Because the Eskimo adapted by killing furry animals and using their fur...and they adapted by building Igloos which the furry animals they killed were unable to build.

hmmmmm, logical and funny ilke the fact that you got a sence of humor,iv just finished reading your lates posts and i like the fact that youseem to understand that a answer is not always 2 words,and explination is the beast answer

yet another example of how learning and development donot mean evolution, and your last sentence shows how people have always been people and animals are animals, a cow and buffalo have basicaly the same structure i.e. bones hornes etc but you wuldnt call a buffalo acow and vise versa, they are diffrent..........

These docs are about ID vs Evolution, but you get to learn a lot about why evolution is so accepted and why any other idea really isn't worth it.

Part 1: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v148955284BMFjnD

Part 2: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1489557884zGD4B

part 3: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1489559kPsWZ5Wd

Part 4: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v14895614p7pzCX6

Eskimos? People confuse hair with fur. Unlike fur, hair is a very ineffective insulator.

Hair retains moisture + moisture increases rate of heat loss > Having no hair can be advantageous in a cold environment.

People indigenous to hot environments generally have more hair for this reason.

Look at animals adapted to survive in a cold environment, if they have sparse hair they'll also have a thick layer of fat, otherwise they'll have waterproof fur or feathers (eskimos compensate by instead using fur from other animals). Might be one or two exceptions, but none come to mind.

Ozi,

I have addressed your 'information' point a couple of times now and have simply been ignored. Others here have also adressed specific points you make and you ignore those people as well.

In light of your refusal to tackle the evidence presented to you I'm going to assume you are not interested in actually debating and are simply here to bait people with your 'evidence' against evolution.

Well, it was sort of interesting nonetheless.

Im on it fella, dont worry its coming. I said that in my last post, DNA genetics, etc. so it will dealt with in there.

ahhhh raptor your the one who dosent havmuch of a attention span if a read correctly..............if you had read my pst correctly you would hav read the bit were i said or something lik the seal,i.e the holding fat etc.......

the point is mate... where is speciation, mutation, natural selection, geological variation, and punctuated equilibrium taking place here. No where, why not the eskimos have a large layer of fat like animals with sparse fur. Or why did natural selection not give them fur, and the ability survive out there using their own hair or fur, instead of killing animals and using theirs, This is manipulation of ones enviroment. If evolution had any reality to it then, you would have got eskimo bears i suppose, who could speak like human, etc but looked different and as a result would have different new information in the genes etc. Nothing like this is happening. None of the fairy tale mechanism are taking place.



Emma... The only reason evolution is taught at uni and schools as fact is, promote a metrialistic philisophy and capatilism, (survivial of the fittest, by all mean nessecary).

mate i just read your post and that was alittle bit below the belt, i mean labling OZI like that, you could take that post and put it against anyone in this forum..........if you can debate on that level do so but dont do wot u just did.....its not rite nor respectable

Oh yeh i also forgot to mention, this information below is vital.

In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power 50 are thought of as "zero probability" in maths.

Get this in your head and then the probability of one protien cell emrging by chance, will be understandable to you then.

Leo....my post on DNA, just the begining, but i want to see if you agree thus far.

The Miraculous Molecule: DNA
Our examinations so far have shown that the theory of evolution is in a serious quandary at the molecular level. Evolutionists have shed no light on the formation of amino acids at all. The formation of proteins, on the other hand, is another mystery all its own.
Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids and proteins: These are only the beginning. Beyond them, the extremely complex structure of the cell leads evolutionists to yet another impasse. The reason for this is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acid-structured proteins, but rather the most complex system man has ever encountered.
While the theory of evolution was having such trouble providing a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand-new problems for the theory. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick launched a new age in biology with their work revealing the amazingly complex structure of DNA.
The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the construction of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C, according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. This is a sort of a data-bank composed of four letters.
The sequential order of the letters in DNA determines the structure of a human being down to its slightest details. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colours, the DNA in a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between the neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometres of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimetre-long cell itself.


Source - evolution deciet.

Haha yeah. Well, no less than average. I was just saying that I'm not willing to sit here having to read through posts consisting of literally thousands of words in order to pick out a few key statements just because Ozi wasn't prepared to write his own material.



I did read it, that's why I added in a little sentence saying that they compensate for that through using animal fur instead, that's why they haven't needed to evolve their own biological mechanism.



Protein 'cell'?

Assuming that that figure was derived from the theory of abiogenesis and is accordingly correct, and not based on some nonsense assumption; all that implies is that we don't have a complete understanding yet. So no, it's not very vital; nor does it relate to evolution.

opf course it does , maths is a true science, this is fact and not theory. the formation of one protein with left handed amino acids, and righ handed amino acids etc etc, do you want me to get all technical. the porbability of one protien forming by chance with premordial earth atmosphere or in a lab is zero. Because the number is far more the 1 over 10 to the power 50, infact the numbe is huge we cant acutally fathom the number itself. Mathamaticians class anyting with a probability of zero, if its 1 over 10 to the power 50, never mind to the power 950.


You say"I did read it, that's why I added in a little sentence saying that they compensate for that through using animal fur instead, that's why they haven't needed to evolve their own biological mechanism."

This means that coz thei used animal fur to survive, there was no need for them to evolve. But evolution, does not have a mind, to decide this. This would also imply that, if the eskimos, were in danger, had no means of fur from animals, then you would see evolution, which would kick in with random mutations etc, and allow them survive, so really it would have only happened if they were in danger of becoming extinct. what nonsense. if so, why arent whales evolvng and all those creature on esdge extinction, why not evolve to survive further etc.

lol...i understand what you are saying raptor but somtimes you need to read in full in order to get the full picture and also to put thins on to context,most of the time you cant simply pic and choose sentences because they could leave you confused maybe thats why i agree with him becuse i read it all.......

you raise a intresting point and one iv bin trying to make......why we dont need to and didnt need to evolve.......because everything on this planet has bin and still is at our dissposal fron animals to plant life etc.......

Ozi,

You could greatly benefit from reading THIS
And THIS about the moving moon argument (which I am sure you attempt to argue at some point).
Oh, and THIS on the basics of radiometric dating.
And THIS and THIS on sickle-cell anemia.
Also, THIS and THIS on your information argument. AND PLEASE READ THIS BY THE LOVELY PEOPLE AT SKEPTICAL INQUIRER AS WELL ON THE INFORMATION ARGUMENT.
Read THIS on how neutral mutations persist.

Perhaps then, Ozi, you could provide proof that the Lactose Gene was present prior to when the article I posted claims.

You might also find this link helpful, from Wikipedia, on what Information actually is, as it appears that your concept of what Information is seems to be confused with Communication.

grate post OZI reading this and your other post i cant wait for your next 1......i keep hoping people ask more Q's because the post is quite intresting but i susspect that you will get another reply simply without giving reason brushing this post asside......

Yes, please do. For this to be a fact you would have to be able to unequivocally prove which proteins were formed and in what conditions. I won't hold my breath waiting.



Wow.

I'm hoping that you simply misread my post, or otherwise you're actually arguing against evolution despite having just demonstrated that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanisms. No, evolution is not driven by a conscious mind, but there are selection pressures. If eskimos are able to survive in the cold because they are being insulated by clothes then there will be no pressure for them to begin evolving their insulating mechanism, because it's not going to provide any advantages. Individuals that have thicker body hair or a thicker layer of fat aren't going to prosper any more than those who do not.

Really...wow. If you spent half as much time doing research based on real science, not creationist pseudoscience, you'd know why your post is flat out wrong. If you do not understand something you're in no position to criticize it.

EDIT: Camlax is going to have a field day with this thread.

Wow,

well then according to above, when the pressure come, which in this case would be when the sh** hits the fan, and yeh we are all going to die, thats when the mechanisms of variations, mutations , speciation, etc kick in. This is nonsense, then why are those animals struggling to survive, evolving, even at small levels, so show us that evolution is taking place, why not even small differences, or even an attempt by evolution to help them before they die out.

You say"Individuals that have thicker body hair or a thicker layer of fat aren't going to prosper any more than those who do not."

They will in those conditions of the eskimos. So you aknowledge that all mechanisms ar supposed to inmprove the specie and give it an advantage then why and how does the advantage of having sickle cell out weigh the many disadvantages of having it.


You say"For this to be a fact you would have to be able to unequivocally prove which proteins were formed and in what conditions. I won't hold my breath waiting."

Well, i this figure has been posted before and i will psot you the whole thing soon with a full explanation on it, and the conditions it was done in. and all the erly earth conditions will be considered along with lab conditions too and guess what we will bring in millers experiment too. hows that sound

hey raptor how are you i do like reading your posts.....and ilike thafact that you got a sence of humor, your going in sircles mate....

lol.. damn righ he is

Mutations are entirely random, occuring at a relatively constant rate. Selection only kicks in when it's needed, resulting in changing allele frequencies.



So an individual who has slightly more body hair than another, despite the fact that they're both wearing appropriate clothing, has a higher level of fitness? I think not.



Sure, but that's not fact by any means.

Camlax..... firstly you aint dealt with me before, secondly i read all your posts and their old, the info i will proved you better read it like i read your nonsense. Its all been refuted. but because you threw a lot of red herrings at once, i will do me best to address each one.

The moon thing, not refering to it, and dint know anyting about it till now.

The rest has all been refuted, yo obviously did not read the posts sent, instead other poeples comments, which have been going around incircles coz they dont read the posts too. maybe too complex, if only they brains had evolved.

Sickle cell, one benefit out wieghts the numerous disadvantagesmand you call it evolutionary and beneficial. LOL

Information theory etc, will be all dealt with coming soon to a thread near you. and well thermodynamics and protiens and dna and rna.


Raptor.

"Mutations are entirely random, occuring at a relatively constant rate. Selection only kicks in when it's needed, resulting in changing allele frequencies"

answered this ages ago, but there are no beneficial mutations, like i said ,it is likely to kick in at a time when needed, like for survival yeh. so why not endangered species, evolving. and if they are relatively at a constant rate,which in not sure wht it means entirely, then where is the evidence for this too.


The you say about the figure, that it does not make it true. what does not, the fact it was posted here before, or the facts it a mathamactical equations and maths is a true science. You really have no idea. even after the hundred of post refuting the NAS claims on mutations, speciation, information theory, all of has been refuted but still not accepted.

Oh yeh i know the information theory believe that the dna is information which is matter. well on the contrary, information is not matter, and matter is not what you think it is. Infact matter is a perception, if its true reality is not known then it has no significance, unlike within evolution its matter which is everything and therefore the perfect basis for capatilism and materialism.

1. Evolution as a process is a proven scientific fact that has been observed.
Please note: the evolution process does not state or attempt to prove that the changes within an organism are ordered or chaotic or that they are for better or worse for the organism. It simply proves that changes do occur. This cannot be argued.

2. Evolutionary Theory is the application of this process that tries to explain how humans became humans...and is a counter theory to the creationist theory. Please note: evolutionary theory is the theory that claims the process of evolution is ordered and better for the species.

Those who promote the Principia Discordia laugh at the creationists, the evolutionary theorists, and ourselves while dancing in chaos.

So what about an animal that would benefit from changing it's fur colour (say, for a predator to blend in to its surroundings), are you saying it's impossible for a mutation to allow for that?



You say that the odds for a certain (undefined) protein arising spontaneously are x. Okay, great. Now you have to prove that that is relevant to the discussion. You have to be able to prove that that protein did arise spontaneously in the first place, or otherwise concede that we don't fully understand abiogenesis yet and another, simpler, predecessor may have appeared first.

Yeah, camlax, put down your vacuum tubes and punch cards, man. This is Century 21, baby, when you don't need to know science to talk science!

At least, I think that's what Ozi is trying to say. He seems to have a trouble with verbs in that post, so I'm not entirely sure.

--Jaylemurph

Which, as I have explained, still permits entropy to decrease in pockets of the closed system. Quite simply, if what you said as you said it "disproved" evolution, it would disprove the idea of water freezing too. Water freezing is a decrease in entropy... and since water can freeze, thus a decrease in entropy can occure, it is your point that is flawed.



Which is an example of my point. Creating cities can be considered a decrease in entropy (its a bad example, but flow with it for now) because it adds organization. This, however, entails an increase of entropy elsewhere and overall.



Always is a bit strong... but why do you say that?



Or, as it has been shown, it turned out this wasnt a human footprint at all...



Rephrase...



1. Because natural selection doesnt have a mind and think "What kind of mutation should I give this population?"
2. Because it didnt occure. Mutuations occure without a goal in mind, its natural selection that determines whether these mutations are beneficial or not.



Why dont you argue your point instead of just complaining like a little kid then?



Who said they emerged by chance? That's like saying that maybe this water molecule is formed up of H2O by chance...

It has been shown by the Urey-Miller experiment that organic molecules can infact be created naturally. Further, it has been shown (I saw this on Nova) that high pressure, such as would occure during a meteor strike, could fuse amino acids into proteins...

And furthermore, how does that relate to evolution? What if I say god created the first single celled organism, and evolution took place from there? How life first originated has nothing to do with evolution. This just shows how much you know on the subject. (ie: not much)



Well then, mathematically, anything with a chance of 10^-50, which you call "zero probability" is infact still possible, its simply improbable in certain contexts. What you have to do now is apply this map to show us why it is infinitly improbable that evolution occurs, which you can not do. For example, lets take a computer program that generates 1 number between 1 and 10^50. What is the probability that it choses 5? It has "zero probability" of chosing 5, as you call it. Now, what if we ran the program 10^100 times? Is it still improbable that one of those times it chooses 5?



What does this have to do with evolution?

You're right about one thing... math is a true science... and as a true science, it requires proof. Where is your proof that the probability of one protein forming by chance with premordial earth's atmosphere or in a lab is zero? I want to see your calculations... otherwise, you're just spouting bull.



No, actually, that's what your implying... that evolution has a mind of its own and would think of what mutations to give eskimos to benifit them.

If you want to talk about fur and protecting species from the climate, take a look at the wooly mammoth and the elephant...



And infact, individuals with a thicker layer of fat are going to have a weaker heart and overall fitness, thus it becomes a detriment and they are more likely to die out...

But humanity is a very bad example to use for evolution, because we've been affecting evolution ourselves quite a bit. For example, in nature, when an animal has a disease, it dies... with humans and modern medicin, the human with the disease may survive and pass on the diseased genes.



Indeed! THat is EXACTLY when evolution is best seen! Why? Because in the event of a major earth-changing disaster, whatever adaptations any species had to their climate may now be useless (due to major climate change), thus they are all struggling to survive and majoritarily dying. Those who survive are only the fittest, and any beneficial mutation is undoubtedly going to have a much greater impact on the ability of the individual to survive, thus spreading his genes and spreading that mutation to the rest of the population wile the others die out!



We've already showed you examples of beneficial mutations! What do you make of the whole lactose digestion related mutation Tiggs pointed out? What of the mutations that allow bacteria to survive?



Why are they endangered? Because they're not fit to survive. Whatever offshoot of that species is surviving (the offshoot is from when the speciation first occured) is surviving because of some mutations to it which benefitted it, thus the ones without the mutations are dying out and the ones with the mutation are surviving.



What mathematical equation? I have not seen one mathematical equation from you yet.



That would be like saying that, since matter is perception, physics is all wrong. Why? Because in physics, I deal greatly with the notion of "mass" which does relate to matter. So... you're telling me that my calculations of how fast an object will fall when I drop it from above my head are wrong? But they check out in the lab....

You have "simplified" down past the surface and into the bone. Too much.

What you gave is not the definition of entropy.

This has been addressed to death in another section of this forum.

Harte

Ummm. As we appear to have reached the "Evil Evolution is the root cause of Capitalism and Materialism" stage of the debate, I think I'll take this opportunity to quietly bow out.

Ozi,

How is this relevant to defining what, in biological terms, is information?

I will repeat again, for I think the 4th time...information, in biological terms, is not just the gene sequences (DNA) of an organism, but it is also the machinery by which this is read. The DNA uses RNA transcription to code proteins which carry out gene expression in the organism. If a gene sequence that lies dormant in an unmutated organism becomes active (codes for a protein) in a mutated organism then, in biological terms, information has been added to the organism's genome.

Here is a very good basic description of the genome.

I'll use an analogy which might be easier to understand.

You have e-books which contain some of the material you are using here, correct? Let us assume you have 6 e-books, all written in different languages, and each one tells you a certain thing you can say about evolution. Let's now assume you have 3 translation programs which allow you to read 3 of the e-books. You can now express 3 things about evolution. Someone else has the same e-books as you but has 4 translation programs and can express 4 things about evolution. That other person has added information - even though the number and type of e-books you both have are identical.

Yeah it's pretty clear from his argument about eskimos that he has a misunderstanding of what this portion of evolution is dealing with.

Ozi, maybe this will help.

Imagine that there is a type of moth. It is somewhere between gray and brown in color, and can easily be camouflaged against the brownish bark of a tree that grows numerously in their environment. Now, say that in this example, humans come along and tear down these trees, and start putting up buildings, and all these buildings are grayish in color. The moths that are more brown than gray suddenly stand out more on the sides of the gray buildings and are eaten by birds. The ones that are more gray than brown are better hidden on the gray wall, and are not seen by the birds. Eventually, there will be more gray ones to mate than brown ones, creating a higher chance of having gray offspring. The gray offspring would outnumber the brown offspring, so the next generation would have an even higher chance of producing gray offspring.

It is natural selection. The brown moths WERE the fittest (as in survival of the fittest) when they were camouflaged on trees. When the environment changed, the gray moths became more fit, and the brown ones were the minority.

Now, I understand that does not seem to fully explain speciation, but if you imagine how long life has been on this earth, and the number of years that evolution has had to make teeny adjustments to a living organism, it is not impossible that many species came from one ancestor.

Let's say that in 100 years, the gray buildings that the gray moths camouflaged on started to cover over with moss. Suddenly, the gray moths would not be able to hide as easily. Let's say at this point there are 100 moths, equally split between the sexes. Let's say there was ONE moth who had a random genetic anomaly that caused white spots to appear on his wings. The birds avoided this particular moth, because the spot fooled them into thinking it was a pair of eyes on a larger animal. Suddenly, this moths chances of survival and reproduction jump, and instead of being 1 out of 50 males, he is 1 out of 10 males. That is 5 times the chance that he will mate and pass on his hereditary white spots. If he mates with 4 females, and each female has 6 offspring, even if his hereditary white spot only gets passed on to 1/2 of his offspring, that means that there are now 13 moths with the white spot who are going to be avoided by the birds. More brown moths are going to get eaten, and more white-spotted moths are going to survive and reproduce, increasing the chances of white-spotted moths, until the brown moths are the minority.

Keep cycling like this, and it becomes easier to see how evolution can be held accountable for major changes, over LONG LONG periods of time. No one else believes that Evolution is a conscious decision by nature...evolution didn't decide "You know, I bet if I threw some white spots on these moths, they would survive better."

They survived better because they had the white spots, and they had the white spots because it made them survive better.

Does that help you to understand the simplified process of Evolution?

*This example was loosely based on the way I was taught about natural selection by an anthropology professor I had. It is not meant to be taken as a true story, but more a way to portray how natural selection works in the simplest way possible.

Sundogdaze.....the fact that the old moth story of different shades of colour has been dealt with in my earlier posts and refuted, again this shows dont actually pay attention to what i post and blind following of this theory that you adopt.

I understand the processes involved in evolution so dont patronise me. The point i made is, then why have'nt any evolutionary mechanism taken place on a micro and macro level thus far with eskimos for example or any other humans in relative isolation bring in to play geographical variations etc.?

Secondly, why are there no intermediates or transitional forms or the evolution from on cell to complex organisms, instead you get the cambrian explosion, when all of sudden lots of complex organism are around. how do evolutionist explain that. where are macro changes or the micro, why are they not visible in fossil evidence etc.

Anyway since you dont actually read what i post, i rather not debate with you. we go in circles.


Leo, what i sent was basics on dna, i just wanted know if you agree with it, i will get to the mechanism, its complex area and needs proper attention and u kow this and you have all my attention. soon i will post the rebuttal on dna aspects you so wish. until then i would like you ponder this, evolutionist claim that dna and the information within it is biological, therefore it is matter, i will prove to you that information is not matter. comin soon.

The fact that there are many species under pressure for survival, yet we see no evidence of micro or macro evolution. yet you claim this happening, then why are species going extinct and new one s not replacing them.

Stellar.....the protien argument, i suggest you get your miller stuff together, for the lab aspect of it and i will also post pretty soon, the argument related to the maths equation. Happy. Its coming. be patient fellas, theres loads of you and one of me....



Leo....one more ot ponder....

famous evolutionist, words from the horses mouth, coz i know where you wanna go with the information thing...like i said dont under estimate me.


One of the foremost advocates of the theory of evolution, George C. Williams, admits this reality, which most materialists and evolutionists are reluctant to see. Williams has strongly defended materialism for years, but in an article he wrote in 1995, he states the incorrectness of the materialist (reductionist) approach which holds that everything is matter:

Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." …The gene is a package of information, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.

George C. Williams, The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995, pp. 42-43.

So what now. Now you wait until i send me latest rebuttal, dealing with all you various topics, i will do my best.

STELLAR-

Click to view attachment


The top picture shows trees with moths on them before the Industrial Revolution, and the bottom picture shows them at a later date. Because the trees had grown darker, birds were able catch light-colored moths more easily and their numbers decreased. However, this is not an example of "evolution," because no new species emerged; all that happened was that the ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed


do i need to go in to it again all technical and what not.

Hello Kettle, this is Pot. You're black.

You haven't read my posts either. I have asked you numerous times if you actually have working theory to explain what happened INSTEAD of evolution, yet you skirt around it, going back to argue the same points over and over again.

What is your theory?

How could you possibly refute something like that?



Because it takes time, and the more well suited they are to live in their environment, the slower their evolution becomes... And plus, they're not in complete isolation, thus further tampering the diversity...

But you know what? Who are you to say it isnt slowely happening? There still is quite a bit of genetic diversity among humans, and thats exactly how the homo genus branched in the past... As an example, look at certain physical traits posessed by certain ethnicities. There are certain physical traits common in certain countries. For example, people have said I dont look Canadian. Why? THere's something about my physical appearance, which came from the polish genes I have, which distinguishes me from the typical canadian. Given time and enough isolation, these and other traits may develop more and, given enough time, humans could speciate into multiple species.



So why dont you stop avoiding my posts and debate with me?



But other species are replacing them. WHen a species goes extinc (which is actually quite a common occurance, according to evolution, since beneficial mutations are rare) their territory is being taken up by other species. Evolution is not some finely oiled machine that turns out one new species every time one disappears...



What do you mean get it together?

1. It proves beneficial mutations do occure in complex organisms.
2. How is it not evolution? Evolution is, quite simply, the change of alelle frequencies... if you dont recognise that as a change in alelle frequencies, you've got to study the fundamentals of what makes up our physical appearance, and how alelles relate to genes...

I don't think any of us have yet to figure out exactly where you stand in this debate Ozi! It is apparent that you are trying to debunk
evolution, with your very long cut and paste posts. I only read parts of them mainly due to the fact that most of the articles are not
debating the actual questions at hand! Going round and round with these long cut and paste posts is utterly mind numbing, and doesn't
seem to be serving any real purpose to your debate.

I've also found it apparent that you don't seem to understand the mechanics of how a species can evolve actually works. (But, this could
just be my flawed observation of how you are trying to explain things.)


Regards,
Tom

..

Okay, I'm 14. And I could bet Ozi in this arugment. I won't though. Because I am leaving this forum, because of the amount of idiocy just radiouting from some people on these forums.

I give thanks to, Raptor, Whose posts I have been watching, and basically taught me how to defend Evolution in a debate. I give another big thanks to Cimber.


Now, goodbye everyone.

Shame to see you lead, 14 or not. We need skeptical thinking on this board. There has to be a balance.

What are you looking for? Sympathy? If you're leaving the forum because of that, then leave already. It's not going to affect anyone one slight bit, and definitly no one is going to feel "bad" about "making" you leave. If you're going to quit, then bye. You've got no sympathy from me.

Ozi, what you posted (and I'm aware it wasn't your words, so this is not a direct criticsim) was a mixture of truth, half-truth, lies, opinion and omission.



Geneticists, chemists and molecular biologists examine and discern the nature of genetics. Evolutionists are simply any people who happen to accept evolution as explaining life's diversity. This particular piece of your post is a misdirection. As for the actual premise...

Formation of amino acids

...it is a downright lie.

If you wish to peruse that site further, you can browse it for free (introduction page here) but, if you wish to use any of the advanced features, it is a pay-for facility, though it is a lot less expensive than buying a good microbiology text book.



Again, look in the microbiology book. It is understood how proteins form, so this statement is another lie.



What is the impasse implied here?

Apart from mentioning the cell complexity there doesn't seem to be any attempt to explain their assumption. Misdirection and obfuscation.



How was the theory of evolution having difficulty explaining molecules that are the basis of cell structure? How are DNA and RNA problems for the theory of evolution?

Again, this hearkens to the 'impasse' mentioned but not explained above. More misdirection and obfuscation. It says there is a problem without mentioning what that problem is.

The rest of your post mentions the structure of DNA which, while reasonably accurate in the facts of it's make-up, leaves out an important fact that not all of the gene sequences in a DNA molecule is expressed in an organism. And a lot of what is expressed is repeated. For example, each type of cell in the body is expressed by one unique (for each type) sequence of genes (or sequence of sequences). There are a lot of unexpressed sequences in DNA (junk DNA etc) that may have a valid coding for proteins when activated. Some of this unexpressed DNA is archaic and redundant, some is simply dormant. Some might already have an expression we simply have not discovered yet.

That point is very worth noting, because those who rail against evolution and genetics are assuming we know everything there is to know about the mechanisms and then point to our lack of understanding about some aspects as being 'proof' we are wrong. We don't know everything about evolution and genetics, but what we do know has some very good evidence supporting it.

As a whole I don't agree with what you posted as it dissembles too much and does not give reasons for stating what it does.

A Mathematician still should not have authority in a subject outside mathematics, unless he/she has received a degree of sorts on a topic outside mathematics (namely in this case evolutionary biology). Also the presence of a mathematician at a meeting does not mean he/she contributed anything to the discussion or added any component to the revision of a topic (in this case Darwin's idea about gradual evolution as the guiding force of change). Also, most scientists now think that evolution occurs both gradually and in a punctuated equilibrium manner. Evolution is not "silly", refuting evolution with no substancial, logical argument is "silly". The statement above about sickle-cell disease shows me that you do not understand about the concept of "balanced polymorphism". Also, there is not a goal to mutation, mutation occurs naturally and natural forces select for it (in some cases).



Eskimos do not grow fur, because there was no / is no selective pressure (on a mutation that may or may not have happened) to grow fur. As I said before mutations are random, so there is not necessarily a mutation that makes people grow fur, but even if there was, and a person had fur, it wouldn't provide a selective advantage, because get this, Eskimos have clothes. They wear animal hides and furs which do the job fur would do (insulation) for them. The mutation only is passed on to future generations if that person who has it is extremely reproductively fit (had lots of babies), or if it is present in many individuals in a population. The "example" you explained above, shows that you lack knowledge on why the actual process of evolution occurs.



What single scientific contribution have you made to this entire thread?

- Regards, Bokonon

I thought the same thing, which is why I posted the link to "Entropy, evolution and you". The best I can get is "we already addressed that". Though, I failed to read it anywhere in this thread.

LOL. you guys are more blind followers than i thought. It actually shows that because you have shallow minds and donthave substitute for evolution, that you will accept regardless of it having faults all over.

You obviously still dont read the post.....the moths did not get a new organ, or become a new specie, due to the enviromental changes, you got higher ratio of 1 to the other. HOw is this evolution, what micro level or macro level mechanism took place here apart from the imaginary one you keep going on about.
i really cant be bother to keep refering to this topic it has been answered, you need observe the anwser properly. if you dont accept it like you have not, prove to me where the beneficial mutations took place. Please show me where in those moths, mutations took place and the result was a new specie or a new organ etc, and not just one specie becoming higher in ratio than the other. thats not evolution.

Sickle cell - balanced polymorphism. whats balanced about it. you get one benefit, but load of disadvantages.

I refered to eskimo thing and endangered species, which are under pressure for surivival and according to you guys this when evolution does its work. so why are there no mico or macro level changes visible. no evidence for gradual or punctuated equilibrium. So please explain, why is this case, you have both process which can work together, so why are they not happening. Its quite simple really, you claim these imaginary mechanisms work, then show me please, where is it working for those animals where the sh** has hit the fan.


The most stupid comment so far has to go to this person "A Mathematician still should not have authority in a subject outside mathematics, unless he/she has received a degree of sorts on a topic outside mathematics (namely in this case evolutionary biology). Also the presence of a mathematician at a meeting does not mean he/she contributed anything to the discussion or added any component to the revision of a topic (in this case Darwin's idea about gradual evolution as the guiding force of change). "

all this after saying its collection of different theories and sciences coming together. Please get educated who ever said the above.

Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.14

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150


i can bring more just on the moth story to kill it off as anything to do with evolution. Another thing which bothers me, is i get quotes from evolutionist, well known ones who descredit some aspects and mechanism, but you all seem to conveniently ignore them or not react to them.You simply say its opinion, yes but not mine, its that of people who accept the theory but have some problems with it too.

i think thats enough anwsering for those of you who going in circles, you have not refuted anything so far. instead most of yu leave it at, oh it s been refuted. and thats it. where , how why and when is not shown. I know your sources are becoming thin now, cause i have rebuttals to the NAS claims, so most of you are learning what you know from there. Infact most of you claim i am not aware of basics of evolution. on the contrary i have spoken about them all, in great details in post from academics and my own words. I know most of you are actually realising that i do understand the topic and what i post.

Some of you admit, that we dont know everything about genetics and dna etc, and what do know is good evidence for evolution. well we shall see soon.

hey discordian, how are you? you hav a intrestin way of talking and i got to say that was almost like a polatician speaking.....its fact but it isnt, its a explination of a observations but it is a claim........and then u go on to say it is a tit for tat with creationists and its theory? altho i do like your last statement "quote" as irrelevent as it is

1. Evolution as a process is a proven scientific fact that has been observed.
Please note: the evolution process does not state or attempt to prove that the changes within an organism are ordered or chaotic or that they are for better or worse for the organism. It simply proves that changes do occur. This cannot be argued.


False, show me one academic text book on evolution which says evolution fact. the process are not fact, they are assumed to be fact. you say the changes in the organism may not benefit or might make it worse, and this proves changes occur, so this is still not evolution. Why? well if you knew it well , you would realise it actually propagates the idea that through the imaginary processes, that a specie get new information a new organ and as a result becomes new specie, through beneficial mutation. SO actually contradict all of that. And none of the latter actually happens,



2. Evolutionary Theory is the application of this process that tries to explain how humans became humans...and is a counter theory to the creationist theory. Please note: evolutionary theory is the theory that claims the process of evolution is ordered and better for the species.


evolution theory is not the counterpart, to creationism.WHY? because through out the ages scientist in the main have believed in a gd, as far back as the ancient greeks etc. its a fairly new trend that we dont, and this was due to then introduction of evolution theory. It claims we have a common ape ancestor and still we have no intermediate forms to prove this. mate you can tell you dont know much.

One last time on the mutation thing, I suggest you anwser the point made in the article conrtuctively and objectively. Dont just come back and say refuted and thats all folks. The moth thing, mutations, speciation, variations, common descent has all been dealt within posts of mine earlier, if you took the care to read them.


Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

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?20

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:


Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The top picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.


It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21


Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.


A mutant fly with
deformed wings.
The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:



Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23


The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation."


The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.


They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24

So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25



19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988. (emphasis added)
20 Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added)
21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 48.
22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70. (emphasis added)
23 David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999. (emphasis added)
24 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98.
25 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88.