Well, ok Ozi.

I'll do this once. If you actually address the points with some scientific counter point then we can continue, though I suspect that babel, name calling, and thread leaving will ensue.




Maybe you saw that being read differently in your mind? You might want to copy+paste where these red herrings are and maybe some refutations for them. Because you have yet to post any, which leads me to the conclusion you didn't read a single thing.

As a minor side note, I made that post at 10:24 AM, you addressed it at 11:00 AM. Judging by your posts, I am going to go out on a limb and assume your reading skills/speed is somewhat on par with what you type, also providing (at least to me) evidence you did not read those links. I mean I could be totally wrong though....




What is this? A bad attempt at an insult? Where has this stuff been refuted? Please make use of quotes and replying directly to them. It goes like this




Obviously, you have failed somewhere to understand evolution and mutations. Ok Ozi, it goes like this. (This is extremely simplified for you more biologically-minded people, but I think we need to start off here around a freshman high school level).


Lets say for a disease like sickle cell (SCA), you have 2 alleles. "Big A" (A) and "Big S" (S). Being that were diploid (we carry 2 alleles for each gene), We can have a combination of individuals. AA, AS, SS. Lets go through each of them.

AA: would be "normal" red blood cells. They are basically bags of hemoglobins (Hb) and work just fine. However, they (AA individuals) have an extremely high susceptibility to the malaria parasite, Plasmodium

AS: These individuals, have seemingly normal looking red blood cells. Under certain conditions though (like high altitudes) "sickle cells" can be induced. This genotype has increased resistance to the malaria parasite, thus imparting the individual a great benefit (in areas of the world where malaria is endemic).

SS: These individuals have the typical "sickle" cells, which cause all sorts of problems to the individuals, such as capillary bed blockage and decreased Hb capacity.

Ok, So what can we predict about this based on evolutionary theory? Well we could predict that the genotype AS (providing a clear benefit) would be experiencing positive selection, that is to say becoming "fixed" in the population. We could also predict that increase in heterozygous individuals would correlate to an increase in homozygous recessive individuals. So are our predictions correct?

Well first, lets talk quickly on stabilizing selection. We can think of stabilizing selection as being selection against extremes. We can easily visualize this with a graph.

So if we imagine on our graphs, we have our 3 genotypes; AA, AS, SS. Where AA would be on the left end, AS in the center and SS on the right end. This is exactly what is happening in Africa today. Individuals being AA are being selected against for lack of resistance to malaria, individuals being SS are being selected against for lack of blood cell functionality and individuals being selected for (AS) due to "normal" blood cell functionality and resistance to malaria.

So what about this other prediction that we made? "The genotype for SCA should be more frequent in areas of the world where malaria is endemic, due to selection for heterozygotes". Well, one only needs to look at an overlay map to see this is correct as well.

Green is malaria, Blue is population-density for sickle cell anemia

We can also see it in the overlay of heterozygous individuals.






Ill be pinching my ass off in angst for this "information theory argument". Also, if you could find time in your undoubtedly busy schedule to address the links on information theory and thermodynamics I would be grateful. As a physicist, I would love to see your thought provoking arguments on thermodynamics (I am sure the engineers like Harte would love to as well).




Most of what you typed here makes no sense (at least to someone who reads and writes in english). I think the problem is though, at least what it sounds like to me, is you make an assumption that evolution is guided/end product oriented/knowingly usable by animals. Let me correct you on that, its not you are wrong.



Raptor gave you an explanation, you either were not reading it or chose not to read it or didn't understand it. One of these is correctable. Evolution is not guided, if it were the "design" and layout of organisms would be much great, in deed Eskimos would probably have fur. However, in nature (as with life) there is often numerous solutions to a problem. Some may seem less sensical than others, but nature does its work without common sense in mind. Man lost its hair a long time ago. Back in Africa. In fact there have been some really interesting studies done with molecular clocks and divergence of human hair parasites (lice), which actually correspond very accordingly.

Anyway, by time people crossed the Bearing Bridge, people had long since made use of animal skins for warmth. Our expansion out of Africa was rather quick and supplemented with complex tool use and social development (like "clothes"), which really negated having humans with blubber or fur ever evolve.





Yes you would welcome to statistics 101. One can not pretend to know the odds of an undefinable set. Such pseudomath is moot.



I am gonna break for a small disclaimer, As always I recommend formal education on the matter if you are indeed interested. Pop-up community colleges in the US have made higher education (at least some basics) cheap and accessible to everyone. Some of these subjects you are attempting to address are not learned till the 3-4th year in a BS program. I have no doubt you are capable of learning them, but one cannot build a pyramid from the top down (though you will likely find someone around here that believes otherwise).




Firstly, this is a lie. It is a lie and misconception that we have no fossils between the Cambrian explosion and the oldest fossilized cells. The problem is, the soft bodies are not conducive to fossilization, Chitin evolved in the Cambrian, which is why we have a plethora of Cambrian fossils. There are plenty of Pre-Cambrian fossils see some; Pre-Cambrain fossils.




Repeating lies does not make them true. Had you read the links you would have also read about the apple maggot fly or Culex pipiens and molestus both of which are new species. Species are also going extinct now for non-natural reasons. But, I have no doubt, that these niches will be filled as well (those being ones created by man made extinctions). The past is also rife with niche filling after species extinction, one only needs a little study on the history of life to learn this....

LEO....

so far you argument has probable been the most constructive....Yo say"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..."


I checked your link out, and what i actually posted was a glimpse. So you know i know where you going. Information i know you will try and prove is a physical entitiy, when information actually is not matter. I als am aware of millers experiment in the labs on protiens, to which i will come too, DNA and RNa, have my attention.

So my question to you is this, where shall i start. Do you want me to begin with protiens, DNA rNA. You say"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."

When infact you should agree with most of it, cause its the basics on dna structure etc. maybe you wont agree with rest about protiens etc. but thats my job to convince you through academics and their research.

So let me know what you want me to tackle first, protiens, DNA RNA or all three

Then you would be making an assumption which is incorrect. The expression of information, what is read to produce that expression, and the machinery that reads DNA - these are all physical matter. Information is the whole, including the processes by which all expression operates, and so is not purely physical. It incorporates the physical, but is not limited to it.

Despite you making what appears to be a volte-face (without acknowledging you were wrong) in your sudden conversion to information being not only physical, what I, personally, would like you to 'tackle' is your previous premise that information is DNA. Provide your case for this.

Finally a challenge calmlax or what ever it is.

"Maybe you saw that being read differently in your mind? You might want to copy+paste where these red herrings are and maybe some refutations for them. Because you have yet to post any, which leads me to the conclusion you didn't read a single thing.

As a minor side note, I made that post at 10:24 AM, you addressed it at 11:00 AM. Judging by your posts, I am going to go out on a limb and assume your reading skills/speed is somewhat on par with what you type, also providing (at least to me) evidence you did not read those links. I mean I could be totally wrong though...."

YOUR FIRST REBUTTAL, A PERSONAL ATTACK, USUALLY AN INDICATION WHEN SOME IS IN TROUBLE OR UNDER PRESSURE, IF IT S THE LATTER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT MICRO OR MACRO EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE WITH YOU. lol

What is this? A bad attempt at an insult? Where has this stuff been refuted? Please make use of quotes and replying directly to them. It goes like this


WELL IF YU ACTUALL READ THE EARLIER POSTS WHICH HAVE SOURCES, QUOTES FROM EVOLUTIONISTS AND REFERS TO MUTATIONS, SICKLE CELL, SPECIATION, VARIATIONS, COMMON DESENCE, ETC ETC. YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED THEM. TRY HARDER AGAIN. YOU OBVIOUSLY JUS SCAN OVER THEM AND DONT READ THEM.


Obviously, you have failed somewhere to understand evolution and mutations. Ok Ozi, it goes like this. (This is extremely simplified for you more biologically-minded people, but I think we need to start off here around a freshman high school level).


Lets say for a disease like sickle cell (SCA), you have 2 alleles. "Big A" (A) and "Big S" (S). Being that were diploid (we carry 2 alleles for each gene), We can have a combination of individuals. AA, AS, SS. Lets go through each of them.

AA: would be "normal" red blood cells. They are basically bags of hemoglobins (Hb) and work just fine. However, they (AA individuals) have an extremely high susceptibility to the malaria parasite, Plasmodium

AS: These individuals, have seemingly normal looking red blood cells. Under certain conditions though (like high altitudes) "sickle cells" can be induced. This genotype has increased resistance to the malaria parasite, thus imparting the individual a great benefit (in areas of the world where malaria is endemic).

SS: These individuals have the typical "sickle" cells, which cause all sorts of problems to the individuals, such as capillary bed blockage and decreased Hb capacity.

Ok, So what can we predict about this based on evolutionary theory? Well we could predict that the genotype AS (providing a clear benefit) would be experiencing positive selection, that is to say becoming "fixed" in the population. We could also predict that increase in heterozygous individuals would correlate to an increase in homozygous recessive individuals. So are our predictions correct?

Well first, lets talk quickly on stabilizing selection. We can think of stabilizing selection as being selection against extremes. We can easily visualize this with a graph.


DOES NOT MATTER HOW U USE THE STATISICS AND MANIPULATE THEM, THE POINT STILL STANDS, THERE ARE FAR MORE DISADVANTAGES TO HAVING SCIKLE CELL, THAN HAVING JUS ONE ADVANTAGE. iT IS LIKE SAYING, IF YOU LOST LEGS THIS IS GOOD, COZ AT LEAST YOU WONT DIE IN ACCIDNET WALKIN NOW. gOOD BENEFICAL LOSS OF LEGS. ONE BENEFIT OUT WEIGHING DOZENS OF DISADVANGTES.lol


Ill be pinching my ass off in angst for this "information theory argument". Also, if you could find time in your undoubtedly busy schedule to address the links on information theory and thermodynamics I would be grateful. As a physicist, I would love to see your thought provoking arguments on thermodynamics (I am sure the engineers like Harte would love to as well).


LOL. ITS COMING SOON TO A THREAD NEAR YOU. HARTE KNOW IT WILL TOO, DEALT WITH HIM A NUMBER OF TIMES. THE INFORMATION THEORY IS ALSO IN TROUBLE. THATS WHY I ASKED LEO WHERE TO START PROTEIN, DNA, RNA, INFORMATION YOU TELL ME. I DONT WANNA BOMBARD YOUW ITH IT ALL, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DONT READ MUCH.

Most of what you typed here makes no sense (at least to someone who reads and writes in english). I think the problem is though, at least what it sounds like to me, is you make an assumption that evolution is guided/end product oriented/knowingly usable by animals. Let me correct you on that, its not you are wrong


oFCOURSE IT DOES NOT, CAUSE ENGLISH IS NOT YOU FIRST LANGUAGE IS IT, OH IM SORRY IT IS. LET ME TRY AGAIN. THE POINT IS THIS, WHEN A SPECIE IS UNDER PRESSURE AS RAPTOR PUT IT, THEN EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM COME INTO PLAY NATURALLY, I WAS JJOKING WHEN I SAID DOES IT HAVE A MIND OF IT OWN. BUT ALLEGEDLY THIS IS WHEN THEY WOULD KICK IN. sO I ASKED, ABOUT ESKIMOS WHO ARE IN ISOLATION, AND HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME, WHY HAVE THEY NOT GOT FUR, THEN ANWSER IS THEY USE ANIMAL FUR, THEN MY QUESTION IS THAT ANIMAL KILLED FOR ITS FUR IS UNDER PRESSURE, WHY NOT ANY MICRO LEVEL EVOLUTION OR MACRO, ALSO APPLY THIS NOTION TO ENDANGERED SPECIES, WHO ARE REALLY UNDER PRESSURE, WHY HAVE THEY NOT EVOLVED OR HAD SPECIE REPLACE THEM, OR EVEN ONE OR TWO BECOME AN INTERMEDIATE . THANK YOU THE ANWSER IS, ITS DOES NOT HAPPEN AND NEVER DID.

I am gonna break for a small disclaimer, As always I recommend formal education on the matter if you are indeed interested. Pop-up community colleges in the US have made higher education (at least some basics) cheap and accessible to everyone. Some of these subjects you are attempting to address are not learned till the 3-4th year in a BS program. I have no doubt you are capable of learning them, but one cannot build a pyramid from the top down (though you will likely find someone around here that believes otherwise).


ANOTHER PERSONAL ATTACK YOU MUST BE WORRIED...

Firstly, this is a lie. It is a lie and misconception that we have no fossils between the Cambrian explosion and the oldest fossilized cells. The problem is, the soft bodies are not conducive to fossilization, Chitin evolved in the Cambrian, which is why we have a plethora of Cambrian fossils. There are plenty of Pre-Cambrian fossils see some; Pre-Cambrain fossils.

I KNOW WHAT YOU REFERING TOO, STILL AINT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. I DID NOT NAME IT THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, EVOLUTIONIST DID, WHY CAUSE THERE IS AN EXPLOSION OF COMPLEX LIVING ORGANISMS ALL OF SUDDEN, WHERE ARE THE INTERMEDIATES AND THE ONE CELL EVOLOVING TO INTERMEDIATES ETC. THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE FOSSIL INDEX YOU CANNOT PROVE A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM AND THIS TOO I CAN PROVE.

JUST LET ME KNOW WHERE TO START


Repeating lies does not make them true. Had you read the links you would have also read about the apple maggot fly or Culex pipiens and molestus both of which are new species. Species are also going extinct now for non-natural reasons. But, I have no doubt, that these niches will be filled as well (those being ones created by man made extinctions). The past is also rife with niche filling after species extinction, one only needs a little study on the history of life to learn this....

I AGREE NEW SPECIE COME AND GO, BUT NEVER DO THEY COME HLAF LOOKING LIKE SOMETHING HALF LIKE SOMETHING ELSE...DO THEY....THATS POINT FELLA. LIKE I SAID MOST OF WHAT YOU CLAIM HAS BEEN REFUTED IN EARLIER POSTS AND MOST WILL BE REFUTED IN POSTS TO COME.

i think you misunderstand me, my point is is this simply put, the dna is what encapsulates the information, but the information itself is not matter, or physical entity and this will explained in posts to come.

just a little glimpse in to your fossil evidence........



Click to view attachment

Horseshoe crab" fossil from the Ordovician Age. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.


Click to view attachment

100-150 million-year-old starfish fossil


Click to view attachment

Oyster fossils from the Ordovician Age, no different from modern oysters.


Click to view attachment

Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, and became extinct 65 million years ago. The structure seen in the fossil above never changed during the intervening 300 million years.


Click to view attachment

The oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species, known as Pulmonoscorpius kirktoniensis, is 320 million years old, and no different from today's scorpions.

Click to view attachment

An insect fossil in amber, some 170 million years old, found on the Baltic Sea coast. It is no different from its modern counterparts.

Click to view attachment

140-million-year-old dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria in Germany. It is identical to living dragonflies.

Click to view attachment

35-million-year-old flies. They have the same bodily structure as flies today

Click to view attachment

170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic Age. It is no different from living shrimps.


The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.52

R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45

You've only been saying this since I provided you with the evidence that it was not.

Here, in previous posts you made...







Now, you can admit you were wrong, apologise and state that you have changed your mind about what information is, or you can pretend (to yourself) that this new pov is the one you have held all along. I say pretend to yourself because we can all read your previous posts where you clearly state that information has to be a change to DNA.

I'm waiting for the admission and the apology.

Lets see what we agree on first, jsut basic below.


Evolution and Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided.

This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things.

The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations.

This famous law of physics is also known as the "law of entropy." In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system's entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organized, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state.

The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, has been experimentally and theoretically established. All foremost scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigm for the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, described it as the "premier law of all of science." Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe."364


Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 6

Admit that i was wrong about what? that mutations dont give any new information to the dna, hell no, because this is true. No new information is added in the dna, which encapsulates the information. so where is the contradiction. I still hold the view that the information is not matter, the dna is, thats the physical thing which encapsulates the info like a book, ecanpusaltes the info, the info with in it, does not have a physical entitiy.



You say"Now, you can admit you were wrong, apologise and state that you have changed your mind about what information is, or you can pretend (to yourself) that this new pov is the one you have held all along. I say pretend to yourself because we can all read your previous posts where you clearly state that information has to be a change to DNA."

mechanisms of evolution if really worked, would add new information to te dna, which is what it claims, but you see you never find any new information, something totally different which was not there before, and as a result has a made it a new specie. So no contradiction there mate. I still hold the view, noew infom must be added to the dNA in a mutation, which benefits the specie, by giving it a new organ or making a new specie, because of the new information encapsulated in the DNA.

If i randamly changed the words in my post or your post, would it bring a benefical outcome and add new info to your post and make it better than before, or would it make it worse and nonsensical and disruptive.

PONDER THIS...



Click to view attachment



This illustration shows the sketch of the chemical reactions taking place in a single cell. These intricate activities in the cell, which can only be viewed with an electron microscope, continue to take place flawlessly and ceaselessly.


sEE THE COMPLEXITY AND HOW SOME RANDOM EVENTS WOULD NOT IMPROVE IT OR MAKE IT BETTER OR HAVE SOME NEW FUNCTION WHICH WAS NEVER THERE BEFORE.

I guess you missed the part of your post I quoted where you said "mutations don't add any new information". Not to the DNA, simply that they don't add any new information.

I'm not surprised you are refusing to acknowledge your previous mistake as that would undermine everything else you are trying to say as you believe you are inerrant. I was willing to give you a second chance to have a reasoned debate but my first analysis now seems to be correct.

This is no longer worth my time and effort.

yes mutations dont add new things to dna which are beneficial and therefore are totally new. mutations can alter the dna, randomly, but not in a beneficial way. mutation makes things worse.

Its upto to you whether you like to debate or not, most of you are giving up, cause you have been ill informed, most of yu killed those creationist thread etc, but with me you know its different, im not convincing you to believe in a god, im just trying to convince poeple that evolution is a theory, very imagniative one too. therefore it should be taught as fact, or seen in this way.

Do you not understand that people are frustrated with you because you aren't debating? You have been wrong, and it has been pointed out, and it has been reposted and picked apart with explanations, with sources, with step-by-step breakdowns of things that have been proven and seen, you've gotten graphs and pictures and it is obvious to the rest of us that it is you who is grasping at straws.


Here's a mathematical situation for you. 1 person versus around 30 educated people who have studied these subjects for years. Statistically, what are the chances that the one person is correct and the rest of us are wrong?

Don't copy and paste any more pseudoscience, don't come back with your presumptuous and condescending attitude, it's getting you exactly nowhere. You aren't making people give up because we feel like we have been beaten, you cocky little child, we are giving up because it is obvious that you are stubborn and egotistical, and you reject reason and have a very weak grasp on anything having to do with Evolution at all. We are sick of trying to help you learn, it's like beating our heads on a wall.

You can't even bring yourself to answer the question asked of you a dozen times now. What is your theory?

Go get a hobby that doesn't involve trying to drive people mad.

Also, please try to read what you type before you post it. You make so many typos and grammar errors, it's hard to understand what you are trying to say in the first place. We are not English teachers, we don't want to have to correct your mistakes as we read.

i luv posts like the last one, its so personal that it shows me your frustrating in not having the anwers to my question. The reason you ask for my alternative theory is ,because your are realising the flaws in the evolution theory. You claim i have been answereed specifically, well show me, i post stuff on mutations, speciation, variation, common descent, thermodynamics, punctuated equilibrium. not once has anyone besides leo and camlax. and even they were pretty vague.

point be is this, you have not really anwsered anythign,instead you have gone in circles, coz u never really read my rebuttals. what i suggest before you bring up the moth thing, read what my rebuttal is first.

and the reason you want alternate theory, is cause you doubt the present one, evolution and you want something that you knock me with. I dont have a theory or anything, my job is to make sure, peeople dont believe evolution theory as fact, and show them the clear scientific absurdities with in it.

Well when your one man, against alleged 30 poeple with alleged academic qualification (at least i had the descency at the start to say i would go those with credential, cause i dont have them), my anwers have to be swift and many, therefore i cannot afford to go through each post to correct it for you, as long as the main thrust of the what im trying to say gets across, that fine with me.

camlax --


First of all, thank you for the SCA posts. I don't know much about biology, so I learned something.
But I'm going to repeat something from another thread. Don't bother with Ozi. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and -- as Sundog points out -- he's not interested in an intelligent discussion or actually learning something. As far as I can tell, he's indulging a bizarre cut and paste and plagiarism fetish.

--Jaylemurph

Resorting to personal attacks now? It appears you ran out of arguments...

Im curious, how many courses in biology and evolution have you taken, hmm?



I'm quite well aware they did not get a new organ, thank you very much.



Right where the first moth appeared as the char colour...



Indeed that is evolution. Members of a species with one mutation outpopulating and out surviving the ones without it.. and further down the line, this happens again, and eventually down the line so many mutations have occured that the species is different than from where it started.



He's quite right actually. A mathematician can no all the formulas necessary to calculate probabilities, but he needs knowledge in the domain (in this case, biology), to know how to apply them correctly.

Can you do addition and multiplication? Probably.

Can you calculate the gravitational force between two objects? Not without knowledge of physics you cant.

What about all the beneficial mutations that we've mentionned thus far?



What of gene duplication mutations?

Why is it that it was mutations that helped insects survive? You do not call this beneficial?

/concur, I suppose some threads are best left to their inevitable fate.

Speaking of Ad Hominid attacks, check out the bold above statement. Anyways, I stand by my statement, just because someone is part of a collaboration for the revision of a scientific theory, does not make them an authority on the subject. Let's say a doctor participates in a geological convention, you wouldn't say, "Hey, since the doctor is a scientist that makes him an expert in all sciences, geology included", would you?

In regard to the most uneducated, "most stupid comment", as you put it, you take the cake.



and..



and..



Need more? I could go on for hours. Your misunderstandings about the theory of evolution (neo-darwinist style) and its components can be easily explained logically by just sitting down and reading a scientific textbook. Then you will realize why the theory of evolution is so widely accepted and why, logically it makes sense. There is substancial scientific evidence supporting the theory, which is more than let's say, creationism can claim to put forth.

In regard to the statement you made about balanced polymorphism, it shows your ignorance in understanding what the actual term means. I already explained the term a couple of times, so I ask that you look it up for yourself, so as you might be able to understand what it is myself and others are talking about.

On a final note, I ask you to refute this. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html
How is this not an example of evolution by mutation? It is occuring as we speak, and can be observed because the evolution is happening very quickly. For example, in some cases every 1 in 10,000 DNA or RNA replications contains an error (mutation) in these microorganisms.

- Regards, Bokonon

Bokonon,

It's pointless at this point.

He will 'refute' it with an 'LOL' and something about how you are talking in circles and then saying that he already posted a 'rebuttal' to it, and then accuse you of personal attacks, because you are getting frustrated cause he is so smart and keeps proving all of us wrong at every turn. He might copy and paste (read plagiarize) someone else's previously debunked propaganda, but it won't really pertain to what you are asking. Oh, and then say that he is going to cover that topic in depth in a later post.

Does that pretty much cover it Ozi?

And trust me, I am not asking for your theory because I need a new one to replace that stupid old evolution stuff with. Obviously, from your nonanswer, you don't have a theory.

By the way, Emma, I know you want in on some of this!

Emma is a lady. Intellectualized as it is, I think she recognizes this as a form of male chest-beating and is a little too refined for it!

--Jaylemurph

Uh..I'm a lady too.

Although after that chest beating comment, I don't much feel very ladylike...

Oh. I had no idea. I do apologise. I wasn't /trying/ to be offensive.
(I was going to use another reference to the ways men determine who's bigger, and I'm glad I didn't...)

--Jaylemurph

Yeah, I wouldn't have had much to bring to that kind of contest...

Ozi, like everyone else, I have pretty much given up on you. I will give you one last chance:

If I present to you an example of evolution which led to a positive change and that created a trait that has never, not in all of history, ever existed prior to that mutation occuring, would you then be willing to admit that you are incorrect about all mutations being harmful, about no new information ever being created, and that your sources were either misleading you intentionally or ignorant of the data I present (neither one a particularly good option)?

The funny part is that he's going to read this now and he'll be convinced that we're all backing out of the debate because we can't possibly refute the many "facts" that he's provided.

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 08 March 2006 06:56 am ET

A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.
Genes are the instructions organisms use to make proteins. They are encoded in genetic material, usually DNA, and some come in different versions, called “alleles." Positive natural selection occurs when one allele is favored over another due to changes in the environment.

Researchers from the University of Chicago analyzed the genomes of 209 unrelated individuals from three distinct human populations: East Asians, Europeans and Yorubans from Nigeria. Each population contained roughly 250 positively selected genes; however, most of the affected genes differed depending on the group.
“This study addresses the question 'Are humans still evolving?', and the answer is 'Absolutely,'" study team member Benjamin Voight told LiveScience.
Other studies have also reached the same conclusion.

Links to history

The new study links genetic changes to major events in the history of our species.
“There have been a lot of recent changes—the advent of agriculture, shifts in diet, new habitats, climatic changes—over the past 10,000 years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a human geneticist at the University of Chicago who led the study.
Many genes were found to be evolving in all three of the human populations studied. The specific functions of many of the genes are not known, but the researchers were able to separate them into broad categories. These categories include:

Olfaction: the researchers found many genes important for taste and smell

Reproduction: involved in things like sperm mobility and egg fertilization

Increasing brain size

Bone development and skeletal changes

Carbohydrate metabolism: positive selection was observed for genes involved in breaking down mannose in Yorubans, sucrose in East Asians, and lactose for Europeans. (Mannose is a sweet secretion found in some trees and shrubs, sucrose is common table sugar, and lactose is a sugar found in milk.)

Disease resistance and pathogen protection

Metabolism of foreign compounds, such as exotic plant proteins or animal toxins
A tradeoff

The researchers also found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin in Europeans that were not known before. Scientists think humans evolved lighter skin in Europe as an adaptation to less sunlight.
And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can't metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit.
The study, which used data collected by the International HapMap Project, is detailed in the March 7 issue of the journal Public Library of Science-Biology.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060308_human_evolve.html

some mutations are beneficial. and so much for the thinking of we have reached our pinnacle

Maybe a definition to help Ozi understand exactly what the word "evolve" means, will help clarify some of the points being addressed.

Evolve:

4. Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition.


Evolution:

3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


See also, —Synonyms 1. unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.


I really don't see how this would be hard to understand! But, I could be missing something.

GAH!!!!!

Ozi, Information is not what you think it is.

Look at the following two paragraphs:

1: Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication. Information is not communication.

2: Это будет пример информации в по-разному языке, как раз доказать пункт.

Paragraph 2 contains more Information. Why?

Hint: Paragraph 1 contains 4 unique words, repeated over and over. Paragraph 2 contains 11.

Information is not communication. Information does not need you to personally understand it for it to be Information. It does not run around having an identity crisis and spending years in therapy just because you think it is nonsensical. Information written in Russian, or any other language for that matter, is still Information.

IF and only IF you understand it, then that Information has been communicated to you successfully. But it's still Information, regardless of whether you understand it or not.

In short, Information is not communication. Savvy?

It can not be explained any better than that.

And just to make it even more ironic, that challeneg that I presented to Ozi at the top of this page...will have absolutely nothing to do with evolution! The sole purpose of it is to answer the information argument that he keeps harping on, in a manner consistent with the mis-information he has been fed, in spite of it being conceptually irrelevant to understanding evolution!

I'm wondering where he is. It's been awfully peaceful in here.

its quite obvious you guys dont understand anything.

Alleles, you talk about. Lets see. a dark moth outlives a lighter moth as result of change in the enviroment and the factor of a predator. As a result a one type of moth becomes higher in ratio. How on earth has that moth become a new specie or has a new organ or has new information with in its gene pool. Its absoloutely rediculous to suggest that this is evolution. when the latter is supposed to benefit you by, providing new information or a new organ and making a new specie by all the use of all the alleged different mechanisms.

Alleles is not evolution, its a natural variation that would occur depending on certain cirmcumstances, as a result it does not create a new specie, in moths, or humans, or a new organ, or new info or a new specie in human. Non are present, its bull.

TIggs. like is said, change my post, by adding random changes and random letters, it will not improve in any shape or form. Its just does not work and you know it.


But im getting abit sick of going around in circles, so im gonna approach things differently. No endangered species have a changein genes, any variation, speciation, or other mechanims taking place. non what so ever. Some of you post claims of human genes being mutated, but when checked further, it does not actually tell you how they know its a mutation or whether the information was alredy present in the genes and only been discovered, both have major differences. anyway. the last time i am going to deal with industrial melanism.

When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees that the example of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited as an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as the most concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines, and even academic sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothing to do with evolution at all.

Let us first recall what is actually said: According to this account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the bark of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths "evolved" into dark-colored ones.

Source

Click to view attachment

1. The wings do not develop.
2. The hind limbs reach full length, but the digits do not fully develop.
3. There is no soft fur covering
4. Although there is a respiratory passage, lungs and air sacs are absent.
5. The urinary tract does not grow, and does not induce the development of the kidney.


On the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated fowl, and on the right the harmful effects of a mutation in the pleiotropic gene. Careful examination shows that a mutation in just one gene damages many different organs. Even if we hypothesize that mutation could have a beneficial effect, this "pleiotropic effect" would remove the advantage by damaging many more organs.



The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance, one gene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism. Microbiologist Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes in higher organisms such as human beings, in this way:

The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: "It is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms."26

Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.

To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:

l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.


The Escherichia coli bacterium is no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this long period have not led to any structural changes.
All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable example of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect. 27

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.


Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 149.
27 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87


More to follow on dna , rna , protiens, information and thermodynamics

The first hypothesis-that macromutations occur in large numbers, making the emergence of new species possible-conflicts with known facts of genetics.

One rule, put forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best known geneticists, and based on observations, clearly invalidates this hypothesis. Fisher states in his book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection that the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed in a population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype.175 Or, to put it another way, the bigger the mutation, the less chance it has of becoming a permanent trait within the group.

It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations, as we have seen in earlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes, and never have a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary: individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses and deformities. For this reason, the more an individual is affected by mutation, the less chance it has of surviving.

Ernst Mayr, the doyen of Darwinism, makes this comment on the subject:

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties.176

It is obvious that mutations cannot bring about evolutionary development, and this fact places both neo-Darwinism and the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible difficulty. Since mutation is a destructive mechanism, the macromutations that proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro" destructive effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations in the regulatory genes in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness which applies to other mutations, applies to these, as well. The problem is that mutation is a random change: any kind of random change in a structure as complex as genetic data will lead to harmful results.


Two famous proponents of the punctuated evolution model: Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.


In their book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, the geneticist Lane Lester and the population biologist Raymond Bohlin describe the blind alley represented by the notion of macromutation:

The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences… But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact.177

Observation and experiment both show that mutations do not enhance genetic data, but rather damage living things. Therefore, it is clearly irrational for proponents of the punctuated equilibrium theory to expect greater success from "mutations" than the mainstream neo-Darwinists have found.

M. E. Soulé and L. S. Mills, "Enhanced: No need to isolate genetics," Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1658.
179 R. L. Westemeier, J. D. Brawn, J. D. Brawn, S. A. Simpson, T. L. Esker, R. W. Jansen, J. W. Walk, E. L. Kershner, J. L. Bouzat, and K. N. Paige, "Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population", Science, 1998, vol. 282, p. 1695


These are not my words, these are words of poeple who live by your theory, they admit themselves, but u guys seem to know more hey, and have better qualifications. LOl

Another example of evolutionists' "beneficial mutations" is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Like all the other examples, this one, too, is a deception.

It is no secret that bacteria gradually develop a resistance to antibiotics over time. What happens is this: Most bacteria subjected to an antibiotic die, but some remain unaffected by it, and multiplying rapidly they come to comprise the entire population. In this way, the entire population comes to be immune to the antibiotic.

Evolutionists, however, claim that bacteria evolve according to the conditions in which they find themselves. The truth is, however, rather different. The Israeli biophysicist Professor Lee Spetner is one of the figures who have carried out the most detailed studies in this area. Professor Spetner explains how this resistance comes about by means of two separate mechanisms, neither of which makes any contribution to evolution. The two mechanisms in question are:


Above; Bacterial DNA. Bacteria that suffer a loss of genetic information as a result of mutation become resistant to antibiotics. Yet, that mutation does not add any information to or develop the DNA. For that reason, it is no proof of evolution.
1) The transmission of already existing immunity genes in the bacteria and

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

The first mechanism is no evidence for evolution:

In a 2001 article Professor Spetner describes the first mechanism in this way:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.12

This is no proof of evolution, as Professor Spetner describes:

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.13

In other words, there is no evolution here because no new genetic information appears. All that happens is that genetic information that already exists is transferred among bacteria.

I have posted this before, as a rebuttal but it seem most of you cant read......

Dr. Lee Spetner, http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

The second form of immunity, that resulting from mutation, is also no evidence for evolution. Professor Spetner states:

... A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.14

In his book Not By Chance, Spetner compares this to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Like a key that perfectly fits a lock, streptomycin attaches itself to the bacteria's ribosome, disabling it. Mutation, on the other hand, damages the form of the ribosome, and in this case the streptomycin cannot attach itself to the ribosome. Even if this is interpreted as "the bacteria's gaining immunity to streptomycin" the bacteria actually suffer a loss rather than a gain. Spetner continues:


The DNA of the E. coli bacterium
This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.15

In summary: A mutation impinging on the bacteria's ribosome can make the bacteria resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this, however, is that the mutation "deforms" the ribosome. In other words, no genetic information is added to the bacteria. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is damaged, and the bacteria are literally disabled. (It has, in fact, been established that the ribosomes of bacteria subjected to mutation are much less functional than those of normal bacteria.) Since this disability prevents the antibiotic, whose design allows it to attach itself to the ribosome, from latching on to it , "antibiotic resistance" develops.

In conclusion, there is no instance of a mutation that "improves genetic information," and the immunity mechanisms in bacteria do not represent evidence for the theory of evolution. Professor Spetner states that the mutations required by the theory of evolution have never been observed:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!16



It is claimed in the NAS booklet that the family trees obtained from comparing molecules such as cytochrome c and hemoglobin provide proof of the theory of evolution. According to this claim, the similarities between the amino-acid sequences of these molecules in living things show that they evolved from one another. This claim is totally false. The fact that there are some similarities between molecules like cytochrome c or hemoglobin in some species is no proof that the creatures in question evolved from one another.

First and foremost, it needs to be made clear that, as we have just seen, comparisons performed on other molecules give very different and conflicting results, incompatible with any evolutionist picture.

Click to view attachment

A table listing thirty-three comparisons between bacterial cytochrome c of Rhodospirillum rubrum, and the cytochrome c of other living things. As can be seen from this table, every class is definitively separated from the other classes, and no intermediate forms can be seen at the molecular level. All the sequences of every subclass are equidistant from the members of the other groups. In other words, the molecular sequences of classes that should be more closely related according to the evolutionists' claims are not in reality closer to one another. 26

What biochemists have found with their comparisons of certain proteins like cytochrome c and hemoglobin is this: It is possible to classify species into groups according to their molecular structure. These groups are compatible with the groups produced by comparative anatomy. However, the interesting thing in such a protein "atlas" is that these groups or subclasses are totally isolated from one another. No intermediate forms are to be found between groups-just as there are no transitional forms either in the fossil record or among living groups today. Species are always separated from one another by definitive lines of division.

The Australian biochemist Michael Denton draws attention to the fact that tables such as the Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, which show divergence of the cytochromes, reveal the absence of any such transitional forms in the clearest way possible.25

Here is another noteworthy point in this connection: According to evolutionists, the most primitive organisms-those lacking a cell nucleus-are prokaryotes, or bacteria. Higher organisms with a nucleus in the cell, from yeasts to human beings, are known as eukaryotes. If all eukaryotes evolved from bacteria, as evolutionists would have us believe, then one would expect to see a graduated divergence in their proteins such as cytochrome c. Yet, what we actually find is this: the cytochrome c of all the main classes-from human beings to kangaroo, from the fruit fly to the chicken, from the sunflower to the rattlesnake, and from the penguin to baker's yeast-all exhibit the same degree of divergence from the cytochrome c molecules of bacteria (varying between 65 and 69%).

Michael Denton offers the following comment:

Eucaryotic cytochromes, from organisms as diverse as man, lamprey, fruit fly, wheat and yeast, all exhibit a sequence divergence of between sixty four per cent and sixty seven per cent from this particular bacterial cytochrome. Considering the enormous variation of eucaryotic species from unicellular organisms like yeasts to multicellular organisms such as mammals, and considering that eucaryotic cytochromes vary among themselves by up to forty-five per cent, this must be considered one of the most astonishing findings of modern science.27
What is even more extraordinary is that there is no evidence in biochemistry of the most fundamental evolutionary scheme-the transitions from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, and from reptiles to mammals. The protein divergence of land vertebrates like amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, when compared to those of fish, all appear isolated to exactly the same degree. The gradual divergence envisaged by evolutionary sequence is not observed.

From the point of view of their cytochrome c, horses, rabbits, frogs, and turtles are 13% divergent from the carp. Denton says:

At a molecular level, there is no trace of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. So amphibia, always traditionally considered intermediate between fish and the other terrestrial vertebrates, are in molecular terms as far from fish as any group of reptiles or mammals.28

As we have seen, the "facts" from molecular biology that the NAS portrays as evidence for the theory of evolution are all either errors or else deliberate distortions by evolutionist scientists.

Richard Milton, Shattering The Myths of Darwinism, Park Street Press, 1997, p.183
26 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, pp. 279-280
27 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 280-281
28 Richard Milton, Shattering The Myths of Darwinism, p.184

Ozi, this is how evolution works. If you can't understand then thats you're problem. A lot of people have come in here and tried to explain this to you!
But, unfortunately, you will not accept anything with valid points put right in front of you.

(The old saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.)

whats coming soon,

the Dna and RNA posts will show how impossible it is for dna to have evolved, followed by or maybe before the latter, i will also provide indepth details on how one protien could not evolve and will also relate to millers experiment. The last thing will be information. and how just like this post and what the information contained in it has no physical reality, so i shall prove the same for dna info.

Guys a head start for you to run NAS website to get your rebuttals ready, but remember, i also have the rebuttals to their latest research and claims.

I know a lot of people have come in to explain this is how it works and i have explained this is not how it works, and this the latter is in accordance with the theory, which implicates that through the mechanisms we have discussed and natural selection, that an evolved specie, something new with new information is evolved and this is how human origins is explained. How in the hell then can two types of moths, living already and present, be evolving, when as a result of the enviroment and predators, that one of them became less in ratio, and one higher in ratio, how is this evolution, you call alleles, well, two specie already existing, one goes less in number, due to it being more visible now to birds and easy prey. how has either specie got new info in its dna, how in both specie did a new ogan grow, how or which of the two is a totally new specie as a result. non.


read the article industrial melanism, and you will see the flaws in it and how scandelous it really is. jus coz i have been away does not mean i gave up, its grand slam sunday and Gooners sit top of the table. You will understand where i have been now.

Yes please, but make sure that the benefit out weighs the number of disadvantages... and cite the source. Look forward to it.

A species of brown moths (A.) live in woods. Woods are being cut down do to commercialized expansion. Some of species (A.) adapts white dots
on their wings to better hide themselves on the sides of buildings from predators in the commercialized zone. The better adapted moths, (B.) now
have a better chance of surviving. Species (A.) now become less in ratio due to not being able to adapt to their changing surroundings.

This is a part of evolution it is called "adaptation".

*sigh* I can do this too Ozi.

- Edit -

Well, Ozi, let me put it like this:

One of the two of us is an award winning Information Architect, specialising in Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming.

One of the two of us knows for a fact that, given a suitable fitness function, it would work - mostly because they get paid extremely well to do it, each and every day, by Governments, Major banks and, on occasion, the odd smaller company, like Apple.

To summarize, one of the two of us has an internationally award-winning career spanning two decades actually doing it, whilst the other one of us is in complete denial that it's even possible.

Fancy taking a guess at who's who?

Ozi, I know that you are not in the habit of reading any of the posts in here, but I asked you a specific question that had nothing to do with any of your posts. All you have to do is answer either YES or NO.



And please stop cutting and pasting. You think that you are laying out some invincible line of evidence, however you have lost all credibility as a researcher and debater here, and you don't inspire anyone to take your posts seriously. Why would anyone go through the effort of showing you where your "rebuttals" are incorrect if you will never read what they post? It is very clear that you merely glance over any replies, looking for keywords, and then doing a search for the subject and pasting whatever you find. There have even been a couple times when the replies you have made contain the keywords, but the topic is not what was being addressed!

Ozi, if you entertain any hope of regaining credibility as a researcher, you need to understand that your method of posting is ineffective. I will illustrate how much so using a different topic:



OZI: Cooking is a hoax! Here is an example where a scientists attempted to follow a recipe and the result was a lump of charcoal! Also, I have irrefutable evidence that sodium and chloride are utterly toxic, and yet cooks claim to use it regularly in their trade! It is very obvious that cooks are engaged in deceiving the rest of the world, and anyone who disagrees is quite sadly stuck in the web of lies they have created. If they had the courage to research on their own, they would realize that I have scores and scores of examples where perfectly credible people have failed to cook something according to the recipe.

I can't cook myself and I don't understand how cooking is done, but we will start by explaining how there is no way that an oven could possibly cook bread because the heat would kill the yeast that makes the bread rise. Prepare yourself!


This is really how you sound, at least to me (perhaps others think more kindly of you). You sound like a twelve-year old who has discovered the joy of thinking he knows something that the rest of the world does not. A form of adolescent rebellion. You need to regain a measure of humility before you completely burn the bridge you are on, becuase sooner or later, you will realize that you are being lied to by your precious sources (and I will prove that to you the moment you accept my challenge).