User Tag List

Page 27 of 32 FirstFirst ... 1720212223242526272829303132 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 311

Thread: The Central Flaw of Evolution

  1. #261
    Post Review / PM Disabled
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,410
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked: 100
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is widely considered to be a fact, or 'settle science' by many people who are products of the state educational system. Most of our institutions present it as proven fact, such as TV nature shows, national parks, classrooms, movies, & other presumptions of settled science. But it is not. It is merely a theory, & does not really qualify as that.

    Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. They argue that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seems not only plausible, but accepted as proven fact.

    The argument for evolution is based on the presumption of INCREMENTAL, cumulative changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. the limits upon the changes that can be made.

    For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. Each step you take is cumulative.. it adds up to the goal of the destination. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity. DNA allows the horizontal movement, varying traits & 'selecting' those naturally, or by human design. But it does not allow vertical movement. DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. That is observable, repeatable science.

    The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait into an animal, by narrowing the options that the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Simply asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major changes in the genetic structure.

    Show me HOW the chimp ancestor went from 20 pair genomes (or whatever), to 24.. or to the human 23. There is absolutely NO evidence that this CAN happen, much less that is somehow DID happen, millions of years ago or yesterday. Scientifically, it is impossible.
    YOUR central problem with evolution is the scientific fact and empirical evidence that backs it up and makes it true.

    There is nothing to back up the creationist theory.

  2. #262
    Senior Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 51.0%

    Big Dummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    7,550
    Thanks
    13,362
    Thanked: 6,640
    Rep Power
    21474845
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    YOUR central problem with evolution is the scientific fact and empirical evidence that backs it up and makes it true.

    There is nothing to back up the creationist theory.
    Where are the half monkey half men? Why aren't monkeys and apes evolving?
    "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history." George Orwelll

  3. #263
    Alumni Member V.I.P
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Northern Rivers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Northern Rivers AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    14,946
    Thanks
    11,211
    Thanked: 9,375
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21474853
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dummy View Post
    Where are the half monkey half men? Why aren't monkeys and apes evolving?
    Who says that they are not??? Here we are...at a waystation called Homo Sapiens. We haven't come to a destination...we are still chugging along.

    IMO, all those "space aliens" out there...are one of the hominid scions that split off tens of thousands of years ago and have colonised the best prospects in our solar system.
    If you don't practice...you'll sound like it. And, if you don't tune, your life will sound like it, too. Listen to the intervals. That's where it all hides from you.....

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Northern Rivers For This Useful Post:

    Quark (08-12-2017)

  5. #264
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 65.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,571
    Thanks
    3,412
    Thanked: 8,748
    Rep Power
    21474851
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    All you need is ONE example of this kind of evolution, where the basic genetic structure changes, adds traits, or creates adaptive genes. That has NEVER been done, & all observed adaptation is ONLY about the traits that are ALREADY present in the organism.
    I explained this twice already. There are two parts to the theory of biological evolution: selection, and mutation.

    What you're saying (above) is not true, at all in the least. You need to understand certain things, because it sounds like you're not a biologist.

    Your argument is based on selection, but entirely ignores mutation. And mutation is the driving force behind biological evolution. And it does not (just) mean an A changing into a C in the DNA. Mutation is very complex. There are many different forms of mutation, there are point mutations and sequence mutations, mutations induced by radiation and physical mutations induced by trauma, or biological (including environmental) conditions.... it's a long list.

    Your assertion about breeding is entirely incorrect. Plant breeders regularly administer colchicine, which is a mutagen. That's how they get their new species. It works, ask anyone. It's worked for hundreds of years, long before anyone knew they were looking at evolution in action.

    You have physical mutations - you can stick a pin in a frog embryo at exactly the right time during development, and it'll grow an arm where its eye is supposed to be, or vice versa. And, the effect depends on the kind of pin. If you use a clean pin, you get a clean mutation. If you use a dirty pin, the little bits of dirt travel all over the place, and sometimes they have secondary effects, so you can end up with some pretty monstrous tadpoles.

    The biblical literalists are making a very serious mistake - they think they "understand" what's being discussed. Their mistake is called "anthropomorphic interpretation" - which means - when it says God "created" something, it doesn't say "how" he created it, and the human brain jumps automatically to its own image of "what it means to create something".

    We need science to tell us how God works. Direct spiritual experience might reveal that on a spiritual plane, but it takes science to reveal the physical laws underlying biological organisms. For centuries the arrogant dogmatic Catholics thought they could "fiat" the earth as the center of the universe, and when they were proven wrong they got very nasty about the retaliation. The thing is, none of that dogma is actually based on the Bible. If you think you understand what "created" means, you're probably wrong. (But you're a typically arrogant human being so you'll never admit it).

    This whole business of "macro-evolution" is jumping the gun, it's non-sensical to ask questions like that at this time.

    We are at the level of "basic understanding" right now. We need, for example, to understand why all biomolecules are left handed. There's no obvious reason why that should be, but it appears to be essential for life. Why is that? No one knows. Some people have guessed, but no one really knows.

    Why is that important? Well, it's because left handed mutations are different from right handed mutations. They behave differently. At some level a lot of biochemistry is about the "shape" of molecules, and a right handed shape is completely different from a left handed shape. But in theory they could coexist... they just... don't.

    Everything is evolving, constantly. Apes are evolving even as we speak. The average height of human beings has increased several inches over the last couple hundred years. Even the weed is getting better. We don't know how it works yet, and it's not the kind of thing where you can snap your fingers and get an answer. The better thing to do is, become a scientist and design an experiment. Then you'll have evidence, instead of just conjecture.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to nonsqtr For This Useful Post:

    Quark (08-12-2017)

  7. #265
    Senior Member Forum Donor
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    ChemEngineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,640
    Thanks
    435
    Thanked: 1,485
    Rep Power
    7192185
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    I explained this twice already. There are two parts to the theory of biological evolution: selection, and mutation.
    So profoundly complicated that ONLY Darwinists can *understand* it.
    What you're saying (above) is not true, at all in the least. You need to understand certain things, because it sounds like you're not a biologist.
    No, what YOU'RE saying is not true, at all in the least. Many biologists, and biochemists reject Darwinism.
    "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

    "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science." (George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

    "The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

    "There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." (Sir Cecil Wakely)
    "It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species." (Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

    "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)

    "The theory of life that undermined ninteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas...In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism." (Dr. B. Leith, scientist)

    "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

    "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble." (Albert Einstein)

    "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." (Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147)

    "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought")

    "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)

    "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)

    "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory." (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

    "The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)


    Everything is evolving, constantly. .
    No, adaptation is taking place. It is trivial tinkering, that is all.

    Thousands of man years have been devoted to exposing bacteria and fruit flies to mutations in an effort to create some new species. All have failed to date. Every one. Likewise the touted Miller-Urey Experiment was a colossal failure for a number of reasons, not the least of which was its assumptions were incorrect, and its products yielded trivial amounts of just a few simple amino acids, all under controlled laboratory conditions, not in a mud puddle outside.
    "The history of government management of money has, except for a few short happy periods, been one of incessant fraud and deception." -- economist Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992)

    "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions than putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." - Thomas Sowell

    "The most refreshing thing you find in government is competence, because it is so rare." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

  8. #266
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 75.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    30,394
    Thanks
    6,496
    Thanked: 17,392
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    21474870
    MORE cherry picked quotes?

    Doesn't he realize that the normals all recognize that tactic as a sign of incompetence in the poster?
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    Trump has been President for 205 days and Ruth Bader Ginzberg hasn't had the decency to die. What's up with that?

  9. #267
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 75.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    30,394
    Thanks
    6,496
    Thanked: 17,392
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    21474870
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dummy View Post
    Where are the half monkey half men? Why aren't monkeys and apes evolving?

    Moochelle_dabd41bb041a59f7b5b7cd48d41826f9.jpg

    The bottom half is male....
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    Trump has been President for 205 days and Ruth Bader Ginzberg hasn't had the decency to die. What's up with that?

  10. #268
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 75.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    30,394
    Thanks
    6,496
    Thanked: 17,392
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    21474870
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dummy View Post
    Where are the half monkey half men? Why aren't monkeys and apes evolving?
    Who says they ain't?

    Who says we ain't?

    Evolution is a species response to environmental change. Humans change their own environment, hence drive their own evolution. A heck of a lot more sub-normal intelligent human shapes are breeding successfully these days than there were back during...two centuries ago. That will over time reduce the average intelligence of the species and eventually the species will be so stupid the Culling of the Morons will resume. But nobody can predict what today's on-going corruption of the gene-pool will lead to.
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    Trump has been President for 205 days and Ruth Bader Ginzberg hasn't had the decency to die. What's up with that?

  11. #269
    Senior Member Forum Donor
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    ChemEngineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,640
    Thanks
    435
    Thanked: 1,485
    Rep Power
    7192185
    "The history of government management of money has, except for a few short happy periods, been one of incessant fraud and deception." -- economist Fredrich August von Hayek (1899-1992)

    "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions than putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." - Thomas Sowell

    "The most refreshing thing you find in government is competence, because it is so rare." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

  12. #270
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 65.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,571
    Thanks
    3,412
    Thanked: 8,748
    Rep Power
    21474851
    Quote Originally Posted by ChemEngineer View Post
    So profoundly complicated that ONLY Darwinists can *understand* it.


    No, what YOU'RE saying is not true, at all in the least. Many biologists, and biochemists reject Darwinism.
    "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

    "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science." (George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

    "The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

    "There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." (Sir Cecil Wakely)
    "It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species." (Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

    "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)

    "The theory of life that undermined ninteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas...In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism." (Dr. B. Leith, scientist)

    "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)

    "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble." (Albert Einstein)

    "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." (Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147)

    "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought")

    "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)

    "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)

    "In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory." (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

    "The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)




    No, adaptation is taking place. It is trivial tinkering, that is all.

    Thousands of man years have been devoted to exposing bacteria and fruit flies to mutations in an effort to create some new species. All have failed to date. Every one. Likewise the touted Miller-Urey Experiment was a colossal failure for a number of reasons, not the least of which was its assumptions were incorrect, and its products yielded trivial amounts of just a few simple amino acids, all under controlled laboratory conditions, not in a mud puddle outside.
    Too many words.

    I'm not interested in other people's logic, I'm only interested in yours.

    You clearly do not understand basic biology.

    You should go to school, then come back and talk to me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. pinqy

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •