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.

*sigh* I can do this too Ozi.




Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998).



www.talkorigins.net

Morgellans????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eeAPwII_6Y

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".

no wat u did then was not read the article. which anwers all of it. no moths devoloped any new dots, their were a specie of moths already in the population of moths, they only became high in ratio due to the other one being visible and hunted by birds. This is not evolution, its another moth suceeding over the other one due to the enviroment benefiting its make up, which was already present and good for that particular enviroment. No evolution taking place, no mechanisms taking place, no new specie arose or no new organ or info. Clear.

no wat u did then was not read the article. which anwers all of it. no moths devoloped any new dots, their were a specie of moths already in the population of moths, they only became high in ratio due to the other one being visible and hunted by birds. This is not evolution, its another moth suceeding over the other one due to the enviroment benefiting its make up, which was already present and good for that particular enviroment. No evolution taking place, no mechanisms taking place, no new specie arose or no new organ or info. Clear.

Stellar Posted Today, 09:03 PM

What he's having trouble understading is why is it evolution if it involves no mutations...

On the other hand, Ozi, it is a single mutation that was responsible for the black peppered moth appearing. There's your mutation. It became beneficial later on due to environmental change, which thus caused the black one to dominate over the otherone. There's your natural selection, and there's your evolution.

You see evolutionist a quick to assert anything to some imaginary mechanisms and call it evolution. A moth already prevailant in the moht population, by chance, becomes higher in ratio due to changes in the enviroment and becomes the dominant moth in that locality. This is not evolution. Natural selection suggests, that mutations are caused, new information as a result is found in the genes, a new stronger specie should arise as a result, What you get instead is another type of moth already existing adapting to the enviroment, where as the white moth, who was dominant in the area, has no mutation, has no changes and its the one which is under pressure, due to the enviroment and predators, and no evolution takes place. If for example this white moth started mutate, change its colour and spots to adapt to its new surroundings, then i would believe you. But this did not happen and if you read the article on industrial melanism it gives more details, and points out the scandal in this. ITs no evolution. You see you think im hung up, when infact its you lot being duped by evolutionist to believe anything and everything is evolution, when in description above it clearly shows its not.


Now you gents and ladies have posted some good articles, there alot i need to read through and then reply to you all constructively, one by one. I promise i will, but im a little busy now, so i may not come bck with a reply for a couple of days.

You see evolutionist a quick to assert anything to some imaginary mechanisms and call it evolution. A moth already prevailant in the moht population, by chance, becomes higher in ratio due to changes in the enviroment and becomes the dominant moth in that locality. This is not evolution. Natural selection suggests, that mutations are caused, new information as a result is found in the genes, a new stronger specie should arise as a result, What you get instead is another type of moth already existing adapting to the enviroment, where as the white moth, who was dominant in the area, has no mutation, has no changes and its the one which is under pressure, due to the enviroment and predators, and no evolution takes place. If for example this white moth started mutate, change its colour and spots to adapt to its new surroundings, then i would believe you. But this did not happen and if you read the article on industrial melanism it gives more details, and points out the scandal in this. ITs no evolution. You see you think im hung up, when infact its you lot being duped by evolutionist to believe anything and everything is evolution, when in description above it clearly shows its not.

Now you gents and ladies have posted some good articles, there alot i need to read through and then reply to you all constructively, one by one. I promise i will, but im a little busy now, so i may not come bck with a reply for a couple of days.

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

Molecular methods are used widely to measure genetic diversity within populations and determine relationships among species. However, it is difficult to observe genomic evolution in action because these dynamics are too slow in most organisms. To overcome this limitation, we sampled genomes from populations of Escherichia coli evolving in the laboratory for 10,000 generations. We analyzed the genomes for restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) using seven insertion sequences (IS) as probes; most polymorphisms detected by this approach reflect rearrangements (including transpositions) rather than point mutations. The evolving genomes became increasingly different from their ancestor over time. Moreover, tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations. As has been often suggested, but not previously shown by experiment, the rates of phenotypic and genomic change were discordant, both across replicate populations and over time within a population. Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about Ozi. Education is key to understanding, without you make statements like this, that tell people with such education, you have no idea what you are talking about....


Natural selection works on 4 postulates.

In fact in Darwin's idea, they are called "The 4 postulates of Natural Selection".

1. Variation: individuals within a species are variable
2. Inheritance: some of the variations will be passed to offspring
3. Differential survival: more offspring get produced than can survive
4. Extinction

This is in a nutshell, decent with modification by NS.

I am not sure how you justify to yourself arguing something you have clearly never studied or know anything about. One would at least think, you would properly educate yourself on the matter if even to argue against it.

Listen you numtie, i have already posted stuff on natural selection. However you still fail to address my point, maybe i should write in hindi. The white moth was under pressure, due to variation in the enviroment, its survival was under threat. So what happened was, as th tree got darker due to pollution etc, the white moths were sitting ducks, why no variation , speciation, punctuated equilibrium etc take place with white moths, why not mutations on them. Instead, you get the brown moths, who coincendantly can now blend in with the trees, like the white moth did previously and survive, therefore become higher in number, where did mutations take place, where did, speciation take place, nothing happend for the white moth, and no evolution took place with the brown moth. Read the article industrail melanism. may anwser a bit more in depth. You fooling youselves if you call that evolution.

Evolution, is the above four mechainisms in short working to create a new specie, or provide a new organ, or provide new information within the genes etc. NOn of it happens. Clear.

Now im just gathering all your posts and articles, i dont wanna keep responding to this point again and again. therefore leave me be, so i can answer your other misconceptions one by one.

Thanks.

You see evolutionist a quick to assert anything to some imaginary mechanisms and call it evolution.

A moth already prevailant in the moht population, by chance, becomes higher in ratio due to changes in the enviroment and becomes the dominant moth in that locality. This is not evolution.

Natural selection suggests, that mutations are caused, new information as a result is found in the genes, a new stronger specie should arise as a result,

What you get instead is another type of moth already existing adapting to the enviroment, where as the white moth, who was dominant in the area, has no mutation, has no changes and its the one which is under pressure, due to the enviroment and predators, and no evolution takes place.

If for example this white moth started mutate, change its colour and spots to adapt to its new surroundings, then i would believe you. But this did not happen and if you read the article on industrial melanism it gives more details, and points out the scandal in this.

ITs no evolution. You see you think im hung up, when infact its you lot being duped by evolutionist to believe anything and everything is evolution, when in description above it clearly shows its not.

Now you gents and ladies have posted some good articles, there alot i need to read through and then reply to you all constructively, one by one. I promise i will, but im a little busy now, so i may not come bck with a reply for a couple of days.

What the crap is a numtie? I am pretty sure it is not a compliment and what does speaking in Hindi have to do with anything? Please tell me that was not some racial or cultural knock.

I am one against many

No, Ozi. Evolutionists are very specific when they are speaking about mechanisms of evolution.



Yes, Ozi, it is evolution. More specifically, it is the theory of Natural Selection, one of the many evolutionary theories.

NATURAL SELECTION HEY, THATS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED, SEE IF YOU READ WHAT I POST, YOU MAY UNDERSTAND.

No, Ozi, no it doesn't. "New Information" is not a term that has any meaning in evolutionary science. Nor is a stronger species necessarily a result.

EVOLUTION CAUSES NATURAL SELECTION AS A RESULT, A STRONGER AND NEW SPECIE ARSISE, LIEK WE DID ALLEGEDLEY, NOTHING LIKE THIS IS VISIBLE, YOU TWO TYPES OF MOTH ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, ONE OUT LIVES THE OTHER IN THAT LOCALITY ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES CAUSED BY MAN, NOT BY NATURE. THIS IS LUCK NOT EVOLUTION, NIETHER MOTH, GOT NEW INFO INTHEIR DNA, NO NEW ORGAN OR AS A RESULT OF NATURAL SELECTION, NO NEW SPECIE. I WAS TOLD BY ONE OF YOU LOT HERE, THAT EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS KICK IN WHEN A SPECIE IS UNDER PRESSURE, THE WHITE MOTH WAS, WHY DID NOT EVEN MICRO OR MACRO PROCESSES TAKE PLACE WITH IT.

No, Ozi, that is evolution in action. More specifically, it is one form of evolution known as natural selection, one of the tenets of which is the removal of genetic properties from the gene pool due to predation.

I WILL HAVE TO DEBUNK THIS NATURAL SELECTION THINGS AGAIN.

No, Ozi, that is not evolution. Evolution happens through generations, not in individuals.

THROUGH GENERATIONS, WELL YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE WHITE MOTH BY NOW MAY HAVE ADAPTED AND EVOLVED BY MUTATING AND HAVING BROWN SPOTS OR SOMETHING, NOTHING HAPPENING WITH IT ON A MOLECULAR LEVEL TOO.

No, Ozi, you cannot make up your own definition for "evolution" and then claim it is wrong. You have to define evolution in the way that biologists define evolution. Otherwise, you are guilty of what is known as a "Straw-man Argument".

IM NOT MAKING IT UP, I SHALL PROVE IT TO YOU, BY QUOTING EVOLUTIONISTS, WHO ARE RESPECTED MORE THAN YOURSELF.

Take however long you like, and by all means, come back with questions, but please don't waste any more of our time cutting and pasting whole pages out of books. The things you post...it isn't even a matter of them being inaccurate. They are outright lies. They are written specifically for the purpose of making people believe things that are not true about evolution. They did it to you. They made you believe that you are talking about evolution. What you are talking about, though, isn't evolution. It's propaganda. It's lies designed to confuse you and make you think that what they say makes sense. It only makes sense, though, if you never look at what the biologists claim. If you look at the other side of the argument, you suddenly start seeing that something is very, very wrong.


THIS LAST PARAGRAPH COULD FIT YOU EXACTLY LIKE A GLOVE. WHAT YOU APPLY TO ME THERE, I ALS0 APPLY TO YOU ALL.

Listen you numtie, i have already posted stuff on natural selection. However you still fail to address my point, maybe i should write in hindi. The white moth was under pressure, due to variation in the enviroment, its survival was under threat. So what happened was, as th tree got darker due to pollution etc, the white moths were sitting ducks, why no variation , speciation, punctuated equilibrium etc take place with white moths, why not mutations on them. Instead, you get the brown moths, who coincendantly can now blend in with the trees, like the white moth did previously and survive, therefore become higher in number, where did mutations take place, where did, speciation take place, nothing happend for the white moth, and no evolution took place with the brown moth. Read the article industrail melanism. may anwser a bit more in depth. You fooling youselves if you call that evolution.

Evolution, is the above four mechainisms in short working to create a new specie, or provide a new organ, or provide new information within the genes etc. NOn of it happens. Clear.

Now im just gathering all your posts and articles, i dont wanna keep responding to this point again and again. therefore leave me be, so i can answer your other misconceptions one by one.

Thanks.

Tipsy, obviously your missing the points too, all them answered in my previous posts, please read them. and compare them. your moth post is just a joke. they actually admit, the experiment was rubbish and then at the same time they say it can quoted etc. LOL

I think what you need to understand is what darwin thought of natural selection and all the mechanisms involved. They should improve the specie, and make like something that has not been seen before and contains within it new info. Non of this is visibleand this is what evolution theory claims.

Yeh good links like, but i have seen them all previously and i am working on a rebuttal. what i suggest is until i do a rebuttal , u should wait before you post more links and red herrings. I am one against many, so take it easy and i promise i will respond to the best of my ability to each link and red herring.

well with the moths there is no contradiction within the link but i had a feeling you would see one. It demonstrates your lack of understanding. You see questioning of studies by scientists as evidence in suppot of you. In fact it shows the how hard it is for a study to be accepted and that studies are not accepted or denied purely on wether they support current theory. They are looked at subjectively and tested. The final study though did still manage to show the predicited conclusions supporting natural selection.

As for other links we could post back and forth till hell freezes over. Lets face it for every source you have against evolution I could dig one up for it. the facts are with I have not seen anything presented here that reliably contradicts the scientific opinion of evolution. We will not agree as what you see as sound research i view as propoganda and psudo science as none of it has been able to withstand the rigours of conventional scientific investigation.

capeo, i will come to you friggin nylon bug, im on my own dealing with all of you ill informed individuals, like i said in my last post, i am gatehring all you responses, and links and proofs and putting them together, this will take longer than normal, but the anwers i will provide will break down each post , each comment with an answer ok. so for now let me deal with NS.

The essential assumption of the theory of natural selection holds that there is a fierce struggle for survival in nature, and every living thing cares only for itself. At the time Darwin proposed this theory, the ideas of Thomas Malthus, the British classical economist, were an important influence on him. Malthus maintained that human beings were inevitably in a constant struggle for survival, basing his views on the fact that population, and hence the need for food resources, increases geometrically, while food resources themselves increase only arithmetically. The result is that population size is inevitably checked by factors in the environment, such as hunger and disease. Darwin adapted Malthus's vision of a fierce struggle for survival among human beings to nature at large, and claimed that "natural selection" is a consequence of this struggle.

And thank you. You made my point better than I could. I think everyone here can clearly see where your words end and another creationist website cut and paste begins. Here's how this will go. Ozi will claim he got this from his "books" when actually it's verbatim from here:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms02.html

And again, he's plagarizing. Plagarizing ridiculous crap no less, but still plagarizing. He does this endlessly, doesn't address points provided, and claims otherwise. Is there a mod out there that can explain posting rules to him or this just going to go on and on?

THE only reason you dont see reliability, even when the quotes are directly from evolutionist, is purely due to blind following. Thats all. The links you posted have been posted by many here. they are really add on or commentary of the answer provided by the NAS. Like i said before i have info on new research answering all your stuff, its now just a matter of me putting it together. The moth thing shows that even now its used as proof, although its accpeted the experiment was flawed, how flawed is that itself. Its a friggin joke. providing an experiment as evidence which was discredited by evolutionist themselves, because it was that obviously flawed.

Your so funny, because that link was provided by someone else in here way before you, and my reply was im happy for poeple to do that. Im not aware of the sits, but i have book darwinrefuted (for experts), evolution deciet, new research demolishes Darwin, the religion of darwinism etc, many more. Your are all welcome to go to the link provided you may get a more indepth answer, and it will support my post. Cheers Capeo, although your a bit slow and someone posted that link before. i still use my books.

The mods have spoken to me before, and aware, i provide the names of the books which all of you can search the net for, plus i provide the sources from my books, when im quoting academics, so you can check their books too.

People, we are confusing Ozi. It is obvious he is finally starting to realize that he is being fed a line by the people he has been parroting. Let's keep it simple for him.

Ozi, address the Nylon bug issue. Even though it means absolutely nothing in terms of evolution, it will effectively demolish the argument of no New Information.

Note that this is an argument in your playing field. We are ignoring what evolution actually posits, and instead using your words, your definitions, and your arguments to show how they aren't even accurate when they make up their own definitions and logic. If they cannot put together a decent argument even when lying about what they are arguing, you need to rethink who you want to learn from.

No one cares if you don't believe in evolution. They just want you to stop lying about it.

So put the moths aside for now. Put aside alleles, put aside, speciation, put aside all the evolutionary facts that we have presented, and just focus on one thing and try to prove it to be correct. Try and prove that the claim that no new information is ever created is correct.

The mods have spoken to me before, and aware, i provide the names of the books which all of you can search the net for, plus i provide the sources from my books, when im quoting academics, so you can check their books too.

Sure no problem, but i there are others who posted even better links and arguments, therefore i am putting grand rebuttal together, its being formulated, and it will break down all your points and anwser them. I am not lying about evolution, so far you have not been able to prove this, only thing you lot have is a collective agreement, whether proof provided or not, cause more of you ave the same agenda, to protect the evoltuion theory.

An example of you michevious attempts is this,

You say"Ozi, address the Nylon bug issue. Even though it means absolutely nothing in terms of evolution, it will effectively demolish the argument of no New Information."

above you say to me please address the nylon bug, and then you follow it with "even though it has nothing to in terms of evolutions, so what your saying is, even if there is proof, actually it the whole thing means nothing in terms of evolution and that it will demolish the argument of no new info. So your saying even if it was proven, you stll would not accept it due to blind following, and that it has nothing to with evo. it will only destroy an argument of no new info. Which infact would destroy the theory and it is allegedly to with evolution , even though in the same breath as telling me to prove you wrong, you were consolidating yourself with comments that followed "its nothing to do with evolution".

Dirty tactics. anyway i will but first you need to acknolwedge that the moth thing is not evidence of evolution, even the experiment was flawed yet you lot stick to it as proof. Thus far no one has anwered why species under pressure today, have no signs of micro or macro processes. Infact most of my questions have not been answered, some have, at least im willing to admit that, but you aint, some of you have posted good material, this does not mean i agree, but its worthy of research. therefore i am devoting my time to you all and those posts.


Tipsy, The experiment was flawed, th results of others came to the same conclusion, now new specie, organ or info. just to specie already in the population one higher in the number as a result of human intervention in the enviroment. This is not evidence of evolution, this is fantasy, this is saying that eskimos who kill animals for fur are evolving, even though all they doing is adapting.


CAPEO- NO, LIKE I SAID A 1000 TIMES, I HAVE E-BOOKS.

actually i just realised that rather than me anwsring your posts, you could proabably find a simple answer in those links, you should try it.

Then you experts can tell me why and where they are wrong. Cant get much fairer than that can i.

Good. Perhaps we've all reached agreement. Ozi will not ever respond in his own words to anything and, since everything he's cutting and pasting has been handily refuted hundreds of times around here, this thread has no point.

You still have to cite the title of the book and the author. It's no different.

Note your bolded text. There have already been many posts refuting that outright.

As for the moths, the darker moths were darker in the first place due to a mutation. They survived and this mutation was passed on. That's natural selection and that's evolution. It's quite simple. The nylon bug is an even more stark example.

Answer questions put to you in your words, not cut and pastes.

I am not lying about evolution, so far you have not been able to prove this, only thing you lot have is a collective agreement, whether proof provided or not, cause more of you ave the same agenda, to protect the evoltuion theory.

An example of you michevious attempts is this,
You say"Ozi, address the Nylon bug issue. Even though it means absolutely nothing in terms of evolution, it will effectively demolish the argument of no New Information."
above you say to me please address the nylon bug, and then you follow it with "even though it has nothing to in terms of evolutions, so what your saying is, even if there is proof, actually it the whole thing means nothing in terms of evolution and that it will demolish the argument of no new info. So your saying even if it was proven, you stll would not accept it due to blind following, and that it has nothing to with evo. it will only destroy an argument of no new info. Which infact would destroy the theory and it is allegedly to with evolution , even though in the same breath as telling me to prove you wrong, you were consolidating yourself with comments that followed "its nothing to do with evolution".

Dirty tactics. anyway i will but first you need to acknolwedge that the moth thing is not evidence of evolution, even the experiment was flawed yet you lot stick to it as proof.

Thus far no one has anwered why species under pressure today, have no signs of micro or macro processes.

Infact most of my questions have not been answered, some have, at least im willing to admit that, but you aint, some of you have posted good material, this does not mean i agree, but its worthy of research. therefore i am devoting my time to you all and those posts.

Again i say, the sites are fine the material is there, but i use E-BOOKS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE! not websites, wat you see on those website is limited and fuller explanation is in the text books, you can buy them if you want. maybe you need read post before responding. What you lot should do is, since you all claim your some sort of experts, is contact him the author and his friends, and read his books, and the evidence with in it, any questions you can ask him too. I will be very happy if you guys did this.

this is what evoltuionclaims, that natural selection puts in to play mechanism, making he best suited creature survive bia muations etc, and a a result a new specie arises, able to contend with the pressures around it

Definition of evolution:

Any change in a populations allele frequencies over time.

Source site

This site is a web-ring and has links to information on the following:

Evidence for evolution by natural selection

Evidence for positive Darwinian selection

Examples of beneficial mutations

Examples of beneficial mutations in Humans

you people on this forum are soooo weared, all you people kkep saying is oh its been refuted already because you are not willing to accept the fact that you could be wrong, and prehaps because your affraid you have waisted your lifes reaserching, "reaserch" not fact or established science. you people cannot even convince me that evolution is a possibility let alone a fact, and you claim you are award winners who get payed to work in this field..........

i really do beleave talking to you people is like hitting my head against a brick wall.......

i really didnt need to post to much because OZI did a good job i think explaining why there should be seriouse douts raised against this theory......i really do feel sorry for OZI because it lokks like he went through a lot of effort just to bang his head repeatedly against a wall......the fact that he had to explain to you people in almost 3 posts one ofter the other that he was using "E BOOKS"

Ozi, several of your posts on the last few pages have been either edited or deleted to remove vast quantities of copied and pasted material, most of it without adequate source citation.

There's only so many times we can ask you to make sure you credit the source and to not copy and paste large amounts of text, one or two paragraphs is more than enough.

You may not believe it is important but we soon will if the author of the material finds you've been reproducing it here and demands that we take it down due to copyright infringement.

H8 ME-

He is not the only one banging his head against a wall here. The difference between him and us is that he is banging his head against logic, and we are banging our heads against stubbornness.

And, we all know that you are probably OZI's RL buddy or something, so your weak argument for him is basically useless.

Can you show me where i did not cite a reference that would be proof, but if you could just show me, instead claimin i did not. what about the other who have posted huge posts too. I think your a bit one sided here.

H8 ME-

He is not the only one banging his head against a wall here. The difference between him and us is that he is banging his head against logic, and we are banging our heads against stubbornness.

And, we all know that you are probably OZI's RL buddy or something, so your weak argument for him is basically useless.