The biggest flaw in Evolutionary Theory

FreeMason
Evolution is not linear progressive? Perfect, find me where evolutionary biologists have found multiple evolutionary trees of major organs common to animalia.

You mean like, the multiple competely independent times an "eye" has evolved among different creatures?
link

alfa1

FreeMason
Evolution is not linear progressive? Perfect, find me where evolutionary biologists have found multiple evolutionary trees of major organs common to animalia.

You mean like, the multiple competely independent times an "eye" has evolved among different creatures?
link

Thank you I will begin to absorb this information.

If someone would kindly explain if they have found such a hypothesis for the most important evolutionary step, the prokaryote to the eukaryote, then we'll be on track.

But if not that is still a tremendous hurdle, after all how has the most requisite evolutionary step occurred only once?

I can't copy paste from your link www.pnas.org... but the very last paragraph suggests that until recently there was no argument against homology and single origin and further elaboration of derived traits.

Which is exactly my understanding of most of Evolutionary Theorists.

However, recently theorists are starting to consider multiple evolutions of the same trait.

This is what I consider NECESSARY for evolutionary theory to be true in the slightest.

The single origin is complete poppycock.

Furthermore, for Evolution to be true, independent evolution of prokaryote into eukaryote across time and space must have occurred.

If it only can be shown to have occurred once, Evolution is pure garbage.

Refer to the odds required for such an event happening only once in 3 billion years.

reply to post by alfa1


Yeah, who stuck the lenses in the Eyeballs and knew they would be viewed by the Brain upside down and the information gathered would have to be decoded by our brains...

One of the better graphics illustrating eye components:
www.vision-and-eye-health.com/eye-anatomy.html
www.vision-and-eye-health.com...

One of the best cameras in the Universe!!

Bionic Eyes Plug Directly into the Brain
www.livescience.com/4415-bionic-eyes-plug-brain.html
www.livescience.com...

Sad that the monkeys have to go through that when the info is in the coding....

FreeMason
If someone would kindly explain if they have found such a hypothesis for the most important evolutionary step, the prokaryote to the eukaryote, then we'll be on track.

But if not that is still a tremendous hurdle, after all how has the most requisite evolutionary step occurred only once?

As I recall, last time I looked that this a few years ago, is that most of the evidence has been destroyed.
The current prokaryotes are not the ones from billions of years ago, because they've evolved. And there is also the line of thought that Archea have also broken off from Prokaryotes independently, although many other people place them on the Eukaryote line. And of course the current Eukaryotes and Archea are also evolved and not the ones from back then. There's also the possibility of many modern Prokaryotes being simpler evolutions from Eukaryotes.... plus the distortion of evolution.

The issue isnt so much of lack of a hypothesis (because many exist), or the truth or not of your assertion, but mostly its the difficulty of being absolutely sure one way or the other with the evidence we have at hand today.

reply to post by winofiend

The thylacine for example, a marsupial, with all the characteristics of a canine. Evolved entirely separate from all other animal life, in a completely different environment.

The only thing in those sentences that is correct is that the thylacine ('Tasmanian Tiger') was (is? some folks think its still out there) a marsupial.

There are lots of marsupials still around. The Tasmanian Devil is quite closely related to the Thylacine. In Australia and New Guinea there are dozens of species including Kangaroos, Wallabies, Possums, Quolls, Koalas, Wombats, Fruit Bats. I can hear a Ringtailed Possum banging around on top of my roof as I type this (I've got RIngtails in my backyard and Brushtailed in my front yard).

In addition, there are dozens of extinct marsupials that were obviously co-existent with the Thylacine. One of these extinct marsupials has been termed the 'Marsupial Lion' and another, a giant wombat was as big as a cow.

Marsupials are not just in Australia. The Opossum family is very large and resides in both North and South America.

I don't know what kind of point you thought you were trying to make with such a dumb statement, but you are wrong whatever it is.

FreeMason
If someone would kindly explain if they have found such a hypothesis for the most important evolutionary step, the prokaryote to the eukaryote, then we'll be on track.

But if not that is still a tremendous hurdle, after all how has the most requisite evolutionary step occurred only once?

Why is this the most important evolutionary step? Important for whom? As to why it only occurred once, perhaps it's a sort of thing that's overall rather unlikely to happen, like throwing 1,000 heads in a row or something? Also, I think it probably happened over a rather long period of time, probably some bacteria became an intracellular symbiont of some archaea..

flyingfish
reply to post by bitsforbytes

 

Some are content in ignorance, but fortunately for you society hasn’t listened to ignorance and has come to realize the benefits of science in exchange for relinquishing its grasp of ancient fairy tails, no matter how comforting they are.

I for one am grateful to live in an age where I can share in understanding at least a little of our wondrous Universe instead of making up primitive and childish fables to explain it.

If it were up to fellow delusional, brainwashed creationists, we’d still be spending our winter nights living in caves huddled around campfires praying to a magic sky daddy to make our lives better, instead of huddled around our computers laughing at dipsh#t creo's.

edit on fThursday13171010f171110 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

Why do you harbour so much dislike towards the creationist?

I am not a creationist by any means, never believed in any single religion and spent the majority of my life as a stone-cold atheist, but recently I have become A LOT more 'spiritual', or open to these sorts of ideas. I don't understand why people believe that a creationist approach is completely incompatible with science?

I mean, you sound like you believe you are SUPERIOR (I've noticed many people embrace darwinism as an excuse to be patronizing and dislikeful towards the less mentally able and rational of our society) to these creationists because you have been 'awakened' to science or what not. It wasn't even your choice to be like that, you were simply gifted with a brain and personality that allowed you to not be misled down that route. Why do you hold hate and use words like 'delusional/brainwashed/dip#' to describe a creationist? That is what weak human beings do in my opinion - do not laugh and prey on those that you perceive as gifted less by the virtue of nature, man. No one really 'CHOOSES' to be a creationist, it is simply what the combined effect of their default properties (genetics/future brain capacity and so forth) along with their earthly experiences led them to believe.

Perhaps if you defined creationist a bit further you would enlighten me to your attitude. For now lets define a creationist as someone who believes this universe and all it's subsequent inhabitants (organic or not/living or not) were created via a 'conscious' force - rather than chance. Why is this so ridiculous to you? Our universe shares many parallels with a video game - why is it so CRAZY AND DELUSIONAL AND STUPID to assume that perhaps our universe is a subset of something higher? This isn't incompatible with any science at all. Infact certain science seems to POINT TO THIS.

Creationism or the belief of a higher force didn't stop many great thinkers and scientists from progressing our society, so why assume we'd all still be cavemen if we held this ideology? The Egyptians were greatly advanced for their time, yet they were CONVINCED of their Gods and pretty much dedicated 90% of their writing to them. They weren't cavemen by any means, and were arguably the turning point from a primitive culture into an advanced one - begininning a wave of progression that takes us to this stage.

Think of it like this - in the future we WILL have supercomputers able of real-time processing and storing something as complex as the unfolding of a universe along with the associated physics/constants/variables and so forth. I also imagine in the future we should be able to 'hijack' someones senses, delivering a 'virtual' input to their senses rather than the input from our everyday standard physical reality (this should be possible as our brain decodes our input data via Fourier Transforms, much like a computer makes sense out of a sensor). Once a person is plugged into this 'world', they are effectively living in a new universe, created by us, and their soul would be their original human body, using their new virtual body to explore this new and interesting 'virtual' world. Why is it unbelievable for you to consider that this may HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED? It is a geniune possibility, not just the ramblings of uneducated, fairy-tale believers.

I believe an Oxford professor wrote a fairly convincing paper a decade ago saying from a probabilistic point of view, we are more likely to be living in one of these simulated universes rather than the 'original' one. Food for thought. Mainstream science now postulates an infinite amount of universes, yet it is still cool to degrade people who believe these universes have a purposeful source. It doesn't make sense to me anymore why people are so close minded to these things, like there's a straight divide between two sides and both think the other side is stupid while neither have attempted to look at the bigger picture and leave themselves still open to ideas. It's brilliant being able to understand and appreciate science - believe me, I hold a masters degree in Mechanical/Elec engineering and work for a Nuclear Engineering company, I am by no means a silly, gullible 'fairy-tale' believer. But this doesn't mean you have to lock off from the possibility of spirituality or higher meaning.

Evolution and creationism are completely compatible. Every single scientific discovery is completely compatible with creationism. Perhaps not RELIGION AND THE RELIGIOUS TEXTS - but that is not the same as creationism - which is far broader and less-defined (i.e doesn't attempt to define the creator's will/purpose/desire and ultimately the creator's story).

I'm not saying this line of thinking will solve any world problems, or suddenly provide a meaning for life. I'm simply saying that it is plausible that we exist in a created environment, and may not be the ORIGINAL - hence us having a creator. I personally believe there might just be slightly more to all of this than just chance, but I couldn't place my finger on it let alone attempt to make people believe in some objective creation story (which is why I of course oppose religion generally). It's a feeling I've developed throughout my life due to many experiences and logical ponderings - like I said before, I didn't choose to have this feeling just like a hardcore Christian didn't choose to fall for the belief - it just happened.

And please don't turn around and say 'but there's no evidence for creation!!'. There is an equal lack-of evidence towards either answer (chance or non-specific creation - the big bang satisfies both), so the simple option is often chosen by 'logical' thinkers to avoid an infinite-loop of creation. That by no means detracts from the other option's credibility.

However, I'm sure we could both agree on the fact that those who DISCLAIM or IGNORE scientific evidence in favour of religious texts are of course to an extent 'delusional'. Perhaps denial would be a better word.

Peace

alfa1

I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted weirdo view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists are too dumb to know the straw man isnt actually real.

Why is it that attacking members through snide words is ok in threads like this? Oh, I know it's not personally directed at anybody, but it is directed at all members who are creationists and it contributes to thread degradation. You could have said this an not been offensive at all but saying the same thing:

"......I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists don't seem to know the straw man isnt actually real."

I would like some civility maintained on the forum, and it seems evolution / creation threads devolve so quickly by this sort of behavior of name calling and smearing others so fast, so mods please stop it.

reply to post by FreeMason

A Bacteria never becomes more than a Bacteria

'More than'?

Forget it, kid. You don't even know what evolution is.

Your question is as old, and as stupid, as the hills. 'Why don't prokaryotes evolve into eukaryotes? Why don't fish evolve into mammals? Why don't lizards evolve into birds? Why don't monkeys evolve into people?'

If you really think those questions disprove evolution... you don't know what evolution is. Ah, I see I said that already.

reply to post by FreeMason

theorists are starting to consider multiple evolutions of the same trait.

Starting to consider?

Here, have a banana.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

alfa1
I've never seen a creationist who actually knows what evolution is.
Its like creationists walk around with a distorted weirdo view of evolution, and attack that instead.
Its like a "straw man" argument, except that in this case the creationists are too dumb to know the straw man isnt actually real.

Unified Serenity
Why is it that attacking members through snide words is ok in threads like this?

Because it's true. Alfa1 is stating plain fact.

I have been an ATS member since 2005. I have been active in the O&C Forum for as long as it has existed. I have even had creationists conspire against me on ATS. Yet in all those years, I have never, ever met a single creationist who understood how evolution works.

The present case perfectly illustrates the rule.

reply to post by FreeMason


Wrong!

2nd line

reply to post by FreeMason

Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes only once in history. Prokaryotes still exist, and have not evolved into Eukaryotes again in over 2 Billion years. This is one but also the most prominent example that all evolutionary theory is "linear progressive".

I use this term to explain and show that evolution is mankind placing human qualities onto nature, more specifically human psychology. Since the industrial revolution mankind has thought in terms of "linear progressive", history has been reinterpreted as linear progressive by Marx. Science has been seen as linear progressive and is generally accepted to be such by technological progress.

It's only sensible, that Biologists, would see the natural world as linear progressive.

So you're inventing your own version of the theory of evolution to argue against it? That's the textbook definition of a straw man argument. Evolution is neither linear nor progressive in the sense that you're using either of the words. I realize that one of the most iconic depictions of evolution, the March of Progress, tends to color one's perception of evolution, but it's as oversimplified a depiction of evolution as the balls-and-sticks models of atoms and molecules that students play with in chemistry class. As Gould points out:

The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution – the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all.... The straitjacket of linear advance goes beyond iconography to the definition of evolution: the word itself becomes a synonym for progress.... [But] life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress.

reply to post by DazDaKing

Why do you harbour so much dislike towards the creationist?

I don't hate creationist in general, most just regurgitate the same old erroneous assertions and misconceptions being intentionally spoon fed to them by those who would promote superstition and ignorance over facts and knowledge with complete disregard for concepts such as honesty and decency.
It is these willfully ignorant cretins I intend to ridicule, I’ll be giving these dishonest charlatans and their ludicrous ideas all the respect they deserve, no more, no less, and I hope that in doing so exposing them for the intellectual liers that they are.
If public humiliation doesn’t at least give these mentally impaired creo's pause before opening their ignorant traps, the rest of us can at least have a laugh at their expense.

you sound like you believe you are SUPERIOR

I am under no elusions of being superior, the claims that I’m rebutting have been addressed professionally countless times by other members that are much more capable that I am, some are here in this very thread.

I'm sorry if your offended by my style, what can I say, I'm an as#hole, but I admit that the blatant dishonesty and unbelievable willful ignorance displayed by these snake-oil peddlers pisses me off. Make no mistake, I have little inclination to hold back when I call them out on their despicable behavior.

OP, to make up a complete field of evolution that has to do with "linear progressive," and then argue against that concept, is quite interesting. Let me try it with gravity

I know for a fact the theory of gravity is flawed because of "mechanical ionization." Gravitationalists don't realize that gravity can't be true because the bending of space-time does not consider "mechanical ionization," and its such a gaping hole in the theory of gravity that planetary geodesics violate the principle of "mechanical ionization."

Evolution is the differential reproduction of nucleotides. With each generation an organism has novel sequences of nucleotides that create novel proteins.

Apes (yes, including us), have around 250-350 mutations, or different nucleotides at any given locus. This is a fact. Other theories, such as the theory of gravity, can only hope to have so much factual evidence supporting the theory. (nb4 "but its just a theory")

Eukaryotes didn't evolve from prokaryotes.

Eukaryotes were a certain type of cell invaded by a parasite, the byproduct the infection was to give its host access to new acids and proteins that were previously unavailable. In return, this parasite demanded almost all the energy that the host cell could produce – and still does in its form we know today.

The parasite once was an entirely different type of organism with no parallel or equivalent in its DNA coding. Today that parasite is called Mitochondria. It's still largely independent in its DNA structure, although it has adopted some of eukaryotes' DNA to enable it to communicate more efficiently.

Eukaryote cells have evolved into every single living organism on our planet – past and present – where prokaryotes have remained as they always have done, although they have evolved slightly over time.

If I were a creationist I wouldn't bother with trying to disprove science with half-baked ideas or resort to an old storybook written by ancient tribesmen, I would learn science and use that. The first question I would research is "Where did mitochondria come from?". It's a real and genuine mystery. Maybe God put it there or perhaps aliens? Who knows.

Evolutionists certainly don't hold all the answers, and there are some huge holes in the theory, but I can absolutely assure you that Creationism holds precisely zero answers. Nothing in Creationism is true, logical or viable. Nothing.

TerraLiga
Eukaryotes didn't evolve from prokaryotes.

Eukaryotes were a certain type of cell invaded by a parasite, the byproduct the infection was to give its host access to new acids and proteins that were previously unavailable. In return, this parasite demanded almost all the energy that the host cell could produce – and still does in its form we know today.

The parasite once was an entirely different type of organism with no parallel or equivalent in its DNA coding. Today that parasite is called Mitochondria. It's still largely independent in its DNA structure, although it has adopted some of eukaryotes' DNA to enable it to communicate more efficiently.

Eukaryote cells have evolved into every single living organism on our planet – past and present – where prokaryotes have remained as they always have done, although they have evolved slightly over time.

If I were a creationist I wouldn't bother with trying to disprove science with half-baked ideas or resort to an old storybook written by ancient tribesmen, I would learn science and use that. The first question I would research is "Where did mitochondria come from?". It's a real and genuine mystery. Maybe God put it there or perhaps aliens? Who knows.

Evolutionists certainly don't hold all the answers, and there are some huge holes in the theory, but I can absolutely assure you that Creationism holds precisely zero answers. Nothing in Creationism is true, logical or viable. Nothing.

You're arguing with facts from a peer-reviewed, college level textbook for Biology that is taught to students? My goodness. Bless your heart. Mitochondria is not a parasite. Otherwise it'd be recognized as such by our bodies and our immune system would begin its process of eliminating the intruders. Therefore, mitochondria could not possibly parasitic invaders to our bodies.

reply to post by Philosophile


A "parasite" may be the incorrect terminology but it doesn't change the fact that only viruses, bacteria, eukaryotes and mitochondria have circular DNA. there is a connection between them whether you choose to accept it or not.

peter vlar
doesn't change the fact that only viruses, bacteria, eukaryotes and mitochondria have circular DNA.

That's not a fact. Archaea can have circular DNA. Chloroplasts can have circular DNA. Plasmids have circular DNA. More than that, many eukaryotes don't have circular DNA (e.g. humans). Actually many mitochondria don't have circular DNA either. Same story with many Archaea, Bacteria, chloroplasts, and viruses too..