3 of 11
3
Evolution Disproven?
Posted: 30 July 2007 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

is that a fact or theory?

just kidding…

would you ever want it any other way?

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 03:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Damn.  You’re right.  I should have said, ” we both seem to agree. . .”

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 03:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

what is wrong with you? you have admitted I am right, twice in one day!

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2007 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Just softening you up for a sneak attack.  snake  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
rsonin - 27 July 2007 03:23 PM

Evolution is not a fact, because it is not something that can be directly observed, it is an explanation of things that can be directly observed.  The sphericity of our planet can be directly observed, and is directly observed every day, so long as some cosmonaut is stuck in orbit, forsaken owing to budget constraints.

That the sky is blue is a directly observable fact.  Why the sky is blue requires a theory that will necessarily (by definition) be unsusceptible to direct observation.

The debate over evolution should never focus in on whether evolution is fact or theory - that is an irrelevant (and semantic in the sense of “pointless argument over definitions of words”) side track.  If some Bible thumper wants a fact to deal with, then deal with the fact that the Earth is somewhat older than 5800 years - there are literally millions of facts, of legitimate and true and repeatable observations, that they have to account for if they want the “fact” that the Earth was created on some Tuesday afternoon in 3800 B.C. (including tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of man-made objects quite easily proven to be older than that).

Never mind whether evolution accounts for all known facts, or is a fact or theory or whatever - what alternative can make a plausible case to account for even a handful of facts that anyone with eyes to see can see, with ears to hear can hear, and so on?

That’s usually where the discussion is clearly revealed to be between two people living in entirely different worlds, with entirely different rules for what constitutes reason.

You are correct.

Lets see now if the theory of evolution has facts.

The foundation of this theory started before Darwin, but as Darwin is the cause of the polemic between his theory and the religion of the bible, we will see if the theory of Darwin really had the required scientific facts :

1)- Darwin ignored completely the possible changes in the microscopic world. All his work is based in macro-organisms. The species given as examples by Darwin should prove the validity of his theory. Lets see: Darwin wrote some conclusions which were based in his observations as facts: “As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species) Is this true?...Of course no.

We observe that species (the macro-organisms of Darwin) do not suffer favourable variations, on the contrary, each new generation is more weaker than the former one. The word “evolution” of the title of this theory implies “favourable” changes only. Of course, the smart evolutionists today argue that this word means “any knid of change”...sure, as a technical word perhaps, but as a layman’s word means :changes from inferior, worst and simpler status to a superior, better and more complex status.

2)- There is not a single primeval evidence that simple species became more complex species. Contrary to what people seems to think about simple and more complex, I can tell you that biologically a worm is more copmplex than a human, and this fact discards the idea that species become more complex through generations. Worms, according to evolutionists, are much older than humans, their theory assumes that humans must be more complex than worms, and this is not true.

3)- The test of fire: There is not a single evidence of favourable or unfouvorable changes in micro-organisms to become macro-organisms. This is the base foundation missing in the the theory of evolution, this theory practically lacks of a primeval factual evidence, which is the observable evolutionary change of a microbe becoming a more complex organism.

As we can see, with a simple review the theory of evolution can be proved as false.

Of course, the make up of the theory of evolution is to fake that adaptation is a synonymous of evolution, but, I think that it is clear that evolutionists suffer of great ignorance about their own language.

The theory of evolution is very famous but it is inaccurate. The survival of this theory is caused by people who will do anything to avoid the recognition that this theory is false. I have visited lots of their web sites, they are fabulous, explendorous images are found inn them, and computer simulations with great technical support, great articles from recognized scientists are posted, and more much much more.

But, in science primeval facts is the rule, and the theory of evolution lacks of it. Period.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 12:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

Well, given your tone, I suspect you’ve heard all the arguments and aren’t likely to be open-minded on the subject, but I think it necessary to point out a number of errors in your reasoning:

We observe that species (the macro-organisms of Darwin) do not suffer favourable variations, on the contrary, each new generation is more weaker than the former one.[/quote}
I dispute this statement and ask for evidence to support it. Variations occur without regard to what is favorable or unfavorable. Natural selection is the process of increasing the relative frequency of those variants that contribute to greater reproductive success, which ultimate leads species to change in a direction that is adaptive. In this sense, evolution is the process of change in the direction of being better adapted to a given environemnt through the mechanism of natural selection actging on random variation. This is a great simplification, but an essentially accurate summary of the idea, and well-supported by data for both macroscopic and microscopic life forms. Now it is true that lay people ofetn confuse “:better adapted” with “superior” in some other sense, but this is not a flaw in the theory only in the explication of it to the lay public.

I can tell you that biologically a worm is more copmplex than a human, and this fact discards the idea that species become more complex through generations.

In what way is a worm more complex than a human? This I think would be a difficult assertion to prove. While there is no absolute reason that life must evolve from simple to complex exclusively, it is a general pattern that new adaptations are layered on top of pre-existing structures, which are not always lost, so this is a trend that is seen. I would say the fossil record and genetic evidence supports the idea that prokaryotic life emerged first, that eukaryotic life (which is deonstrably more complex) evolved from prokaryotes, that multicellualr organisms evolved from unicellular ones, that complex organ systems emerged after loose aggregations (colonies) of identical organisms, and that in general life does evolve from simple to complex.

There is not a single evidence of favourable or unfouvorable changes in micro-organisms to become macro-organisms.

While I think fossil evidence of this transition is probably not available (though I may be wrong), there is ample evidence from genetics and developmental biochemistry. And even te absence of concrete evidence would not mean the idea was mistaken, only unproven. Evolutionary theory does not depend on being apble to provide examples of every possible step in the development of modern organisms. It is onlhy necessary to show that the principles of spontaneous variation, natural selection, and adaptation to current conditions actually happen, and this can be demonstrated solidly for bnoth amcro and microscopic organisms of many kinds.

I thbik your argument against evolutionary theory has many facts wrong, and that you construct a chain of reaoning that does not by any stretch lead logically to your conclusion.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
mckenzievmd - 03 August 2007 12:21 AM

Well, given your tone, I suspect you’ve heard all the arguments and aren’t likely to be open-minded on the subject, but I think it necessary to point out a number of errors in your reasoning:

We observe that species (the macro-organisms of Darwin) do not suffer favourable variations, on the contrary, each new generation is more weaker than the former one.

I dispute this statement and ask for evidence to support it. Variations occur without regard to what is favorable or unfavorable. Natural selection is the process of increasing the relative frequency of those variants that contribute to greater reproductive success, which ultimate leads species to change in a direction that is adaptive. In this sense, evolution is the process of change in the direction of being better adapted to a given environemnt through the mechanism of natural selection actging on random variation. This is a great simplification, but an essentially accurate summary of the idea, and well-supported by data for both macroscopic and microscopic life forms. Now it is true that lay people ofetn confuse “:better adapted” with “superior” in some other sense, but this is not a flaw in the theory only in the explication of it to the lay public.

Adaptation is not an event of success with the meaning that species prevail over the environment with a “winning only” status. On the contrary, adaptation is solely what is left after a fight for survival. Mostly, the adapted species do lose lots of characteristics and gain a few ones. Lets use an example, you see the T-Rex. The T-Rex is a dinosaur which indeed had an increased mouth and strong legs but it has atrophied arms and hands. What kind of adaptation you have with this species? The one which impede it to use its arms and hands. There are lots of commentaries about the T-Rex as eating more garbage than killing other dinos around. Look at the tigers and their ancestors, the elephants and any other species with their former ancestors, even the horse lost its toes!

When you imply a process as natural selection you are giving some kind of intelligence to this process, as if nature itself is the intelligent designer to make the species better adapted to the new environment. Such idea is nuts. Survival is the key word instead of natural selection. Survival does not select anything, survival tells you that if you are in the right place and the right moment you will still alive after the portent. You lose your arms due to chemical reactions caused by the hitting of a comet, the first change in your body might be to have strongest legs and maybe strongest teeth, the next generations will lose tooth by tooth and your diet will change from eating other animals to eating seeds from trees, You will loose your teeth and your mouth will become a beak. What happened with the former dinosaur? Now is known as a bird.

Between the changes its appearance through generations can be observe as more weaker, of course this species survived the changes in the environment, but this process is simply called “adaptation”. There is not such thing as evolution as the primeval idea of the theory which implied “favourable variations only” because you have lots of atrophied arms, legs, teeth, and more in the species.

I can tell you that biologically a worm is more copmplex than a human, and this fact discards the idea that species become more complex through generations.

In what way is a worm more complex than a human? This I think would be a difficult assertion to prove. While there is no absolute reason that life must evolve from simple to complex exclusively, it is a general pattern that new adaptations are layered on top of pre-existing structures, which are not always lost, so this is a trend that is seen. I would say the fossil record and genetic evidence supports the idea that prokaryotic life emerged first, that eukaryotic life (which is deonstrably more complex) evolved from prokaryotes, that multicellualr organisms evolved from unicellular ones, that complex organ systems emerged after loose aggregations (colonies) of identical organisms, and that in general life does evolve from simple to complex.

The key is “association” and not “evolution”, you just said it. These associations formed the macro-organisms, and each different kind of association formed a different kind of species (macro-organisms). Then, we are not descendants of dinosaurs, worms or mice, but our assovciation of micro-organisms is a different one. No evolutionary process is found until now with your statements.

About prokayotes and eukaryotes. The difference between them is the how they copy the information from the DNA to the mRNA. While the prokaryotes (bacterial cells) do not have nuclei, the eukaryotes do have it, and how the code thir information in a more complex “way” is the difference. It is not that eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes, but by the way they code their information.

There is not a single evidence of favourable or unfouvorable changes in micro-organisms to become macro-organisms.

While I think fossil evidence of this transition is probably not available (though I may be wrong), there is ample evidence from genetics and developmental biochemistry. And even te absence of concrete evidence would not mean the idea was mistaken, only unproven. Evolutionary theory does not depend on being apble to provide examples of every possible step in the development of modern organisms. It is onlhy necessary to show that the principles of spontaneous variation, natural selection, and adaptation to current conditions actually happen, and this can be demonstrated solidly for bnoth amcro and microscopic organisms of many kinds.

Excuse me? Sorry, if no experimental data or observable phenomena is available from evolutionists, then, their statements still are mere assumptions. This is the way that science works, otherwise, religious people can say this and that but that no experimental data is necessary besides miracles to prove the existence of a god.

Let me give you an example about “better resistance to drugs” by bacteria. I will pass a big flame near your arm, and you will feel the pain. I do the same everyday until you get acostumed to the pain, but this is a long process. Lets make it short. I put the flame close to your arm as I did before, and the vapors from the combustible to keep the flame alive make a failure in your brain so you don’t feel pain because your nervous system have been atrophied. Then, you became “resistant” to the pain caused by the heat of the flame and you start to make big money in a circus doing the act of the flame close to your body and you feeling no pain at all. To this mutation of losing sensitivity in your nervuos sysytem you call it “pain resistant”.

Do you know what? This is what happens mostly with bacteria, the drugs interefere with their capabilities to reproduce when it causes the bacteria to stop making proteins. What happens in the bacteria? Well, after the exposure and survival to the drug, the bacteria passes the process of losing information.  Look, the drug itself attaches to a matching place on a ribosome of the bacteria and makes the interference so the bacteria can’t grow and reproduce.  By losing information, the mutation in the bacteria changes the ribosome’s place and the drug won’t have the place of its attachement. We see now that the drug molecule cannot attach to the ribosome and cannot interefere anymore with the grown and reproduction of the bacteria, and to this mutation of losing information in the bacteria you call it “drug resistant”.

I think your argument against evolutionary theory has many facts wrong, and that you construct a chain of reaoning that does not by any stretch lead logically to your conclusion.

Well, as this theory of evolution is not revealing a direct an acurate foundation but lots of educated guesses, my point is that this theory still invalid by the lack of facts. Look, the hundreds of assumed evidence presented by relativists show anything but an evolutionary process, it shows you adaptations, extinctions, and more, but not a single biological experimental data or observable phenomenon proving an evolutionary step in species. Bacterium still is a bacterium after its exposure to drugs, if the bacterium used to eat the sugars of our bodies and now eats our inmunity defenses, I can tell you that this bacterium does’t eat our sugars anymore, so, we have a bacterium which changed its diet, but nothing which implies it as a more complex organism. The reason is because the bacterium has adquired a new characteristic…but it has lost another one.

Please, review every test made with bacteria, all of them without exception has gained and lost characteristics, there is not a “winning only” scenario. Still, after the exposure to drugs, radiation, and more, the bacteriuim still is a simple micro-organism. Where is the “evolution”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-06-17

In answer to your points:

1. That you can refute one thing Darwin said is no refutation of the entire theory, which predates him, and was refined after him.

You assume (as do some people who ascribe to the theory) that evolution describes something more than the history of the organisms whose existence it seeks to explain.  But that is not the case.  It is proof enough of the “superiority” of an organism, or it’s particular form, that it exists now.  If it was not “superior”, it would have died out, and we would be studying its fossilized remains, rather than living specimens.  In short, that which exists at all is, by the standard of mere survival and procreation, “superior”.  This is no moral distinction, only an existential one.

2. “Complex” is a term that needs more elucidation if you want to use the idea behind it as any kind of evidence or proof.

In any case, the idea that something that is more “complex” than something else is a necessary result of an evolutionary process is entirely spurious.

3. This is a false assertion, considering numerous examples of organisms that are considered single species by virtue of one set of criteria, but which clearly form larger organisms if considered by a different set of criteria.

Also, there is a continuum between individual organisms which form a population of individuals and individual organisms which together form a new organism.  It is clear that a human being’s liver cell, considered as a species, cannot live without a highly specific environment made up of other human cells; but it is equally clear that a human being, considered as a species, cannot survive without a highly specific environment made up of human beings and other species, and that the individual parts of a liver cell considered as organisms cannot exist except in the context of a highly specific environment provided by the rest of the organelles in the cell.

What this particular argument lacks is an understanding of the continuum of living things, and the necessary interrelationships and symbioses that life requires.  Where we draw the lines between single cell and multiple cell organisms is arbitrary and practical, rather than an indication of some deeper truth.

In sum - you seem to be imbuing the theory of evolution with a teleology that it does not claim.  Teleology belongs to Aristotle and the Church, not to scientific thinking.  If you can shake the idea that evolution must be purposive or teleological, you will then understand that it is merely an explanation of material, observable natural history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

conquer, you said “We observe that species (the macro-organisms of Darwin) do not suffer favourable variations, on the contrary, each new generation is more weaker than the former one.” whose we and what are the examples? cause im wondering if the examples you will provide really disproves evolution, which i strongly doubt it would.

im going to jump the gun but I bet we can find many examples of species losing favor but thats probably largely to do changes in the enviornment, making adaptation harder. evolution is not about ensuring survival for all (or a teleology as rsonin pointed out), its like the phrase Darwin used for natural selection, “survival of the fittest.” that we can find examples of species not fit enough is not disproof of evolution. thats proof.

evolution is more than just one function. species can progress by chance and luck or they can expire, or they can bo back to the water, or they - as the ostrich - can stop flying, or they can be “living fossil” like the horeshoe crab who change very little at all.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

Again, I deny that the process as I describe it implies any intelligence. However, I do think differential survival and reproduction does result in organisms better suited to theri envirvonment than their ancestors. Youcherry pick examples of species that lose some physical feature of their anatomy and try to use this as an argument that evolution is making them weaker. Nonsense. Physical structures are altered over time, but this is not in any meaningful sense a weakening of the species. That is your value judgement. The changes result in organisms better suited to surviving and reproducing, so if anything they are getting “better,” though again I don’t like that type of value-laden language because I think it misses the point. Lsoing a structure can, indeed make a species stronger. Whales would have a pretty hard time swimming effeciently with legs dangling behind them, so they function more efficientlyh for that “loss.”

To argue that the complex mechanisms for metabolism and transfer/transformation of genetic materials in eukaryotes is not more complex than in prokaryotes simple doesn’t make sense. And to argue that the changes in these mechanisms over time is not evolution is equally contrary to the existing evidence.

As for the idea that one missing step in the fossil record disproves the whole theory, that is NOT how science works. The theory is substantiated by evidence in the fossil record, the geneome of manyu species, and in the behavior of microorganisms today, so the fact that a particular step has not been preserved does not have anything like the significance you wish to assigns it.


Your example of the flame vs drug resistance confounds somatic adaptations with genetic ones. A toxin that dulls the senses and a change in the DNA that codes for ribosomal binding sites are totally different processes, not least in that the latter is heritable and the former is not. So this false analogy in no way challenges the fact that bacteria develop new heritable characteristics, including drug resistence, through an evolutionary process driven by genetic variation and natural selection. TO say itis still a bacterium is to imply that evolution means thewholesale alteration of a species into something else in one step,. which is not of course what evolutionary theory says. Try looking at Chihuahuas and Great Danes and tracing the process of differential reproductive success that has led to two essentially separate species (incapable of interbreeding). This is exactly how evolution works except the selective force has been human beings, which has shortened the usual tiem scale considerably. Or look at the fossile record of the evolution ofthe horse, since you mention it. A very complete chain of intermediates showing the transformation over time of one species into another. And if you thik they are less complex because they have one toe instead of 5, lets talk about the passive stay apparatus and the various structures that allow such a large animal to walk on such a little foot. Very complex, I assure you.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I suspect this poster is going on the pseudoscientific works of William Dembsky.  Evidence of assemblage of microorganisms into larger communities that function as a whole “organism”: Funghi and their fruiting bodies.  Drug resistant bacteria appear to be poor competitors in the wider population and therefore less adapted to surviving and thriving in an environment already densely populated by other’s of a slightly different strain. Kill off most of the population and the drug resistant ones will do better due to the lack of non-drug resistant ones.  There are quite a few pieces of very clear evidence (examples) for all of the different speciation mechanisms including apatric, allopatric and saintpatric speciation mechanisms and you really ought to look at them instead of the nonsensical made up and completely untested information “theory” of William Dumbski that you appear to be spouting. It is simply another attempt by him and the other ID proponent freaks to get something unscientific and poorly thought out into mainstream science without doing the work like the rest of us have to.

On this point, Could one of the moderators check out the IP numbers of people posting to this site and trace the registered users please as I think the site has been targetted by Christian weirdos and freaks recently.  Today, I have found a piece of junkmail in my email account that was sent to me via CFI from someone calling themselves “dearoneinchrist@yahoo.com”  and it is a long and idiotic scam mail.  I can post it to a moderator if they wish to view the evidence.

[ Edited: 03 August 2007 04:31 PM by narwhol ]
 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

i have a picture of the dikika baby (the smiling model created for National Geographic) up at my desk. when someone stops by and asks why I have a picture of a monkey up at my desk I tell them, “that aint no monkey. Thats our cousin!” i think thats what turns people off the most; their anthrocentrism. they cant stomach the humility to recognize that we all are one big family. they have to see themselves as different and superior in an unnatural sense.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 01:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
rsonin - 03 August 2007 04:28 AM

In answer to your points:

1. That you can refute one thing Darwin said is no refutation of the entire theory, which predates him, and was refined after him.

You assume (as do some people who ascribe to the theory) that evolution describes something more than the history of the organisms whose existence it seeks to explain.  But that is not the case.  It is proof enough of the “superiority” of an organism, or it’s particular form, that it exists now.  If it was not “superior”, it would have died out, and we would be studying its fossilized remains, rather than living specimens.  In short, that which exists at all is, by the standard of mere survival and procreation, “superior”.  This is no moral distinction, only an existential one.

The theory itself was proved false long ago, and the suggested refining is no more than lots of additions to make it appear as a whole of several events. In reality, if you read carefully the whole evidence presented to prove a theory about changes in species through generations, the best title is: The theory of Adaptation.

[2. “Complex” is a term that needs more elucidation if you want to use the idea behind it as any kind of evidence or proof.

In any case, the idea that something that is more “complex” than something else is a necessary result of an evolutionary process is entirely spurious.

Yes, and such is the idea which evolutionists are trying to give. Some people still confused that “more quantity is a synonymous of more complex”, and such is not the scenario. For example, a supernova explosion causes the elements to be simpler thant their former status, this means that what is left from the star decays faster.The same applies to the species.

3. This is a false assertion, considering numerous examples of organisms that are considered single species by virtue of one set of criteria, but which clearly form larger organisms if considered by a different set of criteria.

Also, there is a continuum between individual organisms which form a population of individuals and individual organisms which together form a new organism.  It is clear that a human being’s liver cell, considered as a species, cannot live without a highly specific environment made up of other human cells; but it is equally clear that a human being, considered as a species, cannot survive without a highly specific environment made up of human beings and other species, and that the individual parts of a liver cell considered as organisms cannot exist except in the context of a highly specific environment provided by the rest of the organelles in the cell.

What this particular argument lacks is an understanding of the continuum of living things, and the necessary interrelationships and symbioses that life requires.  Where we draw the lines between single cell and multiple cell organisms is arbitrary and practical, rather than an indication of some deeper truth.

In sum - you seem to be imbuing the theory of evolution with a teleology that it does not claim.  Teleology belongs to Aristotle and the Church, not to scientific thinking.  If you can shake the idea that evolution must be purposive or teleological, you will then understand that it is merely an explanation of material, observable natural history.

On the contrary, the theory of evolution seems to become as one more religion around when its doctrines are based solely in educated guesses and no facts. The current fact is that the genome maps of the species are the association of micro-organisms. This association doesn’t imply any evolutionary step but a different class of adaptation. What “forced” the changes in the micro-organisms is unknown, but for sure we are not a single cell which evolved into something more complex or into something more bigger.

Then, as micro-organisms were forced to change and adapt in a different way, the several events created different species, and this is the reason why we seem to share 50% of our genes with bananas. What the doctrines of Evolution will say when we interpret their statements correctly? Lol, that we are the “banana’s fair cousins”.

Face it, the similitude of genetical information is not a synonymous of being of the same family, such is irrelevant and even ridiculous.

Take our formation as macro-organisms as having primeval elements forming things around. For example, you use wood, breaks, glass, nails, paint, carpet, cement, and other materials to built houses, garages, sky scrapers, and more. The sky scraper is not the “cousin” of a one florr rambler, but those two constructions are different buildings sharing the same primeval elements or materials.

The macro-organisms share the same genetic without the need of being of the same family, because they are different associations sharing the same primeval elements or cells.

Of course each species is related to another but not the way Evolution implies so wrongly. We are related by the use of the same living primeval genes which have suffered variations as well.

This idea of mine can be tested in lab with great success, for example, but associating liver scap from different bodies the new technology has been able to form liver organs which can be transplanted. This is an already success in our technology, this experiment proves my idea as plausible and discards the refined doctrines of Evolution.

What about that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 02:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
truthaddict - 03 August 2007 10:00 AM

conquer, you said “We observe that species (the macro-organisms of Darwin) do not suffer favourable variations, on the contrary, each new generation is more weaker than the former one.” whose we and what are the examples? cause im wondering if the examples you will provide really disproves evolution, which i strongly doubt it would.

im going to jump the gun but I bet we can find many examples of species losing favor but thats probably largely to do changes in the enviornment, making adaptation harder. evolution is not about ensuring survival for all (or a teleology as rsonin pointed out), its like the phrase Darwin used for natural selection, “survival of the fittest.” that we can find examples of species not fit enough is not disproof of evolution. thats proof.

evolution is more than just one function. species can progress by chance and luck or they can expire, or they can bo back to the water, or they - as the ostrich - can stop flying, or they can be “living fossil” like the horeshoe crab who change very little at all.

Well, it is obvious that everything changes without exception, this is a fact. The situation here is the predictions made by the theory of Evolution about the changes. Lets stick with one case alone which is very important to analyze: While the theory expect us to believe that changes were favourable with humans in life’s history on earth, we really don’t see such prediction coming true by any means.

Recently, a medical report announced that this generation of senior people is weaker than former generations. I also was talking with a person who told me that we are strongeer and even faster than the ancient people, and for this matter he showed me the records in racing from centuries ago and today. Apparently neither the Greeks were so fast as today’s runners, this was his assumed evidence. I just asked him to require the runners to run without those shoes with nails which are used today. The guy never replied me back. See? This is an example of an illusion.

The assumed “evolution” from ape-like creatures to human like creatures is an illusion. In reality apes and humans are two different associations of micro-organisms. We have lots of similitudes, but such is not a valid to be used as evidence by Evolution, because coincidence is not considered as solid evidence by the scientific method.

In order to accept that an ape alike creature can become a human alike creature a lab test or any other experiment must prove that such transition is possible.

But, I can tell you the next, while there is not a single evidence proving that ape alike creatures can become human alike creatures by any method, including radiation exposure, drugs and chemicals of all kind, there are lots of evidence that the reversal is possible.

I will show you experimental data which is observed in life, this is to say, with our naked eyes right in front of us:

For example, some failures in the human body can cause a human to adquire characteristics of an ape. The presence of a partial chromosome trisomy -12 (12p +) and the deficiency of the tip of chromosome 8 (8p-) causes the individual to have simian creases in both hands.  Other chromosomes changes caused individuals to have the simian creases together with a mental capacity of an ape (or retardation for us), average of life of 40 years (similar to apes) and more.

While the theory of evolution implies a certain direction between apes and humans, our reality shows the opposite direction.

From any point of view, there is not such “evolution” in life, such is an illusion, the current fossil record about primitive humans can fit in the trunk of my car, and pieces of skull and skeleton of ancient apes are not considered enough evidence to support any theory at all. Every statement made about such amount of fossil records is mere assumptions. And, assumptions do not validate a theory as the experimental data does. You must present experimental data which can be proved in lab or that can be observed in life.

In this case, experimental data is to prove by different methods the “causes” for such ape alike creature be able to have a trasitional change to become a human alike creature.

You won’t come here and show two pieces of skull and say “See? This bones belong to a man who’s brain was similar to the apes, but later on they changed.” No, you simply cannot do that.

I just showed you that certain presence or formation in our chromosomes can make you to adquire ape alike characteristics, so, before you assume that we are descendants of ape alike creatures, you must prove it the same way I do.

After all, this is the scientific way to analyze our statements, don’t you agree?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2007 03:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
mckenzievmd - 03 August 2007 11:05 AM

Again, I deny that the process as I describe it implies any intelligence. However, I do think differential survival and reproduction does result in organisms better suited to theri envirvonment than their ancestors. Youcherry pick examples of species that lose some physical feature of their anatomy and try to use this as an argument that evolution is making them weaker. Nonsense. Physical structures are altered over time, but this is not in any meaningful sense a weakening of the species. That is your value judgement. The changes result in organisms better suited to surviving and reproducing, so if anything they are getting “better,” though again I don’t like that type of value-laden language because I think it misses the point. Lsoing a structure can, indeed make a species stronger. Whales would have a pretty hard time swimming effeciently with legs dangling behind them, so they function more efficientlyh for that “loss.”

If you re-read your words, you will find out that for you “evolution” means any change which happens to the species. Hey! you don’t need a theory for that. At least Darwin was more correct when he implied his evolutionary changes in conjunction with a natural selection with favourable variations.

You are telling me that the new theory of Evolution has become a trick like having a coin with two eagles in its sides. Come on, if you want to be serious you must settle a solid point and a defined direction. Ok?

To argue that the complex mechanisms for metabolism and transfer/transformation of genetic materials in eukaryotes is not more complex than in prokaryotes simple doesn’t make sense. And to argue that the changes in these mechanisms over time is not evolution is equally contrary to the existing evidence.

I was responding to the given idea that eukaryotes were more complex than prokaryotes. I said that such is not the scenario but the complexity is found in the process of information, not in the cells themselves.

As for the idea that one missing step in the fossil record disproves the whole theory, that is NOT how science works. The theory is substantiated by evidence in the fossil record, the geneome of manyu species, and in the behavior of microorganisms today, so the fact that a particular step has not been preserved does not have anything like the significance you wish to assigns it.

I disagree with that, because points of view about the order of fossil records is not accepted to validate a theory. Our planet have suffered upheavals of any kind and we cannot lean on their current place. Some dinosaur fossils have been found almost at the surface level, and recent colonies of insects and other animals lived under. You can order the fossil record at your will, but such order do not validate any theory because it is just an educated guess.

On the other hand, we barely can understand human behaviour and are you willing to assert that your observations on microorganisms are accurate? Tell me, it is the bacterium the one who causes the changes or it is something else which is unknown for you? Better I ask you, it is the rabbit the one who changes in purpose the color of its skin to white in Winter or the change is something which happens without its control?

Your example of the flame vs drug resistance confounds somatic adaptations with genetic ones. A toxin that dulls the senses and a change in the DNA that codes for ribosomal binding sites are totally different processes, not least in that the latter is heritable and the former is not. So this false analogy in no way challenges the fact that bacteria develop new heritable characteristics, including drug resistence, through an evolutionary process driven by genetic variation and natural selection. TO say itis still a bacterium is to imply that evolution means thewholesale alteration of a species into something else in one step,. which is not of course what evolutionary theory says. Try looking at Chihuahuas and Great Danes and tracing the process of differential reproductive success that has led to two essentially separate species (incapable of interbreeding). This is exactly how evolution works except the selective force has been human beings, which has shortened the usual tiem scale considerably. Or look at the fossile record of the evolution ofthe horse, since you mention it. A very complete chain of intermediates showing the transformation over time of one species into another. And if you thik they are less complex because they have one toe instead of 5, lets talk about the passive stay apparatus and the various structures that allow such a large animal to walk on such a little foot. Very complex, I assure you.

The example of chemicals used to keep the fire alive and caused the individual to lose his perception of pain can be inherited as inherited are the physical characteristics from one generation into another. There are lots of records of birth defect where the children inherited the defects of the parents in successive chains. The T-Rex is an example. If you understand birth defects as a process of evolution, well…

Look, about Chihuahuas and Dalmatians or Labradors. The simple event that each class of these canines have developed in different environments can cause the trouble for interbreading, but you have lions and tigers who lived in different environments and do it without problems. What Evolution says about it?...Evolution says, “what the heck, we accept everything in our theory as evolution anyway…” The new theory of evolution is like the theory of everything, just name any contradiction against it and…whoa! that contradiction is also evolution! And some people called it “science”.

You cannot talk about intermediates as a process of evolution without proving them, or at least proving a similar sevent in lab to be compared with the records. About the horse, the primeval horse was like a dog with toes and small size. With the changes in its environment the horse was forced to survive in a different world, and it lost the toes to run in the plains. This adaptation was very good, but there are lots of factors that you might ignore:

1)- Horses can assimilate 25% of their food, while cows can assimilate 75% of theirs. In a famine horses will die more faster than cows. Maybe this is the reason why the primitive horses gor extincted in America long ago.

2)- Without the human help, I think that horses should have got extincted long ago as well. Humans are the factor why horses have survived better in the recent millenniums, because humans domesticated them and kept them alive because their service.

3)- Horses is a bad example to be used as to say that horses have “evolved”.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 11
3