).

The evolutionists' idea of "proof" is authority and imaginations. The reasoning from evolutionists is that "authority figures say something is true and imagine that something is true, they don't need scientific evidence, that's proof".

The evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is repeatable experiments and direct observations (plus everything else in modern science) whereas almost all of the "evidence" supporting evolution is just imaginations.

The reason why I believe that free-will is non-existent is because of the evidence.
The reason why I believe that evolution is either false or very flawed is because of the evidence.

I go by evidence not imaginations and authority like evolutionists do.

I objectively measure how likely a claim is to be true by evidence, with repeatable experiments being the most concrete forms of evidence unlike the evolutionists' reasoning of authority and imaginations.

We have so many repeatable experiments and direct observations telling us that free-will is non-existent (Libet's experiment, TMS experiments, Reaction-Time experiments, observation that brain damage alters consciousness or kills, neurosurgery, observation that drugs and chemical reactions alter consciousness, etc...) plus everything every field of science requires free-will to be non-existent (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, neuroscience, etc...) and yet evolutionists question this evidence with unscientific junk but are unwilling to question the imaginations of evolutionists with valid scientific criticisms, this proves that evolutionists never cared about evidence.

Almost everything in the evolution theory has never been experimentally verified as real and is literally just imaginations and speculations, so since I'm an empiricist how can I take evolution seriously?

Evolutionists' imaginations kind of reminds me of the imaginations of many nutritionists or fad diet supporters or perpetual motion machine supporters or alternative medicine supporters.

People have to realize what evolutionists are trying to do to society. They're trying to make it so that actual scientific evidence doesn't matter as much as authority and incredulity, thereby throwing science back into pre-science days, pseudoscience, pipertimes.com....

The media would be outraged if Professors criticize evolution with valid scientific criticisms but the media has no issue with Professors questioning the evidence on free-will with unscientific crackpot junk.

Apparently you're allowed to criticize any other theory in science with unscientific

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's just a theory.

But perhaps when someone repeats it enough..

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

anyone who atempts to tell me "evolutionary biology = " just a theory" isa science illiterate idiot

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Perhaps a certain evolution exists, but when someone tries to convince me a particular non-existing deity made humans from fish I'm having doubts.

a reply to: dinbat54

Pure bunk. Completely dishonest to call yourself an empiricist yet ignore the mountains upon mountains of hard evidence supporting evolution. LOL @ this comedy.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Perhaps a certain evolution exists, but when someone tries to convince me a particular non-existing deity made humans from fish I'm having doubts.

Well yeah, because evolution theory doesn't state that. You are just repeating ignorance and ignoring all the evidence. A theory in science is the HIGHEST standard. Gravity, cells, germs, atoms are theories. Are you doubting those as well? Of course not, because you aren't honest. Science deniers NEVER are.

a reply to: dinbat54

after reading that garbage - i consider you a strict wingnut

a reply to: Barcs

Big bang - abiogenesis - fish - monkey - humans

I thought that was what evolution theory is about.