Mutations are not always harmful. Take for example the mutation that occured sometime around the domestication of cattle in some human populations that allowed certain human populations to digest lactose after weaning by producing the enzyme lactase. Mutations do, among other things guide evolutionary change. Small mutations may help certain individuals or populations become more reproductively "fit" in the environment surrounding them. Mutatations do not necessarily have to be beneficial to certain individuals for them to remain in the gene pool of a population and to be present in more recent populations. Take for example, the balanced polymorphism case of sickle-cell disease in malarial regions of the world. Sickle-cell heterozygotes have an adaptive advantage by providing some protection against the malarial parasite (spread by mosquitos such as A. gambiae) through the sickling of some of their red blood cells which the parasite uses to reproduce. However homozygous recessive indiviuals with the sickle cell gene, often die from the disease because there is too much sickling of their red blood cells, and they cannot transport enough oxygen through their blood strea leading to anemia. However, the people who are homozygous dominant in those populations without the sickle cell allele are more prone to malaria. It seems you need to read into the theory of evolution a little more, before you interpret what people are saying in response to the fundamental processes that guide the scientific theory.



Creationist arguments against evolution are not scientific and therefore provide no weight in the scientific community.

- Regards, Bokonon

Sorry but the probability bit is wrong. The problem here is that complex formations of chemicals were everywhere on the young earth. So there were say a few billion or maybe even more of these formations that could have formed amino acids. Of all of them a few might well turn into amino acids under the right conditions. Remember they all existed at the same time.

The way creationists see this is as one set of amino acids developing and not many complex formations that could turn into amino acids. Basicly a few billion complex molecules in the early sea all interacting with different chemicals is bound to turn into amino acids sometime. and over the course of a few million years proteins could form in this way.

Scietists work this similtanous chemical reactions into their models but creationists only deal with the probability of one set of amino acids forming. If you do the math right it works out.

Maybe someone here has the formula and we can do the math based on the correct view of te scientists.

Ozi, there is a very good reason why no one is answering you. What is the purpose of arguing with a parrot?

This is a discussion forum. You aren't discussing anything. All you've done is post other peoples work. We don't care about them. We care about you. You are the one here talking with us, not the author of the piece that you quoted (and made no effort to indicate they weren't you).

You ask anyone to refute the argument you presented. What would be the purpose? You wouldn't read them. No more than you would read the arguments that you paste from other people (no, I sincerely doubt that you understand the arguments you are pasting). We would go through the effort of explaining a very technical piece of science for you, only to have you completely ignore it and slap another cut and paste job on the thread, claiming "Yeah, well...how about this one?" and demanding an explanation for that.

That isn't how learning is accomplished. That is nothing more than hard-headed refusal to deviate from a mind-set. A simpler word is "close-minded".

So, no, no one is going to "show you." Not until you show us that you are willing to listen. If you are willing to show us that you are ready to listen (not believe, not trust without evidence, not blindly accept everything we say without question, just listen), then this discussion can truly begin. Until then, you are doing nothing more than trying to win on quantity, and losing credibility with every step.

You are not refuting points. Heck, as has been mentioned before, you aren't even in the argument as of yet. Stop copy/pasting from others (frankly, there is nothing that you have posted that we haven't seen thousands of time before). Make your case, state your claim, and name your source (just tell us where you got the idea). You don't have to be a public speaker, you don't have to be a master of biology; if we can't understand what you are saying, we'll ask for clarification. Make one point at a time, finish it, then move on.

Here's a starting point, if you wish:

You claim that all mutations are harmful. This is in direct contradiction to all the evidence that has been gathered by biological science. Would you like to know more?

It doesn't matter where it comes from, copying and pasting pages and pages of text from any source violates copyright. I removed the majority of what was in your post, there was at least ten times as much copied text as there is in it now. If you want to quote external sources, whether they be books, sites or otherwise you need to make it very clear where exactly the content originated and only reproduce as much as is necessary. One or two paragraphs should be more than enough, before I edited your post it was so long that it took 10-20 seconds to scroll through it.


Also, please avoid typing in all caps.

Thank you.

Ok bring it on then people, even the adminstrators are on your side.


"The problem here is that complex formations of chemicals were everywhere on the young earth. So there were say a few billion or maybe even more of these formations that could have formed amino acids. Of all of them a few might well turn into amino acids under the right conditions. Remember they all existed at the same time."

LOL. have you heard youself, there were a few billion or maybe more of these formations that could have formed amino acids, all them might turn in to amino acids under the right conditions, (mate this was not even successful in a lab, in a controlled enviroment, never mind premordial earth) and remember they all existed at the same time. this nonsense. You say the mathamatical probability of just having the right combiniation of amino acids, to build one protien cell is 10 to the power 120th. This is so impossible, that any prmoninent mathamatition, would not enetertain the possibility at all. Do you actaully know at what point in maths probability becomes and impossibility, put it this way the number is far less than the one i quoted.

SARUMAN...I have named the books, the ref have been at the bottom, indicating which books and which authors have been used. I admit in some cases i did not. But where i have poeple can check the source.


Aquatus,

You say no one wants to anwser me. i know its cause you have no argument. Why do you think i dont read your rebuttal, not that there have been any have they. Since all of you use the NAS, evolution vs creationism and i am providing you rebuttal directly against it, i know it hurts. Therefore you all personally attack me. this is the norm when poeple are losing a debate.

i have given you anwsers on mutations, speciation, common descent , variations etc. Again and again i have shown through academics and their writing, that you have no evolution there, there is no new information in the dna, new species, with a new ability or new organ, never seen before. You have not provided direct rebuttals to what i sent. The imaginary mechanisms of evolution dont really evolve anything. Information is passed from dna transfered, no new information is taken up.

Anyway my point is, dont anwser me, dont refute it, dont post rebuttal, cause i know most of you cant, if you cant just read what i send, it may educate you all.

one of you said"Basicly a few billion complex molecules in the early sea all interacting with different chemicals is bound to turn into amino acids sometime. and over the course of a few million years proteins could form in this way. "


This so funny, a few billion molecules swimming in the sea, with different chemicals is bound to turn in to amino acids. Oh well lets agree shall we on the basis that its "bound to". LOL nothing is bound to anything mate. and then after few more million years you would get a protien cell, how the hell would have amino acids survived in a premordial earth atmosphere. Thats a different argument all together, tell you what, i let you lot decide whether you want me to go there and post something on it too. Secondly, like i said, the probability to get the right number of amino acids to creat a one protien is mathamatically impossible, and do you know how many protien cells are in a complex life form. if yu want you can deal with cambrian stage.

BOKONONTHEANCIENT.....


I think you should all read the past post thoroughly, about mutations , speciation common descent, and for you especially mutations. i am actually sick of repeating my self. this clearly shows you read the post, you dont udnerstand it, you type up a post, which is similar to others, without actually reflecting on my post properly. all your anwsers are there.


Sundogdayze.

I know your out of arguments, therefore i will go easy on you. WHy? cause you keep personally attackking me. I have mentined GOd once, yu lot bring him up. Yeh i believe in a god, but im not argueing the case for creationism, im argueing the case against evolution, because is baseless theory and needs to be shown why? because today we are taught this as fact. The whole universe happen to be by chance, well im no friggin accident, and there is no scientific evidence suggesting so, on the contrary, it shows that complex life forms appeared on the earth all of sudden. Infact evolutionist call the one tage the cambrian explosion, cause they cant explain, why all of a sudden you had small complex life appearing all of sudden, with no build up to a complex organism, by finding and transitional forms. No intermediates, but plenty of fully formed complex organisms. Its admitted by evolutionist themselves, why do you find it hard to believe, are more knowledgable than them.

You see the biggest deception that evolutionist play is, any small changes whether enviromental in nature, or biological, they quickly assert it to evolution and some imaginary mechanism. Where as wht evolution acutally ssays is that, through time, things evolve on a micro and macro level, thus produign new species with new info in DNA and new organs etc and this how we came about. Its totally false, and imaginary. any small changes seen today, any species which they believe is evolving, is carrying no new information with in the dna, or as a result of these mechanism they dont have any new organs, and therefore they are not new neither are they evolving. Maybe adapting, but not evolving.


All of you have a problem, me not using my own words, well if i started like this, you would have said who the **** who are you....instead, i told you i will use words from people with credentials, just because i quote them, does not mean i dont understand them. I think this shows an insecurity in most of you, to whom this probably applies. half you probably browse the net just find a rebuttal, and when you come across, you dont fully understand it and post it. That is why, i refer to correcting NAS, cause thats the obvious source, as most of you just want to shut me up, thinking im a creationist. I dont need to fight their case, by proving that the evolutin theory has no grounding, wil take you the natural conclusion of creator.


LILLY....

Ok fair enough. But i ave mentioned several times the books im using, you can trace them down. Withing the books where i have the info and the quotes, there are further ref for you to check which i have posted too, and they show where each quote came from too. What more can one do.

I don't believe I offered any opinion on the subject being discussed in order to have taken anyone's "side".


I realise you've included a source in some cases and not in others, we're only making the point to remind you to do so at all times and to avoid copying too much from the source.

I think since the point has been satisfactorily made we can consider this matter closed.

Cool.

That's why no one is refuting your argument. Not to mention, I don't want to have to read through a 5000 word essay in order to write each response. Post your own material to keep it readable and we will begin to address your point.

the material is from people with credential, what are yours..... and you if so confident, you should be able to refute those claims in the articles, i dont mind you using material from some one else. Like NAS. i really dont, i rather you did, cause they are poeple of expertise, not you and i. So we see who has the best argument.

how u doing OZI,glad to see someone atleast trying to use some of the brain cells the r so fortunate to hav......
anyway i would just like to say after reading the post etc, on one yet has proved that evolution is a correct or indeed a fact. wot u don't seem to realise is that "the evolution theory" is simply a fools explination for what he cannot comprihend, it is a theory without "proving" that "God" dose not exist chooses to ignor "God" totaly. so baised on this flawed way ov thinking,it says this must b the correct way of thought n this must b the explination.......infact the delicate ballance in which our universe exists were everything has a purpose n task to do is further proof that ther is a "creator".

u must sientificaly eliminate the possibillty of "God" before you even consider "the evolution THEORY"

"
u must sientificaly eliminate the possibillty of "God" before you even consider "the evolution THEORY"

Thanks H8 me...luv the tag. your last point is one im interested in, i agree, scientist must eliminate the possibility of god before considering the evolution theory, (which is hugely flawed) . You see they can not prove that god does not esxist, therefore they take default position that he does not. Yet it can be proven there is god or there is more proof for god than there is proof against it.

I don't have the time or the attention span to sit and read through articles which are thousands of words long.

Let's address this issue of mutations. You say that they must always be harmful, why is that? Please post a short and concise reply.

Actually, the burden of proof falls upon those making the claim (ie, one does not have to prove the non-existence of something). See a helpful link here.




The theory of evolution neither refutes nor supports the question of God's existence. The theory of evolution is empirically supported (ie, evidence based). BTW, it hasn't been proven that any God or gods exist(s). God/gods by definition is/are supernatural and therefore only really supportable via faith based means. Basically, the 'God question' isn't something science really deals with at all.

I hope that english is your second language. if it is then I comletely respect the fact that you are limited in its' use. This though is not the major issue. Evolution does not have to exclude god. You can accept this thory and still believe some higher concious power is behind it. There are people who believe in both.It is far from a fools explanation of what he cannot understand. It is the only explanation for how we are here that relies on fact based data. that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, for all i know you are right, but it is unfair to insult the intelligence of the many people who have worked for years to understand and develop this theory by calling them fools.

*grabs lapels and sticks chin out in the air, a la William Hartnell.

Never, ma'am, never.
How many half-baked schemes would you send to perdition, hmmm?

Atlantis, Mu, Reptoid Men. All of these have not not been proven, so they must exist. Must exist, yes!

--Jaylemurph

Sigh. There'll be like two people here who even know who old Billy was. And it was a /good/ joke.

Getting fiesty are we? Well, I have to tell you that I read though parts of the articles of your posts, and have noticed for the most part that A.) they don't support your claims, or B.) they have no viable scientific evidence to support their conclusion, but rather mere speculation. I'd like to think I am well versed in scientific theory of evolution, as I have taken courses on it as well as read substancial amounts of texts concerning it. My concern however is not for my own or other people's rational constructive posts regarding the topic, but rather your approach to debate, of which the methodology is to post articles about the subject from unknown sources and to have those articles attempt to defend your "side" of the debate. Unfortunately, the articles are very long and often have little to do with the subject at hand, yet you find it prudent to throw as much speculative "evidence" from unknown articles as you can rather than forming a cohesive, logical argument for yourself. My previous post addressed the statement your article claimed, which was something along the lines of "all mutations are bad", and provided viable scientific examples to refute that claim. It seems, that you either were unknowing of what your article proposed and did not understand the concepts involved, or you chose to ignore the evidence provided by myself and others to the claim the article you used proposes.

- Regards, Bokonon

I'm one of the two, and it was a good joke!!!!

I must be the other one!


*Who* you ask?

I know!!! Little bit before my time tho....

Now you guys know your making flimsy excuses. If you claim that my articles, which i have provided the source for, is not anwsering anythign but merely speculating, then this clearly shows to me that you dont actually read the material. Within it is scientific evidence and its supported by well known academics among the evolutionist.

Then all of a sudden you all argue that i need to be posting this stuff in my own words, with yu lot when your on the ropes, you just whinge whinge whinge.

If i started of in my own words, youw ould have said "well what credential do you have etc etc etc" I made it clear from the start, i will use material from academics and the sort, you can too. Or use NAS i really dont care, what hurting you fellas, is this, you assumed i came here with a creationist argument, which i have not, therefore u assumed to use material from NAS to debate against my material on the vaRIOUS subjects, what you did not expect is me posting articles correcting the NAS. OOh that one u dint see coming.

Anyway in short about mutation....

Mutations can never add any new information to DNA, and do not make any kind of improvement in the organism. Not a single instance of this has ever been observed.

The key thing here is mutations dont add any new information or make iany improvement. yeh your gonna site the lactose, thing, which is neither here or there. Because the DNA had the information already there, so the poeple are able to deal with lactose, like most people anyway, the information was present already in the DNA. See nothing new was added, and as a result, they did not become some new organism or grow a new organ.

James F. Crow, head of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on radiation and mutation:


Scientists compare mutations to an earthquake in a city or a clock being thrown hard against a wall. In the same way that earthquakes do not develop cities, and hurling clocks against walls does not improve them, mutations do not improve living things, but rather damage them.
Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man.3

WHO ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR IT FROM TOO.

The well-known mathematician Dr. Warren Weaver

Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality.7

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?.8

MORE....

Several evolutionists have drawn attention to this impossibility. For example, Professor Kevin Padian, of the University of California at Berkeley, asks whether random mutations in nature give rise to living species:

How do major evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years, waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until enough accumulate for selection to push the population toward new and useful change? There you have the mathematical arguments of neodarwinism that Waddington and others rightly characterized as "vacuous".10

reF:1 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 97-98.
2 Francisco J. Ayala, "Genotype Environment and Population Numbers," Science, vol. 162, December 27, 1968, p. 1456
3 James F. Crow, "Ionizing Radiation and Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 201, September 1959, p. 138. (emphasis added)
4 James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), "Genetic Effects of Radiation," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, no. 14, 1958, pp. 19-20
5 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life: A Layman's Guide To Genes, Evolution, and the Ways of Cells, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981, p. 64
6 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life: A Layman's Guide To Genes, Evolution, and the Ways of Cells, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981, p. 145. (emphasis added)
7 Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation," Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1158
8 Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation," Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159
9 I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, New York: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984, p. 81
10 "The Whole real Guts of Evolution", Paleobiology, vol. 15, Winter, 1989, p. 77
11 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 97-98
12 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001; http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp


NOW Bokonontheancient, WHERE DOES YOUR EXPERTISE LIE AND WHAT GIVES YOU THE CREDENTIAL TO LISTENED TO ABOVE AND BEYOND THOSE SCIENTIST MENTIONED ABOVE.

Sickle-cell anemia:


Above, the unhealthy appearance of a damaged blood cell.
Sickle-cell anemia is a serious disease stemming from an error in the gene that encodes the molecule hemoglobin, which is responsible for carrying oxygen in the blood-in other words, from a mutation.
Sickle-cell anemia stems from an inherited fault in the code necessary for the production of the hemoglobin molecule, which helps carry oxygen in the blood. As a result of this fault, the structure of the hemoglobin molecule is defective and its ability to carry oxygen is severely impaired. The normal circular shape of the cells which carry hemoglobin becomes deformed and turns into a sickle shape. Since people with sickle-cell anemia gain a resistance to malaria, evolutionists describe this as a beneficial mutation. The fact is, however, that there is no increase in complexity nor any improvement in the organism's functions; on the contrary, there is a defect. Sufferers from sickle-cell anemia experience impaired development, a lack of immunity to infection, chronic organ damage due to clogged veins, poor organ function and organ deficiencies, and lack of energy.

It is astonishing that this example of mutation, dealt with in the chapters on diseases of the blood in medical text books, should be seen as "beneficial." It is irrational for evolutionists to say that sufferers' resistance to malaria is a gift to them from evolution, for which reason the mutation in question is a favorable one. That claim is just as illogical as telling a blind man he has an advantage because he cannot be blinded by the sun.

Source - THE NAS'S ERRORS REGARDING MUTATIONS

In order for a gilled fish to become a creature breathing with lungs, it would need a great many mutations. To expect "beneficial" mutations and ones "aimed directly at the transition to the lung" to keep occurring is to believe in the impossible.

And yet....the impossible seems to have happened.


Ozi,

I'm going to site the Lactose thing. Again.

It's a beneficial Mutation, which was then dispersed through the population via reproduction.

Constant denial and dismissal isn't going to make it go away.

Feel free to concede the point at any stage.

Lol, what your missing out is this, that soa claled mutation did not add new information to the dna, or add a new organ etc, it changed nothing, just allowed them to use lactose, the info was already in the gene. its not denial, its obvious. Evolutionist claim it to be a mechanism of evolution, where as the poeple did not evolve at all. They are not all of a sudden a new specie, or have a new organ, they were able to transfer the information present in the gene to new generations, thats not evolution. If i were you, i would get eh basic on evolution first, and you will see, that evolution claims, through mutations, you have better, newer organisms with new information, This has never happened and never will.

If you want i can go really technical on this, and get some academic views for you. Just let me know when you want them.

And you think the fish living in logs, at most out of the water for 66 days, is the way fish became land dwelling animals. Its obvious you really dont know anything about evolution do, about the organs needed to survive outside the water are so different to those organs needed to survive in the water, so randomly mutate and by chance get it alright is a false, and mathamatically impossible.
I really dint wanna do this, but im gonna have to shatter your beliefs by posting further articles from academics, about the log fish and your lactose mutation, which seriously makes me laugh at how the evolutionist cling on the merest of fairy tales in order to prove conjecture.

Ozi, did you read anything else besides your Creationist books and already debunked literature?

Like, for instance, a biology book?

No. It's denial.

Read this article. Especially the bit that says:



If you truly believe that you can prove that the Air breathing Fish I posted a link to is mathematically impossible, then by all means, post your finest Algebra.

Or concede the point already. Your choice.

Correct me if i'm wrong here but you are using this quote to claim this guy disagrees with the process of evolution via mutation?







source I'm far from an expert but i can't see these quotes supporting your argument and they lead me to feel you took the first one out of context.

Another quote from an article by James F. Crow
source

yes he has studied detremental effects of mutatuins but he does not dispute that evolution occured. I have to wonder are all your sources equally misrepresented?

english is my 3rd language, so thaknyou, im not calling the people stupid or foolish but the theory itself is completly stupid. we dont even know wot are in our ociens n we hav defonatly not disscoverd all the creatures on land,we dont even know how some creatures live comunicate etc,....i want to know how come evolution did not see it fit to giv full body hair (furr) to those people living in verry cold conditions,or a similar bioligical system like that of the seal etc. people are people and always have been,monkeys are monkeys and fish are fish there are diffrent spicies of fish,monkeys etc yet people are the same "people".

coming to your first real point, science today has proved that the possibility of there being a God is greater than the possibility there is no God,wot science has done has elliminated certain models of God,but not the possibility there is a creator,so saying this God is not somthing that can only be explained via faith basied means. And you say the God thing isnt somthing that science deals with? to be honest i dont even know why people get so heated with this topic i mean it isnt even a established fact/science.

to this very day i hav never seen a book or artical that says evolution "fact"

Then you don't read much.

Ozi,

From my previous post, which you appear to have not read or understood...



source (again)

Your argument about 'no information being added becasue it was already in the DNA', is fallacious because that is not the only attribute of information in biology. If there was no expression of a particular sequence in the unmutated organism, but there is in the mutated organism then this is 'added information'. The change does NOT have to be a gross anatomical change and it does not have to reorder or add any gene sequences to the DNA of the organism - as the Apo-AIM link I provided you with earlier should have made apparent.

Define info, please. I dare you.

And then explain to me how "gene duplication" does not, in any way, add "information" to the genes...

Because it is a scientific theory and by it's very definition can not become fact. That's how science works, we build models which describe and predict different phenomena, but we must always be open minded to other possibilities. Even if the theory was absolutely correct we would still not call it a fact.

Really it boils down to this, it's not a case of whether you believe in evolution or not, but rather whether you understand it or not. Some posts in this thread reflect that well.

Best quote of the year...

I think if Ozi had learned what the theory of evolution consists of in the first place instead of trying to tear it apart using pseudoscience and such, he might have a very different outlook on the whole thing.

Anyway, Ozi, let's say you are right. Evolution is a load of bull. What DID happen then?

The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.


It seems you are acting as if a species does not evolve at all, as if they were just there, (Or created mind you!) How hard is this to understand when all the
information is right there to look at, that species indeed do evolve over time.

Can the theory of evolution coexist with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

According to biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie:: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."

Simplified, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states in any closed system entropy increases. Entropy being defined as a change to a disordered state. Chaos.

Applied biologically, this would seem to indicate we are de-evolving. not evolving.

All hail Eris!

Welcome! I like you. This ties in nicely with what I have been reading about mankind being in a state of devolution within the next few hundred years.

First of all, are those direct quotes? If they are, it seems like some of the scientists you quoted say something along the lines of "many mutations are bad", but didn't say all mutations are bad. Also what gives a mathematician credence on evolutionary topics? Last time I checked, mathematics and biology were different sciences. In response to your questions about how mutations occur, ever heard of isolated populations, mass extinctions leading to adaptive radiations, punctuated equilibrium, or maybe even a principle as basic as changes in DNA sequencing? If you know what any of these terms are (doubtful) then you might begin to understand how evolution happens. Also Darwin did not suggest that fish all the sudden developed lungs in one generation, but rather he suggested that the process of evolution is gradual, taking (often) millions of years. You posted a list of scientific articles, congratulations. This does not mean that the articles support what you are saying, or that they doubt the processes of evolution, but rather slightly question the role of a certain selective force in its relative importance to guiding the course of evolution. Realize that the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution as a mode for biological change through time. Maybe you should read a textbook, and these concepts will make sense, and you will see why this theory makes the best sense for the mode of change of biological species through time. This is a much better idea than finding various texts online that do not necessarily support your position, and which do not provide substancial evidence to discredit the theory of evolution.



As I stated before, Sickle-Cell disease is an example of a balanced polymorphism (I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't know what this means, but you can look it up if your really see it fit). This means individuals who heterozygous for the sickle-cell gene have increased resistance to malaria than those who are homozygous dominant (meaning they lack a sickle-cell allele). However, indiduals who are homozygous recessive (meaning they have two sickle-cell alleles) suffer from the ailments you described above, because their red blood cells are sickle-celled, leading to less transportation of oxygen through the body. Thus a balanced polymorphism stays in a population because of the advantage it provides the heterozygous individual. This is therefore a great example of evolution in action in different populations in response to natural selective pressures (malarial mosquitos). If you need to understand what "homozygous" and "heterozygous" mean look them up, and also while your at it look up "Punit Square" to understand genetic probability.

Had enough?

- Regards, Bokonon

Yet Earth is not a closed system... and even in a closed system, entropy can decrease in a certain area of it as long as it increases in another, which will cause an overall increase...

By your "logic", humans actually arent creating cities, because that signifies a decrease in entropy.

I contend the universe as a whole is a closed system.

Actually creating cities is proof of entropy. Evolution is a slow adaptation to ones environment as it changes. Humans do not adapt to their environment, they manipulate it so they don't have to adapt. While some may view this manipulation as adaptation, this manipulation has, is and will create a natural breakdown of the environment.

If the goal behind the "theory" of evolution is survival, and the fittest species always survives, then humanity as a species was long ago passed as the fittest species by even the common cockroach...who have little need for "logic", "science", "religion" or "theories".

Humanity failed as a species the moment it "evolved" to the point it could believe it was larger and more important than the environment which sustained it.

I would like to list some of the fallacies that people keep repeating here. Perhaps, if it is pointed out that the anti-evolution people are lying (probably unintentionally, but lying nonetheless) about what evolution claims, they might think twice about it. It is one thing to claim that the theory is wrong, after all. It is quite another thing to misrepresent the theory, and then call it wrong.



The word "Evolution", by itself, is an umbrella term covering the many different processes regarding biological evolution. Used generically, casually, it doesn't refer to anything more than the concept, in the same way that "Erosion" does not refer to a specific process, but rather to the whole generic gamut of processes that regard weathering the Earth.

In scientific usage, however, all words must be defined. Because of this, we have two definitions for evolution: Evolutionary process and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary process is the physical change that occurs in the genome as a result of process. This is fact. It is observed, it is recorded, it is filmed, it is measured. This is what people are referring to when they say that "evolution" is fact. The mutation of the genome is a fact.

Evolutionary theory is about the scientific theories that explain the process of mutation. These theories included such things as neo-Darwinism, meiosis, punctuated equilibrium, and the various theories that explain the evolutionary processes that we have observed. These are scientific theories, tested and proven with the rigor as other scientific theories like the theory of gravity and the Pythagorean theorum. A scientific theory is not fact; by definition, it could never be (it would be a violation of scientific methodology). It is, however, an explanation with supporting evidence that has been peer reviewed for validity by the experts in the field and published in the journals of the trade for dissemination among the entire community. A scientific theory is considered to be conrrect until such time as it can be falsified. None of the six currently existing evolutionary theories has been successfully falsified.

In other words, if you think that you are falsifying a scientific theory, you may well think you are, but as it turns out, what you are arguing was never a scientific claim to begin with



There is no such thing as de-evolution. One can see this from understanding that "evolution" (the fact) refers the a mutation in the genome, as mentioned above. De-evolution implies that evolution has some sort of purpose, some sort of reason. It implies that evolution leads to 'better' creatures. This isn't the case. There is no such thing as better. There is only how well something can reproduce in a given environment.



That is a classical Darwinian idea that was shown to be invalid several decades ago. Darwin was under the impression that the only way that evolution could occur was through a long, slow, tedious passage of time. Today, we have evidence that indicates that evolution can also occur relatively rapidly, within a few generations. These new evolutionary theories have replaced (in the sense that they provide fuller explanations of the data) Darwinism a long time ago. Even Darwinism has been replaced by neo-Darwinism.

Other examples are welcome. Remember that these should be examples of foundational fallacies, not counters to specific arguments.

Definitions: I also believe that we would benefit from some specific definitions. I defined two terms above. I think, before we go any further, that we need to see some specific definitions from the anti-evolution side for at least the following therms...

Genetic Information:

Species:

Also, please difine which of the existing evolutionary theories you are trying to falsify when you present an argument.

Yes, I would like this myself! It would make it a lot easier to keep up with this topic if it didn't bounce all around different parts of
evolution that ozi is trying to debunk.

Please stick to one specific part so we can discuss it! Then we can move on from there.

man you guys/girls are not even worth talking with,s that all u have to say? Quote "then you dont read much" i put the challenge to you, show me and prove to me that it is fact.........yet you type these one liners thinking your being oh so clever...........iv had better answers from 13 year olds,at least thy ask questions wen they cant giv a reply...............i cant beleave ozi is still going strong, i mean itmust be like hitting his ead against a brick wall......


ozi u dafo back your words up i look forard to your next post even tho some of these so called educated people cant be botherd reading the info you post.....or dont have the attention span

it is strange you should quote capeo in this situation as he has in fact made many long and details post in responce to this. That is certainly not 'all he had to say' but much of what he presented was ignored.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry2005052

Did you miss the part where evolution is a THEORY? It is open to change if the evidence is proven wrong. Most people on here who knows what evolution is about, is not calling it a fact by any means.

Hi guys, sorry but for some reason i could not get in to the forums yesterday, something up with connection or pc. But i have read your posts fella and i have a couple of things to say.

As for the lactose things, nothing new was added to the dna, information wise there was nothing. For example, i have book, and then I randomly change the letters around in the book, (random mutation). do you think this will improve the book, or make it somethng better, or somethign worse. Obviusly the latter, because the information wont be cohesive. The lactose gene is not a new gene. check it out thoroughly if i was you. Most of you think your well informed in this forum, but yet your quick to jump to conlcusion, like im a creationist. You see, due this assumption, your making a mistake by researching old material that was used against creationists, Like NAS. I have all the rebuttal to their anwers, but conveniently you all ignore those posts, infact you actually dont comment directly to them, to refute, them. Instead you keep coming back with old posts and keep going in circles.

therefore i have decided not to respond to you one by one, like have been. I have done my best to address you all fairly. But in return i get anwsers like this " well thats sh** your posting has been refuted" well if so please send me the link or the post which has refuted the rebuttals at the NAS. or any others of the post. If i adopted your principles here, then this debate would have been over ages ago, by me simply saying " your sh** has been refuted" and then just leave it at that like the most of you.

Then there is this notion that one aspect of this evolutionary theories that can be disproven to affect the other aspect of the theory. Well of course they do, you smash the foundation of a theory, then it has no legs to stand on. Like mutations, like natural selection, micro and macro evolution. Most evolutionist today can tell you the hair colour of our alleged ancestors, and they looks, and the habit, just by finding one of their tooths, until their discover its an ancient species of pig that the tooth came from. This is just a small example, that evolutionist will do, to create a false image and to support their baselss theory.

Darwin's theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of genetics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting organised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to "patch up" Darwinism. ( oh my god, look there is a mathamatician amongst them, aahhhh- you know who you are and why this directed at you).

This cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations". They named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory", which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and those who put forward the theory were called "neo-Darwinists".

Still i bet most of you think, that im ill informed like the most of you, who use the interent as the messiah for info. Well you will be surprised, that i am well read and i have been under estimated.

Most of the scientists who believe in evolution accept the neo-Darwinist theory of slow, gradual evolution. In recent decades, however, a different model has been proposed. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this model maintains that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.
The first vociferous defenders of this notion appeared at the beginning of the 1970s. Two American paleontologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, were well aware that the claims of the neo-Darwinist theory were absolutely refuted by the fossil record. Fossils proved that living organisms did not originate by gradual evolution, but appeared suddenly and fully-formed. but i bet most of this is not even registering in your heads is it. especially when a website is your source for everything. I believe it was one of you who brought it up, therefore i shall i address it, Punctuated Equilibrium.

As i mentioned friggin hundreds of times, that you have no fossil records that prove this too, cause all the fossil records show that, species just appeared all of sudden in great numbers as complex organisms. but i bet this too did not register.

A quote"This model was nothing but a model for fantasies. For instance, European paleontologist O.H. Shindewolf, who led the way for Eldredge and Gould, claimed that the first bird came out of a reptile egg, as a "gross mutation", that is, as a result of a huge "accident" that took place in the genetic structure.12"

According to the same theory, some land-dwelling animals could have turned into giant whales having undergone a sudden and comprehensive transformation. These claims, totally contradicting all the rules of genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry are as scientific as the fairy tales about frogs turning into princes! Or as realistic as you claim creationist assertions are.

However, no mutation whatsoever improves the genetic information or adds new information to it. Mutations only derange genetic information. Thus the "gross mutations" imagined by the punctuated equilibrium model would only cause "gross", that is "great", reductions and impairments in the genetic information.

Moreover, the model of "punctuated equilibrium" collapses from the very first step by its inability to address the question of the origin of life, which is also the question that refutes the neo-Darwinist model from the outset. Since not even a single protein can have originated by chance, the debate over whether organisms made up of trillions of those proteins have undergone a "punctuated" or "gradual" evolution is senseless.

So thats that dealt with too. now to move on to some fundamental aspects.


Bokon.... i like your approach, you make it sounds as though you really well informed, but what your posts, show me, is the contrary, cause you have not even read the posts i sent with ref points, and not one of you has been able to directly refute them, instead you make shallow claims that they have been refuted. well show me pls. ****ing pretty please with sugar on top. now to address your shallow claims against me.

What i find funny is that evolutionist look beyond the what effects sickle cell has on a person, and because there is one benefit in it from malaria, they quickly assert it to be an imaginary mechanism. But totally disregard all the other ailments. How ridiculous is that, when evolution is supposed make a new specie better and survival of the fittest is of interest, then how does this fit in.

Evolution and its mechanisms are just as imaganitive as harry potter or pothead.

The Tale of the "Cell Produced by Chance"
If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coincidence, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town:
One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storm, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.
When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions", with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.


This gives you an example of how silly evolution is.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."

Before we do on to dna , protein cells and cells at large. get geared up im acutally givin you a chance here to get your material together.

hmmmm intresting, good choice of words.....but dosnt it sem silly tho when it is considerd a fact when you explain photosithisis,forgive me my spelling is not verry good yet, but now u say it is only a theory,so u think it is like that,why dont you just say then u think it is that way rather than saying it is that way. or you could say "as far as i know"

i understand the theory verry well but the theory its self seems to reject evedence that has been disscoverd, for example a footprint that is shown clearly to hav been wairing a shoe whith is dated out side the time line in which the evolution theory works, this shows that "people" yes people not apes becose it was a human footprint, were already sophisticated enough to wear clothing,not fur but clothing.

Just to add to that, i would say, why did eskimos not grow fur, as random mutation causing them to have a variation from other human, so they could adapt to their surroundings, etc. this could be applied to any humans pretty much in isolation etc. Hmmmm, does'nt seem to work there does it. This could be in the form of punctuated equilibrium, no need for the gradual process that darwin was stuck on, and it would make them a new specie, with an new organs and new fur like never before. Maybe thats wat bigfoot really is, man evolving to like an ape, not actually that could devolution.

where is the evedence to prove the evolution theory, all the posts i hav read not one has proved evolution is a logical theory. look the words "fact" and "theory" up in the oxford dictionary.....you cant prove it is a fact and you look down on me because i ask you to simply with no bad intention explain n show me why it is such a touchy subject......dont take your own lack of knowlege out on me my friends......im just doing what sciense dose ask questions and ask for fact baised evedence