abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Funny how you're all over MrXYZ for not immediately answering your question while completely ignoring my question - twice. You've obviously rejected the evolutionary explanation of adaptation but when you're asked to state your own case you go completely silent. Why is that?

Now, for the 3rd time - how does the genetic code drive the adaptive change?

I thought it was self explanatory and no need for additional explanation.

I guess not because you're still asking about it. Using the your vid - the pocket mice.

According to study, the gene responsible for the color of the hair or skin color is a gene called "MC1r".

This gene the MC1R (“melanocortin 1 receptor - alpha melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor”):

...provides instructions for making a protein called the melanocortin 1 receptor. This receptor plays an important role in normal pigmentation. The receptor is primarily located on the surface of melanocytes, which are specialized cells that produce a pigment called melanin. Melanin is the substance that gives skin, hair, and eyes their color. Melanin is also found in the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye (the retina), where it plays a role in normal vision. Melanocytes make two forms of melanin, eumelanin and pheomelanin. The relative amounts of these two pigments help determine the color of a person's hair and skin. People who produce mostly eumelanin tend to have brown or black hair and dark skin that tans easily. Eumelanin also protects skin from damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) radiation in sunlight. People who produce mostly pheomelanin tend to have red or blond hair, freckles, and light-colored skin that tans poorly. Because pheomelanin does not protect skin from UV radiation, people with more pheomelanin have an increased risk of skin damage caused by sun exposure.

Continuing...

The melanocortin 1 receptor controls which type of melanin is produced by melanocytes. When the receptor is activated, it triggers a series of chemical reactions inside melanocytes that stimulate these cells to make eumelanin. If the receptor is not activated or is blocked, melanocytes make pheomelanin instead of eumelanin.

Read the rest here:ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

And study show, the environment is a source of trigger. For example, in parts of the world where there's little sunlight the MC1R gene causes people to have lighter skin from having "less eumelanin pigmentation and more phaeomelanin pigmentation."

Read more at www.todayifoundout.com...

Now in the case of the pocket mice, findings show that it's the same gene that controls the hair color of the mouse. The existence of this gene gives them a darker colored hair.

see here: www.youtube.com...

As to the reason why there's more dark colored pocket mice, it's simple mathematics. Since they live in an environment where it favors the dark haired variety mice, their survival rate is expected to greatly increased. The more the lighter haired pocket mice are eaten by predatory birds the more likely dark haired mice will propagate.

Since they are harder to spot, their rate of survival is increased. But as soon as the environment turns against them, that is, they become easily spotted by birds of prey, their population will decrease in favor of the lighter color haired variety.

It's the same case with the lighter/darker colored moth. Pollution favoured the darker colored moths when tree barks turned darker. But as soon as the tree retained their lighter colored barks - the lighter colored moths population went up and the darker colored moths population decreased - because more of them were eaten.

Bottom line is - all animals in one way or another have the ability to adapt to their environment and their circumstances.

Of course to you this is evolution but if you really look into - it's just the way things are in nature/creation - living things adapt but WILL NEVER CHANGE INTO SOMETHING ELSE!


note:

gotta go ... this was a hurry up explanation but you see my point - no evolution here - just adaptation.

reply to post by edmc^2

As to the reason why there's more dark colored pocket mice, it's simple mathematics. Since they live in an environment where it favors the dark haired variety mice, their survival rate is expected to greatly increased. The more the lighter haired pocket mice are eaten by predatory birds the more likely dark haired mice will propagate.

Since they are harder to spot, their rate of survival is increased. But as soon as the environment turns against them, that is, they become easily spotted by birds of prey, their population will decrease in favor of the lighter color haired variety.

It's the same case with the lighter/darker colored moth. Pollution favoured the darker colored moths when tree barks turned darker. But as soon as the tree retained their lighter colored barks - the lighter colored moths population went up and the darker colored moths population decreased - because more of them were eaten.

You do realize you've just described natural selection, which was exactly my point? In other words, your claim that the genetic code drives the change doesn't really hold water, does it?

Of course to you this is evolution but if you really look into - it's just the way things are in nature/creation - living things adapt but WILL NEVER CHANGE INTO SOMETHING ELSE!

Bold assertion not in evidence. The DNA evidence alone conclusively demonstrates speciation.

Sorry about the double post, my internet connection had a hick-up.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

As to the reason why there's more dark colored pocket mice, it's simple mathematics. Since they live in an environment where it favors the dark haired variety mice, their survival rate is expected to greatly increased. The more the lighter haired pocket mice are eaten by predatory birds the more likely dark haired mice will propagate.

Since they are harder to spot, their rate of survival is increased. But as soon as the environment turns against them, that is, they become easily spotted by birds of prey, their population will decrease in favor of the lighter color haired variety.

It's the same case with the lighter/darker colored moth. Pollution favoured the darker colored moths when tree barks turned darker. But as soon as the tree retained their lighter colored barks - the lighter colored moths population went up and the darker colored moths population decreased - because more of them were eaten.

You do realize you've just described natural selection, which was exactly my point? In other words, your claim that the genetic code drives the change doesn't really hold water, does it?

Of course to you this is evolution but if you really look into - it's just the way things are in nature/creation - living things adapt but WILL NEVER CHANGE INTO SOMETHING ELSE!

Bold assertion not in evidence. The DNA evidence alone conclusively demonstrates speciation.

You know what amazes me about proponents of evolution theory is their lack of common sense and logical thinking. And because of this evolutionist will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.

Anyway if you think this "demonstrate speciation" (the evolution of new species) - can you show me / tell me what NEW SPECIES the pocket mice turned into?

Just because the hair turned darker (therefore harder to spot by birds of prey due to the background) - is now a new species?

Fact is it's still a mouse of the pocket mice variety.


And common sense tells me that when its surroundings turn lighter the lighter color haired mice will become the dominant species.

Simple as that.

Think man...don't let others fool you with their fancy words like "speciation [the evolution of new species].


edit:

As for:

You do realize you've just described natural selection, which was exactly my point? In other words, your claim that the genetic code drives the change doesn't really hold water, does it?

Natural Selection?

I think it's has to do more with their circumstances and environment.

That is, like I said - darker haired mice blended more with their environment which in turn allowed them to gain advantage from their fellow light haired buddies.

Their survival has nothing to do with their MC1R gene - because if it/they did, what would happen to them if their surroundings (environment) changes again in favor of the lighter color haired mice?

In addition - do you really believe that the lighter haired pocket mice died off because of the lack MC1R gene in their hair or is it because of circumstances and environment?


Common sense is powerful.

reply to post by edmc^2


"Anyway if you think this "demonstrate speciation" (the evolution of new species) - can you show me / tell me what NEW SPECIES the pocket mice turned into? "

you know he doesnt think this is a new species,,..,,.

if what you want to know is,, how evolutionists comprehend the diversity of species,, and how a species evolves into a completely different species,..,, ask him,.

once he gives your his answer,, then you can determine if it makes sense or not..


he thinks he knows,, you think you know,,, there is a truth.,,.,.,.,.

as long as you both are capable of comprehending the truth,,,.,. the truth is knowable.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"Anyway if you think this "demonstrate speciation" (the evolution of new species) - can you show me / tell me what NEW SPECIES the pocket mice turned into? "

you know he doesnt think this is a new species,,..,,.

if what you want to know is,, how evolutionists comprehend the diversity of species,, and how a species evolves into a completely different species,..,, ask him,.

once he gives your his answer,, then you can determine if it makes sense or not..


he thinks he knows,, you think you know,,, there is a truth.,,.,.,.,.

as long as you both are capable of comprehending the truth,,,.,. the truth is knowable.

edit on 3-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Got that ImaFungi!

Let's see how he/she defines "SPECIATION".

reply to post by edmc^2

You know what amazes me about proponents of evolution theory is their lack of common sense and logical thinking. And because of this evolutionist will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.

Relying on "common sense" instead of listening to experts is a good way to stay ignorant. It basically means throwing out science as scientists are by definition experts within their own fields. The very idea that we shouldn't listen to people who have dedicated their lives to gaining new knowledge in various areas that may have an impact on our lives is simply bizarre.

If we'd relied on "common sense" we'd still believe the Earth was flat. I mean, just look at - it's flat, right? Common sense!

Anyway if you think this "demonstrate speciation" (the evolution of new species) - can you show me / tell me what NEW SPECIES the pocket mice turned into?

Just because the hair turned darker (therefore harder to spot by birds of prey due to the background) - is now a new species?

Fact is it's still a mouse of the pocket mice variety.

What a ridiculous argument. Of course the rock pocket mouse hasn't turned into a new species. Kindly point out where I suggested this.

And common sense tells me that when its surroundings turn lighter the lighter color haired mice will become the dominant species.

Simple as that.

Sure - and the mechanism is natural selection through predation, just as the video explained. Simple as that.

Think man...don't let others fool you with their fancy words like "speciation [the evolution of new species].

The fact that you think the entire biologist profession is out to fool you speaks volumes of your closed mind. Please stop denying reality, you'll feel so much better.

Natural Selection?

I think it's has to do more with their circumstances and environment.


That is, like I said - darker haired mice blended more with their environment which in turn allowed them to gain advantage from their fellow light haired buddies.

...which is a textbook example of natural selection. You really seem confused on this point.

Their survival has nothing to do with their MC1R gene - because if it/they did, what would happen to them if their surroundings (environment) changes again in favor of the lighter color haired mice?

Their survival has everything to do with their colour. Since the MC1R gene stores this information your statement is nonsense. If the dark rocks would for some reason turn lighter in colour, the process would obviously reverse and the dark rock pocket mice would disappear from the population.

In addition - do you really believe that the lighter haired pocket mice died off because of the lack MC1R gene in their hair or is it because of circumstances and environment?

You can play little word games all you like and call it "circumstances and environment" - it's still exactly the same thing as natural selection.

Common sense is powerful.

I'll take the scientific method over common sense any day. I'm pretty sure it was considered common sense in the 17th century to burn witches. I mean, they were evil - right?

reply to post by edmc^2

Let's see how he/she defines "SPECIATION"

Speciation is the process by which new biological species arise. It starts with a population being split in two (or more) subpopulations either by geography or by behavioural patterns so that they no longer interbreed. Over time, the genetic makeup of these populations will slowly change through evolution until a point is reached when they can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring. This, by definition, means they have become different species. At the point of speciation they will still be very similar but since they can no longer interbreed, they're now locked into separate evolutionary paths and will continue to diverge and become more and more different with time.

Note that none of this requires anything more than a splitting of a population and plain old "microevolution". We can actually study this process through the phenomenon of "ring species" of which there are several examples, like the Larus gulls around the North pole, the Greenish warbler in the Himalayas, the Ensatina salamanders in California and also plants like the Euphorbia tithymaloides in central America and the Caribbean.

reply to post by radix

Relying on "common sense" instead of listening to experts is a good way to stay ignorant. It basically means throwing out science as scientists are by definition experts within their own fields. The very idea that we shouldn't listen to people who have dedicated their lives to gaining new knowledge in various areas that may have an impact on our lives is simply bizarre. If we'd relied on "common sense" we'd still believe the Earth was flat. I mean, just look at - it's flat, right? Common sense!

Ehh!

You did not read what I said, did you? Because if you did then you would have noticed that I CAPITALIZED the word A L W A Y S.

Here's what I said:

You know what amazes me about proponents of evolution theory is their lack of common sense and logical thinking. And because of this evolutionist will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.

Let me repeat. I said that proponents of evolution theory lack common sense and logical thinking because they will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.


Meaning - they don't use their God given common sense to think things through! Whatever their expert professors tells them, they accept it as gospel.

Now my statement doesn't mean that we should not listen to experts in the field. No not at all, we listen to them but with a healthy dose of skepticism. We need to prove to ourselves that what they are saying are factually accurate or else we're going to end up with the wrong conclusion.

Just like the flat earthers - they readily accepted what their so called "experts" told them to believe without any question. In so doing - they were led to believe/accept things that are not rooted in facts.

Same thing with evolutionists, many don't question their so called "experts" but readily accept what they are told to believe, thus even simple things as adaptation is interpreted as "evolution - mutation - natural selection - speciation".


Case in point, your so called "experts" in the video below.




Notice:
The "expert" credits "evolution - mutation/natural selection" as the main reason/s why the dark coloured pocket mice survive its deadly circumstances and surroundings instead of a simple fact that the mice can adapt.

Survival is also equated with evolution as if the circumstances and the surroundings has nothing to do with the survival of the species.

As if the lighter coloured mice can't survive and "would disappear from the population" in the same circumstances and environment -vise versa - due to "natural selection".

How preposterous to say that, yet that's what you believe.

Their survival has everything to do with their colour. Since the MC1R gene stores this information your statement is nonsense. If the dark rocks would for some reason turn lighter in colour, the process would obviously reverse and the dark rock pocket mice would disappear from the population.

Fact is both types of pocket mice are living in the same circumstances and environment. But that the lighter ones are easily spotted for food and are harder to find due to their low population count.

But you say:

You can play little word games all you like and call it "circumstances and environment" - it's still exactly the same thing as natural selection.

Nope, you're the one playing word games - by using colourful words such us "speciation / natural selection" you're trying to pretend something that is not there.

Whereas I'm using simple words, common sense to show what the facts are.

That both varieties of mice can survive in the same circumstances and environment.

As for your definition of "speciation":

Speciation is the process by which new biological species arise.

Fact is the mice is still a mice and the birds are still birds and they will never change into something new, that is, to be clear: a mice will not change into a dog or a bird into a cat, etc, etc.

Why? The genetic boundary prevents this from happening.

That's why all breeders know how far they can cross breed WITHIN the same family of the same "KIND" of *species / animal.

It's not natural selection or mutation that leads to variety just as there are different types of races of man.

Note:

*"Species" is still being debated as to what it encompasses. Still unclear how to accurately identify a species - so I use kind.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Let's see how he/she defines "SPECIATION"

Speciation is the process by which new biological species arise. It starts with a population being split in two (or more) subpopulations either by geography or by behavioural patterns so that they no longer interbreed. Over time, the genetic makeup of these populations will slowly change through evolution until a point is reached when they can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring. This, by definition, means they have become different species. At the point of speciation they will still be very similar but since they can no longer interbreed, they're now locked into separate evolutionary paths and will continue to diverge and become more and more different with time.

Note that none of this requires anything more than a splitting of a population and plain old "microevolution". We can actually study this process through the phenomenon of "ring species" of which there are several examples, like the Larus gulls around the North pole, the Greenish warbler in the Himalayas, the Ensatina salamanders in California and also plants like the Euphorbia tithymaloides in central America and the Caribbean.

This, by definition, means they have become different species. At the point of speciation they will still be very similar but since they can no longer interbreed,

Nope - it simply means that they haven't seen them mating.

But if you let these so called "new species" (of the same species) they will eventually readapt and reproduce.

Birds of the feather will flock together - simple rule of Creation.

The environment drives the adaptation and evolutionary changes, not the genetic code itself. If a creature is a good fit for his environment, he will not change all that much, despite STILL having random genetic mutations. Remember, the genetic changes happen regardless. Long term major morphological changes won't happen unless the environment changes, aside from slight genetic drift.

reply to post by edmc^2

Here's what I said:

You know what amazes me about proponents of evolution theory is their lack of common sense and logical thinking. And because of this evolutionist will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.

Let me repeat. I said that proponents of evolution theory lack common sense and logical thinking because they will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.

Meaning - they don't use their God given common sense to think things through! Whatever their expert professors tells them, they accept it as gospel.

Complete and utter balderdash. The rational and skeptical evaluation of evidence is of course the diametrical opposite of accepting a gospel - we leave that to the theists.

Now my statement doesn't mean that we should not listen to experts in the field. No not at all, we listen to them but with a healthy dose of skepticism. We need to prove to ourselves that what they are saying are factually accurate or else we're going to end up with the wrong conclusion.

It's painfully obvious that you're not in the least interested in factual accuracy but only in holding on to your mythology no matter what the evidence tells you.

Same thing with evolutionists, many don't question their so called "experts" but readily accept what they are told to believe, thus even simple things as adaptation is interpreted as "evolution - mutation - natural selection - speciation".

Case in point, your so called "experts" in the video below.
Notice:
The "expert" credits "evolution - mutation/natural selection" as the main reason/s why the dark coloured pocket mice survive its deadly circumstances and surroundings instead of a simple fact that the mice can adapt.

You really believe in "word magic", don't you? You don't like evolution so you call it "adaptation" and poof, evolution is gone. News flash: evolution is adaptation and re-naming it won't make it go away.

Survival is also equated with evolution as if the circumstances and the surroundings has nothing to do with the survival of the species.

This is absolutely staggering. Did you even watch the video? Natural selection is ALL ABOUT "circumstances and surroundings". It's the very definition of the concept! More "word magic" at work? You think calling natural selection "circumstances and surroundings" will make it disappear? Sorry, it ain't gonna work.

As if the lighter coloured mice can't survive and "would disappear from the population" in the same circumstances and environment -vise versa - due to "natural selection".

How preposterous to say that, yet that's what you believe.

Poppycock. The video clearly shows that on the dark lava-flow rocks, dark-coloured mice quickly come to dominate due to natural selection. Can you give me one good reason why the same thing wouldn't be true if the whole desert where the mice live turned dark?

Fact is both types of pocket mice are living in the same circumstances and environment. But that the lighter ones are easily spotted for food and are harder to find due to their low population count.

No, fact is that on dark ground, the dark-coloured mice are completely dominant and on lighter-coloured ground, the light-coloured mice dominate. Again, I would have to ask if you actually watched the video? The lighter mice are scarce on dark ground because they're weeded out by the predators. It's called natural selection.

Nope, you're the one playing word games - by using colourful words such us "speciation / natural selection" you're trying to pretend something that is not there.

Whereas I'm using simple words, common sense to show what the facts are.

That both varieties of mice can survive in the same circumstances and environment.

The fact is that your "simple words" mean exactly the same thing as the "colourful" ones even though you pretend they don't. Evolution is adaptation and "circumstances and environment" is what makes the natural selection. Word magic doesn't alter reality no matter how hard you try.
The mice obviously don't survive in the "same circumstances and environment", they survive on different-coloured backgrounds. This was the whole point of the video.

reply to post by edmc^2

Fact is the mice is still a mice and the birds are still birds and they will never change into something new, that is, to be clear: a mice will not change into a dog or a bird into a cat, etc, etc.

Why? The genetic boundary prevents this from happening.

Of course mice are still mice, anything else would be evidence against evolution (not to mention genetics). As I explained, speciation is a population event, not something that happens to an individual. This really is basic stuff, do try to keep up.
Do you have any evidence for a "genetic boundary"? What would it consist of (other than your preconceptions)?

It's not natural selection or mutation that leads to variety just as there are different types of races of man.

Bold assertion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (you know, like the video you claim to have watched but completely misunderstood).

Nope - it simply means that they haven't seen them mating.

But if you let these so called "new species" (of the same species) they will eventually readapt and reproduce.

Birds of the feather will flock together - simple rule of Creation.

"Readapt" from what? Got any examples of this re-adaptation or is this just more creationist hand-waving?

Originally posted by Barcs
The environment drives the adaptation and evolutionary changes, not the genetic code itself. If a creature is a good fit for his environment, he will not change all that much, despite STILL having random genetic mutations. Remember, the genetic changes happen regardless. Long term major morphological changes won't happen unless the environment changes, aside from slight genetic drift.

edit on 4-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Don't forget the circumstances at which the species lives on. In the case of the pocket mice, they have predators that are acting as checks and balances.

Remove the checks and balances which one do you think of the two varieties of pocket mice will thrive?

The light colored or the dark colored variety or both?

Will their hair color matter much?

reply to post by radix


isnt the intelligence,conscious awareness, and will of the organism a driver of evolution as well or in compromise or tandem with the environment?

for example.,., the genes in the monkeys that climbed trees for food as opposed to the ones that stayed down,, gained muscle mass and over time their offspring was able to climb trees to escape predators and get more food.,., this is a decision of the organism that decides an evolutionary path.,,.

like wise.,,.

say one group of monkeys offspring forages for food while another group of monkeys offspring spends their time eating rocks.,,. its is the parents intelligence and decision making as well as the children as well as nature, that will decide which organisms genes travel onto future states of time and potentially evolve,.,,.

I have a cat and ive noticed it is pretty similar to some small monkeys ive seen.,,. in size and design,, if cats were forced to start climbing trees for food,, do you think over much time,, their skeleton and muscles would begin to become more graceful and "loose" and controllable so that eventually they will become monkier like creatures?

reply to post by ImaFungi

isnt the intelligence,conscious awareness, and will of the organism a driver of evolution as well or in compromise or tandem with the environment?

Sure, for animals with a certain level of intelligence there is a possibility for a non-genetic evolution where parents can teach advantageous behaviour patterns to their offspring. Man is of course a special case since we have developed language which has speeded up this process immensely. With the development of writing, the printing process and now the internet, we can access the knowledge and experiences of not only those close to us but the entire species. The social and technological evolution is so much faster than the biological one you have to wonder if our poor brains can keep up.

for example.,., the genes in the monkeys that climbed trees for food as opposed to the ones that stayed down,, gained muscle mass and over time their offspring was able to climb trees to escape predators and get more food.,., this is a decision of the organism that decides an evolutionary path.,,.

like wise.,,.

say one group of monkeys offspring forages for food while another group of monkeys offspring spends their time eating rocks.,,. its is the parents intelligence and decision making as well as the children as well as nature, that will decide which organisms genes travel onto future states of time and potentially evolve,.,,.

Well, if the behaviour is determined by genes then it can obviously be passed on to the next generation. On the other hand, monkeys would definitely be an example of an animal that can pass on learned behaviour to their offspring non-genetically.

I have a cat and ive noticed it is pretty similar to some small monkeys ive seen.,,. in size and design,, if cats were forced to start climbing trees for food,, do you think over much time,, their skeleton and muscles would begin to become more graceful and "loose" and controllable so that eventually they will become monkier like creatures?

The thing is, now that man has become aware of the evolutionary process the game has changed. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years and their evolution has been highly influenced by humans through breeding. With our growing knowledge of molecular biology this influence is bound to increase in all kinds of ways. I have no idea what it will lead to for cats and humans but somehow I don't see monkey cats in our foreseeable future.

Does anyone else feel we've veered way OT in this thread? It was supposed to be about abiogenesis, wasn't it?

reply to post by radix


...Let me repeat. I said that proponents of evolution theory lack common sense and logical thinking because they will ALWAYS have to depend on what their fellow evolutionist say - especially from the so called experts.

Meaning - they don't use their God given common sense to think things through! Whatever their expert professors tells them, they accept it as gospel.

Complete and utter balderdash. The rational and skeptical evaluation of evidence is of course the diametrical opposite of accepting a gospel - we leave that to the theists.

OK - if you insist, you don't have a God given common sense or for that matter no common sense at all - unable to think on your own without the aid of the "experts".

As for factual accuracy:

you said

It's painfully obvious that you're not in the least interested in factual accuracy but only in holding on to your mythology no matter what the evidence tells you.

Of course I'm interested in factual accuracy otherwise I will not be challenging and questioning the very foundation of your belief/concept/theory or whatever you call it.

Fact that you can't provide a viable / reasonable explanation to the origin of life (other than I don't know) convinces me more that the theory of evolution is foundationless and the hypothesis itself is not only flawed but silly.

Thus they need to come up with intricate explanations, high sounding words and theories on top of other theories to make it believable.

So in reality evolutionists are the ones who are not interested in the truth. They have to continually keep evolving the very theory so as not to be overrun by the truth.

But you say...

You really believe in "word magic", don't you? You don't like evolution so you call it "adaptation" and poof, evolution is gone. News flash: evolution is adaptation and re-naming it won't make it go away.

The truth is, I don't like lies and be lied to - and to me evolution is such. People think evolution theory is scientific but in reality if you dig a little deeper - it's bunk theory masquerading as scientific. To make it believable it adapts things that are naturally occurring in nature and replaces them with terminologies coined by evolution scientists. Thus a natural event becomes the realm of evolution theory.

Case in point:
Adaptation = evolution

Circumstances/environment = natural selection,

Variety = microevolution/macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium, etc, etc.

Like you said

... Natural selection is ALL ABOUT "circumstances and surroundings". It's the very definition of the concept! More "word magic" at work? You think calling natural selection "circumstances and surroundings" will make it disappear? Sorry, it ain't gonna work.

Fact is, "Natural Selection" as originally envisioned/theorized by evolutionist (like "speciation") never happened since they never produced any completely new "species". Instead they just redefine the meaning of variety within each "species" or kind to make it appear evolution is occurring or had occurred.

Poppycock. The video clearly shows that on the dark lava-flow rocks, dark-coloured mice quickly come to dominate due to natural selection. Can you give me one good reason why the same thing wouldn't be true if the whole desert where the mice live turned dark?

To which I say balderdash - "the dark lava-flow rocks, dark-coloured mice quickly come to dominate [NOT] due to natural selection" but by the simple fact that the lighter ones became easy targets of predatory animals.

Like you said

... The lighter mice are scarce on dark ground because they're weeded out by the predators. It's called natural selection.

But if the "predators" are the "natural selectors" of your "natural selection" instead of the gene, what is natural selection then when the predators are not in the picture?

For example, there are many instances where an animal is introduced (by accident or purpose) to a certain habitat where they have no natural enemy become themselves the predator. Yet in their natural habitat they are below the food chain.

Would you say that Natural Selection was responsible for the survival of this animal and the demise of the others?

In your pocket mice sample, would you say Natural Selection eliminated the birds of prey if they eventually disappeared?

If so, was natural selection responsible also for the eventual population rebound of the light haired mice?

What if, they put a roadway along the paths of these mice, and many of them became roadkill - would you also say that natural selection was responsible?

know what I mean?

reply to post by radix

Of course mice are still mice, anything else would be evidence against evolution (not to mention genetics). As I explained, speciation is a population event, not something that happens to an individual. This really is basic stuff, do try to keep up.

You missed my point. If as you say "speciation is a population event" will it eventually lead to a new species? If yes, then my understanding is correct, right?

If not then your own understanding of speciation is flawed, because your textbooks and your experts say that speciation will eventually lead to a new "species" - a totally different creature from its source - a fish turning into an amphebian, ect.

But speciation as commonly known can't and will not happen because like I said - genetic boundary will prevent it from happening.

Do you have any evidence for a "genetic boundary"? What would it consist of (other than your preconceptions)?

Of course I have evidence, it is called - sterility and genome.

Once the boundary dictated by the gene is reach - sterility sets in and the "species" can no longer reproduce its own kind. Geneticists as well as breeders know this to be a fact.

Sterility is what keeps "species" from crossing the boundary. The DNA - the blueprint also prevents "species" from changing into another form. Encoded in each DNA molecule is a self correcting gene. Any error or mutation is simply repaired, if not rejected. If it can't be repaired then the mutant gene will die off - along with the "species". That's why most of the time living things are "born" normal. But once in a while a mutant will survive, unfortunately not for long due to circumstances beyond its control. Since mutant genes are generally a degradation from the norm, the carrier will be less likely to survive or even live a healthy life. Simple as that.

Thus these two powerful boundaries can't be breach in any way, shape or form. It what keeps "species" separated from the other species - a dog is a dog and will forever remain a dog, a cat is a cat and will forever remain a cat, any improvement will remain within the "species". Any physical traits inherited from the parents will someday be reversed or further improved in the succeeding generations - until again the boundary stops them cold.

"Readapt" from what? Got any examples of this re-adaptation or is this just more creationist hand-waving?

from your own vid:

"As environment transform, so much the species that inhabit them adapting and readapting in the great and complex battle of life"

Of course to you this evolution, but to me it's just the facts of life - the ability to adapt as intended.

reply to post by edmc^2

OK - if you insist, you don't have a God given common sense or for that matter no common sense at all - unable to think on your own without the aid of the "experts".

Thanks for the condescension but it's still balderdash.

Fact that you can't provide a viable / reasonable explanation to the origin of life (other than I don't know) convinces me more that the theory of evolution is foundationless and the hypothesis itself is not only flawed but silly.

And yet after 66 pages you still haven't been able to demonstrate how abiogenesis is unscientific and flawed. I've provided links to articles that outline one of the main hypotheses and asked you to point out what the flaws are but all I get is logical fallacies along the lines of "you don't have an explanation yet, therefore you will never have an explanation". It's just extremely poor logic.

Thus they need to come up with intricate explanations, high sounding words and theories on top of other theories to make it believable.

So in reality evolutionists are the ones who are not interested in the truth. They have to continually keep evolving the very theory so as not to be overrun by the truth.

An intricate world needs intricate explanations. Pretending that things are simple when they're not because you don't like "high sounding words" will not lead to progress. Theories evolve as new evidence comes to light, that's the scientific method and it has an impressive track record for gaining new knowledge. Relying on "common sense" and trusting in the Good Book, not so much.

The truth is, I don't like lies and be lied to - and to me evolution is such. People think evolution theory is scientific but in reality if you dig a little deeper - it's bunk theory masquerading as scientific. To make it believable it adapts things that are naturally occurring in nature and replaces them with terminologies coined by evolution scientists. Thus a natural event becomes the realm of evolution theory.

What lies? Please point them out. You keep making claims and when asked to back them up you give us more claims. The suggestion that one of the foundations of biological science is bunk is a rather extraordinary claim so you'll need extraordinary evidence to support it. If the thread up until now is anything to go by, I seriously doubt you've got the goods but feel free to try.

Fact is, "Natural Selection" as originally envisioned/theorized by evolutionist (like "speciation") never happened since they never produced any completely new "species". Instead they just redefine the meaning of variety within each "species" or kind to make it appear evolution is occurring or had occurred.

The ring species I posted about earlier are well on their way towards speciation. It's obviously a difficult phenomenon to study because of the vast number of generations it takes but the process is well understood and, as I said earlier,the DNA evidence alone (DNA homology, DNA synteny, pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) is quite conclusive.

To which I say balderdash - "the dark lava-flow rocks, dark-coloured mice quickly come to dominate [NOT] due to natural selection" but by the simple fact that the lighter ones became easy targets of predatory animals.

Words fail me. I really don't know how to say this more clearly than I already have. WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IS NATURAL SELECTION!

Like you said

... The lighter mice are scarce on dark ground because they're weeded out by the predators. It's called natural selection.


But if the "predators" are the "natural selectors" of your "natural selection" instead of the gene, what is natural selection then when the predators are not in the picture?

If there are no predators then there will obviously be other factors that govern the chances of survival of the mice, like the ability to find food, vulnerability to pathogens etc.

For example, there are many instances where an animal is introduced (by accident or purpose) to a certain habitat where they have no natural enemy become themselves the predator. Yet in their natural habitat they are below the food chain.

Would you say that Natural Selection was responsible for the survival of this animal and the demise of the others?

Of course. Natural selection is simply the obstacles the organism has to overcome to survive. Some are better equipped to cope with them than others and will consequently have a greater possibility to pass on their genes to the next generation.

reply to post by edmc^2

In your pocket mice sample, would you say Natural Selection eliminated the birds of prey if they eventually disappeared?

If so, was natural selection responsible also for the eventual population rebound of the light haired mice?

I don't know why the birds of prey would disappear but assuming it wasn't by divine intervention but e.g. because of some sort of epidemic, this would be a form of natural selection. As I just wrote, if the selective pressure from the birds of prey was to disappear then other factors would become more important for the survival of the mice. They would probably grow in number but that would create other problems, like the supply of food. There are always challenges and they all exert a selective pressure as some individuals are better at dealing with them than others.

What if, they put a roadway along the paths of these mice, and many of them became roadkill - would you also say that natural selection was responsible?

Sure, if some of the mice are more skilled at negotiating traffic than others then the road will obviously provide a form of natural selection.