Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Barcs

Amazing how people think 4.5 BILLION years isn't enough time without even bothering to show any calculations.

Yeah it's funny, they just dismiss it, throwing the study I posted right out the window. Oh yeah, 4.5 billion, that's nothing! It's impossible! They don't even have the slightest comprehension of how long that actually is, yet poo poo it away. When they talk about fundamental forces, they need to realize that it really took 13 billion years for all of that to happen. For the average person in their 30s, 4.5 billion years is almost 150 million times longer than they have been alive. They just don't realize how many generations that is, especially considering that millions of species occupy the earth during most of the history of life, AND that many species run their full life courses within a few months to a year. Take one species like that and that's at least 1 generation per year. Times that by a million (there are 8-9 million species alive today on earth). That's 1 million generations per year for short lived creatures, multiply that by just 400 million years (post Cambrian period) and you get almost 4 billion generations. Humans are one of the few that feature 20-30 year generations, so to even think of it in comparison to human life spans doesn't do it justice. There are literally millions of species out there living and giving birth every year with genetic mutations. There is more than ample time for evolution, whether you look at it through common sense, or break down the numbers like in the study.

a reply to: Barcs

Yeah... Except the link you posted didn't prove anything. My concerns weren't addressed, and apparently there are more people with the same concern, which can actually word it better than I can.

Their model does not mimic natural selection at all. In one generation, according to the model, some number of potentially adaptive mutations may occur, each most likely in a different individual. W&E postulate that these mutations remain in the population and are not changed. Contrary to their intention, this event is not yet evolution, because the mutations have occurred only in single individuals and have not become characteristic of the population. Moreover, W&E have ignored the important fact that a single mutation, even if it has a large selection coefficient, has a high probability of disappearing through random effects[4]. They allow further mutations only in those loci that have not mutated into the "superior" form. It is not clear if they intended that mutations be forbidden in those mutated loci only in those individuals that have the mutation or in other individuals as well. They have ignored the fact that evolution does not occur until an adaptive mutation has taken over the population and thereby becomes a characteristic of the population. Their letter-guessing game is more a parody of the evolutionary process than a model of it. They have not achieved their second goal either.

Thus their conclusion that "there's plenty of time for evolution" is unsubstantiated. The probability calculation to justify evolutionary theory remains unaddressed.

www.trueorigin.org...
Info on the writer

Don't know why I bother posting this anyway. It's gonna go on deaf ears since the bias is too strong in this group. But, I'm glad I confirmed for myself that I can actually think and comprehend the arguments presented from either side, rather than being on repeat mode without understanding anything.

a reply to: vasaga

The day I want a physicist's opinion on modern evolutionary synthesis is the day i want an evolutionary biologist's opinion on quantum mechanics. Nice appeal to authority, there.


When a scientist says something that appeals to your beliefs, he's "credible".

When the scientific community says something that runs contrary to your beliefs, it's "scientism".

Hypocrite.

a reply to: GetHyped

When we're talking about calculations, I trust a physicist way more than a biologist. Why? Because physicists deal with calculations daily, and their experience with it can more easily discern what the calculations actually mean.
And, we should actually stop looking at all these subjects as being completely separate. If you somehow think physics has no influence on biology, try jumping from a skyscraper to see whether physics has an influence on your biological body.

Even more so, information science is gaining ground, and slowly but surely the information problem is creeping up into evolution. You can pretend it's not there or that it's delusional or that it has no effect or that it's made up creationist mumbo jumbo, but it will come up.

As for your hypocrite argument, your first two sentences are REALLY ironic

And the rest, well, it puts you in the same boat as me. When a scientist says something that appeals to your beliefs, he's "credible". When the scientific community says something that runs contrary to your beliefs, it's "creationism".

See how that works? These pokes don't help the discussion. Discuss the content or don't discuss at all.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah... Except the link you posted didn't prove anything. My concerns weren't addressed, and apparently there are more people with the same concern, which can actually word it better than I can.

Their model does not mimic natural selection at all. In one generation, according to the model, some number of potentially adaptive mutations may occur, each most likely in a different individual. W&E postulate that these mutations remain in the population and are not changed. Contrary to their intention, this event is not yet evolution, because the mutations have occurred only in single individuals and have not become characteristic of the population. Moreover, W&E have ignored the important fact that a single mutation, even if it has a large selection coefficient, has a high probability of disappearing through random effects[4]. They allow further mutations only in those loci that have not mutated into the "superior" form. It is not clear if they intended that mutations be forbidden in those mutated loci only in those individuals that have the mutation or in other individuals as well. They have ignored the fact that evolution does not occur until an adaptive mutation has taken over the population and thereby becomes a characteristic of the population. Their letter-guessing game is more a parody of the evolutionary process than a model of it. They have not achieved their second goal either.

Thus their conclusion that "there's plenty of time for evolution" is unsubstantiated. The probability calculation to justify evolutionary theory remains unaddressed.

www.trueorigin.org...
Info on the writer

Don't know why I bother posting this anyway. It's gonna go on deaf ears since the bias is too strong in this group. But, I'm glad I confirmed for myself that I can actually think and comprehend the arguments presented from either side, rather than being on repeat mode without understanding anything.

Trueorigin.org, really? So regurgitating something from an anti evolution site means you can think and comprehend the arguments? Where's the peer reviewed scientific research paper that confirms these claims? Why is it that you instantly dismiss the ACTUAL science paper and it's calculations that have been peer reviewed over a single person's claim from a clearly biased site? You intentionally ignore every study that agrees with evolution while thinking every single anti evolution rant is dead on accurate. And yet you call everyone else biased. That's hilarious, I'm sorry.

When we're talking about calculations, I trust a physicist way more than a biologist.

When we're talking about evolution, I trust a biologist. Calculations are done in all fields of science. And peer review matters. Wild creationist claims backed by nothing do not.

originally posted by: Barcs

Trueorigin.org, really? So regurgitating something from an anti evolution site means you can think and comprehend the arguments?

The argument I used against you that you didn't actually comprehend, I came up with it myself. I simply was sent that article by someone on here, confirming my problems with the so-called calculation, and the physicist had the same concern as me. I'm not the one who's regurgitating. You're the one that's constantly regurgitating everything you have been taught about evolution. If you were actually capable of thinking for yourself, you'd be questioning as much as I am. But in your world, questioning evolution is not allowable, because that's the foundation of your emotional stability.

originally posted by: Barcs
Where's the peer reviewed scientific research paper that confirms these claims?

Every time I post one you dismiss it anyway. You think adaptive mutation is a fantasy. Even though there are enough papers on it.

originally posted by: Barcs
Why is it that you instantly dismiss the ACTUAL science paper

Where 'actual' means 'what Barcs believes in' right? And where exactly did I instantly dismiss anything? I asked you a bunch of questions you couldn't answer. I didn't dismiss anything instantly. I dismissed it since you couldn't explain the questions accordingly. It's something you people tout on about constantly. "If you can't prove it I have no reason to believe in it". That's your mantra right? But when I do the same thing, I'm the one that's dismissing things instantly. And then you call me a hypocrite. Very funny.

originally posted by: Barcs
and it's calculations that have been peer reviewed over a single person's claim from a clearly biased site?

Oh really? I didn't see any indication that it's actually peer-reviewed. But even if that's the case, if it's the church reviewing something about Jesus, of course we wouldn't expect any objective review, but delusional support of imagined bliss.

originally posted by: Barcs
You intentionally ignore every study that agrees with evolution while thinking every single anti evolution rant is dead on accurate. And yet you call everyone else biased. That's hilarious, I'm sorry.

Same goes for you. You intentionally ignore every study that disagrees with conventional darwinian evolution while thinking every single pro darwinian evolution rant is dead on accurate.

originally posted by: Barcs
When we're talking about evolution, I trust a biologist. Calculations are done in all fields of science. And peer review matters. Wild creationist claims backed by nothing do not.

Peer review only matters where it suits your needs. When I posted the long list of peer reviewed papers saying that the cambrian explosion is sudden, it didn't matter to you that they were peer-reviewed. I was the one that was 'misrepreseting' something even though what I said was clearly stated multiple times. Your bias is uncanny.

originally posted by: vasaga
The argument I used against you that you didn't actually comprehend, I came up with it myself. I simply was sent that article by someone on here, confirming my problems with the so-called calculation, and the physicist had the same concern as me. I'm not the one who's regurgitating. You're the one that's constantly regurgitating everything you have been taught about evolution. If you were actually capable of thinking for yourself, you'd be questioning as much as I am. But in your world, questioning evolution is not allowable, because that's the foundation of your emotional stability.

I just go by what the peer reviewed science research papers say, as multiple experts have checked and reviewed the math. The negative mutations are irrelevant because they don't become dominant and usually do not get passed down. The study is on populations, not individuals. What matters is how long it takes for a a trait to become dominant.

Every time I post one you dismiss it anyway. You think adaptive mutation is a fantasy. Even though there are enough papers on it.

You have posted a peer reviewed science paper? I must have missed it. Could you link it again, please?

Where 'actual' means 'what Barcs believes in' right? And where exactly did I instantly dismiss anything? I asked you a bunch of questions you couldn't answer. I didn't dismiss anything instantly. I dismissed it since you couldn't explain the questions accordingly. It's something you people tout on about constantly. "If you can't prove it I have no reason to believe in it". That's your mantra right? But when I do the same thing, I'm the one that's dismissing things instantly. And then you call me a hypocrite. Very funny.

Actual means backed and confirmed via peer review. If I didn't answer the questions, then they were either irrelevant or you didn't like my answers. If I missed them, I'm sorry. I DID however, address the reason negative mutations are not factored in as heavily in the equations. You didn't like my answer, but yet haven't said anything to counter it.

originally posted by: Barcs
Oh really? I didn't see any indication that it's actually peer-reviewed. But even if that's the case, if it's the church reviewing something about Jesus, of course we wouldn't expect any objective review, but delusional support of imagined bliss.

Science doesn't work like that. You don't have a guy just make a wild claim with no evidence and then people start following his word blindly. Scientists scrutinize and question everything. That is why peer review is so important. If you write a research paper, you will get immediate scrutiny with folks duplicating and double checking everything. PNAS only publishes peer reviewed studies.

PNAS wiki

All research papers published in PNAS are peer-reviewed.[1] The standard mode is for papers to be submitted directly to PNAS rather than going through an Academy member.

Article about paper

Suppose for a moment that a computer's password is 12 letters long. Simple math dictates that because there are 12 characters in the password and 26 letters in the alphabet, there are approximately 10,000,000,000,000,000 (26 to the 12th power) possible iterations of the password.

One way to hack this password would be to guess a random string of 12 letters and keep doing so until the right combination was found. That process, however, would take an extremely long time.

A better strategy, Wilf said, would be to use a "spy." After each guess, the spy could tell the hacker which, if any, of the 12 letters were correct. If, for instance, the spy told the hacker that two of the 12 letters were correct, it would leave only 10 letters to be discovered. Extrapolate that spying-and-guessing process over the entire hack attempt, and it's clear that the amount of time required would be greatly reduced.

"When you have this spy inside, it means that each letter is essentially operating independently in the [password] you're trying to guess," Wilf said. "Instead of trying to worry about the whole word, you just have to worry about each letter individually. When you get it right, it stays there; it doesn't change."

Simple, Wilf said. In the case of evolution, the hacker is evolution itself. The password is the string of codons that describes, for example, a butterfly. And the spy is natural selection.
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.

"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.

“In the paper, these ideas are precisely quantified, according to this model, and the extent of the speedup is found. It is enormous, and shows that there is indeed plenty of time for evolution."

Here is a pretty good explanation. The wrong mutations don't matter because they are tossed away in most cases. The study is in reference to how long traits become dominant in the population. That's where natural selection comes in, and that's why many evolutionary changes can happen in a seemingly short time frame. Many do not, however, because it depends on the environment. Sometimes a trait might be very rare until a group gets wiped out.

Same goes for you. You intentionally ignore every study that disagrees with conventional darwinian evolution while thinking every single pro darwinian evolution rant is dead on accurate.

I've never seen a peer reviewed study that conflicts with evolution. Could you post it?

originally posted by: Barcs
Peer review only matters where it suits your needs. When I posted the long list of peer reviewed papers saying that the cambrian explosion is sudden, it didn't matter to you that they were peer-reviewed. I was the one that was 'misrepreseting' something even though what I said was clearly stated multiple times. Your bias is uncanny.

Why do you keep bringing this up, while completely ignoring my response to this point that you didn't even respond to? It's a red herring, and nitpicking terminology has nothing to do with it. You still haven't explained why 20 million years isn't enough time. Sudden can be a relative term, it matters not. You just embrace that one word as if it totally makes your ridiculous argument correct. I'd like an explanation to my request that I originally made pages ago. Please explain your argument with numbers and facts as to why 20 million years cannot account for the diversity in the cambrian explosion.

a reply to: stuff1

Evolution is a change in any species, its what has set everyone and everything away from each other. The changes take hundreds of thousands of generations to take effect, because of the change of maybe one out of about 6 billion human genes. For other animals that reproduce faster or more frequently, the changes may happen every few ten thousand years or so. Its not that evolution is illogical, its been a part of every species' nature since the first animal cell. We are all from a common ancestor, geneticists have proved that by showing how humans and so many other species share some of the same genes. What you are basically saying is that we blatantly refuse to understand God and the Bible, and instead believe something that is right in front of our eyes??

I saw a pretty good article about this recently:

Darwin’s theory of evolution: good science or faulty philosophy?

It goes into how the theory of evolution does not seem very logical, when you take the time to look at it scientifically, and how the theory seemingly did not originate with Charles Darwin at all. Seems like a well-written article, and maybe useful to show some people, if you're open to the article's conclusions of course.

a reply to: nottwoispeacefan

Howdy,

First, let me just say that Darwin was not the first person to propose evolution. Second, he had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance, and was thus incorrect about several things. Third, science has advanced a great deal since Darwin, and modern evolutionary theory is quite different from Darwin;s, most notably involving genes. Fourth, that article started out all right, but it went downhill pretty quickly. I find it difficult to believe that a student of genetics would call anything "Darwinism" and am indeed very skeptical of the credibility of the author, who remains anonymous behind a screen name.

That said, some of the points in the article are valid, such as the description of scientific theories constantly being changed and refined... That said, I find a lot of the information to be of the caliber of common arguments from ignorance (such as irreducible complexity or suggesting that DNA's origins being unexplained refute evolution...). Do not be offended, but this article is pretty bad in those regards...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Thanks, Hydeman, for sharing your opinions.

I don't think the article depends on its author's credibility or status. So I wouldn't worry about that so much. Sometimes people with the most status or supposed credibility can still be wrong or make mistakes. Which is what I love about thinking for oneself. It's great to experiment with sometimes.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what else to say. Most of your problems with the article seem to be things I can't help you with. If you think it's ignorant to question the idea of evolution, but you won't say why, then I guess I must bid you good day and good luck.

At first I thought you were saying that modern biology disproved the theory of evolution, but eventually by the end of your comment I deduced that you still do believe in evolution. Well, good for you. It's good to have faith in something, I suppose. Evolution just isn't for me, I've decided.

a reply to: nottwoispeacefan

Modern biology is built on evolution. Modern biology wouldn't exist without evolution. Not sure why you would think that modern biology disproves evolution. You will find no biologist saying this because it's like saying that modern biology disproves germ theory. It doesn't make any sense at all.

BTW an argument from ignorance is in the form "We don't know X, therefore Y is true" when X and Y are completely unrelated positions. Creationists commonly employ this fallacy. For example, "We can't explain every step of life's origins, therefore god created it". No. Not being able to explain in detail life's origins doesn't suddenly make creationism true.

a reply to: nottwoispeacefan

I love to share, and more than that, I love to learn.

This may be straying a bit off topic, but let's discuss your source a little. The author dedicates a decent portion of his article to his description of his education. He says he had learned evolution in high school (which is neat, as my biology teacher in high school adamantly opposed it and refused to teach it.), and later became an undergrad involved in genetics research. Yes, what he says has more sway because he has experience in the field, so he says... I would argue that anyone calling anyone a Darwinist has little idea of what evolution actually is. Don't get me wrong, lots of highly educated people make mistakes. But that article only has sway because of the draw of it being written by a student from a "major university."

As for the first part of my message, yes. Darwin's theory of evolution has been proven incorrect by modern biology. Like I said, his ideas on inheritance were severely lacking. Sure, he got a lot right, but wrong is wrong. But modern evolutionary synthesis? Top notch. Got the genetic angle down pretty well. The point I was trying to make is simply that ideas, when wrong, will be changed by science. We have come a long way since Darwin. (Except his work on barnacles... anatomy doesn't change over the course of a few lifetimes... )

Don't put words in my mouth, though. It is by questioning Darwin's theory of evolution that we have moved beyond it, changed it, refined it. I wholeheartedly support the questioning of all grey areas, unknowns, and primitive concepts. That's how science grows. In fact, I think it is ignorant to assume one thing cannot be false and should not be questioned.

If you wish to assert that I have faith in anything, say that I have faith in the scientific method, but do not accuse me of having faith in evolution. Thank you.

Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: nottwoispeacefan
Thanks, Hydeman, for sharing your opinions.

I don't think the article depends on its author's credibility or status. So I wouldn't worry about that so much. Sometimes people with the most status or supposed credibility can still be wrong or make mistakes. Which is what I love about thinking for oneself. It's great to experiment with sometimes.

I can't comment on the author, but the article itself is full of fallacies. I'll let you decide whether these fallacies are intentional or simply misunderstandings in my breakdown below.

If you think it's ignorant to question the idea of evolution, but you won't say why, then I guess I must bid you good day and good luck.

At first I thought you were saying that modern biology disproved the theory of evolution, but eventually by the end of your comment I deduced that you still do believe in evolution. Well, good for you. It's good to have faith in something, I suppose. Evolution just isn't for me, I've decided.

Evolution isn't a belief system, thus faith is not required to accept it as reality, just like with gravity or atomic theory. When you say that, you are essentially slapping thousands of biologists in the face and saying that their careers are a lie. It's not something that's out there on the table that's up for debate or interpretation. While some of the details are still being worked out, it's perfectly valid, both logically and scientifically and is not up for debate in the scientific community. A common creationist lie is to suggest that evolution is a belief system or the opposite of creationism. Neither is true. Evolution also does not disprove god.

the idea that as humans we evolved from lizards and microbes through a process of competition and violence, with the strong surviving while the weaker members of the species die off in the struggle for life.

This is a broad generalization. Humans didn't evolve from lizards, they evolved from a previous hominid ancestor. While you can go back far enough and eventually get to reptiles, it's easy to just say that a lizard became a human and shake your head in disbelief when you ignore all the intermediate steps. Calling evolution a process of competition and violence is like saying that nature is a process of competition and violence. Humans eating beef or chicken is a process of violence, but nobody's claiming chickens and cows do not exist or are inherently bad. It's just the way the world is.

I feel I have to say this because I find that when I try to talk about Darwinism with some people, their eyes glaze over and they start panicking and saying things like:

Evolution HAS to be true because the only alternative is an old man up in the sky, with a white beard.

Nobody calls modern evolutionary synthesis "Darwinism," aside from creationists that try to attack its credibility by acting like Darwin was the be all end all of evolution. The theory has changed drastically from Darwin's time. And I've NEVER once heard an evolution defender claim it's true because the alternative is god. This guy is obviously pushing an agenda here. All you have to do is read through a few threads in this section. Nobody claims evolution is true because the idea of god is silly. While some do ridicule creationists, they do it because they post factually inaccurate statements and when evidence to the contrary is posted they ignore it.

2. Meet some scientists

He cites 2 scientists of thousands and claims it proves his viewpoint on evolution. This is called the appeal to authority fallacy. Scientists can have beliefs or opinions and can be wrong. Instead of referencing scientists opinions, he should be referencing peer review scientific research papers and experiments.

Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?…

“Evolution” not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge…3

I really don't understand what these 2 quote mines have to do with the validity of evolution. It sounds like they were taken completely out of context. They didn't link anything to the actual speech so it could be analyzed in its proper context, they referenced a creationist website that claims the quote is true. If this was actually true then why aren't more biologists coming forward? Quote mining is a fallacy.

Do you see the distinction? Darwinism – right or wrong – proposes to explain the origin of life itself, as well as the origin of entire classes of plants and animals.

False. It does not propose the origin of life itself, only the diversity of life on earth.

Selective breeding, by contrast, merely selects traits that are already in the gene pool – it doesn’t create new genes or turn one species into another. Nobody has selectively bred birds and been able to get a dog as a result.

This statement shows a complete fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Changes are usually small, because it is a slight change to the genetic code of the creature. Of course you're never going to breed birds for hundreds of years and get a dog! Think of it like changing one line of computer code in program. You don't get an entire new program, you get a tiny difference. However, after changing various lines code so many times over so many years, the program will function much differently than it used to. By the way, humans can't expect to breed dogs for a few thousands years and suddenly get a cat. A change of that magnitude would take millions of years with multiple environmental changes and extinction causing events.

As human beings, we devise theories to help us explain what we observe. But can a theory ever be proven 100% true? Technically, no, because tomorrow’s evidence may disprove today’s theory. So strictly speaking a theory can never be “proven” – only disproven, or tentatively accepted so long as it fits the facts.

Complete hogwash. Scientific theories do not come about until the phenomena in question is proven. Theories are based on facts. Of course no theory can ever be proven 100% true because it is huge, but the process it is referring to IS proven. Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection is proven. The theory obviously tries to explain this fact, so you may have small parts of the theory change or update over time, as new hypotheses are introduced and experiments are run.

Likewise, the history of science is filled with one theory after another either being refined or scrapped as new evidence comes in. Theories themselves are not considered “sacred” – they are merely one part of the scientific method.

I'd LOVE to see some examples of scientific theories (not hypotheses like flat earth or other nonsense believed in ancient times before the scientific method) that have been completely scrapped. Of course they aren't sacred and the great thing about science is that when new discoveries are made the theories get updated accordingly.

5. Common DNA sequences – do they prove Darwinism?

eveloce.scienceblog.com...

It's not JUST DNA that proves evolution it's the fact that it confirms everything we suspected about the fossil record.

more

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties… must assuredly have existed.7
- Charles Darwin

And they do:

en.wikipedia.org...

Then they mention the Piltdown man hoax, but mysteriously neglect the 20 other valid species that have been found between ancient ape and modern human. Why not ardipithicus ramidus, homo habilis, homo neanderthalensis, homo rhodensius, homo heidelbergensis, afarensis or the countless others? This isn't biased at all. Scientists are the ones that discovered Piltdown man was a hoax and that doesn't come close to proving evolution false.

I just did a search to see if there are any other evolutionary links between apes and humans that have been put forward in the last century or two – because I remember hearing about this stuff all the time when I was a teenager. No – nothing credible has ever been put forward, that I could find.

Completely false and a blatant lie. He must not have looked well because 20+ links between modern humans and our ancient apelike ancestor have been found. They mention more hoaxes, but these don't matter, because there are tons of them that are real and scientifically valid. Thanks to those hoaxes, the scrutiny level for these discoveries is much higher now.

If I knew of any fossil (showing an evolutionary link between human and ape) I would certainly have included them in my book. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.

en.wikipedia.org...

Whoops. So much for that lie.

7. Evidence that disproves evolution: irreducible complexity

I'm not going to go into a point by point debunk on this as it has already been done. There is nothing in the natural world that can be scientifically proven to be irreducibly complex. This is a common creationist lie.

www.talkorigins.org...

Here's a very good article that debunks Behe's IC claims with multiple sources and citations.

The modern theory of evolution says that living organisms happened by chance, through a series of random mutations which, over time, somehow created life in the first place, and then led to better and better organisms

This is false and I already explain it above. Evolution is about genetic mutations and natural selection. Not the origin of life.

Say you have a little bacterium guy. The little guy is doing great, living and thriving and reproducing, and then something happens – a mutation. The theory of evolution says that this one mutation, this single error – like a single bug in a piece of computer software – causes the little guy to suddenly have next-order abilities and survival powers that it never had before.

It's not just about a single mutation, it's about numerous mutations. Every time an organism reproduces there are dozens to hundreds of genetic mutations. Many of these mutations go unnoticed for thousands of generations, until they combine with others to give an organism a survival advantage. You don't suddenly have a rate give birth to a rat with wings. Something like that would take millions of years and numerous environmental changes and extinctions. There are many types of mutations, they aren't all negative.

It’s like if you drop your laptop and damage a sector on the hard drive. But you find that, instead of causing problems, your laptop now has 10 brand-new fully-functional and extremely elegant apps on it that never existed before.

That analogy is absurd and irrelevant. That isn't how evolution works. Think of it like altering a line of code. If you change one line of code, it isn't going to change much in the overall program. BUT, if you change multiple lines of code over time and use it with different environments (types of computers) the program will begin to look more different. The changes may happen slowly but the end product can be much different than the original. It's like going from MS-DOS to Windows 8. Did that happen overnight? Did a random computer bug cause that, or did the program change over time, a little bit each release?

Here’s the thing about mutations: they make you worse off, they don’t improve your genetics. This is why we don’t move to Chernobyl to raise our families.

The arguments just get worse. There are many different types of mutations and they aren't all bad.

Natural selection does not explain the origin of life or the origin of DNA, so this is another problem with the theory of evolution – a problem which Charles Darwin did not address.

Origin of life / DNA is NOT evolution. Genetic mutations are a huge part of evolution and you can't have genetic mutations without DNA. And of course Darwin didn't address that, during his days we didn't even know DNA existed. This is how you can tell somebody is being deceptive. They refer to evolutionary theory as it was 100+ years ago, rather than what it is today. Calling it "Darwinism" and making up problems that have already been solved do not disprove anything about evolution.

To replace the theory of evolution, some scientists have coined the term “intelligent design”. It’s not a theory or an explanation, as I understand it, nor is it a theological dogma. In fact it doesn’t answer or explain anything!

Intelligent design is a term coined by creationists NOT scientists. It is not a scientific theory, it's creationism in disguise being peddled as science, when there is no objective evidence whatsoever in favor of it.

As I understand it, it’s basically a phrase that a few scientists used in some papers and books when they found that evolutionary theory didn’t match reality and yet they still were expected to use words to summarize their findings.

I'd LOVE to see a citation on this. There aren't any scientific papers that suggest evolution is wrong.

I'm not addressing the politics section, it's completely irrelevant to the validity of evolution and it's clear the author of the article is lying to promote his agenda. He has not actually addressed a single part of the actual theory of modern synthesis. Not a SINGLE PART. That speaks volumes. If you wish to disprove a scientific theory, you need evidence that falsifies it or an alternative theory backed by evidence. Neither of these exists and not a single peer reviewed science paper has ever gone against evolution yet he says, "My conclusion is that, from a scientific perspective evolution is completely untrue. It appears that as human beings we absolutely did not evolve from apes, and apes did not evolve from lizards or microbes or dirt. This absolutely did not happen."

LMAO. I'm sorry but how can you say that without addressing ANY of the science?

You cannot have two lizards mate and have a baby monkey be born to them with brand new genes that come out of thin air.

LMAO. It gets worse! If this happened it would DISPROVE evolution.

Natural selection and random mutations do not create brand new genes – not all at once and not through a gradual process over generations. This has been shown to be scientifically impossible by the scientists quoted in this article, and many others besides.

How can you say it's scientifically impossible without addressing the science? This is why attacking evolution is completely unjustified and irrational.

I think evolution is about as an infallible scientific theory as you can get. Study evolutionary psychology and then examine yourself and more importantly, those within your surroundings. It fits like a glove. We can watch species (and out own species) evolve with our very own eyes.

Think of it like altering a line of code. If you change one line of code, it isn't going to change much in the overall program. BUT, if you change multiple lines of code over time and use it with different environments (types of computers) the program will begin to look more different. The changes may happen slowly but the end product can be much different than the original. It's like going from MS-DOS to Windows 8. Did that happen overnight? Did a random computer bug cause that, or did the program change over time, a little bit each release?

Are you suggesting that someone or something intentionally rewrote the DNA of lizards to turn them into monkeys?

Usually evolution-believers say that evolution happens through random chance. The DNA is damaged, it gets repaired. No mutations get passed on to the next generation.

But in rare cases, a bad mutation does get passed on, which causes serious problems.

Somehow, an entire new gene (miraculously) pops into existence.

Again, I think evolution is a beautiful idea, a beautiful theory, a beautiful belief system. I used to believe in it myself. I just don't see any evidence for it, in terms of intermediate species nor any evidence on a molecular level that it can happen.

Shouldn't people who propose this theory be encouraged to try to try to prove it, rather than just saying it "can't be questioned" - as if it were religious doctrine that we were afraid to closely examine?

I still think the article on evolution I mentioned is pretty good at trying to look at the subject from a scientific or logical standpoint.

I'm not addressing the politics section, it's completely irrelevant to the validity of evolution

If you feel politics aren't relevant to science, you're free to believe that. I'm just not sure it works that way.

Thanks for the discussion.

a reply to: nottwoispeacefan

Are you familiar with the concept of an analogy? Certainly there are those who believe in guided (by God/other deities) evolution, but certainly there are many people who use analogies to convey complex concepts.

Also, there are many methods in which mutations can arise. Damage is one possible cause of DNA alteration, but there are many more with their own specific causes...
en.wikipedia.org...

I think you will find that the only people who believe new genes "miraculously" pop into existence are religious fundamentalists... In science, there are not miracles, and if things popped into existence (like any number of the new species found throughout the fossil record) then evolution would be invalidated as a scientific theory. At the very least, it would need to be modified...

You have argued that your source on evolution is acceptable on grounds of logic and scientific thought. It has been demonstrated (by Barcs in the posts right above yours...) that said source is full of logical fallacies and misinformation. Your argument is one based on feelings, not one based on facts.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: nottwoispeacefan
Are you suggesting that someone or something intentionally rewrote the DNA of lizards to turn them into monkeys?

No. I'm explaining the fact that the changes from generation to generation are tiny and they are LIKE a tiny piece of a computer code being altered in a massive program. Of course a lizard won't turn into a monkey. A lizard will turn into a very slightly different lizard, which turns into a slight variation on that, repeat that thousands of times and factor in drastic environmental changes and extinctions and the end product will be different enough from the original to be considered a new species. Repeat it on a scale of millions of years or even hundreds of millions of years and you have even greater differences to a much larger portion of the gene pool. You are only looking at the the beginning and the end, and ignoring every step in between. Evolution does not suggest that species change over night or that 2 lizards will suddenly give birth to a monkey as that absurd article claimed.

Usually evolution-believers say that evolution happens through random chance. The DNA is damaged, it gets repaired. No mutations get passed on to the next generation.

Nope, this what creationists TELL YOU that evolution believers say. It's not all random chance. Natural selection plays a big role. There are many causes for genetic mutations. The random part is which genes are effected. Every single species on earth that reproduces, has a slightly different genetic code than the parents. This is fact. Genetic mutations have also been intensely studied and there are many different kinds.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Missense mutation (illustration)
This type of mutation is a change in one DNA base pair that results in the substitution of one amino acid for another in the protein made by a gene.
Nonsense mutation (illustration)
A nonsense mutation is also a change in one DNA base pair. Instead of substituting one amino acid for another, however, the altered DNA sequence prematurely signals the cell to stop building a protein. This type of mutation results in a shortened protein that may function improperly or not at all.
Insertion (illustration)
An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly.
Deletion (illustration)
A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s).
Duplication (illustration)
A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein.
Frameshift mutation (illustration)
This type of mutation occurs when the addition or loss of DNA bases changes a gene’s reading frame. A reading frame consists of groups of 3 bases that each code for one amino acid. A frameshift mutation shifts the grouping of these bases and changes the code for amino acids. The resulting protein is usually nonfunctional. Insertions, deletions, and duplications can all be frameshift mutations.
Repeat expansion (illustration)
Nucleotide repeats are short DNA sequences that are repeated a number of times in a row. For example, a trinucleotide repeat is made up of 3-base-pair sequences, and a tetranucleotide repeat is made up of 4-base-pair sequences. A repeat expansion is a mutation that increases the number of times that the short DNA sequence is repeated. This type of mutation can cause the resulting protein to function improperly.

Each type broken down with illustrations. No miracles necessary.

But in rare cases, a bad mutation does get passed on, which causes serious problems.

Yes, in rare cases that does happen, but if it causes serious problems, the creature is likely to die and not pass down the harmful genes.

Somehow, an entire new gene (miraculously) pops into existence.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

science.howstuffworks.com...

Failing to copy properly is a miracle? Radiation or chemical interaction in certain environments is a miracle?

Again, I think evolution is a beautiful idea, a beautiful theory, a beautiful belief system. I used to believe in it myself. I just don't see any evidence for it, in terms of intermediate species nor any evidence on a molecular level that it can happen.

LMAO at calling a scientific theory a belief system. So gravity and atomic theory are belief systems as well? Or are you only focusing your attack on evolution because it conflicts with a fundamentalist interpretation of a holy book?

www.talkorigins.org...

No evidence at all? I already posted the transitional fossils link in the post above.

Shouldn't people who propose this theory be encouraged to try to try to prove it, rather than just saying it "can't be questioned" - as if it were religious doctrine that we were afraid to closely examine?

You aren't questioning it. You are flat out denying it in spite of tons of posted evidence, using fallacious reasoning that has nothing to do with evolution itself. It's been proven. If you'd like to address the science in the link above, I'd be happy to discuss the details, but unless you have a debunk for the science, you have no right to deny something that is so fundamental to biology and genetics, it's akin to denying heliocentric solar system or the earth being round.

I still think the article on evolution I mentioned is pretty good at trying to look at the subject from a scientific or logical standpoint.

If you believe that then you didn't read my post. There is no science mentioned in your article at all and there are multiple cited fallacies. Please read my post thoroughly, and if you'd like to present counterpoints I encourage it. Repeating your original argument doesn't cut it.

If you feel politics aren't relevant to science, you're free to believe that. I'm just not sure it works that way.

They are not. Science is based on the scientific method of fact discovery. The method itself is dead on accurate. Politics, especially the ones mentioned in the article do not even come close to debunking a single scientific fact about evolution. If you have evidence or actual scientific research papers that counter evolution, by all means post them. Most evolution deniers cannot get past stage one of the argument. They state their claims, the claims are debunked with evidence, the evidence is ignored, then the original claims are stated again. Perhaps you can go against this stereotype and address the scientific evidence I posted and actually turn this into a discussion rather than a schooling.

originally posted by: nottwoispeacefan
I saw a pretty good article about this recently:

Darwin’s theory of evolution: good science or faulty philosophy?

It goes into how the theory of evolution does not seem very logical, when you take the time to look at it scientifically, and how the theory seemingly did not originate with Charles Darwin at all. Seems like a well-written article, and maybe useful to show some people, if you're open to the article's conclusions of course.

That's a great article.. I loved this part at the beginning, since it basically describes almost every single evolution promoter in here..

To reduce my anxiety, I developed the attitude that ridicule, contempt and avoidance were probably the best ways to relate to non-evolution believers.