The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

...we may be on the cusp of simulating our own universe and assigning it its own properties. Complete with its own laws on how it will work.

Hollywood has been doing that for years. You may have noticed if you watch a lot of Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies and shows; along with the subtle* promotion of various evolutionary ideas/philosophies you run into in almost every blockbuster Sci-Fi movie out there, especially the superhero movies (X-men more so than the Avengers, perhaps that's in the eye of the beholder), but also the latest movies in the Alien film-series, Jurassic Park film-series (the latest sequals perhaps even more so than the earliest ones, again, in the eye of the beholder), obviously the Planet of the Apes film-series, Pacific Rim and the Maze Runner sequals (to a lesser extent), zombie movies, Tron: Legacy, Annihilation, Life, to name a few.

*: subtle, as in a line or concept here or there, but some movies are less subtle and more centered around the promotion or presentation of evolutionary ideas/philosophies for entertainment purposes and to cater to the market ('to tell them what they want to here'; 'to tickle their ears' as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4), such as the Planet of the Apes film-series, large sections of the latest Alien movies, and the movie "Life".

The minds of the masses are really bombarded with this stuff (see the reminder under my accountname), especially targeting kids and teenagers with this superhero mutation stuff. But I'm not just thinking about movies now.

Of course, the idea of a Super-man (or the potential of becoming one, or the idea that a particular race like Aryans already are more evolved than other races like Jews and darker skinned people; a way of thinking also related to the ridicule about some people not being evolved enough for certain conversations about evolutionary storylines or the teachings of the bible where they contradict a variety of popular ideas for example) has been an efficient lure in this marketing campaign for a while now:

But I don't remember this many massive blockbuster Super-man (superhero) movies in the 20th century.

Of course along with that (sometimes in the same movie) you have the promotion or presentation* of magic, witchcraft and new age (pagan) philosophies (usually those based on ancient Eastern philosophy, including Buddhism and Hinduism, so not that "new age" after all). "Dr. Strange" for example is centered around that.

*: for entertainment and intriguing purposes (tickling ears, catering to a particular increasing market or demand for it)

It's all very much 'in your face' as a development of circumstances (the market or demand for it, as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and other places).

Talking about mutations and what effect they actually have on living organisms in the longterm (the trend I mentioned something about in my previous comment in this thread):

originally posted by: cooperton
This makes it troublesome to say evolution occurs through genetic mutations, because the old gene gets ruined, along with the multitude of other functions that it had in synchrony with the rest of the physiology of the organism.

I'm not sure that it's correct to claim the "old gene gets ruined" as you say. But sure, if it turns out to be a mutation that affects the organism in such a way that it won't be able to survive to produce offspring, then that's said to be natural selection at work. To me though, this could just be an organism dying for any number of reasons and not necessarily because evolution is selecting against it for "x specific reason". This is my problem with this part of the theory. We can make up all sorts of reasons and stories as to why it died or why the others survived - which then allows us to say "see, this is natural selection". Like the famous Polar Bear example . We only assume it's white because when the mutant white bear appeared (as a descendant from the brown bear) it gave the advantage of camo against the snow which then allowed it to be more successful at hunting seals. So brown ones died off by not being able to sneak up on the seal, its only food source and thus died out from starvation.... Sounds like it makes sense. But there's literally no way to prove that. Evolutionary studies and textbooks are rife with this type of storytelling. If you ask me, I suspect the white coat was a "hitchhiker" trait that was the result of a more important, wider spread pleiotropic effect that occurred. Digging deeper into the polar bear's physiology will turn up some clues...(hint: it's ability to digest seal fat that the brown bear couldn't do)

I find it rare when just one trait bestows some overarching advantage or disadvantage (antibiotic resistance aside). In general, you have to look and consider the organism in its full morphological totality, as well as its ability to use its body and instincts (brain/mind). In other words it's really complex.

originally posted by: cooperton
The implications of this cannot be realized if you are zealously attached to the idea that "evolution did it". It is an anchor to the progress of philosophical thought.

I would imagine your issue is with speciation and how evolution does that.

originally posted by: cooperton
Here's a dilemma:

which came first, the protein coding gene, or the factors that maintains its homeostatic expression?

Is it dilemma because we simply don't know very much about the process that gave way to life and not necessarily because evolution doesn't occur?

Thought experiment: Suppose we find out one day that an alien race seeded this planet with the ingredients for life. (Not too farfetched of an idea.) What would that do to your religious viewpoint?

originally posted by: Phantom423
looks like you're the one with misconceptions. You have zero evidence that any one of your sources corroborates your opinions.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Utter nonsense. If someone comes with tevidence, it is evaluated.

The empirical evidence shows that epigenetic inheritance is the source of antibiotic resistance. If this is the case, then already set genes are the cause of the resistance, and not some novel genetic mutation. This is demonstrated by the fact that the population returns to non-resistance after the antibiotic is removed. Think for your self, and actually analyze those implications.

Your religious fervor for your deranged theory is astounding. You will believe anything the scientific priesthood says. You also have an elitist perspective where you mock and ridicule any dissenting opinions - we'll call it the inquisition. You don't seem to exhibit the ability to think on your own, but only blindly believe what you were taught growing up. Ironic, eh?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

I find it rare when just one trait bestows some overarching advantage or disadvantage (antibiotic resistance aside). In general, you have to look and consider the organism in its full morphological totality, as well as its ability to use its body and instincts (brain/mind). In other words it's really complex.

A complexity that insists that its genetic code was coded by a cause that knew what it was doing. Correct?

Thought experiment: Suppose we find out one day that an alien race seeded this planet with the ingredients for life. (Not too farfetched of an idea.) What would that do to your religious viewpoint?

The definition of alien would by my next question. Extraterrestrial or extradimensional? I believe in an extradimensional (time transcendent [i.e. alpha-omega]) being that is intimately linked with each individual, I think this is the Being that conceived our existence. It may seem alien at this time, but it will make more sense with coming realizations. Hypothetically if it were proven to be extraterrestrial, I would want to know their origin. From physics experiments, it appears matter is subserviant to energy and/or consciousness, so this would intuitively and logically be the likely origin of all matters

a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour, I am again going to point out. Epigenetics is accepted into modern evolutionary theory as one of the mechanisms. When these epigenetics changes are heritable, they can influence evolution. QED, this is evolution.

You have claimed in the past to hold degrees in science, you must remember somewhere in there, that new evidence will be evaluated an theories might change based on this evidence.

(a) Darwin did not no about the role DNA played. His theory mentions nothing about genetics. Because it was not a science.
(b) Watson and Crick had not idea about epigenetics. They did not incoporate this in any of their seminal works.
(c) Until the advent of high throughput sequencing in the 1990s, the idea of sequencing an entire genome was Science fiction at best. Second Generation machines made it reachable, and third generation made it affordable. SO much so, we are tackling genetic disorders head on.

This illustrates, the point I made. New evidence causes a reevaluation of theories. Science unlike theology does not claim to know it all. Again I point out I am a deeply religious individual. I'm just not a creationist (or a member of a monotheistic Abrahamic faith)

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The biggest problem is people tend to look from the present to the past and say that is impossible that everything aligned up so well to be random, so it must be intelligent design with this one specific branch. But, when you look from the past forward you see endless branches going off in endless directions that most end to nowhere and a few continue forward to form what life we see today.

The real problem is the time frame. Given enough time and opportunities, a tornado could eventually go through a junkyard and assemble some type of primitive working machine, but how long would we have to wait for that to happen?

The number of changes necessary to make complex structures is exponentially large. In the example from MSB above, it ignores that the flatworm eyes have likewise been evolving alongside all other life. In all likelihood there has been less pressure for the eyespots to develop, but they must have evolved to some degree since the time out ancestors and nematodes branched apart.

My best example is the dog and wolf. As subspecies they have been exposed to wildly different selective pressures over the last 25,000 - 40,000 years since mankind began to domesticate and develop all the types of dogs we see today, but they can still interbreed. If you consider that in such a time span that enough changes have not evolved to create a new species, how long does it actually take? If the last great extinction occurred 65,000,000 years ago and it takes longer than 25,000 years for a new species to emerge, then we've had...

65,000,000 divided by 25,000 = 2,600

... less than 2,600 iterations for mammals to have developed from the small rodents that survived the asteroid into the plethora of mammals we have today. Just imagine the number of changes for a proto-shrew to undergo enough mutations to become an elephant, sperm whale, giraffe, human, etc. True enough that smaller mammals breed faster and would have experienced more generations in the early millions of years, but as they grew larger the reproductive rates would have dropped off.

I'm not saying that evolution is not true to some degree, but there are some parts of it that we haven't figured out yet. Personally I think that there has to be some amount of viral/recombinant interaction that spreads the 'DNA Toolbox' among animal populations much more efficiently than generational change.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour, I am again going to point out. Epigenetics is accepted into modern evolutionary theory as one of the mechanisms. When these epigenetics changes are heritable, they can influence evolution. QED, this is evolution.

Can you admit this is an extreme change in goalposts though? Epigenetic inheritance is demonstrating aspects of Lamarckism, which were taboo, and even antithetical to evolutionary theory at one time. Now that epigenetic inheritance is a demonstrable fact, the goal posts need to be changed to hold on to the dear theory of evolution.

More research is necessary to totally understand these mechanisms, but the main reason I make these posts is to insist on an open mind, and not to be anchored by apparently out-dated belief systems. If evolution becomes obsolete due to overwhelming evidence, this should be exciting. This would mean our origins are more spectacular than the random working of matter.

a reply to: cooperton

why did you stop replying to me in your other thread? did you run out of ways to explain your intelligent design hypothesis?

a reply to: cooperton

Again, with feeling:

Science adapts to new evidence. I've explained this too you 4 times now. You refuse to acknowledge this.

Oh and yes more research is needed. That is what science does. You clearly do not understand science.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The number of changes necessary to make complex structures is exponentially large.

Is that like...astronomical? Or were you actually going for something factual?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Science adapts to new evidence. I've explained this too you 4 times now. You refuse to acknowledge this.

They're extremely slow to adapt to evidence that is contrary to mainstream theory. Which was my point

You clearly do not understand science.

You're a chauvinist. You mock or even ignore all dissenting viewpoints, even at pleas to actually converse and communicate with you. You compromise communication with others for your belief system. You are the thing you hate.

a reply to: cooperton

Ahh and your faith adapted to new evidence when? No seriously. You base your ideas on religion.

If an opposing view can provide evidence, I will evaluate it. You keep forgetting. I am a deeply religions individual. My Pagan faith is still part of my life. I just know how sceince works neighbour.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
looks like you're the one with misconceptions. You have zero evidence that any one of your sources corroborates your opinions.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Utter nonsense. If someone comes with tevidence, it is evaluated.

The empirical evidence shows that epigenetic inheritance is the source of antibiotic resistance. If this is the case, then already set genes are the cause of the resistance, and not some novel genetic mutation. This is demonstrated by the fact that the population returns to non-resistance after the antibiotic is removed. Think for your self, and actually analyze those implications.

Your religious fervor for your deranged theory is astounding. You will believe anything the scientific priesthood says. You also have an elitist perspective where you mock and ridicule any dissenting opinions - we'll call it the inquisition. You don't seem to exhibit the ability to think on your own, but only blindly believe what you were taught growing up. Ironic, eh?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

I find it rare when just one trait bestows some overarching advantage or disadvantage (antibiotic resistance aside). In general, you have to look and consider the organism in its full morphological totality, as well as its ability to use its body and instincts (brain/mind). In other words it's really complex.

A complexity that insists that its genetic code was coded by a cause that knew what it was doing. Correct?

Thought experiment: Suppose we find out one day that an alien race seeded this planet with the ingredients for life. (Not too farfetched of an idea.) What would that do to your religious viewpoint?

The definition of alien would by my next question. Extraterrestrial or extradimensional? I believe in an extradimensional (time transcendent [i.e. alpha-omega]) being that is intimately linked with each individual, I think this is the Being that conceived our existence. It may seem alien at this time, but it will make more sense with coming realizations. Hypothetically if it were proven to be extraterrestrial, I would want to know their origin. From physics experiments, it appears matter is subserviant to energy and/or consciousness, so this would intuitively and logically be the likely origin of all matters

If no mutations occur, then explain the paper in my link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423

If no mutations occur, then explain the paper in my link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Haha what? Did you read the paper? That is one of the papers that are presenting the idea of epigenetic inheritance - inheritance that does not involve a genetic mutation. Which may very well be most, if not all, types of observed population adaptation mechanisms:

"Once the bacteria have become resistant, when the antibiotic is removed from the medium, a fraction as large as 95% of the population becomes susceptible again “almost immediately” according to Adam. et al [1], or in less than 100 generations according to George and Levy [3]. These results are incompatible with the hypothesis that genetic mutation is the sole cause of adaptive resistance, as otherwise i) the emergence of the resistant phenotype would be a sudden (or step wise discontinuous) event instead of appearing gradually [8]; and also ii) the resistant phenotype would not be easily reversible. For this to happen, back mutations would be required in the originally altered bases (or a compensatory mutation somewhere else), which is estimated to occur with an extremely low probability (10−9 or less)"

(^from your source)

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

If no mutations occur, then explain the paper in my link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Haha what? Did you read the paper? That is one of the papers that are presenting the idea of epigenetic inheritance - inheritance that does not involve a genetic mutation. Which may very well be most, if not all, types of observed population adaptation mechanisms:

"Once the bacteria have become resistant, when the antibiotic is removed from the medium, a fraction as large as 95% of the population becomes susceptible again “almost immediately” according to Adam. et al [1], or in less than 100 generations according to George and Levy [3]. These results are incompatible with the hypothesis that genetic mutation is the sole cause of adaptive resistance, as otherwise i) the emergence of the resistant phenotype would be a sudden (or step wise discontinuous) event instead of appearing gradually [8]; and also ii) the resistant phenotype would not be easily reversible. For this to happen, back mutations would be required in the originally altered bases (or a compensatory mutation somewhere else), which is estimated to occur with an extremely low probability (10−9 or less)"

(^from your source)

From the same source where you glossed over any reference to mutations because it interferes with your epigenetic warriorism-

A retrospective molecular survey on 580 isolates collected from 1997 to 2012 identified all C350R mutant parasites as being CQS. This mutation emerged in 2002 and rapidly spread throughout the P. falciparum population. The C350R allele is also associated with a significant decrease in piperaquine susceptibility in vitro, suggesting that piperaquine pressure in addition to potential fitness costs associated with the 7G8-type CQR pfcrt allele may have selected for this mutation. These findings have important implications for understanding the evolutionary dynamics of antimalarial drug resistance.

It would seem it's not nearly as open and closed as you would have people believe. Especially when you make statements,based entirely on your personal conjecture, with nothing to support them like the one inferring that epigenetics may very well be most, if not all, types of observed population adaptation mechanisms. You pulled that one out of your ass and can't support it. Let me guess... It's those damned scientists fault that epigenetics isn't at the forefront of evolutionary theory. It's not the 100's of thousands of papers and studies demonstrating that genetic inheritance is a major factor in evolution thst are in the way, it's those damned paradigmatic evolutionists who are all somehow in collusion with one another right? The only people who believe in a unified front for evolutionary biology or any other scientific discipline for that matter, are those who have never studied, worked in or attended a conference. Go to one conference and you will see that there is anything but a singular unified front.

originally posted by: peter vlar
based entirely on your personal conjecture

No, my conjecture was based on the evidence of epigenetic inheritance - Just like any other hypothesis is based on empirical data. If my opinion infuriates you so much, consider going on a walk in nature?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
You base your ideas on religion.

You actually don't know my path at all. Here's a summary:

Catholic--->atheist--->agnostic--->Christian

Through each step, and throughout my entire life, I have always pursued knowledge based on logic. All my thoughts I express are based on logic. Evolution became a philosophical dead end and I came to realize it no longer fit empirical evidence, or personal experience with how the world works.

a reply to: cooperton

hah, you went in a big circle. like most people who are lost in the woods.

a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour. I have yet to meet an atheist creationist. None the less, you clearly identify as a Christian (Catholics are Christians too).

As I repeatedly state I'm a Pagan. Mine is Agnostic to Athiest to NeoPagan Druid to Celtic reconststructionist. The first two were while I was in High School. the more I experience life, the more devout I become However my faith embraces inspiration (Imbas) via gaining knowledge. Thus I have no issue with Science and my faith.

You clearly however do not understand science. As evidenced by your citation NOT saying what you think it does.

a reply to: cooperton

That was a beautiful deflection away from addressing the fact that you entirely misinterpret data to fit your biases. The citation that you think supports only epigenetics and that mutations played no role at all, doesn't. It says the opposite of what you claim. Well played.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You clearly however do not understand science. As evidenced by your citation NOT saying what you think it does.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
The citation that you think supports only epigenetics and that mutations played no role at all, doesn't. It says the opposite of what you claim. Well played.

My claim was that epigenetic inheritance plays a key role in the adaptive mechanisms of populations. That is exactly what that paper is saying. You guys will literally argue anything I say, blindly. I can understand you disagree with my conclusions that this is evidence against evolutionary theory, but you can't argue that the paper is demonstrating that population adaptation is orchestrated by epigenetic inheritance.

Obviously evolutionary theorists will move the goalposts again, because "evolution did it". No real empirical due process, just the magical wand. "it was done, therefore evolution did it"

a reply to: cooperton

I am of the belief that we shouldn't just have two sides to this debate. It seems that someone is either has to be a proponent of Evolution or Creationism. What about a combination of both? I believe that Evolution, which should be called Progressive Evolution, is God's time/space technique for creation. I look at it like a self adapting biochemical program that auto-adjusts to the environmental needs of the given organism for its planetary situation. But all this was pre-planned prior to life initiation or implantation. Life can either be brought to a planet or initiated from the planet.

Life does not spontaneously appear in the universe. Life on the planets of space is not an accident. It is purposely started on worlds that can support life. It is designed to evolve to culminate in a creature of will dignity (Human). Life can exist on a wide range of planetary types. Also remember that life only springs from pre-existing life.

From the initial life implantation, which is usually done in at least 3 separate locations on the planet, all life evolves. Both plant and animal. Life is designed to make the planet a self sustaining bio-machine. Life is fostered from behind the scenes by those entrusted with such duties. That is until a creature with Will dignity appears, which means the mind abilities of Worship and Wisdom. At that point all external influence is terminated and life must continue on its own from that point forward.