"I will never accept evolution"

[Pantaz]

did you even bother to read my links?

What does that have to do with anything? You asked for information, it was provided, you ignored it.

 

However, I did visit the two links you offered. Both sites, "Debunking Evolution" and "Darwin's Theory of Evolution Debunked" simply parrot many of the common misconceptions of evolutionary biology. All of their arguments are addressed by the data available from numerous researchers. If you ever decide to try learning what science has to offer, the TalkOrigins website makes their results accessible to the masses in more readable forms.

 

I did go through several FAQ and they were all shit ...

In other words, the scientific facts do not fit your world-view?

 

... i already know nothing revolutinary.

I'd say that is an accurate statement.

[Daecon]

I will never accept gravity.

 

Does this mean I can fly now?

[lucaspa]

Like i said i for one will not credit my exists to a theory of a bunch of random chemicals that some how produced this complex being who can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life.

 

Well, the chemicals are not "random". Chemistry isn't blind chance or randomness. Chemicals don't react with other chemicals "randomly". The products are not random.

 

So, when amino acids are heated they polymerize to form proteins. The amino acid sequences in those proteins is not random. It is determined by the side chains (R groups) on the amino acids. There are lots of possibilities for amino acid sequences, but not "random". Also, any protein will have a biological activity. A particular protein may not have a specific biological activity, but it will have an activity (or more than one). If quadrillions of proteins are made (as they are when the "soup" is heated), then it is virtually certain that one or more of the proteins will have every biological activity necessary for life.

 

Also, when the proteins are exposed to water, the reaction is not random. The chemistry of the proteins and water determine that the proteins will make a cell -- a living cell.

 

Once you have a living cell, then evolution is not random, either. The selection part of natural selection is the opposite of random: deterministic.

 

Think of a Library of Mendel. It is the library of all possible genomes. It is VAST, but finite. Think of wings going off in mathematical dimensions. There is a hallway of all possible H. sapien genomes, in a wing of all possible hominin genomes. There are going to be many hallways containing genomes that will code for organisms who "can understand the mysteries of the universe, know love, and understand the value of life". As evolution explores the Library of Mendel, it is inevitable that it will eventually find one or more hallways of genomes for such organisms. (credit to Daniel Dennett for the "Library of Mendel" concept).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The reason we choose a theory is not because we can't disprove it, it is because it makes accurate predictions.

 

LOL! The "accurate predictions" are failed attempts to disprove it. Mr Skeptic, first you formulate a hypothesis/theory. Then you assume the theory is true. With that as a premise, you deduce consequences of the theory. Those consequences are "predictions". We then go looking for the consequences (predictions) in an attempt to disprove the theory. This is all based on deductive logic: true statements cannot have false consequences. If you find false consequences, the theory is wrong or disproven.

 

Neither intelligent design nor creationism predict this retroviral DNA, much less the details of it. Hence, evolution is a superior theory.

 

It's not that evolution is a "superior theory", but rather that intelligent design/ creationism has been disproven. Past tense. ID/creationism has false consequences. You noted one of those false consequences: retroviral insertions. Retroviral insertions are not a consequence of ID/creationism. They cannot arise under that theory. Therefore their presence disproves ID/creationism.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just read some cool articles one of which you guys failed to tell me was the mutations are repaired.

 

 

Most of the errors in copying DNA are repaired. The errors that are not repaired are mutations. No error-correcting system can be perfect. An system that was 100% perfect in correcting errors would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

 

Repairing mutations

Do evolutionists admit defeat? Never! They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population, perhaps in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.

 

No. No evolutionist ever claimed this. And yes, we do find new parts under construction in fossil organisms. The transition from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear is one example. There are also fossil imprints of feathers in construction.

 

Remember, mutations are beneficial, harmful, or neutral in respect to a particular environment. A mutation that is neutral in one environment could be very beneficial in another. In fact, some people have a mutation that confers resistance to HIV. In the absence of HIV this mutation is neutral -- it neither helps nor hurts the immune system. But when HIV is part of the environment, now the mutation is beneficial.

 

What happens most in evolution is exaptation. That is, a trait is built for one purpose and then also has another purpose unrelated to the initial selection for the trait. Two good examples are the evolution of flight in insects and birds. In insects, wings are modified gills. Wings were enlarged to act as heat exchangers. Just at the optimal size to function as heat exchangers, they structures also got the insect off the ground into flight!

 

In birds, feathers evolved first for sexual display but they also served as insulation. Later on in small theropod dinosaurs, feathers assisted the animals to run up inclined surfaces -- either to catch prey or run to a refuge to escape a larger predator. Pumping the forelimbs up and down on these bipedal dinosaurs allowed them to run up surfaces that were past vertical! BUT, at this point the feathers -- evolved to do this -- also got the dino off the ground into first flight!

 

What you have, MustKnow, is a lot of misinformation about evolution by people who want to reject it for religious reasons. For instance, from the newgeology website:

"All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. "

 

Not true at all. I have a list of over 60 papers describing beneficial mutations. What's more, this paper notes that only 2.8 mutations out of 1,000 are actually harmful.

PD Keightley and A Caballero, Genomic mutation rates for lifetime reproductive output and lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 3823-3827, 1997

 

So, have you read any textbooks on evolution? Or do you confine your reading to anti-evolutionist websites? I strongly suggest Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology. It will correct a lot of the untruths the websites are telling you.

 

BTW, you mentioned computer programs. Yes, I have done that. However, are you aware of studies that people have used natural selection to make computer programs? One individual -- Al Samuel -- had natural selection make a computer program to play checkers. The program played checkers games and -- by variation and selection -- changed the program. Eventually, the program was able to defeat the human checkers champ. Samuel didn't look at the program while it was evolving. After the program won the checkers' championship, he looked it over. There were large segments of the programming that he couldn't figure out what it did. Which shows that Samuel's intelligence wasn't involved. After all, what programmer doesn't know what each line in the program does? If you want to read more about it:

AI Samuel, Some studies on machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research Development, 3: 211-219, 1964. Reprinted in EA Feigenbaum and J Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964 pp 71-105.

 

Basically, MustKnow, natural selection is an unintelligent process that gives design. And it is a much better designer than humans.

[MustKnow]

Alright lets start over. So evolution is caused by mutations, which is then governed by Natural selection correct?

 

 

No software that exist on the face of the planet has ever evolved and wrote new code or added to itself new code.

[mooeypoo]

Alright lets start over. So evolution is caused by mutations, which is then governed by Natural selection correct?

 

 

No software that exist on the face of the planet has ever evolved and wrote new code or added to itself new code.

Okay, you're not starting over, your reiterating the soundbites that COUNTLESS of so called "evolution debunkers" say.

 

MustKnow, if you're too afraid to actually read what we posted, and are too afraid to actually learn about the theory you are so quick to dismiss, then you have absolutely NOTHING to do here.

 

I understand that it's easier to take those counter-claims from the "debunker" sites, but we've heard them all before - which is why there *ARE* answers for them in the FAQ and other sites. You just insist on not reading them.

 

This isn't a practice ground for you to stomp your feet on the ground with your hands on your ears and see if you can convince the unbelievers despite counter evidence.

This is a science forums, which demands scientific rigor.

 

You're obviously not open minded enough to get over your own fear and read more than just your own one-sided set of "debunking" sites, and you seem to have no desire to even CONSIDER the other side. What, then, are you trying to do here? Tire us to admission? You're not the first to try, and you're not the first to fail. Evolution is too strong of a theory, proven by too many evidence and corroborating facts for you to do that.

 

Good luck, though.

 

~moo

[iNow]

No software that exist on the face of the planet has ever evolved and wrote new code or added to itself new code.

 

Just for kicks, that's wrong:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/hes/publications/dellarocas98architecture.pdf

http://cn.cs.unibas.ch/people/ly/doc/pik2005-ctly.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.55.2119

 

 

 

Now, in addition to that... software is not life based on chemistry, nor does software produce offspring, so your comment is rather silly and completely unrelated to the discussion. You may as well be saying that evolution by natural selection is wrong because it doesn't adequately explain gravity.

[Phi for All]

Alright lets start over.

Starting over is pointless if you aren't going to read the refutations made. Since you've been warned about this before, I'm issuing a trolling infraction. I know you will most likely think it's just because your stance goes against accepted science, but it really is because you make statements which are adequately refuted, then repeat them later, proving that you are not reading the refutations. This just keeps threads moving in circles, and teaches us only that you are hidebound and close-minded.

[Mr Skeptic]

Alright lets start over. So evolution is caused by mutations, which is then governed by Natural selection correct?

 

That is vaguely correct. Mutation supplies variation, natural selection removes unfit variation. What is left is fit variation.

 

No software that exist on the face of the planet has ever evolved and wrote new code or added to itself new code.

 

You mean like evolutionary algorithms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

 

Unlike life, computer programs are designed, so most changes to them would be harmful, and also the "mutation rate" is extremely low. Also most are gotten from a primary source rather than perpetuated from copies of copies of copies. Also, they get obsoleted by new software so changes don't have time to accumulate.

 

However, evolutionary algorithms are designed to mimic evolution and can indeed generate new information.

[MustKnow]

Im going to skip the software debate and go back to the evolution

 

 

Tell me if this is right. I pulled this from an evolution link think it was pbs.com/evolution. A set of frogs live on some islands, they are all the same, but different colors from one island to another. The reasoning of the different colors in the frogs had to do with certain genes becoming actived then that particular color giving the competitive edge on the various Islands, which was causing the Frogs one island one to all be red island 2 blue and 3 yellow. This is evolution, being the gene change and natural selection, correct?

Edited May 6, 2009 by MustKnow

[mooeypoo]

It sounds to me those evolutionary programs worked something like this. It has a set of functions that are used for solving problems, the computer then tries each function to determine which is best for solving the problem. The it sets that function in place, in the given program. So it works more like an overseer, to other programs. It doesn't write its own software, it has a pool that is uses. Would be interesting to see more about that software, id like to see how it handles errors when its trying to find the best solution for the other programs.

Evolutionary programming uses some principles from biological evolution, but they are by far NOT the same. They are not simulating evolution, really, they just use principles from the theory in their routines.

 

~moo

[MustKnow]

edited last posts a few times.

[mooeypoo]

Im going to skip the software debate and go back to the evolution

First off, please try to avoid changing your posts in such a manner, it's confusing to people who put the time to answer. If you want to post something other than what you posted, just use another post. Specially after someone already replied.

 

That said, you are again ignoring our sources, and nitpicking your own. Do you see that this is not going to further this debate?

 

I am going to take the chance and try to answer your question, though I am not lacking experience as to not recognize a trap question when I see one. In any case --

 

 

Tell me if this is right. I pulled this from an evolution link think it was pbs.com/evolution. A set of frogs live on some islands, they are all the same, but different colors from one island to another. The reasoning of the different colors in the frogs had to do with certain genes becoming actived then that particular color giving the competitive edge on the various Islands, which was causing the Frogs one island one to all be red island 2 blue and 3 yellow. This is evolution, being the gene change and natural selection, correct?

Not seeing this movie I can't really know what it said. Trusting your word for it, thought, it sounds like one of the examples for evolution via Natural Selection, indeed, though - again - without knowing what, exactly, it was talking about I can't really venture any guesses as to why the colors of the frogs changed.

 

One of the most known first examples of Evolution (used by Darwin in his book) is the galapagos island. The birds that were similar, and yet different in each of the island - and sometimes parts of the same island. He showed clearly that it was due to different settings and environment, and that all these different birds originated from the same type of bird.

 

Does that answer your question?

[MustKnow]

yep that basicly what the article said just used a different example. So my next thought is these changes happened only because they were there all along in the DNA just not active.

 

 

next train of thought here. out of roughly 1 billion nuclei reproduced there is 1 mutation, and after the mutation occurs there are several systems in place which attempt to repair the mutation.

 

So lets say our mutation has gotten past the repair systems, the mutation will more then likely kill the cell, do nothing and on the very low end enhance the cell. Lets say it doesn't die and does nothing. Now the cell lives on passes the natural selection test, and reproduces, now wont it pass on its mutation to the next generation? And if so the next generation will now have a small amount of its DNA corrupted.

[mooeypoo]

yep that basicly what the article said just used a different example. So my next thought is these changes happened only because they were there all along in the DNA just not active.

.. what are you basing this thought on?

 

next train of thought here. out of roughly 1 billion nuclei reproduced there is 1 mutation, and after the mutation occurs there are several systems in place which attempt to repair the mutation.

 

So lets say our mutation has gotten past the repair systems, the mutation will more then likely kill the cell, do nothing and on the very low end enhance the cell. Lets say it doesn't die and does nothing. Now the cell lives on passes the natural selection test, and reproduces, now wont it pass on its mutation to the next generation? And if so the next generation will now have a small amount of its DNA corrupted.

Again you show you did not read the material about evolution.

 

First off, not all mutations are considered "corruptions". Some might not even be noticeable and therefore not fixed. In fact, no duplication is 100% accurate and the chance of mutation is quite big, considering the amount of information in a DNA strand.

 

It is the accumulation of certain mutations that may produce visible changes through the course of generations. The changes that evolution is speaking of do not occur within a generation, and not even two. Your conclusion to your thought process, therefore, is flawed. You're considering too little of a time.

 

I recommend you watch Richard Dawkins lecture "Climbing Mount Improbable". It is a brilliant demonstration of Evolutionary theory and answers most of the usual "tough questions" that "evolution debunkers" pretend to find no answer for. In fact, I have a feeling it will answer 95% of your questions. If you ever choose to watch it.

 

JW1rVGgFzWU

 

It's part 1 of 8. I suggest you watch them all, they are very informative and thought provoking, and very interesting to watch.

 

~moo

[Mokele]

I think you're considering mutation in too simplistic and Mendelian a light. Remember, there are mutations for continuous traits like height and fur color. A mutation in a gene for height wouldn't be lethal because there are many genes controlling this property - at most, it would make the individual smaller, which in some situations (islands where food is scarce, for example), would be an advantage.

 

Two of the most popular evolutionary systems in my field rely on such continuous traits - the leg length of small island lizards of the genus Anolis, and the length of various jaw bones in Labrid fishes.

 

 

You might find the lizard example helpful. Basically, throughout the Caribbean, there are these small lizards called anoles (you've probably also seen them in pet stores, often erroneously marketed at 'chameleons', or seen them in visits to FL or the southern USA). Like most lizards, they're quite fast, and run to escape predators. Leg length is a major component of speed - longer legs mean longer strides. But longer legs also interfere with movement in dense arboreal habitats. So each lizard adapts to its habitat: lizards on trunks have long legs, lizards out in the bushes and tips of tree branches have short legs. The lizards can be sorted into a handful of 'ecomorphs' - different species which inhabit the same niche of different islands, thus have the same leg length.

 

Now here's the cool part: the evolution is repeatable, predictable and observable on human time scales (within years). You can drop any anole off on any island and accurately predict what you'll find when you get back purely based on the structure of the plant life (low scrub vs trees, etc.).

 

And we've actually done it. We've observed singificant morphological change in just a few years, and what's more we can predict the direction of evolution for this system.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mokele, that sounds like it would be driven by selection of pre-existing genes, not by evolution of new genes. For a relatively long lived species, a few years won't be more than a few generations -- hardly enough time for a new gene to arise and spread throughout the whole group. At least I don't think so.

[MustKnow]

I think you're considering mutation in too simplistic and Mendelian a light. Remember, there are mutations for continuous traits like height and fur color. A mutation in a gene for height wouldn't be lethal because there are many genes controlling this property - at most, it would make the individual smaller, which in some situations (islands where food is scarce, for example), would be an advantage.

 

 

If you guys dont mind could you keep your post small and pungent. or stick to one point not 20 different ones. lets take it by the numbers.

 

Mutations: Spontaneous Mutations and induced mutations. Spontaneous mutations happen as a result of mistakes by the DNA polymerase III. Induced mutations happen as a result of exposer to certain chemicals or radiation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First off, not all mutations are considered "corruptions". Some might not even be noticeable and therefore not fixed. In fact, no duplication is 100% accurate and the chance of mutation is quite big, considering the amount of information in a DNA strand.

 

It is the accumulation of certain mutations that may produce visible changes through the course of generations. The changes that evolution is speaking of do not occur within a generation, and not even two. Your conclusion to your thought process, therefore, is flawed. You're considering too little of a time.

~moo

 

First comment Marked Bold:

 

If the DNA is no longer the same as it originally was it has been corrupted.

 

2ND comment Marked Bold:

 

That is untrue. roughly out of 1 billion cells there is one mutation. That means there are roughly 1 billion cells that were copied accurately.

 

3rd comment Marked Bold:

 

If the DNA is corrupted as i said, and another generation experiences the same fate as our last cell then now wouldn't the DNA strand have 2 corruptions?

[Mokele]

Mokele, that sounds like it would be driven by selection of pre-existing genes, not by evolution of new genes. For a relatively long lived species, a few years won't be more than a few generations -- hardly enough time for a new gene to arise and spread throughout the whole group. At least I don't think so.

 

I think you mean alleles, and yes, a large part of it is selection on standing genetic diversity (aided by the fact that leg length is surely controlled by many genes, rather than just one).

 

I also simplified by leaving out sexual selection - males are highly territorial, with elaborate mating displays, so there's a very high degree of asymmetry in reproductive output. A male with a good leg length (which also helps catch prey) will grow larger and attractively colored, and mate with a LOT of females. This could conceivably amplify selective advantage and increase the speed of evolution.

[Mr Skeptic]

Thanks, Mokele. I think MustKnow accepts the selection process but not the ability of mutations to generate new, useful information.

 

First comment Marked Bold:

 

If the DNA is no longer the same as it originally was it has been corrupted.

 

This depends on what you mean by corrupted. Yes, it is different, no, that does not automatically make it a bad thing. For example, you are a highly corrupted copy of your father.

 

When most people think corrupt, they think it is a bad thing, but that is a different definition and you can't use both no matter how much you would like to. For example, if you take a corrupt politician and make a perfect copy of him, the copy will not be a corrupt copy but the copy will be a corrupt politician. You can't say that it makes him a perfect politician, just a perfect copy of a corrupt politician.

 

2ND comment Marked Bold:

 

That is untrue. roughly out of 1 billion cells there is one mutation. That means there are roughly 1 billion cells that were copied accurately.

 

A mutation rate per base pair will tell you how many mutations there are per number of base pairs. Unless you have cells with DNA 1 letter long, you're talking about approximately 1 mutation per cell (given a cell with 1 billion base pairs), not 1 mutation per 1 billion cells (which for cells with 1 billion base pairs would imply a mutation rate of 1 per 1 billion billion base pairs).

 

3rd comment Marked Bold:

 

If the DNA is corrupted as i said, and another generation experiences the same fate as our last cell then now wouldn't the DNA strand have 2 corruptions?

 

If you are asking whether mutations build up, then yes, they almost always do. There is the possibility that one mutation would reverse a previous mutation, but unless there are an awful lot of mutations, that would be extremely unlikely. But for the most part, mutations occur is different places. However, detrimental mutations tend to be eliminated, so that the neutral and beneficial mutations tend to be the ones that accumulate.

 

---

 

Incidentally, here is an experiment that has been done. Take a bacteria, and mutate a single base pair in a place such that it eliminates the function of a very important gene. After growing the bacteria for a while, a mutation (which you call corruption) will eventually occur on this base pair, turning a previously useless protein into an incredibly useful protein. When this happens, the bacterium in question will vastly out compete its siblings, so it is easy to notice. This, incidentally, proves that a mutation can be extremely beneficial, though in a trivial sense.

[Mokele]

Thanks, Mokele. I think MustKnow accepts the selection process but not the ability of mutations to generate new, useful information.

 

Yes, even after being told about gene duplication and even polyploidy (whole genome duplication).

[Bignose]

If you guys dont mind could you keep your post small and pungent. or stick to one point not 20 different ones.

 

Pot, meet Kettle. Com'on, you've been at least as guilty as anyone else in this thread in jumping topics, hoping to find one that isn't thoroughly debunked.

 

And, asking people to discuss a complicated topic with "small" posts is pretty silly, too. Keeping things short to just "sound bites" may be a large part of the reason you are so misinformed about the current body of knowledge about evolution today. This isn't a simple topic, and limiting to just short responses doesn't do it anywhere near the justice it deserves.

 

To correct beliefs that are wrong, you have to point out the errors and then explain the situation as we best understand it today. That it most likely going to take more than just a "small" post.

 

This is going to sound blunt I think it needs to be written: If you really cared, you'd take the time to read all the posts in as much depth as necessary until you understood them, but so far I think that it is obvious that you are here just to repeat many of the same tired old arguments that are refuted by a great deal of evidence if you'd just actually look at the evidence ("small" or not).

[MustKnow]

Thanks, Mokele. I think MustKnow accepts the selection process but not the ability of mutations to generate new, useful information.

 

Incidentally, here is an experiment that has been done. Take a bacteria, and mutate a single base pair in a place such that it eliminates the function of a very important gene. After growing the bacteria for a while, a mutation (which you call corruption) will eventually occur on this base pair, turning a previously useless protein into an incredibly useful protein. When this happens, the bacterium in question will vastly out compete its siblings, so it is easy to notice. This, incidentally, proves that a mutation can be extremely beneficial, though in a trivial sense.

 

Yes mostly, i do not think a mutation has the means to create something new like a kidney.

 

How did the bacteria grow with a very important gene non-functional? Do you have a link also?

[mooeypoo]

Yes mostly, i do not think a mutation has the means to create something new like a kidney.

It can't.

 

But then, we never claimed that, did we? Evolution does not claim that either.

 

That claim is a TWISTED VERSION of what we said about mutations. You either didn't read, didn't understand, or you're doing it on purpose. Which is it?

 

Strawmanning a theory and twisting it to make it easy to disprove is intellectual dishonesty, as well as extremely unhelpful for your points.

 

For the gazilionth time, MustKnow, if you don't know about evolution and refuse to learn, the discussion is moot.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

 

That should answer a few questions.

[mooeypoo]

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

 

That should answer a few questions.

Assuming he has the guts to open an article not given to him by his pastor.